Sunday, July 30, 2017

JNU, Professors and the word “militarization”

Link: http://indiaheadlines.in/en/2017/07/31/jnu-professors-word-militarization/

Now-a-day the most favorite, if not critical, term used by the JNU’s professors-cum-intellectuals is “militarization.” Over repeating and needless emphasizing on it prove its importance for them. Apparently, the talk of JNU’s street is questioning: are the professor’s right or wrong? Let's unlock the enigma whether JNU ever promotes “militarization” or not.

Apart from the walls, one often sees the picture of Che Guevara on the t-shirt of students living on campus. Here, two options are possible, either JNU believes in the militarization of Guevara or considered he was peaceful. It is a waste to find a professor who could prove Guevara as peaceful revolutionary, thus, statement one is right. This university, if I am not wrong, at least has two student wing party bears the name of Bhagat Singh in one way or other, who again do believe in “militarization.” The youth icon Subhas Chandra Bose too celebrated “militarization.” Both these legendary heroes are quite regularly acknowledged by the JNUites, especially under the banner of Left political parties. Apart from the pictures and student parties, “militarized” poster of many events can easily be located on the walls of various schools, hostels, and even the library. If professors, including the students, did not worry about these posters, t-shirts, and celebration by student wing then why this word “military” enters in JNU campus after the announcement of the tank. Were they sleeping at that time? Where were they then?

The above description is applicable only to the left parties as they openly suspect, and rightly too, that Right wing favors “militarization.” Their fear is genuine as the modern Right wing such as Savarkar, like the Leftist icons, promote the same. Meanwhile, saying that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Guevara too sponsor militarization are peaceful would be an antithesis. Now, it’s difficult to observe whose use of word “militarized” is correct, if compared between Left and Right?  I think both are wrong.

Thus, “militarization” was, directly or indirectly, part of JNU culture. My weak and feeble mind suggests me the meaning of militarization as an attempt to get a victory against the powerful. In politics, it is directed against the authority. If one succeeds, then he is revolutionary and if failed anti-national (left is both and right is neither in the JNU). The primary trust behind the overuse of word military, indeed, is to get power in their hands by hook or crook, force or foil, morality or immorality. But, the power cannot be achieved only by a direct fighting. Hence, both wings, Right as well as Left, needed a middle person that is JNU’s student, the common scapegoat.

Whoever be the winner of the battle between the professors (Left) and the VC (Right), but the students of JNU (scapegoat) are a loser and will remain the same. Today, all the professors’ are showing as they are the messiah of peace and pretend to be pro-students by their active participation in protests and hunger strikes, a Gandhian method. Let’s assume this statement is right and leave it for the students to decide.

After the unexpected and controversial event of Feb 9, the entire political lobby demanded that the students must remain away from the politics. But, they forget to talk about the professor, why they are excluded? I question, are they privileged? Lets leave it this matter too as everyone has their right to register their resistance, if it is according to the Indian Constitution. It is, if I am not wrong, also applicable to the professors, so does to me.

Till now, everything written here is about some hundred students and teachers who are part of a political group in a general and party in particular, left or right does not matter. Both are, undoubtedly, loyal to one another—it reminds about Aristotlean Master-Slave relationship model. But, what these teachers are offering to their students who spend their whole day in the library. This number is about 1000 pure researchers on whose name JNU gets best ranking. The professor shows their reliability towards the political students, and hence the researchers are neglected. Remember, it is the blood, sweat, and handwork of those thousand students on whose name these politically active students and politically inspired professors ripe their career. Ask those library-effected-students how much they are happy with this politically inspired atmosphere. Are not they feeling marginalized as their teachers are busy in politics? How much time do these students get? How fruitful is their research after spending nearly half of their day in the library, Monday to Monday, every day without rest? Holi, Diwali, Eid does not matter. Official holiday, no problem, we will read at room is  their thought.

The concept of 9B is a crime against Ph.D. who already spend his/her youth in JNU. Whose fault is this, who will take accountability? It happened only in JNU. An IITian finishes his/her Ph.D. in three years, but five summers are needed in JNU. Well done, responsible professors. Simultaneously, the students get a fellowship for three years, but they finish Ph.Ds in five years. Two years totally wasted, who will fund them? The fight should be for solving these student related issues for which the student wing demands votes. 

I forget to mention, if some decision, which the professors considered wrong, is taken by the VC then they say, it is not written in the Constitution. So the VC should work accordingly. Is the same rules are followed by the professors, in particular for a Ph.D. synopsis? As per the rule, every student has to submit their Ph.D. synopsis within six months after their M.Phil Viva. If it is a rule, is there any data to show how many students presented their synopsis within this timeline. Whose mistake is this? Let’s assume: it is student’s mistake because “authority” is always right—the idea is derived from the Philosopher King of Plato’s The Republic. 

Dear professors, just take a survey of those students inside the library with the question, “Are you happy with me?” If they say “Yes,” then you are free to go in the streets politics, but if the response is negative then you are “accountable” to students and not politics. The researchers don’t care whether or not there will be a tank, what they need is your attention. As a footnote, there are un-numbered pictures of Gandhi, in all courts, police-stations, offices, but are these able to insert morals in the people working under the shadow of this legend’s picture. If the answer is wrong, then nothing is going to change in JNU after tank—no one can promote his/her political idea with a symbol, neither left (red), nor right (saffron) not third lobby of Ambedkarite (Blue). 

Returning to the title, the “militarization” is always a part of JNU, and we do it sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. The celebration of revolutionaries, whatever name one has, is the promotion of militarization. Wearing their T-shirt and posting their poster and distributing their pamphlet is also militarization. Do you forget even Karl Marx too believe in militarization by proffering “dictatorship of proletariat”—it was impossible without blood? Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Guevara, Singh, Bose, Savarkar are its another face but at a different time, place and land. If we are teaching our students these names and their achievements, then we are promoting “militarization” but in light shade. If so, then, why we are opposing the hard militarization that is proposed by the VC in the name of a tank. As I told earlier, it is happening only to gain power in the hands of powerful by using students as the cog in their wheels—both left and right are part of it.

Militarization is always bad, whether it is a light form of students and professors or in dark form of authority, the Platonic King is my meaning. Its unfortunate effect forced the Indian Socialists to erase the word “blood” from their manifesto of 1957—suggested by Stalin during his visit to India in 1953. The case of Savarkar too was no different. 

What I get from this transition is:
Propaganda follows the mixing of politics with media. Similarly, the secret wedding of politics, media, and army leads towards censorship. By writing this, I too become the target of “censorship” (I cannot name the unnameable). 

Do I have the honor to break the silence of “Censor? ” please let me know.

Nightmare Theory: Moral Abduction in Bihar

http://indiaheadlines.in/en/2017/07/28/nightmare-theory-moral-abduction-bihar/

There is no exact definition of “Nightmare Theory” except the phrase occurred once in the movie, A Beautiful Mind that is based on Sylvia Nasar’s biography about the life of John Nash, Nobel Laureate in Economics, 1994. The theory loosely means a situation when one starts believing, but slowly, in impossible facts.

The artists and writers, including intellectuals, who returned their awards in 2015 as a gift for the vanguard of democracy, have quickly accepted the unacceptable that BJP forms a government in Bihar. The condition of Congress, Lalu, and the masses in Bihar is in the same dilemma. The delusion of “su-shasana” (good governance), as promised by the Mahagathbandan (Grand alliance) is a thing of past now.

The ethics, morality, masses, love, family or to say everything is sacrificed to gain power. In the olden era, the kings massacred their families, and child betrayed their fathers. To say differently, the man in the authority is always right, even if s/he is wrong. The dropping of Nuclear Bomb on Japan killed millions and after-effects were even worse. But, the man, Henry S. Truman, who gave order for such task, good or bad does not matter, is considered great because of power and victory of Alliance in WW-II. On the other hand, Hitler is considered the enemy of humanity as he was a harbinger of death to the million of the Jews. Both killed uncounted, but the power categorized them as “good” or “bad.” What will change in this world or, in India, if Hitler wins and England with America lose the WW-II?

Similarly, what will change in Bihar if BJP wins in 2015 and even after the demolition of Mahagathbandha. Nothing, I suspect. It will remain what it was yesterday, is today and will continue to be the same tomorrow too. One thing is new in Bihar of mid-2017. Earlier the mass in Bihar was abducted by showing the fear that “jag jao Bihar ke logo, warna Gabbar aa jaega” (wake, arise Biharwallah, else villain (BJP) is coming). But now it is in the name of dirty politics, if I am not wrong. Today, after the imposition of nightmare theory, no has answered that how the villain of yesterday become the hero of today. One can just put it in this way: either one dies as a villain as BJP dies in Bihar election, or one has to live until s/he itself become a villain as Lalu for Nitish. An ordinary person ponder on, who is the villain of today out of Lalu and Nitish? To answer them, I do not know about Lalu, but the case of Nitish is amazingly strange. Whatever be the condition, he emerged as a Hero, and not a villain. By hero, I mean the powerful. He wanted to live in the mainstream to taste the fruit of same power that Truman has but Hitler not. He is the slave to power that is why he is villain Gabbar Singh for the intellectuals of India, especially to those who were part of Award Wapsi Movement.

It is said and rightly too that in politics no one can trust no one. There is a place where the enemy of yesterday will become a friend. To put it in a phrase, it the marriage of snakes and rats (you know what I mean). Such is entirely applicable to Nitish as well as to the BJP. However, the nightmare theory shall apply only to the intellectuals and not to the people of Bihar, who not only know the scenario but also understand everything very well. Leaders will remain leaders and mass will be mass. Game on politics will continue. Leaders are players, and mass is nothing but an audience, a mute spectator. Remember, the mass has to pay the price to watch them playing and come home bare handed after the match, but players earn while playing. Such is the condition of Bihar. Players win, but Bihar loses.

Only the voters define the popularity and unpopularity of leader and are nothing beyond this assumption in India. Hence, it is easy for the leaders to abduct, in the case of morality only, them due to their lack of political knowledge. They are just pawn at the hands of political leaders, and they ethically kill them in the name of politics and for fun.

I know some lines are objectionable, so do object it along with the government of Bihar. The “Biggest Critic,” you are welcome.




Statue, University, and the politics of Symbols: The Curious Case of JNU’s Tank


Statue, whether it is of Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, or Patel, has become an integrated part of modern political philosophy. In 2017, this strange theory is substituted by the national flag, anthem, and cow and finally in the form of a military tank in JNU, Delhi. The statues, as the government considered, are a symbol of the historical struggle led by a particular person at a given time. To promote ideas, it sponsors the politics of statue to historicize the forgotten history.
However, the truth is that the nuclear mass highly neglects these figures after their installation. Everyone forgets the statue with the passage of time. For example, to celebrate the victory of Robert Clive, who wins the Battle of Plassey, the British government established his two statues: first in Shrewsbury and the second in King Charles Street near St James’ Park, London. But, when the later generations were questioned about the statue, they fail to tell, recognise, even to name it. The government, by taking strict actions inscribed Clive’s name below the icon so that the future generations could remember his contributions to the King and the Country.
In fact, similar is the tale of all statues. They are in a famous location sometime at the center, yet they are the most dislocated phenomena. Such is the story of India’s one of the topmost University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. This education hub is in the news, less good and more worse, from last twenty months over one reason, “nationalism.” As per the new sources, as circulated in the media, a tank is to be established in the campus. Before going to tank, let’s see how many old legends have their statue in the library of this University.
In answer, the name of Nehru and Ambedkar will strike the mind. Both of these statues are, saying honestly, are highly neglected by the visitors, including the JNU students. It is even worse in this age where everything is reported to the world in a geo-bragger manner; I mean the mobile-selfie. Hardly one find anyone taking a picture with the statue of Ambedkar. However, if one visits Columbia, then s/he would never forget to pose against Ambedkar. Why Ambedkar of JNU faced discrimination as it failed to attract no audience who will take a picture of it—reason is the promotion of Idea. The difference between Columbia and JNU is the reason. Truly speaking, these statues are unknowingly murdered by the masses with their neglecting. No one pays them homage, neither directly, and nor indirectly.
Amid this, what will be the future of the tank that soon will, what if uncertain, fill the blank space only to inject nationalism in the newcomers. Will it become the centre of attraction or there is any propaganda, I mean Latin Propaganda.
I will not define each kind of propaganda and focus on only two types: media propaganda and Latin propaganda. In the former, two parties spread a lie, and each tries to show whose lie is less lie than the other. Whereas, the Latin propaganda is a situation when an uncertain future event, mostly fake, is propagated by a celebrity. It was the favourite weapon of Mussolini during the WW-II. The second party takes this fact as true by accepting the idea without much resistance. This type of propaganda is promoted with the help of media so that the opposition, which is less in numbers, can give their views on the event. By giving their ideas, they are, unconsciously, advertising what the celebrity wanted to. Here, they are at spreading first party’s view even without knowing it. Now, the celebrity has to prove that the original message of opposition is wrong. If he remained successful, then the celebrity can easily sponsor its fake news as real news. This half-baked-fake news is nothing but the installation of the tank is JNU.
Which university in the world is decorated with Army tank, even a popular newspaper noted only one event of such type in South Asia after 1945. The opposition is so unconscious that they promote it without knowing the fact. What circular is passed to install a tank—it is just an idea, given by a celebrity, which makes it nearer to the Latin propaganda. If the criticism of this un-futuristic event continues in the same manner, then far is not the day when the tank in JNU will be a reality. In fact, no one, including the Vice-Chancellor, wants a tank, but promotion and criticism of Tank surely make it possible.
If the tank comes, then I assure you, dear reader, you, me, and the visitors who come to JNU will always take a selfie. It is the same type of historicization with which the statue of Nehru and Ambedkar are promoted on the campus.
The only solution to this tank is not in criticism but in “not to talk or give one’s view about it.” If it happened, then like the case of Clive, the influential people have to make another plan to promote their idea. The memory of masses is so weak that they forget everything after some time. But advertisement and promotion, again and again, remind them of the tank. Sometimes, silence is the best method to protect one. Sometimes, it is better to run away rather than to fight with the enemy. I prefer to run away. Choose your option, criticise the tank or leave it to time to decide what it wraps in its lap.
Wait, is am I promoting propaganda?

The Election of President

The issues like the cow, Hindu, Muslim, beef, triple talaq, dalits are at its height in the year 2017. Amid the above unintentional news, India, by showing the power of democracy, has elected it second dalit president- You know the name very well (censorship in media forced me to not to mention the name, so assume it). The mainstream media reports including the news broadcasts of this auspicious event, those are excluded who disagree with the word auspicious, forced me to write this.
The winter was about to pass when Donald Trump, the mad man of America as reported by media, became or to say become, the president of USA. The liberal media, let us assume it liberal at least in the meaning of the word, houses out of the USA, who were against Trump, testify that America will never give a woman any chance to be a president. I am leaving it to your judgment to consider the case of International media in the court of humanity, but I am untouched by the question of that corporate media.
Let us take a U-Turn towards India.
In all the news, views, and reviews of Indian election, the question of women is out, or to say correctly, substituted by the word "Dalit." (is there any press, national or international, that said a "woman lost in India" (I repeat only woman, not dalit). Clearly, it is a significant defeat of feminism when women are projected not as women but identified by its caste, class or religion.
A woman of any country does not belong to any class, caste or race including ethnicity as she was exploited even by the most exploited section. Whether it is Jews, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Black, Dalit or any other most subaltern, everyone was/were cruel towards their women, forcing them to stay behind the closed doors. The condition is so worse that even in the Buddhist dominated countries of Asia are not spread by this virus of the older traditions.
What the answer out of this presidential election comes out is about dalit and not about women. If we look at any data, women in India are roughly fifty percent but what is their percentage in Parliament? What about the reservation Bill that previously passed by Rajya Sabha? Why media is saying "dalit president" (whether male or female) by avoiding the most fundamental question of "women"- Remember the data that is fifty percent.
A powerful woman, I think, is more manly than the man. For example, Mayawati, Sonia, Mamta, and others are not women but man due to the power behind them. The meaning of man cannot be defined by the biological strength or any other manliness that one has towards man (macho man, Superman, Heman, so on). In fact, all words say one thing, man is "the man" because of "power." If this power is transferred to women, then they too can be a man (you are free to call it Platonic Cave, Madman's Imagination, Ivory Oriental outlook).
The above argument is for those who have power or have thrust upon power. But, what about those who are powerless? Another open end left for you to complete (what is there for my mother, sister, daughter, wife-- again I left a point to critique, why man what a mother, sister and so on).
Moving forwards, Loss of woman as a president is not a loss of a dalit woman, who by her power is not a dalit at all, but a loss of women, who despite her power failed to reserve a high post of office.
In fact, she lost not because she was a dalit it is because there were fewer females in Parliament. If the woman is powerless, then she needs a tag like dalit, but when she is powerful, she becomes a man.
Giving her same seats in parliament could, not sure, make her a man. And if she becomes man, then there will be a fight between man versus man. The question of man versus tag will automatically be eliminated. This man versus man theory is highly successful in Panchayat Election.
Today's women are in need no tag but of power that makes her equal to man. She is not designed for the proverb, "Behind every successful man, there is a woman." If she can "behind" why not "together" or even "forward."
Yes, in the final word, a man can be dalit because he was exploited, but a woman cannot because she was exploited even by a Dalit. The woman is only "woman," who has no identity and is classless, colorless, casteless, nameless, or even non-religious entity.