Who stand to defend this hate campaign against social change, equity and justice?
Who stand to defend this hate campaign against social change, equity and justice?
Palash Biswas
Mobile: 919903717833
Skype ID: palash.biswas44
Thank! Many many thanks! Sociologist Ashish Nandy! For he has exposed the truth rather better than us and expectedly it is heard.We have been writing and talking about scientific Brahaminical rule in Bengal. We have also been saying that the progressive left rule in Bengal was nothing but governance by and for Brahamin Front.Ashish Nandy in his much debated controversial statement in the corporate literary festival to showcase hegemony dominated shining sensex India, has said that Bengal is least inflicted by virus corruption as OBC,SC and ST communities have not been empowered in Bengal for hundred years! Before defending the sociologist for his freedom of speech which remains the monopolistic domain of the ruling class only as the majority stand always deaf and dumb, the intelligentsia must acknowledge Mr Nandy`s reading ie absence of empowerment of the depressed, deprived classes ie OBC, SC and ST communities! It means that the empowerment of these communities which consist eighty five percent population ejected out of the economy, is the source of corruption. It implies that India is not corrupt for free flow of foreign capital or the recycling of black money as the said communities have no representation in corporate India! Thus, this very statement of the well known sociologist do not contradict at all the corporate governance or genocide culture or biometric digital citizenship and the ongoing militarisation of the state and the declaration of war against aborigin indigenous majority communities. It is clear cut clean chit for corporate governance and the ruling manusmriti hegemony!
The corporate media as well as social media justify publishing the controversy highlighted by the Politicians only.The opposition of the sociologist and the defence of the speech as freedom of expression get the space only. The masses from the sc, st and OBC communities have no voice at all despite the inclusive development and the trickling economy. We, the people who are engaged in the empowerment movement, have not to be published at all.
I have been writing that the civil society movement is sponsored by the corporate India and MNCs which happens to be relaunched anti reservation movement in disguise. The outbirst of civil society against Delhi gangrape incident helped the corporate governance to abort the reservation bill even after the minority government succeeded to get passed all the financial bills to push for reforms and ethnic cleansing. Mind you, the anti reservation lobby stands united as rock solid to defend Mr Ashish Nandy who systematically made the literary dias an anti reservation, anti empowerment forum involving journalist like Mr Tarun Tejpal. At the same time, accusing the empowerment of the majority communities and population, he succeeded to wash out the corporate corruption. Mind you, the co opted political leaders of OBC, SC and ST communities have nothing to do with the materialistic empowerment of these communities They are engaged to empower themselves in matter.Even keeping this in mind, in comparison to the corporate corruption and capitalist black money , not to mention the high caste corruption on higher places , the corruption of empowered leaders of these communities always remain as the tip of the iceberg.
Moreover, Nandy did forget that all the three interim governments in Bengal before partition were led by Muslim ousting the caste Hindu leadership and the dalit muslim unity in Bengal made the ground of the social change that we witness today. It was bengal which elected Dr BR Ambedkar to compose the constitution of India. Even before the start of Ambedkarite movement, untouchability abolishment law had been enacted in bengal just because of Chandal Movement.Harichand Thakur k]led the anti Brahaminism Matua movement before two hundred years. Until 12th century the land of Asuras saw no Brahamin at all. Only Ballal sen introduced brahaminism in Bengal. The cultural identity of Bengalies as well as the Indians began with Charya Padas which were composed by untouchables only.The Buddhist Bengal did represent equity, nonviolence, freedom, fraternity and social justice. Who killed this? Mr Nandy, a known sociologist also should answer why in the land of untouchables, where the fisher woman Rani rasmani Ruled and all the rulers in Eastern, north east, west and central India belonged to SC, ST and OBC communities, have the reduced population of SC and ST respectively seventeen percent and seven percent only!
Palash Biswas
Mobile: 919903717833
Skype ID: palash.biswas44
Thank! Many many thanks! Sociologist Ashish Nandy! For he has exposed the truth rather better than us and expectedly it is heard.We have been writing and talking about scientific Brahaminical rule in Bengal. We have also been saying that the progressive left rule in Bengal was nothing but governance by and for Brahamin Front.Ashish Nandy in his much debated controversial statement in the corporate literary festival to showcase hegemony dominated shining sensex India, has said that Bengal is least inflicted by virus corruption as OBC,SC and ST communities have not been empowered in Bengal for hundred years! Before defending the sociologist for his freedom of speech which remains the monopolistic domain of the ruling class only as the majority stand always deaf and dumb, the intelligentsia must acknowledge Mr Nandy`s reading ie absence of empowerment of the depressed, deprived classes ie OBC, SC and ST communities! It means that the empowerment of these communities which consist eighty five percent population ejected out of the economy, is the source of corruption. It implies that India is not corrupt for free flow of foreign capital or the recycling of black money as the said communities have no representation in corporate India! Thus, this very statement of the well known sociologist do not contradict at all the corporate governance or genocide culture or biometric digital citizenship and the ongoing militarisation of the state and the declaration of war against aborigin indigenous majority communities. It is clear cut clean chit for corporate governance and the ruling manusmriti hegemony!
The corporate media as well as social media justify publishing the controversy highlighted by the Politicians only.The opposition of the sociologist and the defence of the speech as freedom of expression get the space only. The masses from the sc, st and OBC communities have no voice at all despite the inclusive development and the trickling economy. We, the people who are engaged in the empowerment movement, have not to be published at all.
I have been writing that the civil society movement is sponsored by the corporate India and MNCs which happens to be relaunched anti reservation movement in disguise. The outbirst of civil society against Delhi gangrape incident helped the corporate governance to abort the reservation bill even after the minority government succeeded to get passed all the financial bills to push for reforms and ethnic cleansing. Mind you, the anti reservation lobby stands united as rock solid to defend Mr Ashish Nandy who systematically made the literary dias an anti reservation, anti empowerment forum involving journalist like Mr Tarun Tejpal. At the same time, accusing the empowerment of the majority communities and population, he succeeded to wash out the corporate corruption. Mind you, the co opted political leaders of OBC, SC and ST communities have nothing to do with the materialistic empowerment of these communities They are engaged to empower themselves in matter.Even keeping this in mind, in comparison to the corporate corruption and capitalist black money , not to mention the high caste corruption on higher places , the corruption of empowered leaders of these communities always remain as the tip of the iceberg.
Moreover, Nandy did forget that all the three interim governments in Bengal before partition were led by Muslim ousting the caste Hindu leadership and the dalit muslim unity in Bengal made the ground of the social change that we witness today. It was bengal which elected Dr BR Ambedkar to compose the constitution of India. Even before the start of Ambedkarite movement, untouchability abolishment law had been enacted in bengal just because of Chandal Movement.Harichand Thakur k]led the anti Brahaminism Matua movement before two hundred years. Until 12th century the land of Asuras saw no Brahamin at all. Only Ballal sen introduced brahaminism in Bengal. The cultural identity of Bengalies as well as the Indians began with Charya Padas which were composed by untouchables only.The Buddhist Bengal did represent equity, nonviolence, freedom, fraternity and social justice. Who killed this? Mr Nandy, a known sociologist also should answer why in the land of untouchables, where the fisher woman Rani rasmani Ruled and all the rulers in Eastern, north east, west and central India belonged to SC, ST and OBC communities, have the reduced population of SC and ST respectively seventeen percent and seven percent only!
Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association
Dated: January 27, 2013 In Defence of Ashis Nandy : for academic and intellectual freedom
A section of the media, IBN group senior journalist Ashutosh in particular, in the garb of safeguarding the dignity of the underprivileged has not only harmed that further but has also disgraced the eminent intellectual by forcing an apology out of him. It is interesting to note that those in the political class and media who now claim to stand for the rights of the backward communities vis-a-vis Nandy have been active participants in the violent anti-Mandal agitation that rocked Delhi and other parts of India two decades ago. This hypocritical attitude and type of media sensationalism has eroded the culture of free ideas and speech in India; it is unfortunate that all complex and nuanced arguments are being sacrificed at the altar of hunger for TRPs and two minutes of sensationalism.
It is against this intolerant culture that voices should be raised so that ideas and opinions remain unthrottled and free, and individuals are not forced to publicly apologise and face police action, as Nandy does, for crimes they have not committed. We, in solidarity with Ashis Nandy, stand against such kind of media violence and culture of intolerance.
Signatories:
Manisha Sethi
Ahmad Sohaib
Arshad Alam
Tanweer Fazal
Azra Razzack
Sanghamitra Misra
Farha Farooqi
Ghazi Shahnawaz
Ambarien Al Qadar
Anwar Alam
M S Bhatt
Manoj Jena
Adnan Farooqui
Sucharita Sengupta
Abhijit Kundu,University of Delhi
Nabanipa Bhattacharjee,University of Delhi
In Defence of Ashis Nandy : for academic and intellectual freedom
http://hastakshep.com/?p=28914
| দলিত দ�র�ন�তি নিয়� মন�তব�য �র� বিতর��� �শিস নন�দ� | |||
| à¦�à§�তম à¦�à¦�à§�রবরà§�তà§� • à¦�য়পà§�র | |||
| à¦�াড়ালà§� না à¦�াড়à§� à¦�à§� à¦�রিব তারà§�, সà§�à¦� পà§�রাতন বিতরà§�à¦�! শà§�রà§� থà§�à¦�à§�à¦� à¦�িত থায়িল-à¦�র পà§�রসà§�à¦�ার পাà¦�য়া থà§�à¦�à§� শà§�রà§� à¦�রà§� পাà¦�িসà§�তানি লà§�à¦�à¦�দà§�র à¦�সা নিয়à§� হরà§�à¦� বিতরà§�à¦� তাড়া à¦�রà¦�িল সাহিতà§�য à¦�à§�সবà¦�à§�। শà§�ষ দিà¦�à§� তা à¦�à¦�িয়à§� à¦�à§�ল à¦�রà¦� দà§�র! দলিতদà§�র বিরà§�দà§�ধà§� à¦�াতিবিদà§�বà§�ষ à¦� à¦�à§�ণা à¦�ড়ানà§�র দায়à§� পà§�রà¦�াতনà§�তà§�র দিবসà§�র বিà¦�à§�লà§� à¦�য়পà§�রà§�র à¦�দরà§�শনà¦�র থানায় সমাà¦�বিà¦�à§�à¦�ানà§� à¦�শিস ননà§�দà§�র বিরà§�দà§�ধà§� à¦�ফà¦�à¦�à¦�র দায়à§�র à¦�রà§�à¦�à§�ন রাà¦�সà§�থানà§�র ‘নà§�যাশনাল à¦�à¦�নিয়ন à¦�ফ বà§�যাà¦�à¦�য়ারà§�ড à¦�à§�লাসà§�স, à¦�সসি, à¦�সà¦�ি à¦�à§�যানà§�ড মাà¦�নরিà¦�িà¦�’-à¦�র সà¦à¦¾à¦ªà¦¤à¦¿ রাà¦�পাল মà§�না। à¦�à§�সবà§�র পà§�রযà§�à¦�à¦� সà¦�à§�à¦�য় রায়à§�র নামà§�à¦� à¦�ফà¦�à¦�à¦�র হয়à§�à¦�à§�। পà§�লিশà§�র à¦�তিরিà¦�à§�ত à¦�মিশনার à¦�িররাà¦� মà§�না à¦�ানাà¦�à§�à¦�à§�ন, à¦�নà§�ষà§�ঠানà¦�ির à¦à¦¿à¦¡à¦¿à¦� ফà§�à¦�à§�à¦� à¦�à§�য়à§� পাঠানà§� হà¦�à§�à¦�à§�।
রাà¦�নà§�তির à¦�ারবারিরা যথারà§�তি à¦�তà§�তà§�à¦�িত। দিলà§�লিতà§� মায়াবতà§� বলà§�à¦�à§�ন, à¦�শিস ননà§�দà§�à¦�à§� à¦�বিলমà§�বà§� à¦�à§�রà§�ফতার à¦�রা à¦�à¦�িত। লà§�à¦�à¦�নশà¦�à§�তি দলà§�র নà§�তা রামবিলাস পাসà§�য়ান বলà§�à¦�à§�ন, à¦�বিলমà§�বà§� à¦�à¦� সমাà¦�বিà¦�à§�à¦�ানà§�র বিরà§�দà§�ধà§� বà§�যবসà§�থা না নিলà§� à¦�নà§�দà§�লনà§� নামবà§�ন। রাà¦�সà§�থানà§�র মà§�à¦�à§�যমনà§�তà§�রà§� à¦�শà§�à¦� à¦�হলà§�ত বলà§�à¦�à§�ন, ‘‘à¦�শিস যা বলà§�à¦�à§�ন, মানসিà¦� à¦à¦¾à¦°à¦¸à¦¾à¦®à§�য না à¦�à§�য়ালà§� à¦�à§�à¦� তা বলবà§� না।’’ à¦�শিস শনিবার রাতà§�à¦� à¦�য়পà§�র à¦�à§�ড়à§�à¦�à§�ন। রবিবার সà¦�ালà§� দিলà§�লি থà§�à¦�à§� ফà§�নà§� দà§�à¦�à¦� à¦�রলà§�ন, ‘‘à¦�à§�ষমতাহà§�নদà§�র হয়à§�à¦� à¦�থা বলà§� à¦�à§�লাম। তার পরà¦� à¦�à¦�?’’ à¦�à¦�নার সà§�তà§�রপাত পà§�রà¦�াতনà§�তà§�র দিবসà§�র সà¦�ালà§� ‘রিপাবলিà¦� à¦�ফ à¦�à¦�ডিয়াà¦�’ নামà§� à¦�à¦� à¦�ধিবà§�শনà§�। তরà§�ণ তà§�à¦�পালà§�র পà§�রশà§�নà§�র à¦�তà§�তরà§� à¦�শিস বলà§�ন, দà§�রà§�নà§�তি à¦�মন à¦�à¦�à¦�ি শà¦�à§�তি, যা à¦�াতিধরà§�মবরà§�ণ নিরà§�বিশà§�ষà§� সà¦�লà¦�à§� সমান à¦�রà§� দà§�য়। তফসিলি à¦�াতি, à¦�পà¦�াতিরা à¦�তà¦�াà¦� বà¦�à§�à¦�িত যà§� সà§�যà§�à¦� পà§�লà§� দà§�রà§�নà§�তির সà§�যà§�à¦� তাà¦�রা নà§�বà§�নà¦�! মধà§� à¦�à§�ড়া তাà¦� à¦�পà¦�াতি নà§�তা হয়à§�à¦� à¦�য়à§�à¦�শà§� à¦�à§�à¦�ির সমà§�পতà§�তি বানিয়à§� ফà§�লà§�ন। বাà¦�লার à¦�থাà¦� à¦�ানà§�ন তিনি, ‘‘à¦�ত à¦�à¦�শà§� বà¦�রà§� à¦�à§�নà¦� তফসিলি à¦�াতি, à¦�পà¦�াতি বা পিà¦�ড়à§� বরà§�à¦�à§�র নà§�তা à¦�à§�ষমতা পাননি। পশà§�à¦�িমবà¦�à§�à¦�à§� তাà¦� দà§�রà§�নà§�তি সবà¦�à§�য়à§� à¦�ম।’’ à¦�র পরà¦� à¦�নà§�ডà¦�à§�ল শà§�রà§�। à¦�ায়à§� à¦�াদর à¦� মাথায় হনà§�মান à¦�à§�পি পরà§� পà§�রায় দà§�ড়শà§� সমরà§�থà¦� নিয়à§� ডিà¦�à§�à¦�ি পà§�রাসাদà§� হাà¦�ির হয়à§� à¦�িয়à§�à¦�à§�ন দà§�সা à¦�à¦�à§�à¦�লà§�র নিরà§�দল সাà¦�সদ à¦�িরà§�রà§� লাল মà§�না। দà§�à¦� মহিলা-পà§�লিশ তাà¦�à¦�à§� à¦�িনতà§� না পà§�রà§� à¦�à¦�ডà§�নà§�à¦�িà¦�ি à¦�ারà§�ড দà§�à¦�তà§� à¦�ান। সà¦�à§�à¦�à§� সà¦�à§�à¦�à§� à¦�িà§�à¦�ার, à¦�থা-à¦�াà¦�াà¦�াà¦�ি। “à¦�à¦�ানà§� মà§�য়à§�রা বসà§� মদ à¦�ায়। à¦�র à¦�মি সাধারণ পà§�শাà¦�à§� à¦�সà§�à¦�ি বলà§� বাধা দà§�à¦�য়া হà¦�à§�à¦�à§�?” পà§�লিশ à¦� সাà¦�বাদিà¦�দà§�র সামনà§�à¦� হà§�à¦�à§�à¦�ার দিতà§� থাà¦�à§�ন সাà¦�সদ, “à¦�ত বার সলমন রà§�শদিà¦�à§� à¦�সতà§� দà§�à¦�য়া হয়নি। à¦� বার à¦�শিস ননà§�দà§� à¦�মাদà§�র বিরà§�দà§�ধà§� à¦�সà§�à¦�ানি দিà¦�à§�à¦�à§�ন। à¦� সব বরদাসà§�ত à¦�রা হবà§� না।” রাসà§�তায় তত à¦�à§�ষণà§� à¦�ড়à§� হয়à§� à¦�িয়à§�à¦�à§� মà§�না সমà§�পà§�রদায়à§�র à¦�à¦�শà§� মানà§�ষ, ‘à¦�শিস ননà§�দà§� মà§�রà§�দাবাদ’ বলà§� সà§�লà§�à¦�ান দিà¦�à§�à¦�à§� তারা। à¦�শিস বিবà§�তি দিয়à§� à¦�ানিয়à§�à¦�à§�ন, তাà¦�র à¦�থায় à¦�à§�à¦� à¦�হত হয়à§� থাà¦�লà§� তিনি দà§�à¦�à¦�িত। “তরà§�ণ তà§�à¦�পালà§�র পà§�রশà§�নà§�র à¦�তà§�তরà§� à¦�মি শà§�ধà§� বলà§�à¦�িলাম, পিà¦�ড়à§� বরà§�à¦�à§�র দà§�রà§�নà§�তিà¦�াà¦� à¦�মাদà§�র à¦�à§�à¦�à§� বড় হয়। à¦�মি যদি রিà¦�ারà§�ড সà§�রাবà¦�ির à¦�à§�লà§�à¦�à§� হারà§�à¦à¦¾à¦°à§�ডà§� à¦�র রিà¦�ারà§�ড à¦�মার মà§�য়à§�à¦�à§� à¦�à¦�à§�সফà§�রà§�ডà§� পাঠায়, à¦�à§�à¦� দà§�রà§�নà§�তি বলবà§� না। বলবà§� মà§�ধার à¦�য়। à¦�িনà§�তà§� পিà¦�ড়à§� বরà§�à¦� à¦�রলà§�à¦� বলা হবà§� দà§�রà§�নà§�তি।’’ à¦�à§�ষমা à¦�াà¦�à¦�à§�ন তা হলà§�? ‘‘à¦�à¦�à§�বারà§�à¦� নয়। দà§�রà§�নà§�তি à¦�à¦�ন à¦à¦¾à¦°à¦¤à§�য় à¦�ণতনà§�তà§�রà§� à¦�à¦�à§�য়ালাà¦�à¦�িà¦� ফà§�রà§�স। à¦�িনà§�তà§� à¦�থাà¦�া বিà¦�à§�ত à¦�রà§� বলা হল, à¦�মি দলিতদà§�র দà§�রà§�নà§�তিবাà¦�, à¦�à§�ষà¦�à§�র বলà§�à¦�ি!’’ রাà¦� পড়à¦�à§� না তাà¦�র। রà§�প à¦�ানà¦�য়ার সতà§� হà¦�য়ার পর à¦�শিস লিà¦�à§�à¦�িলà§�ন, সতà§�দাহ à¦�à§�নà¦� দিনà¦� পà§�রথা à¦�িল না। à¦�নিশ শতà¦�à§� à¦�লà¦�াতা à¦� শহরাà¦�à§�à¦�লà§� তার পà§�রà¦�à§�প বà§�ড়à§�à¦�িল। à¦�শিস সতà§�দাহà§�র সমরà§�থà¦� বলà§� রà¦�িয়à§� সà§� বারà¦� হà¦�à¦�à¦� হয়à§�à¦�িল। “à¦�à§�à¦�রাতà§� হিনà§�দà§�তà§�ব-রাà¦�নà§�তির বিরà§�দà§�ধà§� à¦�থা বলার à¦�নà§�য নরà§�নà§�দà§�র মà§�দà§� মামলা à¦�রà§�à¦�িলà§�ন, সà§�à¦� মামলা à¦�à¦�নà¦� সà§�পà§�রিম à¦�à§�রà§�à¦�à§�। à¦� বার দলিত রাà¦�নà§�তিà¦� à¦�à¦�à¦� à¦à¦�à§�à¦�িতà§� বà§�যবহার à¦�রল à¦�মাà¦�à§�,” বললà§�ন à¦�শিস। à¦�à¦� বà¦�রà§�র শà§�ষà§� রাà¦�সà§�থানà§� বিধানসà¦à¦¾ à¦à§�à¦�। পিà¦�ড়à§� বরà§�à¦�à§�র মà§�না à¦&ce 
 |
*