I am a strong supporter of
freedom of speech and expression. But the inclusion of a cartoon in CBSE
political science book is done with a wrongful intention and it needs to be
condemned. Despite non cooperation by the constituent committee members and lack
of support from many prominent political leaders (Including the then President
Rajendra prasad and PM Nehru himself had some objections over the inclusion of
some crucial laws and stalled the constitutional work). So Such is the truth
the inclusion of the controversial cartoon does not shed any truth at all.
Instead of criticizing the persons responsible for deliberately delaying the
constitutional process its highly unfair to show a cartoon that criticizes
Dr.B.R. Ambedkar alone. With this I am posting an article that appeared in The
Hindu paper.
An illustration in a textbook must expand or add
to the lesson; Shankar's cartoon of Ambedkar does neither. The controversy kicked up over the withdrawal
of a textbook for high school over a cartoon after a ruckus in Parliament has
been superficially interpreted and uniformly criticised without understanding
the sensitivities of the oppressed for whom B.R. Ambedkar is a hero. The anger
of Dalits is being interpreted as intolerance while in fact it is an assertion
of a people who are in the process of finding their long-suppressed voice and
learning to stand up to insults and humiliation. What is needed is not
criticism and anger but sensitivity to the emotions of a horribly wronged
people.
Those lamenting the move by the
government in Parliament and the apology by Human Resource Development Minister
Kapil Sibal for using the cartoon have preferred to understand it as a cynical
move to “appease” the supporters of B.R. Ambedkar for political reasons, namely
not to antagonise a large section of voters when elections are round the
corner. A social scientist was scornful calling it “psepho-cracy” and ruing
that the spirit of democracy hadn't seeped into society. Yet another said the
government's withdrawal of the offending textbook was a “nominal if not
hypocritical” acknowledgement of Dalit power. One could agree with both
commentators: there is no question that democracy has not seeped into society which
has remained deeply and irreconcilably divided along caste lines; what prevails
in our society and in very many minds that have not been influenced either by
education or modernity is “caste-ocracy.” As for Dalit power, it has not yet
gained mass but is strong enough to force the government of the day to draw
back. Hence, it is immaterial whether the acknowledgement is nominal or
hypocritical. The crucial thing is that it is real.
While the government is supposed to
have caved in to the protests in Parliament, it is a fact that the issue
witnessed the unusual spectacle of the entire Opposition united in the belief
that the cartoon had denigrated Ambedkar. The issue led to the resignation of
two “chief advisers” of the National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT), both professors of political science, as they did not agree
with Parliament's stand on the issue.
What the critics say
The critics of the government's decision
make the following points to show that the inflamed sentiments of Dalit
supporters both in Parliament and outside are misplaced: that the cartoon is
about 60 years old and that it was drawn by a well-known and highly popular
cartoonist Shankar; that Nehru was democratic enough to appreciate and even
enjoy the lampooning he occasionally got at Shankar's hands; that even Ambedkar
would have chuckled at the cartoon especially since there is no evidence of him
being offended by it when it was first published in 1948. Those who made the
decision to include the cartoon also point out that an effort was made to make
the lesson interesting, to infuse some humour in it. Using outdated cartoons as
this one certainly is, is hardly fun. Perhaps Ambedkar laughed on seeing the
cartoon. Or if he hadn't, he would have shaken it off as he had so many barbs
in his lifetime, but that is beside the point. What is the relevance of this
particular cartoon in the context of a lesson? Sure, it is important for a
student to be told that the process was laborious and that it took several
years for the Constitution to be finalised. A cartoon is a comment and a
reflection on current situations and personalities of those times. Then, the
cartoon was relevant and summarised pithily the delay in finalising the
Constitution, but today, after 60 years, it is totally outdated and neither
provides any insight nor reflects on the process of the making of the
Constitution.
Importantly, any illustration with a
lesson or with any piece of writing, expands and adds to the “body” or the
text. It even contextualises the text. The cartoon neither adds to nor
contextualises the Constitution. Importantly, in the overall context of the
making of the Constitution, seen from the perspective of the present, how is
the delay in finalising it important? There are more important things that need
to be foregrounded to understand the process of the making of the Constitution
such as how the then President Rajendra Prasad, a confirmed conservative opposed
equal property rights for women, and how a modernist Nehru caved in to him and
how when an outraged Ambedkar threatened to quit the team they agreed to it.
Poking fun at somebody else's icons is so much easier than one's own, just as
it is easy to use somebody else's opinion to introduce one's own
predilection.
Panic situation
Apart from criticising the
“intolerance” of Dalits and the “weak-kneed” response of the government, the
critics are trying to create a panic situation, making alarmist statements that
perhaps the government will now withdraw all the textbooks produced by the
NCERT under the National Curriculum Framework or that now cartoonists will have
to think twice before they put their pencils or paint brush to paper. At this
rate all cartoons will have to be banned, says an apologist for the
cartoon.
One of the professors claims that the
cartoon was included to expose students to the different ways in which leaders
and events were understood and viewed. One has no issue with this. If one wants
to include criticism, then do it openly and not go about it indirectly. The way
it has been done in the book shows dishonesty. Surely, a rational and reasoned
critique won't be objected to by any thinking person. Shankar lampooned Nehru,
Parliament and important events in his cartoons. Why were those not included to
expose students to different interpretations? The professor also claims that
for the first time, Ambedkar was given his due in a textbook as not just as
Father of the Constitution but as one who laid the democratic foundations of
the country: you give with one hand and take it away with another!
The issue is not that it is after all
a cartoon; not about a sense of humour or the lack of it among some; nor is it
about the unreasonableness or prickliness of some. It is about misrepresenting,
it is about trivialising, it is about a lack of sensitivity. Most importantly,
it is about a callousness that is rooted in one's own biases and prejudices.
That is why the cartoon is hardly funny.
(R. Akhileshwari is a journalist
and academic.)
IMPORTANT NOTE:
India third 'snoopiest' country: Google Transparency Report.
The GOI have requested Google to censor the internet contents/opinions
of many users who speak against the Indian government. Even
dictatorship countries haven't placed such a number of censor requests
to the Google. So it’s clear that the government of India is keeping
an eye on its internet users and with the help of Google, GOI have
acquired the privacy details of the internet users to intimidate them.
The important fact is that the Indian government seeks censorship to
political views, hate speech, Government Criticism etc. It is clear we
the Indians don’t have freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing
government in key issues.
DISCLOSURE:
Hence I hereby declare that the above article is my personal opinion and it is not being copied from any other Internet/anti-India websites.
DISCLOSURE:
Hence I hereby declare that the above article is my personal opinion and it is not being copied from any other Internet/anti-India websites.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Article above,I humbly request every body interested in such issues let Dalits rise up at their own.Its only Dr B R Ambedkar who suffered with them and could realise the plight after Lord Buddha.Perhaps Lord Buddha could not suffer with them but surely he raised voice against the persecutors of them. To realise the suffering of Dalits one has to step into the shoes of Dalits which is not possible for Amir Ji or any body though to earn in the name of Dalits has been a fashion and in coming days its the only area where the socalled intellectuals will find green field to do and earn......
ReplyDeleteAt last i wish speedy recovery to my favourite fire brand journalist VTR
Mohindri Satyarthy
Dalit Voice
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI appreciate whatever BR Ambedkar has done but i would like you guys to read the accounts of the viceroys in round table conference and how ambedkar got an oppurtunity as a law minister.These were known by people then but has faded into the history now.Sometimes we ought to think like indians too.
ReplyDeleteThe Bania is the worst parasitic class known to history. In him, the vice of money-making is unredeemed by culture or conscience. He is like an undertaker who prospers when there is an epidemic.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference is that the undertaker does not create an epidemic while the Bania does ... With no conscience, there is no fraud and no chicanery that he will not commit. His grip over the nation is complete. The whole of poor, starving, illiterate India is mortgaged to the Bania." guess who said this.
and yeah bania is gandhi's caste. Even i think you guys will agree that gandhi was never a money minded person.
ReplyDelete