Appeal to
Request His Excellency The first
Pacific President
-barack-Obama to Celebrate Buddha Jayanthi at White House on 27th
May 2010
Politics
and political matters in Buddhism are considered worldly concerns, yes. But the
Buddha did not ignore such worldly concerns, because as a Prince estranged and
removed from his prior worldly concerns, still He was living in society. Alms
food comes from vast numbers of people constituting society. So should not we
work to elevate society to evolve into a higher form, to be more effective and
more just? The monks were also told by the Buddha to work for the good of many,
for the benefit of all beings and for the betterment of society. The intent
behind the founding of the community of monks (Sangha in Pali, Pali being the original
language of the Buddha) was entirely for the benefit of the people.
In the life of Buddha, we find that the Buddha
often discussed politics with the rulers of realms in his time, such as King
Mala, King Kosala , King Licchavi and King Ajatasattu . The Buddha always
preached the kings that they must rule their kingdoms with dasarajadhamma. The
dasarajadamma in Pali is based on ten precepts, in order for the king to best
rule the country. They are: (1) be liberal and avoid selfishness, (2) maintain
a high moral character, (3) be prepared to sacrifice one’s own pleasure for the
well-being of the subjects, (4) be honest and maintain absolute integrity, (5)
be kind and gentle, (6) lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate, (7) be
free from hatred of any kind, (8) exercise non-violence, (9) practice patience,
and (10) respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony. Any government
who wishes to peacefully rule any nation can effectively apply these 10
precepts even today; they haven’t yet and never will “go out of date.”
The Buddha
preached non-violence and peace as a universal message. He did not approve of
violence or the destruction of life, and declared that there is no such thing
as a ‘just’ war. From his own words, He taught: “The victor breeds hatred; the
defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and
peaceful.”
Not only did the Buddha teach non-violence and
peace: He was perhaps the first and only religious teacher who went to the
battlefield personally to prevent the outbreak of a war, when He diffused
tension between the Sakyas and the Koliyas who were about to wage war over the
waters of Rohini River. He also dissuaded King Ajatasattu from attacking the
Kingdom of the Vajjis
He showed how countries could become corrupt,
degenerate and unhappy when the head of the government becomes corrupt and
unjust. He spoke against corruption and how all governments’ actions must be
based on humanitarian principles.
The Buddha
once said, ‘When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become
just and good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials
become just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and
file become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the
people become just and good.’
Clearly,
religion and politics are something analogous to paper money having two sides.
The front can be regarded as religion and the other side can be regarded as
politics. They cannot be separated from each other. Otherwise the value of
money is nothing. Similarly, Buddhist monks and other religious leaders also
should not be separated from politics. I don’t mean to imply that they should
rule the country, but just to present and to advance their Buddhist precepts throughout
the workings of a government in order to prevent so many wars and conquests,
persecutions, such egregious atrocities, rebellions, and the destruction of
works of art and culture.
mentioned
Remarks by first
Pacific President Barack Obama at Suntory Hall”……. It is wonderful to be
back in Japan.
Some of you may be aware that when I was a young boy, my mother brought me to Kamakura, where I looked
up at that centuries-old symbol of peace and tranquility — the great bronze
Amida Buddha……” Now Barack Obama is been described as one of the greatest
leaders. The Leader as Visionary. Like the captain of a ship, he has a definite
goal to chart his course and steer his ship in the right direction. He has one
goal - to find the cause of suffering and a way out of suffering. Despite much
hardship and setback, he never veered from his course but persevered till he
gained awaken-ness after he got elected as President of US.
Guided by this
vision, his mission is an all-embracing one. It is a mission founded on
compassion and love for all beings, regardless of race, creed or status quo.
The Leader as
Role Model
He has an
exemplary figure, someone we can respect and emulate. He is extraordinary,
virtuous and righteous in every thought, word and deed. He says as he does and
does as he says. Such integrity and consistency won him the trust of his
followers. He is aware of the ten principles which a ruler ought to be possessed:
1. Alms
giving
2. Morality
3. Unselfishness
4. Integrity
5. Gentleness
6. Self-restraint
7. Non-anger
8. Non-violence
9. Patience
10. Agreeability
The
Leader as Mediator
As
a leader,
He
demonstrated both skills in mediation and impartiality in judgment, showed his
ability to resolve problems and arguments.
Hence
Jagatheesan Chandrasekharan suggested “…..Let all of us
request His Excellency the first
Pacific president-barack-obama to celebrate next (27-May 2010)Buddha Jayanthi at White House to
spread the message of non-violence and peace by chanting relevant gathas by
Maha theras for the happiness and welfare of all…..”
MAHINDA
welcomed
the same by saying “…..DEAR FRIENDS …ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL!!!
WHAT MARVELOUS IDEA. WE SHOULD ASK THE ENTIRE BUDDHIST WORLD TO RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST FROM PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA TO COMPLY WITH OUR HUMBLE IDEA AND
HONOR IT.
The main reason being THAT THERE WERE NOT SINGLE A DROP OF
BLOOD WAS SHED IN THE NAME OF THE BUDDHISM
BUDDHA PREACHED ABSOLUTE NONVIOLENCE ,THE
UNBOUND LOVE AND COMPASSION TOWARD EVERY LIVING CREATURE.
MOST LIKELY THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT BE FULLY AWARE OF
THE DETAILS OF THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF BUDDHISM.
FURTHER MORE THE BUDDHA TOLERATED ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS AND NEVER
CONDEMNED OR PUT DOWN OTHERS’ FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPAGATION OR
PROSYLITIZATION /FOR HIS OWN. HE WAS THE MOST TOLERANT TEACHER OF DARMA
WHICH ADVOCATES THE TOTAL OPENNESS LIKE MAMMOTH TENT WITHOUT DOORS AND
WINDOWS WHERE EVERY ONE IS WELCOME AND NO ONE IS ASKED OR
REQUIRED TO GIVE UP THEIR BELIEF.
HE INVITED THE FOLLOWERS TO CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE HIS TEACHING, LIKE GOLD
DIGGER TRYING FINDING THE PURE GOLD, BEFORE MAKING ANY HASTY DECISION TO BECOME
A BUDDHIST.
SO LET US
SEND OUR REQUEST THE WHITE HOUSE AS A UNOFORM VOICE. LET US
ALSO REQUEST HIS HOLINESS DALAI LAMA TO JOIN US … “
Venerable Ananda
Bhante of Mahabodhi Loka Shanti Vihara, Bangalore suggested to appeal all the
Buddhist organizations in general and Americans in particular to make a request
to White House to Celebrate Buddha Jayanthi on 27th May 2010.
Accordingly emails are being sent to all Buddhist organizations through the
world.
Similar
suggestion was made by Sashikanth Chandrasekharan from Cleveland.
There is no doubt that the case for celebration of Buddha Jayanti at
White House is inherently strong, more so in the wake of the inspiring
speech at Tokyo, earlier this month, by President Obama who called
himself the ‘first Pacific President’. We all should be thankful to
you and the other Buddhist friends for bringing this up.
As you know, most of the Buddhist countries in the world are in the
Pacific region, and they all will be ecstatic about the idea of
celebrating the next Buddha Jayanti at the White House - on May 27,
2010. China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka
have all very many devoted Buddhists.
Their governments
are likely to make the suggestion to the Pacific
President in the U.S.
This is true of India as
well despite the fact
that India
has a Buddhist symbol as its national emblem and Buddha
Dhamma Chakra embedded on its national flag. There are many Indian
nationals in the Obama administration including the White House.They will also
support the idea.
The memorable Tokyo speech of the U.S.
President provides an excellent
background to make the case for a White House celebration of Buddha
Jayanti. Obama will most certainly get a hearing for the Buddha
Jayanti proposal from leaders like Dalai Lama, the Chinese Buddhist
leader Ven Hsing Yun. Buddhist activist Richard Gere the famous actor,
and Buddhist Professor Robert Thurman and others. I am very optimistic
that with their voicing support, the White House celebration of Buddha
Jayanti on May 27, 2010 would be a done deal.
Let us make our appeals to His Holiness Dalai Lama ohhdl@dalailama.com, Chinese Buddhist leader Venerable Hsing Yun, Budddhist activist Richard Gere the famous actor , and Buddhist Professor Robert Thriman
and others for voicing their support for celebration of Buddha Jayanthi at White House on May 2010
The Non-Violence Ethic - A Noble Humanist Concept
Gautama Buddha propounded the philosophy of
non-violence, universal love and peace 2,500 years ago. Emperor Ashoka Maurya
from India gave this
pacifist philosophy official recognition in the 3rd century B.C.E. and sent
Buddhist missionaries to the far-east and Central Asia.
For this initiative in spreading the message of peace and non-violence, he is
remembered not only by Aboriginal Inhabitants of Jambudvipa, that is The
Great Prabuddha Bharath but by pacifists all around the globe.
It is becoming increasingly ironical to talk about Non-violence in a
world of Inter-Continental Ballastic Missiles, Hydrogen Bombs, Nuclear
Submarines and the rest. But amidst all the dust that is kicked up by the
aggravating belligerence between the US and Iraq or Aboriginal Inhabitants of
Jambudvipa, that is The Great Prabuddha Bharath and Pakistan for instance, the
word Non-Violence brings to mind the name of Mahatma Gandhi in Aboriginal Inhabitants
of Jambudvipa, that is The Great Prabuddha Bharath along with the other
pacifist crusaders in different parts of the world.
Buddhism - the Pioneering Spirit of Non-Violence
Whatever one’s opinion on how far
India owes its independence to Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent crusade against
British imperialism, even the Mahatma’s worst critics would admit that the
non-violent Satyagraha launched by him attracted millions of Indians into
India’s freedom struggle.
But the philosophy of non-violence
(ahimsa) in India
is not a 20th century phenomenon, it has existed since the last three thousand
years right from the days of Gautama Buddha. India’s great emperor Ashoka gave
this pacifist philosophy official recognition for which he is remembered not
only by Indians but by pacifists all around the globe.
Lord Buddha was born in the year 563
BC in Lumbini in Nepal
Tarai near Kapilavastu in the Himalayan foothills and was named
Siddhartha. His father was King Suddhohana of the Sakya tribe and the
Gautam clan, and his mother Maya was a Licchavi princess. At age 19
years, he was married to princess Yashodhara and was later blessed with a son,
Rahul. At age 29 years, Siddhartha left his home for good to seek
enlightenment and peace. He received instructions from gurus at
Vaisali and Rajagriha and later practised penances and austerities at Uruvela
(near Gaya) for
six years but without any results. It was, however, at Bodh Gaya after a
period of seven weeks’ continuous meditation, sitting under a pipal
tree, that Siddhartha obtained supreme enlightenment at the age of 35
years. Thereafter, from that point, he became the Buddha—the enlightened
one.
He went on to Sarnath (near Varanasi)
where he preached his first sermon to five Brahmins who had been his companions
for six years at Uruvela. The five holy men of Sarnath who received these
instructions became Buddha’s first followers.
We remember both Lord Buddha and his
sermon at Sarnath with great reverence. His preaching is well-known as dhamma-chakka
pavatana (setting in motion the wheel of law).
Gautama Buddha explained the four
noble truths, the eightfold path of duty, the need to follow the middle path to
avoid the extremes of the pursuit of pleasure on the one hand, and worthless
austerities on the other.
The four noble truths are: (i)
misery (dukkha); (ii) cause of misery (dukha-samudaya); (iii)
negation of misery (duhkha-nirodha); and (iv) the path which leads
towards the negation of misery (duhkha-nirodha-gamini-patipada).
The Eightfold Path comprises (i) right speech, (ii) right action, (iii)
right means of livelihood, (iv) right exertion, (v) right mindedness, (vi)
right meditation, (vii) right resolution, and (viii) right point of view.
The first of these three paths lead to sila (physical control), the
next three to samadhi or chitta (mental control), and the last two to pajna
(intellectual development).
It may be recalled that in the
last 45 years of his life after attaining Awakenment with Awareness, Buddha
traveled around the country teaching the masses and debating with many other
religious teachers the four noble truths, the eight-fold path, and dhamma.
Buddha always spoke in the people’s language Prakrit and not in Sanskrit.
Many people became his followers but stayed with their jobs, homes, and
families. These lay followers provided food and shelter for others who
decided, like Buddha, to give up ordinary life and become wandering monks
wearing saffron robes. The community of monks and nuns became known as
the sangha.
The gospel of Buddha spread
rapidly. Buddha’s impressive personality, use of the common people’s
language, and his communication skills made his gospel spread fast. It is
another matter that Buddha’s dialogue and discussions were recorded well after
his maha pari nibbana in Pali and these formed the basis of Buddhism
in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia,
and Vietnam
where the Hinayana form of Buddhism prevails. Similarly, some
hundred years after Buddha, several scholars recorded the Buddhist precepts and
practices in Sanskrit. These Sanskrit writings of Buddhist scholars in India spread to China, Japan, Tibet, and Central Asia
and provided the kernel for the growth of the Mahayana form of
Buddhism.
In fact, from among the galaxy of
Buddhist monks, Arahats and Rinpoches, starting from Ananda,
the principal associate and disciple of Lord Buddha to the present 14th Dalai
Lama, one name that stands out with great prominence is that of Guru
Padmasambhava, the lotus born who transmitted tantric Buddhism to Sikkim, Bhutan
and Tibet
in the 8th century.
There are several legends and myths surrounding this great Guru including his
eight forms or manifestations representing different aspects of his being.
Several historians, however, describe Padmasambhava’s place of birth to be
Oddiyana (now believed to be the SwatValley in Pakistan). He played a major role
in the spread of Buddhism in Tibet
and in other parts of the Himalayan region in the midst of different
conflicting philosophies.
Guru Rinpoche or the precious Master, is the Supreme Tantrik Master who through
his tantric power subdued evil spirits and demons and reformed them to guard
the religion and protect the followers of Dharma. He is profoundly venerated in Tibet
for establishing Buddhism there.
It is learnt that while he was on his way to Tibet,
Guru Rinpoche visited Sikkim
in 8th century A.D. Guru Rinpoche has a special connection with the land of Sikkim which was blessed by him as the Bayyul
Dremojong (hidden land of rice).
Guru Padmasambhava is not only venerated as the guardian deity and the
protector of the land by the people following Buddhism but also held in high
esteem and profound reverence by Sikkimese of every faith.
Many believe that this Himalayan land continuing to enjoy peace, tranquility,
progress and social harmony in spite of chaotic and violent disturbances
prevailing all around is a testimony to the belief that Sikkim must surely have
been blessed and protected by Guru Rinpoche from misfortunes, calamities,
strife and destruction.
Unification of Buddhist Thoughts
An enormous corpus of literature on Buddhism is available today in the
world. We have to take note of the fact that literature on Buddhism has grown
in several parts of the world encompassing ideas expressed in different
languages and in distant lands with varied cultures and even several
civilizations.
Following are three aspects of
Buddhism which were very dear to Lord Buddha. These are namely; (i)
compassion and non-violence; (ii)avoidance of the extremes and pursuit of the
middle path; and (iii) inculcation of spirit of rationality and argument.
Compassion and Non-violence
In the light of Lord Buddha’s
teachings, the conflict resolution mechanism of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of
Jambudvipa, that is the Great Prabuddha Bharath society received new ideas and
institutions. This is reflected in the increasing importance of Karuna
or compassion and non-violence in our society.
Love and kindness are the very basis of
human society. Hatred, the Buddha said, was never appeased by more
hatred—it could only be defused by friendship and sympathy.
Compassion is the real essence of
religion. All religions emphasize betterment and improvement of human
beings, a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood, and love. If one can
practice compassion, then the essence of religion is automatically followed,
whether it is the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or Islamic way. The
important thing is that in daily life one must practice the essentials of
religion—non-violence, love, and compassion—and on that level there is hardly
any difference between Buddhism, Christianity, or any other religion.
Gautama Buddha’s ‘middle path’.
According to this doctrine of the
golden mean, the correct or right course of action is always some middle point
between the two extremes of excess (too much) and deficiency (too
little).
It is interesting to note that similar
approaches were propounded in China
and Greece
in the pre-Christian era. Confucius (550–479 BC) believed in virtuous
living by what he called the ‘doctrine of the mean’ (Chung Yang or ‘constant
middle’): for every action, there are two extremes which must be avoided, and
what lies at a proper distance between these two extremes is virtue, and the
right way to act. Lao Tze, an older contemporary of Confucius believed,
and accordingly advocated, that the right way (Tao) consists in reversion from
extremes.
In Greece, Aristotle (384–322 BC)
developed this doctrine of the mean to be applied in determining what course of
action is right in a number of different situations.
There is nothing to indicate
that ‘middle path’ doctrine were known to the Chinese savant Confucius or to
the Greek philosopher Aristotle. This astonishing coincidence in approach
among the leading men of three civilizations (Indian, Chinese, and Greek)
establishes that commonality in findings about truth is independent of race,
environment, or age.
To arrive at the middle path is not to
effect a compromise but to attain a harmonious view among conflicting
interpretations. This is a difficult task. At a deeper level, it
denotes unity of mind and thought.
Rationality and Argument
Buddha attached great importance to
rational enquiry than perhaps any other religious leader in history. The
Buddha says in a sutta:
Monks and scholars should Well analyse my words, Like gold (to be tested through) melting, cutting and polishing, And then adopt them, but not for the sake of showing me respect.
By this Buddha meant that even if a
particular doctrine is set forth in scriptures, one must examine whether or not
it meets the test of reasoning. If it comes in conflict with reasoning,
or is at variance with new realities, it is no longer appropriate to assert its
primacy and to follow its dictates. This applies to Buddha’s sayings as
well.
A fundamental change in attitude is
necessary. Basically a Buddhist attitude on any subject must be one that
accords with the facts. If, upon investigation, one finds that there is
reason and proof for a point, then one should accept it. That is not to
say that there are not certain points that are beyond human powers of deductive
reasoning—that is a different matter. However, when we investigate
certain descriptions as they exist in sacred texts and we find that they do not
correspond to reality, then one must accept the reality, and not the literal
scriptural explanation.
Buddha, like Socrates, was never
content to accept traditional certainties as final, however august they might
be. Buddha believed that every individual must find the truth in his own way,
and must question everything, even Buddha’s own words and sayings
himself. This new rationality had no place for blind faith.
The story of Gautama has particular relevance for our times. We too are
living in a period of transition and change, as was the Great Prabuddha Bharath
during the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Like Gautama, we live in an age
of political violence and have had terrifying glimpses of man’s inhumanity to
man. In our society too there is widespread malaise, urban despair and
anomie, and we are sometimes fearful of the new world order that is emerging.
Scholars have been re-examining the
history of the Buddhist doctrine in the light of modern ideas. Buddha has
been considered a rationalist, an empiricist, and a social prophet, and the dhamma
an ideology for a new age. Modernists feel strongly about the social role
religion should be expected to play. In the Great Prabuddha Bharath, for
example, a crusade was initiated in 1958 against the caste theory of
untouchability. The solution was presented in the form of a return to
Buddhism.
Buddha’s scrupulous empiricism, his
demand for intellectual and personal independence, his belief in dialogue, his
insistence on the ‘middle path’ are useful beacons to solve our present
problems. We may not be able to fully practice the method he prescribed
or raise ourselves to the level of his conduct but one can certainly move
towards building institutions and supporting individuals that make for a truly
compassionate political and social architecture which I call the Bahudhā
or pluralist approach in our society and politics.
The Buddhist approach of the middle
path, of non-violence, of love and compassion, influences people of a large
number of countries in the world. The Buddhist approach of rational
self-enquiry also enables a person to achieve a higher state of discipline and
harmony beyond narrow sectarian and national prejudices. All these become
axiomatic when seen in the light of the well-known Buddhist maxim: ‘Be a lamp
unto yourself’ (Appa Deepo Bhav).
There are three truths:
my truth, your truth and the truth.
Chinese Proverb
Ambedkar proved right
by Raja Sekhar Vundru
Published in The New Indian Express, 15 April, 2008
After
resigning from Nehru’s Cabinet as Law Minister over the controversial
Hindu Code Bill in 1951, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar spent most of his time
writing at his 26, Alipore Road residence in Delhi’s Civil Lines. Fresh
from drafting and the successful piloting of the Indian Constitution in
the Constituent Assembly, he entered one of his most productive writing
phases and left behind a great body of literature on a wide range of
subjects.
Dr.
Ambedkar, who remained a Rajya Sabha member till his death in December,
1956, made occasional appearances in the house of elders to express his
views on contemporary issues that exercised him. Though reading and
writing on Hinduism and Buddhism consumed most of his time, the
everyday Indian political situation of the 1950s did not escape his
attention. Two of those issues that need to be relooked today are the
reorganisation of the states and his idea of the politics of majority
and minority castes.
As
the issue of reorganisation of Indian states on the basis of language
raged in the 1950s Dr. Ambedkar compiled his opinions into a book,
Thoughts on Linguistic States, which was published in 1955. The book is
as relevant today as it was then. Dr. Ambedkar felt that creation of
states should be based on equal distribution of population and their
capitals should be centrally located in those states. Dr. Ambedkar
criticised the confusion prevailing in the ruling camp in the 1950s on
linguistic states.
He
said that one language in a state can unite people and two languages
are sure to divide them. “Culture is conserved by language”, he said.
He supported linguistic states for two reasons. One, to make the path
to democracy easy and the other to remove racial and cultural tensions.
His
opinions find reflection in today’s situations in Karnataka, Tamil
Nadu, Assam or even Maharashtra. The formula he put forth for division
of states in his book now seems prophetic. He then had envisioned the
division of Bihar into two: north Bihar with Patna as capital and
Ranchi being the capital of south Bihar.
The division did happen, though it took almost fifty years.
For him Andhra and Hyderabad (Telangana) were never one state. He
always perceived them as two separate entities. The demand for a
separate Telangana never really died down.
More
ominous seems to be his prescription for Uttar Pradesh. He sought to
divide Uttar Pradesh, which was a six Crore population state in 1955
into three states of two crore population each. Western Uttar Pradesh
with Meerut, Central Uttar Pradesh with Kanpur and Eastern Uttar
Pradesh with Allahabad as capitals. He clearly conceptualised that
smaller states were always better administered.
Dr.
Ambedkar’s recommendations for Maharashtra will be too startling for
today’s reader. He proposed the creation of a city state of Bombay
(Mumbai) with a rider that the taxes collected from Bombay should be
equally divided among the three states he proposed to carve out of rest
of Maharashtra. His proposal was for a western Maharashtra, Marathwada
or central Maharashtra and eastern Maharashtra comprising Vidharbha.
He
had also wanted to split Madhya Pradesh into north and south, which
eventually became Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh many decades later. While
accepting the linguistic states as a matter of principle, he proposed
further division of single language states for better administration,
access to administration for people of various regions within the
geographic entity and also their sentiments.
[Excerpts from the Thoughts On Linguistics States, By Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar
For the sake of the reader I summarise below the principles which should underly the creation of Linguistic States which are already enunciated In the foregoing pages but which lie about
scattered. These principles may be staled as below :
(1) The idea of having a mixed State must be completelyabandoned.
(2) Every State must be an unilingual State. One State, one language.
(3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the formula of one language, one State.
(4) The formula one language, one State means that all people speaking one language should be brought under one Government
irrespective of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among
the people speaking the language. This is the idea that underlies the
agitation for a united Maharashtra
with Bombay. This is an absurd formula and has no precedent for it. It
must be abandoned. A people speaking one language may be cut up into
many States as is done in other parts of the world.
(5)
Into how many States a people speaking one language should be cut up,
should depend upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration,
(2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the sentiments of the
different areas, and (4) the proportion between the majority and
minority.
(6)
As the area of the State increases the proportion of the minority to
the majority decreases and the position of the minority becomes
precarious and the opportunities for the majority to practise tyranny
over the minority become greater. The States must therefore be small.
(7)
The minorities must be given protection to prevent the tyranny of the
majority. To do this the Constitution must be amended and provisions
must be made for a system on plural member constituencies (two or
three) with cumulative voting ]
The most fascinating of Dr. Ambedkar’s proposal was about making Hyderabad, the country’s second capital for an obvious reason
— this southern city is equidistant from various regions of the
country. The second reason for mooting this idea was to ease the
north-south tension.
[ Excerpts from the Thoughts On Linguistics States, By Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar
A WAY TO REMOVE TENSION BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH
Can India afford to have one Capital ?
That India has now one capital does not close the question. If the
Capital of India is not satisfactorily located, now is the time for
considering the question.
Since
the departure of the British, India has only one capital and that is
Delhi. Before the British, India has always had two capitals. During
the Moghal period, India had Delhi as one Capital and Shrinagar
in Kashmir as another Capital. When the British came they too had two
capitals, one was Calcutta and another was Simla. Even when they left
Calcutta for Delhi, they retained Simla as their summer Capital. The
two capitals maintained by the Moghuls and
by the British were the results of climatic conditions. Neither
the British nor the Moghuls were able to live in Delhi or in Calcutta
continuously for 12 months. The summer months in Delhi were unbearable
to the Moghuls. They made Shrinagar their second capital for summer
months. The summer months in Calcutta were equally unbearable to the
British. They, therefore, established a second capital. To these
climatic conditions must now be added three other conditions. There was
no popular Government when the Moghuls ruled or when the British ruled. Now we have popular Government and the convenience of the people is an important factor.
Delhi is most inconvenient to the people of the South. They suffer the
most from cold as well as distance. Even the Northern people suffer in
the summer months. They do not complain because they are nearer home
and they are nearer the seat of power. Second is the feeling of the
Southern people and the third is the consideration of Defence. The
feeling of the Southern people is that the Capital of their Country is
far away from them
and that they are being ruled by the people of Northern India. The
third consideration is of course more important. It is that Delhi is a
vulnerable place. It is within bombing distance of the neighbouring
countries. Although India is trying to live in peace with its neighbours it cannot be assumed that India will not have to face war sometime or other and if war comes, the Government of India will have to leave Delhi and find another place for its location. Which is the place to which the Government of India can migrate ?
A place that one can think of is Calcutta. But Calcutta is also within
bombing distance from Tibet. Although India and China today are
friends, how long the friendship would last no one can definitely say.
The possibility of conflict between India and China remains. In that
event Calcutta would be useless. The next town that could be considered
as a refuge for the Central Government is Bombay. But Bombay is a port and our Indian Navy is too poor to protect the Central Government if it came down to Bombay. Is there a fourth place one could think of? I find Hyderabad to be such a place. Hyderabad Secunderabad and Bolarum should
be constituted into a Chief Commissioner’ s Province and made a second
capital of India. Hyderabad fulfils all the requirements of a capital
for India. Hyderabad is equidistant to all States. Anyone who looks at
the table of distances given below will realise it:
From Delhi – miles
From Hyderabad – miles
To Bombay
798
440
To Calcutta
868
715
To Madras
1198
330
To Karnul
957
275
To Trivandrum
1521
660
To Patiala
124
990
To Chandigarh
180
1045
To Lucknow
275
770
From the defence
point of view it would give safety to the Central Government. It is
equidistant from all parts of India. It would give satisfaction to the
South Indian people that their Government is sometimes with them. The
Government may remain in Delhi during winter months and during other months it can stay in Hyderabad. Hyderabad has all the amenities which Delhi has and it is a far better City than Delhi. It has all the
grandeur which Delhi has. Buildings are going cheap and they are really
beautiful buildings, far superior to those in Delhi. They are all on
sale. The only thing that is wanting is a Parliament House which the
Government of India can easily build. It is a place in which Parliament
can sit all the year round and work, which it cannot do in Delhi. I do
not see what objection there can be in making Hyderabad a second capital of India. It should be done right now while we are reorganising the States.
Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Bolarum should be constituted into a second capital of India. Fortunately, it can be very easily done with satisfaction to the whole of South India, to Maharashtra and to the Andhras.
This is another remedy for easing the tension between the North and the South ]
Mayawati seeks centre’s nod for trifurcation of Uttar Pradesh
Now,
the other interesting issue he raised in 1955 was on the majority and
minority groups within a state. Dr. Ambedkar analysed the linkages
between majority caste politics and the concept of the rule of the
political majority. He said that majorities are of two sorts: communal
majority and political majority. Explaining the concept, he wrote that
a political majority is not monolithic and can change its class
composition accomodating various classes. That means a political party
that comes to power winning a majority may consist of persons of
various classes and castes. But he felt that, inherent in such a group
is a communal or caste based majority.
While
admission to a political group (which may gain majority in elections)
is open to all, the door to a communal group is closed and is
restricted to a particular caste or community which dominates the
political group. He then questions how this majority caste or communal
group runs away with the title deeds of power won by a political group
after an election? This question has stopped rattling the Indian
polity, since the rule of a single majority caste or community, within
a political formation has become a matter of routine . He went on to
say that, to give such title deeds to a caste or community is to
establish a hereditary government and to ensure the tyranny of that
majority.
Dr. Ambedkar’s thoughts about an equitable society remain as prophetic as ever.
(Raja Sekhar Vundru from Andhra Pradesh is an IAS officer and opinions expressed are personal.
The
excerpts from “Thoughts on linguistics states” by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar
are not part of original article by Mr Vundru, I have added them to
give more clarity to the topic.
Lucknow, Dec 11 (IANS) In a surprise move that could give the centre some more sleepless nights, Uttar Pradesh chief minister
Mayawati Friday declared her outright preference for further partition
of UP and creation of independent states of Bundelkhand and Harit
Pradesh.
‘I have written a letter to prime minister
Manmohan Singh, urging him to give clearance for carving out
independent states of Bundelkhand and Harit Pradesh out of a giant
sized and unmanageableUttar Pradesh,’ Mayawati told a hurriedly convened press conference here Friday evening.
‘Since the centre
has already given its nod for carving out the state of Telangana out of
Andhra Pradesh, there was good enough reason to follow the same
exercise in case of UP, where the demand for an independent Bundelkhand
in southern UP and a Harit Pradesh in western UP was being raised for a
long time,’ she said.
While political observers felt that the move was aimed at creating greater discomfort for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the centre
already grappling with the gradually increasing demand for statehood
from different corners of the country, Mayawati sought to justify her
demand by impressing that she had had these views for long.
‘I was always in favour of smaller states as they are much simpler to
govern,’ she said adding: ‘These views have been expressed by me on
several occasions in the past as well.’
The UP chief minister said: ‘In the past too, on March 15, 2008, I had sent a letter to the prime minister, urging him to consider the demand of the people of Bundelkhand and of western UP for giving them independent statehood.’
She said: ‘Still earlier on October 8, 2007, I had expressed these view at a Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) rally in Lucknow.’
According to her: ‘My party legislators too had formally raised this
demand on the floor of the state assembly on October 31, 2007…
therefore, it was now time forthe centre to act.’
Asked if she would move a resolution in this regard in the state assembly, Mayawati shot back: ‘Well, I would do so once the centre has given its approval in principle.’
Meanwhile, in an appeal to the people of these two regions, she has
urged them ‘not to indulge in any activity that is likely to disturb
law and order in the state.’ She, however, assured to ‘extend full
support to the popular demand of the people’.
Uttar Pradesh’s firebrand Chief Minister Mayawati has extended support to the creation of smaller States.
On Friday, she backed the formation of separate States of Bundelkhand and Paschim Uttar Pradesh by trifurcating U.P. and sent a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. She said it would fulfil the needs and aspirations of the people of the two regions of U.P.
In this context, Ms. Mayawati appealed to the people of Bundelkhand
and Western U.P. to up the ante, albeit within the parameters of law,
onthe creation of two smaller and separate States by incorporating the districts of the two regions.
Ms. Mayawati said she had written to Dr. Singh urging him to take the initiative for the creation of Bundelkhand and Western U.P. on the pattern of Uttarakhand.
“Uttar Pradesh’s population and size is an impediment in speeding up
development works and fine-tuning the administration. It is, therefore,
imperative to create the smaller States of Bundelkhand and Western
U.P.,” she told journalists.
Mayawati was addressing a press conference in UP today in which she said: “Today I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister demanding the creation of separate Bundelkhand and Paschim Uttar Pradesh.”
“My government and my party (Bahujan Samaj Party) are in favor of
creation on smaller states and administrative units. We expresses the
same many times earlier.”
