Home Blog Page 461

Q & A on the Philosophical Foundations of Psychology: Session2

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
-
0
Q & A on the Philosophical Foundations of Psychology: Session2

Dr. Sven van de Wetering is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of the Fraser Valley, Canada. His research interests are in “Conservation Psychology, lay conceptions of evil, relationships between personality variables and political attitudes.” In a 4-part interview series, we explore the philosophical foundations of psychology.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What philosophy best represents the opinion of most psychologists regarding the means by which human beings think, feel, and act?
Dr. Sven van de Wetering: I think we are still very far from a consensus on this issue. My personal take would be to still use the metaphor of the human as a computer. The gross outlines of the computer’s programming have been laid down by the process of evolution by natural selection, and the fine tuning done by various forms of learning. Feelings are part of the overall system, not some sort of exogenous factor.
These ideas are all at least several decades old, and to my mind, they work well together, but each component of the triad of information processing, evolution, and learning is rejected by some psychologists. Some psychologists find that thinking of cognition as information processing is unhelpful, others believe in information processing, but consider the human information processor so general in its functioning that evolutionary psychology has no heuristic value, and some are happy with the concept of the mind as an evolved computer, but think that learning processes only do some very minor tweaking around the edges, and are not really worth worrying about.
I guess what I am trying to say is that psychology is a fundamentally pluralistic enterprise. No single theory answers your question because the human mind is a very complex device that can be fruitfully described at many different levels and from many different points of view. Pluralism is an uncomfortable and cognitively demanding stance that is not for everyone, even among people with PhDs in psychology. Furthermore, even pluralists get things wrong (a lot), so one sometimes wonders what the payoff is. Other than psychology being fun, of course.

SJ: What is the worldview, and statistical outlook, that you try to inculcate in students?
Dr Sven van: As with several other aspects of psychology, I find that it has to be taught in two ways. One is at the level of the community standards of academic psychology. Certain statistical procedures need to be taught because academic psychologists expect one to know them, and one therefore needs to know them because it is expected, regardless of the intellectual merits of doing so.
The other is to do whatever it takes to find out what the data actually means. This often entails doing more descriptive work than what you see in many journal articles. In some really egregious examples, I have seen published articles where authors claimed their hypothesis was supported because some test said p<.05, but when I actually looked at the group means, the difference between them was in the opposite direction from the one predicted.
This is an extreme example, but something I see much more commonly is people writing things such as “Variable y induces people to produce behaviour x.” But when I look at the actual data, I find that both groups actually tended to avoid engaging in behaviour x, but members of the experimental group were slightly less likely to avoid behaviour x than members of the control group, and therefore people actually engaging in behaviour x made up a fairly small proportion of the overall sample.
Still more frequently and less egregiously, people will write about a difference in means as if everyone in every group was behaving in the exact way that the group mean indicates they are behaving. There is often little or no acknowledgment of variability in responses, even though the reported standard deviations indicate that this variability is substantial.
If I can summarize this paragraph, let me say that p values are given too much attention at the expense of descriptive statistics, and descriptive statistics are often being treated as if they describe everything, rather than being highly aggregated summaries that throw a lot of information away. It is of course right to summarize and to ignore individual cases in our research reports (because to do otherwise would invite cognitive overload), but we should try to avoid conventions in writing that make it seem like the individual cases don’t even exist or that the summary statistics contain all the information of interest.

Pluralism is an uncomfortable and cognitively demanding stance that is not for everyone, even among people with PhDs in psychology. Furthermore, even pluralists get things wrong (a lot), so one sometimes wonders what the payoff is.

We of course go into research with hypotheses in mind, but if we don’t spend many hours playing with the raw data, we don’t get to find out what the data are actually telling us. It’s always exciting when p<.05, but that’s always only a small part of the story. Playing around with the raw data, graphing them, noticing anomalies, etc. helps keep us alert to the complex messiness of human behaviour, and helps steer us away from unjustified formulations such as “variable x causes this change in variable y” when really all we know is that in one study, on average, variable x was associated with that change in variable y, and there is seldom evidence that variable x had that effect on variable y for every single person in the study, or even for a majority of people.

SJ: Between rigour and relevance, where has there been the most fruitful growth of real data about people?
Dr Sven van: I am very hesitant to pronounce on this, because I am more attuned to developments on the side that emphasises rigour. That being said, I think developments have not been entirely positive on my end of the playing field, given the replication crisis and all. It may be that things are even worse among those who emphasise social relevance, but my personal opinion is that no branch of psychology is in a great place right now.

SJ: Thank you for your time, Sven – always a pleasure.

Read Q & A of Session 1 with Dr Sven van de Wetering here 
Read Q & A of Session 3 with Dr Sven van de Wetering here 

Drug Addiction is Kashmir’s new Terrorist

Farooq Wani
-
0
Drug Addiction is Kashmir’s new Terrorist

Foreign sponsored violence in Kashmir and the resultant trauma to the youth has largely remained unaddressed. Lack of focused healthcare services and increased proliferation of drugs has exacerbated the problems multi-fold. Drug addiction has been on the rise for last few years and as a result today over 2.5 lakh (0.25 million) youth are either addicted or affected by drugs across the Kashmir Valley. With hardly any mental healthcare facilities or de-addiction centres, Kashmiris have been left to fend for themselves in the face of this debilitating problem.

Latest data of the Srinagar police control room’s (PCR) de-addiction centre paints a grim picture. Out of the entire lot, most drug abusers fall in the age group of 18-35 years. While the numbers affected is very high, the patient flow at the de-addiction centre is alarming. Last year, 633 were registered at the PCR, which has gone up to 1,978. While 81% were male, there were over 19% females also, suggesting that the number of female drug abusers too is on the rise in an otherwise conservative society. Started in 2008, the PCR’s de-addiction centre has treated 6,693 abusers till date. It is high time to take steps to check this alarming rate of addiction in the Valley.

Kashmir’s youth, faced with the larger issues of lack of education, capability building, unemployment and corrupt practices in the areas related to recruitment for government services, are taking refuge in drugs. The highest number of addicts belong to the category of youth that were born in 1990s and have seen maximum violence. They are the ones who need opportunities and means to realise their dreams.

Conflict, high unemployment rate, tenuous relationships, peer pressure, family disputes, love breakups and death of loved ones and split families are main reasons behind the addiction,” says a psychologist from the Indian Army who has recently been instrumental in starting a series of drug de-addiction centres by the Indian Army in the Valley.

The PCR’s stress management cell has received more than 567 calls from February 2018 to September 2018. “Suicidal tendencies were evident. Exam-related stress queries also topped among the callers. The PCR is grappling to address the increasing rush of patients. More than 55 patients are in the waiting list this month,” explains a government doctor working on the problem.

Another doctor from a government hospital says, “We don’t have enough space to accommodate all the patients. We treat them during the OPD hours.” The doctors consider easy availability of drugs as one big reason for the alarming rise in abusers.

Commonly abused drugs are benzodiazepine, sleeping pills, cough syrups and Alprax. “Besides opium, fluid, brown sugar and alcohol addiction is also common among the youth. More than 85% patients have recovered through ‘social intervention plan,’ and it has played a pivotal role in rehabilitation process,” adds the doctor from government hospital.

The social intervention plan comprised individual sessions, family sessions, identification of stressor in the family, antagonist consent, work rehabilitation, relapse prevention education and pre-discharge counselling. Kashmir University directorate of lifelong learning is planning to initiate a one-month vocational course for rehabilitating drug addicts. This way many will earn livelihood and recover as a fruitful citizen. Experts are convinced that society must come forward and help the drug addicts to recover. They need to be integrated as normal citizens.

A patient’s mother said “Why is the drug problem of this magnitude? Why are the authorities not doing anything about it?”

Several studies carried out on addiction in the Valley reveals a strong correlation between conflict and drug abuse. The studies show that in Kashmir, drugs are not used for recreational purposes but as a coping mechanism to deal with the stresses. Apart from the immediate damage to drug abusers, the medium and long term corrosion to the very fabric of the society by the use of prescription drugs and banned narcotics has been well established in many other places in the world. In a study done at the Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital (GPDH) in 2002, doctors compared drug trends in patients from the 1980-88 and in 2002. The figures not only show a shocking state of affairs but also indicate how deep-rooted the scourge of addiction is. An alarming increase of over 60% was reported in the use of opiate-based preparations (9.5% to 73.61%), and an over 25% increase in multiple substance-abuse (15.8% to 41.6%), from the 1980s to 2002. It is difficult to break the nexus between chemists, peddlers and the police, admits a high-ranking police official. As per his estimation districts of South Kashmir such as Sopore are the worst hit in the Valley.

The drug menace in Kashmir is quite different from any other part of the world. Here addicts avoid alcohol due to religious reasons and also because it is traceable (it has a strong smell), injections also leave marks, so they stick to benzodiazepines, codeine phosphate and opiates, which are easily available and can only be traced during the middle and the severe phases of addiction. Unless there are immediate measures taken from all quarters of society, and a long term effort is made to re-integrate this population into the mainstream, youth of Kashmir will pass on this disease to their next generation. After terrorism, drug addiction in Kashmir has become a new threat for the Valley’s youth.

In order to offset the acute shortage of Drug Rehabilitation Centres in the Valley the Indian Army, under its welfare initiative “Operation Sadbhavna” is opening facilities. Two centres in Srinagar and Baramulla are already functional and more are in the pipeline. It is high time for the Government to come up with certain concrete steps to curb this menace and save future generations in Kashmir. Such a step would also be in tune with the attempts to cut off recruitment of youth into the fold of terrorism which has emerged as a core policy of the government to usher peace in the Kashmir Valley.

Q & A on the Philosophical Foundations of Psychology: Session1

Scott Douglas Jacobsen
-
0
Q & A on the Philosophical Foundations of Psychology: Session1

Dr. Sven van de Wetering is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of the Fraser Valley, Canada. His research interests are in “Conservation Psychology, lay conceptions of evil, relationships between personality variables and political attitudes.” In a 4-part interview series, we explore the philosophical foundations of psychology.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dr. Sven van de Wetering, I would like to dig deeper into our conversation about the philosophical foundations of psychology. So let us start with what is psychology?
Dr. Sven van de Wetering: Psychology is the attempt to apply the same high epistemological criteria that have made the natural sciences such a success to a set of questions that preoccupy almost everyone, namely, why our fellow humans think, feel, and act the way they do. Because psychology asks an enormous range of questions, its various subfields have relatively little in common with each other, aside from striving for epistemological rigour.

SJ: Psychology seems to create epistemological issues, which, in turn, make for ontological issues. Could you please further discuss the place of epistemology in psychology. And what are some of the more hotly debated issues surrounding it?
Dr. Sven van: Every undergraduate programme in psychology that I know of teaches two lower-level courses that deal almost entirely with epistemology. One of these is a course in statistics, and the second is a course in research methods. Between them, these courses introduce the fundamentals of methodology in psychology.
These courses are difficult to teach. Perhaps because so many psychology students are terrified of math. A frequent response of students being forced to take their first course in psychological statistics is to get very focused on the details of conducting the statistical analyses, and lose sight of the worldview on which those psychological statistics are based. Essentially, the idea is that the human world is a very complex place, and that the common western intuition that single causes give rise to single effects is not helpful in trying to figure out what is going on. Instead, a human being is subject to many influences at any given time, some internal, some external, and some with their roots in the individual’s distant past. Many of these influences are practically invisible, and even if we went to the trouble of attempting to make ourselves aware of every single one of those influences, we still would not know how all those different factors interact. To cope with the uncertainty induced by this overwhelming complexity, we create the simplifying fiction of random variation.
Instead of seeing causes and effects as being tightly coupled in human affairs, we see influences that increase or decrease the probability of certain human behaviours within that allegedly random matrix of behavioural possibility. Thus, we partition this blooming, buzzing confusion of human behaviour into two components: a portion that we think we can attribute to a small group of influences we are currently examining, and another portion that we attribute to the much larger group of influences we are not currently studying, and that we thus dismiss as error variance.  Statistics is therefore used to separate the signal from the noise in this framework, and research methods are a set of techniques we use to amplify the signal so that the statistical techniques can be picked out more easily.
One thing that has always bemused me about psychological research is the extent to which we can typically only explain a few percent of the variances for any given phenomenon. This is due to nothing more than the fact that picking up the signal is hard. This is nothing to be ashamed of, but the focus on the signal is so intense that I think we often lose sight of the fact that the noise is also human behaviour. I would love to see psychological discourse focus a little more on the variances we cannot explain, not so much as a lesson in humility, but just as a way of cultivating an awareness of what incredibly complicated creatures human beings are.

SJ: What was the first tacit epistemology in psychological research? In other words, who can be considered the first psychologist? And what was their approach to psychology?
Dr. Sven van: At the risk of sounding very boring and conventional, I am going to say Wilhelm Wundt. He called his approach “physiological” (what we now call experimental). What he meant by this is that he would attempt to present people with highly controlled stimuli in order to evoke a tightly circumscribed set of responses. This actually does not make him that much different from some people that came before him, such as Fechner. His really big innovation however was to create a group of researchers (i.e. graduate students). Wundt recognized that science is a fundamentally social enterprise, and that the proverbial mad scientist in the tower in the thunderstorm is an object of suspicion and derision not because he is mad, but because he is socially isolated.
Communicating one’s findings with other scientists (Wundt also created the first psychology journal) and training other young scientists in one’s techniques is not a peripheral enterprise. The essence of science is that it is self-correcting, but for various psychological reasons, individuals are not very good at correcting themselves. It is only by subjecting their work to the scrutiny of other scientists that any given scientist can obtain the benefits of this self-correcting aspect of the scientific method. It is for this reason that I consider the hype surrounding Wilhelm Wundt completely justified.

SJ: What are some of the major sub-fields, and their fundamental philosophical disagreements, of the discipline?
Dr. Sven van: The number of subfields in psychology is very large, but I would have to say that the major tension within psychology is between people who emphasize the epistemological rigour discussed above and the people who focus on real-world relevance. Few psychologists want to discard either rigour or relevance, but there is sometimes a bit of a trade-off between the two.
Experiments that allow researchers to establish tight linkages between causes and effects often make use of highly controlled laboratory tasks that are quite unlike the sort of situations most people face in their day-to-day lives. Real-world relevance, on the other hand, may come when we try to conduct therapy on someone with real psychological problems. Because the client is often in the midst of a highly complex life situation, strict experimental control is likely to be difficult or impossible to implement, and opportunities for rigour are greatly diminished.
As I said, most of us want both rigour and relevance, but we often have to trade them off against each other. Some people are willing to give up relatively little rigour in the name of relevance, and stay in their laboratories. Others prize relevance above all else, and will sacrifice a great deal of rigour for the sake of having a fighting chance of being useful to people in need.
I think part of the reason this creates so much tension is exactly because psychologists value both rigour and relevance. The ones who, to many outside observers, seem pretty irrelevant, tend to justify themselves by claiming to be more relevant than most other people think they are. Similarly, the relevant practitioners often think they are more epistemologically rigorous than they really are. Thus, much of the tension comes not from differences in opinion about what to give up for the sake of what, but rather anger at the other group for disputing their self-perceptions as both rigorous and relevant.

SJ: Thank you for your time Dr. Sven van de Wetering. It is always a pleasure talking to you.

Read Q & A of Session 2 with Dr Sven van de Wetering here
Read Q & A of Session 3 with Dr Sven van de Wetering here

ISRO Scientist was maliciously prosecuted

Dr KBS Rajan
-
0
ISRO Scientist was maliciously prosecuted

The state government of Kerala and its police framed ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in a bid to derail India’s prestigious cryogenic programme

The sensational case of Nambi Narayanan, a renowned ISRO scientist, which commenced with his midnight arrest on November 30, 1994 on allegations of espionage were found to be false by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during its initial investigations and they filed a closure report before Criminal Court. The CBI’s closure report came after meticulous, sustained and painstaking investigations after which they concluded that the allegations of espionage against Narayanan and other scientists were false. The acceptance of the said report by Criminal Court thereby discharging Nambi Narayanan was affixation of an indelible stamp of malicious prosecution by the Kerala Police. It is thereafter that the CBI, independent of its above closure report, rendered another report addressing it to the Chief Secretary of Kerala highlighting the omissions and commissions of the Kerala State Police stating that it was unprofessional on the part of Sibi Mathew (his designation at that time) to have ordered indiscriminate arrest of top ISRO scientists.

The CBI further stated that Sibi Mathew and his team miserably failed even in conducting verification of the records of Hotels which were located at Trivandrum to ascertain the veracity of the statement of accused persons and suggested that “the above facts are being brought to the notice of the competent authority for their kind consideration and for such action as deemed fit.” With filing of the Closure Report by CBI before the Criminal Court, criminal case of espionage against Nambi Narayanan should have come to an end and their other report submitted to the State Government of Kerala must have initiated criminal and departmental proceedings against the erring Police Officers of the Kerala Police.

But, marginalizing the CBI reports, the State Government of Kerala decided to withdraw the earlier notification entrusting the matter to CBI and to have the re-investigation conducted through its own State Machinery, raising another pregnant legal question as to the power of the State in this regard. This issue was considered exhaustively and decided by the Apex Court in the case of K. Chandrasekhar vs State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223 which declared lack of jurisdiction of the State Government in ordering for re-investigation and in addition, the Court profusely dealt with the main matter of illegal arrest and conspicuously highlighted the high handedness of the State Government and passed strictures against it and branded the entire action of the State as one of “malafide exercise of power”. The Court has held: “Even if it is assumed that the State Government had the requisite power and authority to issue the impugned notification, still the same would be liable to be quashed on the ground of malafide exercise of power, eloquent proof thereof being facts and circumstances on the record.”

Coeval with the challenge to the jurisdiction of the State in ordering re-investigation, was the filing by Nambi Narayanan of a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission against Human Rights Violations which he was subjected to at the hands of erring Kerala State Police. The Human Rights Commission examined the case and inter alia held as under: “In our considered opinion, this is an unusual case of gross violation of human rights of a repute scientist whose long and distinguished career in space research has been tarnished apart from the physical and mental torture to which he and his family were subjected in the above manner. It is difficult to assess in precise terms the monetary compensation to which he is entitled… The Commission considers the sum of Rs 10 lakhs as the appropriate ‘immediate interim relief’ under section 8(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to be paid to the complainant by the Government of Kerala. This amount be paid within a period of two months and compliance reported to the Commission.”

Nambi Narayanan has also asserted his legal rights in claiming compensation for the damage suffered by him, by filing a civil suit which is still pending. The comprehensive report of the CBI addressed to the State which ought to have triggered the state machinery to function swiftly in taking action against the erring police officials was only made to hibernate and in its own testudinal pace the cunctator government dealt with the issue in its leisure hours, and on the basis of certain reasons: One, on the advice of State Police Chief on CBI Report and two, the absence of any direction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Apex Court to take action against the investigating officers. With the passage of 15 years time by then, the State Government of Kerala decided to close the entire case and thus exonerated the said police officials.

It was this decision of the State that forced Nambi Narayanan to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance. A Single Judge examined the entire issue and framed the material question as to whether the State Government was justified in deciding not to take any action against the erring police officers. The learned Single Judge analysed the case from all angles -– the casual approach of the Kerala Government in considering the report of the CBI; torture inflicted upon Nambi Narayanan, (pointing out that “the very arrest and detention of innocent persons on false accusations Is nothing but torture”), the calamitous effect and consequence of “midnight arrests or house breaking by the police” throwing the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and liberty to the mercy of the executives which would sound the death knell of an egalitarian democratic society and came to the conclusion that the decision of the Kerala Government “does not comport with the known pattern of a responsible government bound by rule of law ” and thus held that the decision should be reconsidered and any action taken “shall not be namesake, making administration of justice a mockery.” However, against the above decision of the Single Judge, the Kerala State did not move to the Division Bench of the High Court but the private respondents – the three police officers – did. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court etiolated the CBI report as one of the opinion and held that it is for the government to consider or not to consider and its decision is based on sound reasons and ultimately, it narrowed down the entire case into a single question when it stated, “Whether relying on such a report any disciplinary action should be taken against the concerned Police officers is the only question”. And stating that it is within the realm of the Government and that “it may not be proper for this Court exercising power under Article 226 to interfere with such decision making process and arrive at a different finding or to direct Government to reconsider the same” and further stating that as to the finding “whether the accused were tortured or not is a disputed question of fact”, and thus it is for agencies such as the National Human Rights Commission and the Civil Court which Nambi Narayanan has approached to arrive at a proper finding regarding such disputed facts. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court not only allowed the Appeal but also set aside the earlier Judgment of the Single Judge. Undaunted by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, Nambi Narayanan decided to challenge their order and knocked at the doors of the Supreme Court in July, 2015. The Apex Court unhesitatingly and with a comprehensive order, issued notice to the State, the CBI and the three private respondents. And after elaborate hearing on a number of days and also permitting Nambi Narayanan to present his case, in the final judgment, the Apex Court stated, “To say the least, the delineation by the Division Bench is too simplistic.”

The Supreme Court analysed the matter under an enlarged horizon. First the Court adverted to the aspect of compensation and viewed the same from the point of public law remedy. It has reflected the anguish of Nambi Narayanan in the following words: “It is urged by the appellant that the prosecution launched against him by the Kerala police was malicious on account of two reasons, the first being that the said prosecution had a catastrophic effect on his service career as a leading and renowned scientist at ISRO thereby smothering his career, life span, savings, honour, academic work as well as self-esteem and consequently resulting in total devastation of the peace of his entire family which is an ineffaceable individual loss, and the second, the irreparable and irremediable loss and setback caused to the technological advancement in Space Research in India.”

After profusely quoting from the CBI report, the Supreme Court has categorically held, “From the aforesaid report, the harassment and mental torture faced by the appellant is obvious”. The Apex Court further observed, “The criminal law was set in motion without any basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, on some kind of fancy or notion. The liberty and dignity of the appellant which are basic to his human rights were jeopardized as he was taken into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, he was compelled to face cynical abhorrence. This situation invites the public law remedy for grant of compensation for violation of the fundamental right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a situation, it springs to life with immediacy. It is because life commands self-respect and dignity.” The Apex Court next focussed its attention on “custodial torture”. It held, “From the aforesaid analysis, it can be stated with certitude that the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 has been gravely affected. In this context, we may refer with profit how this Court had condemned the excessive use of force by the police.” The Supreme Court extracted from yet another decision in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association vs State of Gujarat, wherein it has been held – “The police has power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. The amplitude of this power casts an obligation on the police … [and it] must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated.” In fact, it was on the aforesaid principles and parameters that the case of Nambi Narayanan has been examined and the Supreme Court has arrived at the firm conclusion, “…there can be no scintilla of doubt that the appellant, a successful scientist having national reputation, has been compelled to undergo immense humiliation. The lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest anyone and put him in police custody has made the appellant to suffer the ignominy. The dignity of a person gets shocked when psycho-pathological treatment is meted out to him. A human being cries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified his self-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under the public law remedy. We are absolutely conscious that a civil suit has been filed for grant of compensation. That will not debar the constitutional court to grant compensation taking recourse to public law. The Court cannot lose sight of the wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, the humiliation and the defamation faced by the appellant”. Keeping in view the report of the CBI and the judgment rendered in 1998 the Supreme Court has held that “suitable compensation has to be awarded, without any trace of doubt, to compensate the suffering, anxiety and the treatment by which the quintessence of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution withers away. We think it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant and, accordingly, it is so ordered.” Time calendared for payment of the above amount is eight weeks. Apart from awarding the aforesaid compensation as public law remedy, the Supreme Court also stated, “…We hasten to clarify that the appellant, if so advised, may proceed with the civil suit wherein he has claimed more compensation.”

On the issue of conducting inquiry against the erring officials, the Supreme Court said: “We think that the obtaining factual scenario calls for constitution of a Committee to find out ways and means to take appropriate steps against the erring officials. For the said purpose, we constitute a Committee which shall be headed by Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court. The Central Government and the State Government are directed to nominate one officer each so that apposite action can be taken.” The case of Nambi Narayanan is unique and unprecedented. That all the media afforded priority to the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Nambi Narayanan’s case with front page coverage is the eloquent evidence to this fact. The case has multi-facets within. The human right violation has earlier been dealt with by the NHRC. The public law remedy has now been taken care of by the Apex Court and the civil Court has before it the pending compensation suit for damages. In between, the jurisdiction aspect of the State Government of Kerala by ordering re-investigation after the highest investigating agency (CBI) had conducted the investigation has also been dealt with by the Apex Court in its earlier judgment. While the National Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court in K. Chandrasekhar case (supra) and in its present judgment and the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala have all held in favour of Nambi Narayanan, it is only the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court that held against him by vilipending the judgment of the Single Judge of Kerala High Court. If one may say so, when target is fixed and justifications sought thereafter, justice is the casualty. Nambi Narayanan’s perseverance has brought him his remarkable success. No doubt, he had to wait for twenty four years. But his patience paid. As the Hindi saying goes, there may be delay but not darkness in God’s Court. Faith of the general public in judiciary has increased manifold. The motto of the Apex Court “Yato Dharma tato Jaya” (where there is Dharma, there is victory) is overwhelmingly manifested in the judgment in the case of Nambi Narayanan.  

Kerala Police and IB in the dock over botched up investigations

Amar Bhushan
-
0
Kerala Police and IB in the dock over botched up investigations

ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan’s false indictment exposes the pitfalls of investigating espionage by Police and Intelligence Agencies

Nambi Narayanan, former in-charge of cryogenics division in ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation), must be a happy man today. He no longer carries the stigma of being an espionage agent. In 2018, Supreme Court exonerated him completely of all charges and has now awarded monetary compensation of fifty lakh rupees, apart from constituting an SIT (Special Investigative Team) to inquire into the role of police officers of Kerala and Intelligence Bureau in maliciously framing him for allegedly selling the technology of cryogenic engine to Pakistan in lieu of huge amount of money. It is some relief for a man whose personal life, career and reputation had been ruined and who remained ostracized for nearly a decade with no relief coming from subordinate courts, media and the civil society.

His case illustrates the systemic infirmities in dealing with an espionage case. Investigative agencies like the Police and the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) look for evidence that can conclusively link the suspect with his handler and the organization that he is supposed to be working for. It is not easy to obtain such evidence as they involve finding an operative based out of India and an intelligence service that works behind a cobweb of subterfuge. Since the emphasis of investigators is on procuring evidence that stands the judicial scrutiny, their ‘intent’ and ‘training’ push them to decide which evidence to choose, which to discard and how to handle suspects in the interrogation centre and how far to go to fix the evidences. The ‘intent’ can be both genuine and mischievous. In Nambi Narayanan’s case, the initial intent of IB (Intelligence Bureau) and state CID of Kerala Police may have been to expose an espionage module which threatened to sabotage country’s ambitious cryogenic engine development programme. However, subsequent events clearly demonstrated that the intent was self-serving and at times, diabolic.

Nambi’s tryst with misfortune began in October 1994, when based on an IB input, the police seized a diary from Maldivian women – Mariam Rasheeda and Fauzia Hassan. During their interrogation, Nambi’s name surfaced. Thereafter it was all mayhem. He along with his colleague D. Sasikumaran and five others were arrested and interrogated harshly and charged under the Secrets Act for leaking designs of cryogenic engine in lieu of receiving unaccounted millions from the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s espionage agency) and sexual favours from the two women. It is a different matter that the search of his house and a check on his antecedents embarrassed the investigators comprehensively.

The media had a field day, intoxicated by the heady cocktail of information involving women, ISI and ISRO. They continuously ran angry and salacious stories, calling upon the then UDF government to purge ISRO of traitors and expose the US conspiracy of derailing India’s PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle) programme. Inevitably, the politics got involved. Leftists blamed the government for soft-pedalling the case under American pressure. Even opponents of Chief Minister Karunakaran in the Congress conspired with the opposition to have Karunakaran removed. His ouster was reminiscent of withdrawal of Congress support to Prime Minister Chandrashekhar on the spurious ground that the latter had authorized surveillance around Rajiv Gandhi’s residence.

Finally, CBI entered the scene. They had the benefit of looking at evidence collected by the Kerala Police from a distance and a little more objectively. They encountered no ISI operative, no evidence of Nambi’s sexual escapades, no acquisition of unexplained wealth, no incriminating conversations, calls or communications and no breach of security of his work in ISRO. In 1996, they dismissed all charges against Nambi Narayanan and D. Sasikumar and submitted a closure report which the court promptly accepted. Not happy with the CBI’s course of action, the state government of Kerala issued a notification authorizing the Police to re-investigate the case and even obtained its endorsement from Kerala High Court.

However, it was in 2018 that the Supreme Court exonerated both indicted scientists, with all retrospective service benefits. For Nambi Narayanan, it had been a long journey of pain, humiliation and loss of a promising career as a scientist. But he traveled the distance courageously. The Intelligence Bureau’s role in this case remained highly questionable. There is no denying that intelligence agencies–IB, R&AW and DMI (Directorate of Military Intelligence) face an envious task of uncovering an espionage agent. This is because they obtain information from sources who cannot be produced in courts as witnesses or from technical devises which can neither be shown nor played before judges to avoid compromising their operating tools. At best, they can share information with the Police in confidence which it must get corroborated by prosecutable evidences. The intelligence agencies’ occupation is merely to identify the suspect, understand his motive, his modus operandi and know about his network of contacts.

IB’s role should have ended once Nambi Narayanan was taken for questioning, waiting for him to reveal ISI’s collaborators in the ISRO and the role of Maldivian intelligence agencies in subverting Indian nationals at Pakistan’s behest. Instead, they acted as investigators and manufactured information to fill the gaps in the evidence. They sold to Kerala Police a calamitous picture of what Nambi was up to. The IB officer who was supervising the case from Delhi was known for his obsession with the ISI. He apparently convinced himself that Maldivian girls were ISI agents and they had honey-trapped Nambi Narayanan and Sasi Kumaran to steal the cryogenic technology to benefit Pakistan. Late President APJ Abdul Kalam who headed the solid propulsion system in ISRO at the time of this incident, chose the IB’s centenary endowment lecture to mention in his inimitable style that sometimes in the intelligence game, innocents were unfortunately picked and framed. He hoped that IB would draw right lessons from the indignities heaped on his friend Nambi Narayanan and Sasi Kumaran and avoid inflicting similar tragedies. The sting in his simple words was for everyone in the auditorium to feel.

IB made the same mistake when it hounded Ratan Sehgal, one of its brightest officers and forced him to retire. Sehgal’s frequent meetings with a US diplomat was cited as evidence to condemn him as an espionage agent for the US. It was never proved what secrets he shipped. Actually, he was far too smart to be subverted but was felled by departmental pettiness. Like him, Nambi Narayanan was far too wiser to sell liquid engine technology to the enemy. It had been his life-long passion and he had worked very hard to develop it, certainly not to share with Maldivian women. But then, he did not reckon the destructive power of the Police and IB.

The accused of Samba spy scandal fared worse than Nambi Narayanan and their sufferance was more gruesome. It happened in 1976 when based on IB’s intercepts, gunner Sarwan Das and his colleague Aya Singh were arrested in 1976 by the Army’s Military Intelligence (MI) for carrying out trans-border smuggling and peddling tactical information pertaining to troops’ location in the Samba sector in Jammu to the Pak Military Intelligence. Facing heat from ruthless interrogators, Das named Capt. Rathore and Capt. AK Rana as their accomplices who in turn implicated others to escape torture. Between 1978-79, 157 active duty Army officers including Brigadiers, Lt. Cols, Majors, Captains, JCOs, NCOs of 168 infantry Brigade and its subordinate units and 11 civilians were arrested on charges of spying for Pakistan. Their merciless questioning produced volumes of doctored confessions. Later, in a farcical Court Martial trial, 19 officers were sacked, 14 including Rana and Rathore were sentenced to life imprisonment and others were departmentally punished. Twenty-two years later, the Delhi High Court termed their trial a monumental miscarriage of justice and exonerated all of them. However, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement under an erroneous belief that the clock could not be turned back after so many years, when all accused had long completed their punishment. It was a unique case of espionage in which droves of officers and men were punished based on confessions, extracted in interrogation centres. There were no independent evidences, no verifiable technical inputs and no witnesses that could conclusively link the indicted officers with the Pak Military Intelligence.

R&AW faced its Nambi Narayanan moment in 2004 when Rabinder Singh, a joint Secretary, was suspected for working for the CIA. He was promptly placed under video and audio surveillance, which produced huge data, clearly hinting that he was passing classified papers to the CIA. But neither his handler nor footprints of his operating agency ever blipped on surveillance radar. He was also never seen handing over any classified document to any unauthorized person. There was enormous pressure from all quarters on the chief investigator to arrest Singh on suspicion, interrogate him and extract a confession. And if the espionage case did not stick, then the suggestion was to plant drugs, weapons and secret documents on his person and frame him in a different case to punish him. The investigator argued that fearing torture, Singh would surely spin a story like Samba officers and Maldivian girls and falsely implicate former chiefs, politicians, retired defence officers, RAW officers etc. He therefore refused to arrest Singh in the absence of conclusive evidences. The suspect meanwhile escaped from India and landed in the US with the CIA’s help.

The media, security experts and misinformed people pilloried this RAW investigator for letting Singh go unpunished but the latter did not relent. Unlike in the case of Nambi Narayanan and Samba spy scandal, he refused to let doctored confessions be the basis for prosecuting Singh. It was a very difficult decision to take but he took it nevertheless, for it was legally justifiable and morally sustainable. If Kerala police and the IB had restrained themselves from concocting evidences with dubious intent, ISRO would have launched PSLV with liquid cryogenic engine of Nambi Narayanan and his team, a decade earlier

Scourge of Wahhabism exists even today: Govindacharya

Vivek Sinha
-
0
Scourge of Wahhabism exists even today: Govindacharya

Sangh stalwart KN Govindacharya is upset at RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat for saying MS Golwalkar’s (Guru ji) thoughts in the book “Bunch of Thoughts” are not eternal.

RSS Chiefs are recognised as original thinkers whose words, speeches and writings form the basis of Sangh’s functioning and of its over 36 affiliate organisations, which includes its political arm Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). On 19th September, Dr Mohan Bhagwat, the current RSS Chief, explained to an eager audience at New Delhi’s imposing Vigyan Bhavan that Sangh no longer follows each and every word written in Golwalkar’s famous book “Bunch of Thoughts”. Bhagwat was responding to a question of whether RSS still considers Muslims in a negative light as portrayed in the “Bunch of Thoughts”.

“….when we speak of “Bunch of Thoughts”, when we discuss anything, we do it with reference to the circumstance and context. It does not remain eternal,” Dr Bhagwat explained. Golwalkar, lovingly referred by Sangh swayamsevaks as Guru ji was the second RSS Chief and his writings have largely been the guiding philosophy of Sangh over the last several decades.

Dr Bhagwat further explained that eternal thoughts of Guru ji has been penned in Golwalkar’s another book “Vision & Mission”. This was indeed quite a departure from the earlier working and thought processes within the Sangh. “Bunch of Thoughts” is one of the few authentic writings of Guru ji that has remained as the guiding philosophy of millions of Swayamsevaks. Selecting excerpts from this book and announcing that certain issues and concerns (about Muslims) are raised only in a specific context has raised some eyebrows and created quite a flutter.

Sangh ideologue KN Govindacharya said: “To cull portions from the ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ implying that the next editions will not carry these passages…who has the rights for these…you may differ from ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ you may even disassociate with certain sections but denying its existence is doing injustice to the facts.” Govindacharya explained that even if there is a need to disassociate from certain thoughts of Guru ji then, “…What will be the parameters and what will be the forum… to change the beliefs of Sangh…though the finality may rest with the Sarsanghachalak…what is the context…are these sections constant as eternal values or they are variable as changing society…” Govindacharya wanted to know what has changed since 1960s, when Golwalkar wrote Bunch of Thoughts, which is being recognized and accepted today. “Is the scourge of Wahhabism not present today that was present in the 1960s? Has fundamentalism lessened in today’s time? Has anything been discarded by the religious heads of Semitic religions in context of India?” Govindacharya questioned. He quickly added: “Has jihad been discarded or has conversion been said to be anti-religious? These are some of the questions that need to be thought over deeply.”

Dattopant Thengadi had once said that if you want to damage an organisation just do two things: One, increase the comfort level of cadres and two, make the leaders status conscious. This will ensure that the leader is cut off from their cadre and the cadre will be cut off from the masses. “Thengadi ji was quoting his conversations with Congress politician DP Mishra. Mishra told Jawaharlal Nehru that he (Nehru) had been a great help to Sangh by imposing a ban on the RSS. Mishra explained that around 65,000 people have been incarcerated by the then Nehru government and these people are being infused with RSS ideology in jails, all at the government expense. The government is not going to keep them behind bars forever and whenever they step out these well-groomed RSS cadre will be the torch bearers of Sangh ideology,” Govindacharya reminisced. He further explained that Nehru asked Mishra what would have he done. Mishra replied that he would have constructed posh offices for Sangh in all districts replete with modern luxury facilities, such that the RSS cadres need not step out and remained confined within their luxurious offices.

In fact, in the 2002 meeting of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Thengadi ji had said: “At times it is better to be right and be irresponsible than be wrong and responsible”. Govindacharya said that Thengadi ji explained that in a healthy organisation the functioning will be healthy but in an unhealthy organisation the healthy work functioning will have its boundaries and limits.

Delving deeper into his thoughts Govindacharya recalled the sequence of events where the authentic transcript of the final speech of Golwalkar ji was lost due to unforeseen circumstances. “A booklet named Disha Bodh was published in 1972. When I read it I felt that all the essentials (of Guru ji’s speech) were left out. I did not feel good. I had listened with great concentration to what Guru ji had said in this meeting, and a lot of things which even I remembered were not present in that booklet. There was a tick system that was followed for writing notes during those times, which was a kind of note taking through relay method. The notes were taken in this fashion of Guru ji’s last speech. I spoke to Thengadi ji and asked for those notes. Thengadi ji said that it was kept on the racks of the basement of Hedgewar Bhawan. But, emergency was imposed in 1975 and in July the basement was flooded. Somehow these notes and other literature in drenched and half- drenched condition were recovered. All these notes were then sent over to the homes of Swayamsevaks because emergency was still in place. When emergency was lifted all these notes were brought back. Dattopant ji said that all other notes came back but the notes of the 1972 meeting and Guru ji’s speech never came back,” Govindacharya recalled, a tinge of sadness was clearly visible in his eyes.
“I told Dattopant ji that you were also present in that meeting and you remember a lot of these things…you have also said that it is the magnum opus and there is hardly anything left to say after this. It was said with such finality. It will be good if you write about what Guru ji had said in that last meeting,” Govindacharya said. On this request of Govindacharya Dattopant Thengadi ji replied: “Listen I cannot even dare to tinker with anything about what Guru ji had said. And I am not even qualified to write that Guru ji had said such and such thing. I can only say about my views. But that Guru ji had said such and such things I cannot say this.”

In the absence of this authentic last speech of MS Golwalkar which Dattopant Thengadi called as the magnum opus, it is the “Bunch of Thoughts” and other books written by Golwalkar that have guided scores of Sangh Pracharaks and other Swayamsevaks. As Govindacharya has said Golwalkar had the foresight and clarity of thoughts to talk about the threats from an ever-rising Muslim population which is increasingly coming under the influence of Wahhabi thoughts. Several other Sangh ideologues also expressed their displeasure on Bhagwat’s disowning the sections of “Bunch of Thoughts”

RSS walks on a tight rope

Vivek Sinha
-
0
RSS walks on a tight rope

RSS is still unable to set the discourse in India. In order to change this ecosystem, Sangh Chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat reached out to intellectuals in a mega-conclave. He ended up disowning portions of Golwalkar’s book “Bunch of Thoughts”. Other Sangh stalwarts are not happy.

In this era of information overload it’s the perception that matters. People, organisations, leaders and communities have to manage and fight out this perception battle. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)— world’s largest voluntary organisation, that boasts of millions of Swayamsevaks (voluntary workers), has been at the receiving end of this perception management, thanks to concerted efforts by the cabal of Communist-Congress nexus.

Ever since its inception in 1925, RSS remained too involved in the grass roots work and committed to its famed “man making” of Indian citizens, which in effect means character building and instilling patriotic fervour about India. Perception management became a casualty in this effort, so much so that over the last seven decades since India’s independence RSS had to remain content with a negative press largely controlled by Communist card holders.

Mohan Bhagwat, the sixth RSS Chief (SarSanghachalak) decided to take things head on. The three-day outreach programme from September 17 to 19 at New Delhi’s Vigyan Bhawan was aimed at this course correction. RSS functionaries had dished out invites to leaders across political parties, luminaries of film industry, media barons, academicians, lawyers, among others. The invitee list was carefully prepared to have ardent critics of Sangh in the VVIP arena of Vigyan Bhawan.

What followed was a three-day dose by Bhagwat on nationalism, education, women’s rights, security issues, Muslims, Uniform Civil Code and Sangh’s thinking about these issues.

It was a monologue and questions were allowed only during tea and lunch breaks where RSS functionaries described about Sangh, its thinking and their ideology in an informal chit-chat. Well, superficially it was a genuine effort by an organisation that had always been the favourite whipping boy of historians, academicians and media. An entire generation was made to believe that Sangh is a conglomeration of blood-thirsty men who wear outdated ballooned khaki shorts, imprison their women in purdahs, have often targeted freedom fighters and are a cult organisation which should be banned.

Even as historians sang paeans about Jawaharlal Nehru and their communist stooges hailed the efforts of Sheikh Abdullah in Kashmir they conveniently forgot to tell the world about RSS’s herculean efforts to keep Jammu Kashmir as an integral part of India. It is hardly mentioned in history books that it was only on the persuasion of Madhav Sadashivrao Golwalkar, lovingly called Guru ji by RSS swayamsevaks, that Hari Singh the erstwhile ruler of princely state of Jammu Kashmir signed on the Instrument of Accession and so Kashmir became an integral part of India. Academicians never bother to discuss or research about the Praja Parishad Movement in Jammu Kashmir and the martyrdom of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the twin events which brought relative calm during the turbulent times in Jammu Kashmir immediately after independence.

During the Indo-China war it were the RSS Swayamsevaks who responded to clarion call by Nehru and offered unconditional support during the war. Acknowledging RSS’s efforts during the war a contingent of RSS participated in the Republic Day parade of 1963. Yet again this piece of history remains on the margins. There’s hardly any footage or photographs available of this historic moment. The reason was clear: Erase from public memory all good deeds and moments about the RSS.

The 1975 Emergency that was fought tooth and nail by the RSS remains another forgotten chapter in contemporary India’s history. In fact, before Narendra Modi took the reins of India in 2014 hardly any editor, academician or historian mustered courage to talk about the atrocities and high-handedness of Indira Gandhi during Emergency. Stories about the men who stood against this brutal assault and rape of Indian democracy have been systematically erased.

Fast forward to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Movement in 1992. It was the demolition of disputed structure referred to as the Babari Mosque that got massive coverage and efforts were made to implicate RSS and its cadres for masterminding it. The indiscriminate firing on karsewaks (devotees) by the then Uttar Pradesh government led by Mulayam Singh that led to the death of thousands of karsevaks was brushed aside as a law and order issue. Even today debates, discussions and talks take place about 6th December 1992 but thousands of innocent people killed in cold blooded murder by the UP Police in targeted firings on 1st and 2nd November 1990 on orders from Mulayam Singh government is seldom talked about. Ditto for the Godhra carnage of 2002. Reams have been written about Modi-led Gujarat government leading the pogrom against Muslims but unsuspecting karsevaks being burnt alive on the Sabarmati Express train coach is seldom talked about and is conveniently forgotten.

The Sangh leadership has been well aware of this phenomenon. With Narendra Modi at the helm since 2014 situation may have been a tad conducive and media slightly more considerate in objectively analysing the RSS and its ideology, yet the seven-decade old stranglehold of Congress-Communist clique has meant that even today genuine national issues are brushed aside and the country continues to discuss and debate frivolous issues.

It were these factors in mind when RSS Chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat decided to catch the bull by its horns and dished out invitation to all, to come and listen to what RSS is and its idea of Bharat. The chosen theme was “Bharat of Future”. The RSS functionaries worked overtime to reach out to the Sangh’s fiercest critics and doled out VVIP invites. The expectation was that the Sangh’s critics would come, listen to Bhagwat’s lecture, indulge in one-to-one interactions get their doubts cleared and walk away with a change of heart. After all Sangh’s philosophy has been that ‘to know about Sangh one has to come over to Sangh’.

Even the most die-hard optimist would agree that this was an innocent assumption and quite naïve assumption. Well, the critics whom RSS and its leaders are trying to win over are no usual critics rather almost all of them are well informed captains of their respective fields who defend their fiefdoms with zeal. They are the satraps who know each and every fact and they carefully choose what to ignore and what to highlight. This ensures that the country gets to know only those facts which benefits these vile satraps and they continue to sway public perception about them as champions of free speech and liberals of the highest order.

RSS and its functionaries in their naivety believe that these critics can be won over by showing them the true picture of Sangh. Well nothing can be far from truth. A person in deep sleep can be shaken and told about the sunrise but a person who is wide-awake yet chooses to close his/her eyes cannot be informed about the sunrise. Bhagwat repeatedly said that it was not his intention to change anybody’s perspective rather to lay down the true facts before them.

It’s for the RSS to take stock of this initiative and how far it has been able to drive home its point. But the fact remains that even after four years of Modi government it’s still the Communist thugs who run the show and successfully set the national discourse. Sangh is still in a reactionary mode and is able to offer only bland statements and denials.

Ironically, while the three-day exercise was meant to win over the critics Bhagwat’s comments about Guru ji Golwalkar’s book “Bunch of Thoughts” has angered a section of senior Sangh stalwarts. Several of them have questioned the rationale about such announcement. Bhagwat and other Sangh functionaries have defended the move as the flexibility permitted by Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar to adopt changes according to changing times and evolve as per the times. Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar was the founder of RSS.

“When we speak of “Bunch of Thoughts”, we do it with reference to the circumstance and context. It does not remain eternal. The eternal thoughts of Guru ji (the second RSS Chief) have been penned in his book “His Vision & Mission”. All the past based thinking have been removed and only thoughts that are eternal based on the future have been kept in that book. You should read that, you will not find such topics there. The second thing is that the Sangh is not a closed group. If Dr. Hedgewar has said something that does not mean we will abide by it forever. As the time changes, so do the ideals of Sangh, our thinking, articulation also changes. And we have this permission to keep the change going from Dr. Hedgewar. Otherwise, he would have specified this clearly that he wants us to run a national volunteering union, start the branch; he did not tell us to do a single thing, he gave us ideas, teen volunteers used them, what they deemed suitable, they kept, the rest they discarded. The Sangh has been growing the same way. So, if you believe the Sangh to be a closed union, then questions arise in your mind regarding what is written in “Bunch of Thoughts”. I say, you should experience everything that the volunteers are doing today and how they think, all your questions will be answered,” Bhagwat said while answering questions on Muslims being projected in a negative light in “Bunch of Thoughts”.

Golwalkar’s book “Bunch of Thoughts” serves as the guiding philosophy of RSS volunteers and gives a sneak peek into the ideological moorings of Sangh.

Sangh stalwart KN Govindacharya was not convinced. He said one can disassociate from what Guru ji had said but there is no question of the issues being expunged from the book. “To cull portions from the ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ implying that the next editions will not carry these passages…who has the rights for these…you may differ from ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ you may even disassociate with certain sections but denying its existence is doing injustice to the facts.” Govindacharya explained that even if there is a need to disassociate from certain thoughts of Guru ji then too the parameters needs to be clearly spelt out and the forum chosen carefully. “It’s a question about changing the beliefs of Sangh…yes the finality may rest with the SarSanghachalak but the modalities need to be discussed.”

How far the Sangh critics have been swayed with Bhagwat’s philosophy is yet to be seen. Bhagwat himself said it categorically that the entire three-day event was not meant to convince anybody rather to state the facts before all and sundry.

The million dollar question that remains unanswered is that these fiercest critics of Sangh, who owe their allegiance to Communist philosophy, and are placed at high a pedestal academics, media, films, arts and culture are very well informed about Sangh, its ideologies, policies and facts. Their opposition to what RSS stands for is not done in the wake of naivety rather it’s done in full consciousness. Reason? Communism like other Semitic religions is a totalitarian concept that does not tolerate any alternative point of view. That there can be an indigenous approach than what is propagated by Maoist-Communists is anathema to them. Indoctrinated through lethal doses of Naxalism these people who fashion themselves as champions of liberalism are most illiberal class. It were these whom RSS thought could bring a change of heart through the 3-day conclave at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi.

The RSS functionaries should take note that their fiercest critics are not ill-informed rather they are well-informed and their opposition to Sangh is a well thought out strategy.

‘Mukhauta controversy has also stuck with Atal ji. This is unfortunate’

Vivek Sinha
-
0
‘Mukhauta controversy has also stuck with Atal ji. This is unfortunate’

Sangh stalwart KN Govindacharya in a candid chat with Vivek Sinha explains the sequence of events about how a wrong translation of the English word “face” to “mukhauta” in Hindi led to the word thrust upon him. He clarified that he had called Atal Bihari Vajpayee (former Indian Prime Minister) as the “face” of BJP. 

Q: You’ve been very closely associated with Atal ji. Please share with us some anecdotes, some of your personal experiences of working with him, how was he as a person, as a politician, and as the Prime Minister?
Ans: He was socially and personally a very sensitive person. His commitment to nation was far more intense than his commitment to the party or to self. He never thought that power is be-all and end-all, this was not his premise. He would avoid power at all costs. I’m very well reminded of one incident in 1984, when Shreemati Indira Gandhi was killed by her body guards and there was a huge commotion, unrest in the society. They wanted to vent their anger against the Sikh community. It was 1st November and there was this taxi stand in front of Atal ji’s house at 6 Raisina Road, nearby was the Youth Congress Office. An unruly mob moved towards this taxi stand targeting the taxi drivers. At that point Atal ji bravely stood in the way between the unruly mob crowd and the drivers, and he stood there till the police arrived. He had fairly understood that politically it may not have been the correct step but nationally it was the needed step. What happens to his politics? Does he gain votes by this or not? Or he loses votes, it was not a matter of concern for him at all at that point and that’s how he behaved. This was the reason that he could win the trust of all communities, because he was genuinely a socially sensitive person.

Q: It’s quite common that people who work together have certain kind of disagreements. Was there ever a disagreement between you and Atal ji, on any of the issues?
Ans: No, as I told you Atal ji was a socially sensitive person. And Atal ji was politically democratic to the core, this one has to understand. He definitely asserted whatever he believed, but, his foremost adherence was towards teamwork. So, even if his views were not adhered to he still continued with the party culture as a leader. This was his democratic attitude, it was the core of his personality. For example, about this Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Rath Yatra movement initially the talk was that maybe four central leaders should start from four corners of the nation and congregate at Ayodhya on 30th October. It was thought that this would be an appropriate way of movement and mobilization of people for kar seva on 30th October, 1990. Atal ji said that I don’t believe in this political mobilization so pardon me. Ultimately Advani ji agreed to it and from Somnath this kar seva was arranged, but Atal ji though he did not agree with this idea yet he participated in the rath yatra as a democrat, as a soldier of the political party. His speech at Delhi’s boat club on 4th April 1991 about Hindu, Hindu samaj, Hindu sanskriti was so intense, emotional, logical, factual. Atal ji was absolutely fantastic and majestic. This is what Atal ji was.

Q: Whenever we talk about Ram Janmabhoomi, we talk about 6th December 1992, but what was Atal ji’s reaction to indiscriminate firing on kar sevaks in 1990 that was ordered by Mulayam Singh, the then Chief Minister of UP?
Ans: He was sad about all this whatever was going on. He didn’t agree with the way it was talked ‘parinda par nahi maar sakta’ (even a bird cannot enter Ayodhya) that’s what Mulayam Singh ji had said and Atal ji talked to him that this is not the democratic way. He asserted that Mulayam Singh ji should take care of law and order but should not provoke others.

Q: Why did you call Atal ji as the “Mukhauta” of Sangh Parivar?
Ans: No, no, it’s not that, whatever I said, I never said ‘Mukhauta’. I was asked by British High Commission officials that ‘who is going to be the next president of your party’. That was the question asked by them to me. And to this I had answered that ‘there are so many versatile persons in our party’ and I also named eight of them. Then he asked me, ‘why not Atal ji?’ To this I had answered, ‘that because Atal ji is our Prime Ministerial candidate, he’s the most popular and the most accepted face of the party, by projecting him we expect to garner those extra percentage of votes, to romp home with absolute majority’. And they were convinced by this. But these British High Commission officials were accompanied by one Bhartiya person as well. He talked about our interaction to his colleagues in British High Commission office in Hindi. So now he told them ‘chehra’ instead of ‘face’. Then one of these gentlemen met Bhanu Pratap Shukla ji (former editor of RSS-mouthpiece Panchajanya) in the evening, and now he said, ‘mukhauta’ instead of ‘chehra’, and then after four days there was this news, the very news of Bhanu Pratap Shukla ji where he wrote that Govindacharya calls Atal ji as mukhauta of Sangh Parivar. A few days later it was translated in English and again the heading was “Govindacharya calls Atal a mask”. So, the journey of that phrase, it started from ‘face’ and then metamorphosed to ‘chehra’, then evolved from ‘chehra’ to ‘Mukhauta’ and finally from ‘Mukhauta’ to ‘mask’. I think the date when this was first published was 6th October 1997.

Q: So Bhanu Pratap Shukla did he not crosscheck with you when he attributed the“Mukhauta” remark to you? Rather he misquoted you.
Ans: Again, I will not blame him. Whatever was told to him, only thing is he could have verified it from me. That he didn’t, that he trusted whosoever reported to him, it is because of some age-old prejudice which may be there in his mind, so he did not feel the need or he did not have that trust or confidence in me that I would tell him the correct information or not. It happens.

Q: It’s been more than two decades since this rather unfortunate “Mukhauta” episode, yet even today whenever journalists or writers refer to you they do some background research they would always append this ‘mukhauta’ phrase to your name….
Ans: Because, Bharatiya journalism is afflicted with two malaise. One is, sensationalism and another is one-upmanship. Now because of these two they transgress the limit and cross the ‘laxman rekha’, which is the ethics of journalism.

Q: How did Atal ji react to all of this?
Ans: Atal ji was very much hurt by this so-called comment that I understand.

Q: Its been more than two decades since this episode. Does it still hurt you?
Ans: I have all the regards and sympathy for Atal ji. As for me, I contradicted it right on the day it was published in newspapers, I contradicted this and said all this (Mukhauta remark) was concocted and baseless. It has definitely hurt my reputation as an obedient worker of the party. Atal ji arrived from abroad, he was very much irked by what he read in the newspaper. So on one side he approached the Sangh adhikaaris, which was natural and let me clarify once again that there was a tape of the whole talk with British High Commission officials. When asked for it (the tapes) I said, ‘yes what can be a better testimony for me’. I clarified that I had not called Atal ji as the “mukhauta”and explained that if I have made any such undignified remark about any central leader then I will quit. I said to the then RSS Chief Sudharshan ji, ‘you just call me up, I’ll quit publicly’ because I was so confident that I have never told all this. That emphatic contradiction on my behalf was there, but a whole month passed and Atal ji had not contradicted. I told Atal ji on 30th October that Atal ji I have contradicted it in a dignified manner, quite emphatically, because I believed in it you got opportunity twice or thrice, press people hounded you for your comments but you never offered….

Q: He did not counter it? Atal ji never countered it?
Ans: On 30th October I told Atal ji, it’s alright that this issue is getting closed today but if I had been in your place I would have first contradicted very effectively to the press that Govind ji cannot say all this and then I would have gone in search of that tape (the recorded conversation with British High Commission officials) and after getting that tape I would have sent for Govind ji to announce his denial once again. And since it has not been done this epithet will stick on you, opposition leaders will mis-utilize this, that’s what I told him.

Q: And what was Atal ji’s reaction to this?
Ans: He said that ‘let’s leave it, jo ho gaya so ho gaya, ab aage ki socho, kaam karo’ (whatever has happened has happened, think ahead begin your work)

Q: Okay, and probably this is one of the reasons that this remark has stayed on with you..
Ans: Not with me, rather on him. It’s unfortunate. He didn’t deserve it.

Q: In his heart of hearts, did Atal ji know that you did not say this, did he believe that?
Ans: How can I know, but afterwards he never approached this topic.

Q: And how was his reaction to you in a later phase, was he as friendly as he was with you earlier?
Ans: Atal ji never questioned my motives, he had complete trust and faith in me as an obedient party worker, though he may not have been comfortable with my views and adherence to certain ideological and political aspects.

Q: Was Atal ji aware of the fact that he might lose the 2004 General elections?
Ans: See, the best part of Atal ji’s psychology was that he was a pessimist plus realist, he was not a blind optimist. He was not a propagandist. The understanding of the pulse of the people was his forte. So his recipe was this. So he was not quite enamored by shining India and all that. And he was not in favour to pre-pone the elections. But he agreed to the team discussion that was his unique quality as a democrat. And he went for polls, he did his best. Because his politics was beyond elections, it was not for power only but for the people which one can serve as effective as an opposition leader also.

Q: Coming to the present-day scenario, how would you rate the present-day political discourse in the country? We have been hearing a lot of talk about intolerance. How do you rate the current political discourse vis-à-vis Atal ji’s time and probably Indira ji’s times? Do you see a deterioration…
Ans: I think, opposition could not digest their colossal defeat in 2014 elections. And they became panicky and instead of constructing an effective role as opposition they couldn’t understand which way to go because they were not used to being away from political power. This is one reason. The second reason is that BJP also did not expect that they will romp home with absolute majority but they got it. People supported it. People have very high expectations, and expectations were aroused by the Prime Ministerial candidate Shree Narendra Modi ji, very effectively. That is his forte, because he thinks that power stems from elections. Government is not merely for political party, it is maybe of the political party but meant for the people. And people includes BJP voters and non-BJP voters equally. So dialogue and trust is the basic requirement of democratic style of functioning. The ruling party has to take initiative so when you are in majority you take initiative, enter into dialogues, and take others into confidence such that they feel that you are treating them equally. Just because we won elections that doesn’t make us more superior human beings than others who stood as the opposition. These things continue, what party is in power, who goes out of power, it’s all just temporary phenomenon, nation continues, civilization continues.

Q: Do you feel the level of political discourse will be lower in 2019 general elections than in 2014…
Ans: Well, irresponsible utterances will be there, but again, it’s the ruling party that should take initiative to lift the level of political discourse. And if they do it, then the opposition people who are utterly irresponsible, they will be isolated.

Vajpayee & Govindacharya: Poles Apart?

Vivek Sinha
-
0
Vajpayee & Govindacharya: Poles Apart?

The coterie of sycophants teamed up with Delhi durbaris and Lutyens leeches to manufacture a controversy over a mischievous translation where it was alleged that Sangh stalwart Govindacharya had called former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee as “Mukhauta” of Sangh Parivar. This was false. Govindacharya had said Vajpayee was the “face”.

On the sixteenth day of May in 1996, when Atal Bihari Vajpayee took oath as tenth Prime Minister of India millions of people across the world felt that a genuine power transfer is happening in the country after British quit in 1947. Political pundits and social thinkers considered Congress Party as a mere offshoot of erstwhile British administration such that the brown sahibs of ‘Grand Old Party’ replaced white sahibs in Lutyen’s Delhi after India’s independence.

Even the brief interregnum in 1977 and in 1989, when non-Congress parties took reins at New Delhi it were the Congress converts who were on the driving seat and Vajpayee remained a pillion rider.

Vajpayee an ardent critic of Congress and its policies, represented the Sangh Parivar that draws inspiration from country’s glorious ancient past and advocates for policies that are innately developed within India rather than parachuting them from the West. Vajpayee crisply announced in chaste Hindi that Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma, the then President of India, had appointed him as Prime Minister and he had 13 days to prove majority in the Parliament. There was widespread euphoria at this power transfer and it was believed that Vajapyee would pull it through. But then this was a different era, Bhartiya Janta Party—BJP was still a political untouchable and Vajpayee refrained from horse trading, an euphemism for outright buying out of parliamentarians for voting in favour of the government in power.

“…hum sankhya bal ke saamne sir jhukate hain…main apna tyagpatra rashtrapati mahodaya ko saunpne jaa raha hoon…(we bow in front of the numbers’ power… I am going to tender my resignation to the President of India,” Vajpayee said on the floor of Parliament, conceding defeat that his party could not cobble up the required number of parliamentarians necessary to remain in power. This was the end of his 13-day government. This speech which was telecast live on national news channels had millions of countrymen in tears who felt that their leader was denied the rightful place by Delhi’s power brokers.

This was the kind of affection Vajpayee commanded in a pluralist society and a culturally diverse country. His speech mesmerized listeners and very few politicians in post-independence India can match up to Vajpayee’s charisma.

As destiny would have it, a couple of years later Vajpayee was back on the hot seat of Prime Minister, albeit with a wafer-thin majority. Barely thirteen months had passed and Vajpayee faced the biggest challenge of his life. He had lost the no-confidence motion with a single vote and was leading a care-taker government when news poured in that Pakistan had intruded Kargil peaks of Kashmir Valley. Vajpayee, the poet, did not dither. Pakistan had back-stabbed India at Kargil, but Vajapyee was undaunted and he flexed his muscles. He refused to blink and put his weight behind the armed forces, despite leading a wobbly coalition.

Pakistani intruders were hunted down by our armed forces and India scored a diplomatic and military victory. The Kargil victory brought BJP back to power, this time with a relatively comfortable majority and Vajpayee stayed at the helm till 2004.

Vajpayee led the opposition ranks for almost half-century. During these years he crisscrossed the country, had detailed interactions with scientists, economists, environmentalists, diplomats, domain experts of all hues and of course the common man. It were these interactions with common people and their issues that made him aware of the bottlenecks created by previous Congress regimes. He knew that lack of infrastructure, especially roads, is a major hindrance to India’s economic progress so after taking the country’s reins in 1999, he initiated the ambitious Golden Quadrilateral and East-West Corridor project of connecting far-ends of India through wide roads. His yet another novel idea was to join the numerous rivers of India through a meshwork of canals, which could rid the country of droughts and famines. Vociferous protests by Communist environmentalists did not let this ambitious idea take off. It was his acumen that India needs nuclear muscle to survive in an increasingly hostile neighbourhood that led to the successful Pokhran nuclear tests. And despite objections from conservative sections within the Sangh Parivar he made honest efforts to mend ties with our rouge neighbour Pakistan.

A democrat at heart, Vajpayee liked to take people along, made friends across the political spectrum but never felt shy to put his weight behind critical issues. Though a statesman par-excellence, Vajpayee underestimated the potential of scheming boot-lickers of the Delhi durbar, deceitful durbaris and Lutyen’s leeches who swarm the power corridors of Lutyen’s Delhi.

The most glaring blemish on Vajpayee’s otherwise illustrious career as a statesman, was his inability to understand the deeper politics of these durbaris behind the “mukhauta” (mask) remark. These conniving boot-licking Delhi durbaris lapped up an innocent remark by Kodipakam Neelameghacharya Govindacharya, BJP’s then organisational general secretary, translated it incorrectly and used their devious propaganda machinery to swiftly establish that Govindacharya had called Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the ‘mukhauta’ of Sangh Parivar.

Vajpayee was very upset about the remark, and rightly so, at being called the “mukhauta” of Sangh Parivar by none other than KN Govindacharya, who was also an RSS Pracharak.

It did not occur to Vajpayee, or probably he could not gauge that the brewing controversy over Govindacharya calling him the “mukhauta” could be the handiwork of a few within the Sangh Parivar who were unhappy with Govindacharya’s meteoric rise and were itching to script a downfall for him. In reality, this coterie within the Sangh Parivar, the Delhi durbaris and the cabal of Lutyen’s leeches sniffed an opportunity when Govindacharya in his meeting with British High Commission officials called Vajpayee as the “face” of BJP.

Govindacharya’s innocent remark wherein he called Vajpayee the “face” of BJP travelled through Chinese whispers, was first loosely translated into “chehra” (Hindi word for ‘face’) and subsequently metamorphosed into “mukhauta” when told to Bhanu Pratap Shukla, a former editor of RSS-mouthpiece Panchjanya.

Bhanu Pratap Shukla wrote an article that said Govindacharya had called Vajpayee as the “mukhauta” of Sangh Parivar.

This news spread like wildfire. It was almost immediately lapped up by boot-licking Delhi durbaris, the coterie within Sangh Parivar, Lutyen’s leeches and the Communist brigade. This diverse spectrum of power brokers from Left to the Right spectrum joined hands and fanned the controversy. Reams of pages were written saying that Vajpayee, the most liberal amongst the Sangh Parivar, is merely a “mask” for Hindu ultra-nationalists and that Govindacharya’s remarks have exposed their real and hidden agenda. Words and phrases were almost thrust into the mouth of Sangh stalwart Govindacharya.

Being the organisational general secretary of BJP, Govindacharya occupied a vital position during those days. He worked as a bridge between the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. His words could make or break political careers. Above everything else, Govindacharya was a no-nonsense man and could easily separate wheat from chaff. Boot-lickers, Delhi durbaris, Communist forces and Lutyen’s leeches were finding it difficult to make a mark at 11, Ashoka Road–the then BJP Headquarters. Communist brigade and their comrades in Congress were finding it difficult to run their devious and dubious agenda.

Bhanu Pratap Shukla’s article where he claimed that Govindacharya had called Vajapyee as the “mukhauta” of Sangh Parivar was manna from heaven for these motley groups. One fed the other and this controversy grew bigger and bigger within a fortnight. The issue was blown out of proportion and made front page headlines. The budding news channels and their half-baked anchors found a ready made masala item to play on 24×7.

Vajpayee was aghast and pained at all of this. Soon after at one of the public functions he painfully said that he was no longer the face of the party, rather its mask. And he had his reasons. He had devoted his life for the ideology, thoughts and organisation of Sangh Parivar, steering the BJP from two seats in 1984 to 182 seats in 1999. So, if the man (Govindacharya) entrusted to act as ballast for the Sangh Parivar calls him (Vajpayee) as “mukhauta” then surely a big conspiracy must be brewing against him.

Weeks passed by but the controversy refused to die down, rather it grew bigger by the day thanks to the concerted efforts by the durbaris within the Sangh parivar and Communist-Congress nexus. Govindacharya took it upon himself to clear the air. He submitted the original text of his talks with British High Commission officials and called for a press meet. He strongly denied calling Vajpayee as the “mukhauta” and explained that he had called him as the “face” of BJP and a Prime Ministerial candidate. This was right, Vajpayee till the time he faced a debilitating stroke in 2008 was indeed the “face” of Sangh Parivar.

Govindacharya’s vehement denial was buried and dismissed. Worse, even Vajpayee fell into this trap. “I used to revere Atal ji a lot. I met him personally to explain this entire issue to him and clarified that I had never used this word “mukhauta” for him,” Govindacharya said (read full interview). But, probably by then, the perception management of the brokers of Delhi durbar, Lutyen’s leeches and Communist-Congress nexus had had a deeper impact on Vajpayee. A section within the Sangh Parivar was also working overtime to discredit Govindacharya. Vajpayee merely said, “jo ho gaya so ho gaya, ab aage ki socho, kaam karo (whatever happened has happened, now think ahead and work”).

If anything, Vajpayee could have taken cue from a similar remark that was wrongly attributed to him and has stuck with him. Those were the times when India had just won the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war. Vajpayee praised Indira Gandhi for successfully leading the country during the war against Pakistan and liberating East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Well, Vajpayee had merely praised Indira Gandhi for the victory, but soon after his speech a Congressman stood up and said ‘Indira Gandhi is Goddess Durga’. This statement was then meticulously weaved in as Vajpayee’s endorsement to Indira Gandhi and has since been successfully propagated by spin doctors within Congress and power brokers that Vajpayee had eulogised Indira Gandhi as Goddess Durga. Despite denials the perception stays on that Vajpayee called Indira Gandhi as Durga.

This episode must have alerted Vajpayee about the perception management skills of Delhi durbaris and the prowess of Congress-Communist nexus. These Lutyen’s leeches use every possible trick up their sleeve to protect their interests and to destroy and discredit genuine thinkers who have the potential to upset their apple cart.

Vajpayee is now no more but then this concocted “mukhauta” controversy destroyed the political career of Govindacharya. He remains a political pariah till date and is shunned both by the BJP and the RSS leaders.

The least that Vajpayee could have done was to objectively study and analyse the sequence of events and then clarify that Govindacharya never called him as the “mukhauta” and that would have been the end of this needless controversy. But his reaction gave fuel to Delhi durbaris, the boot-lickers within Sangh Parivar and Lutyen’s leeches who lapped up the opportunity to effectively sideline a genuine thinker like Govindacharya. A nation cannot progress if it continues to sideline thinkers who work selflessly for the betterment of society. In this battle between sycophants and thinkers, whenever the sycophants win, it’s the country and its people who loose. They remain bereft of the foresight of the thinker who can usher progress and prosperity with their sagacity.

The nation will always remember Atal Bihari Vajpayee as a great orator, poet, statesman and a courageous Prime Minister who gave India the nuclear deterrent and hunted down Pakistani intruders in Kargil. He will always have several feathers in his cap, but whenever history would analyse him in toto the blemish of his shortcoming to respond wisely to the “mukhauta” controversy will be hard to forget.

Malaika Arora drops ‘Khan’ from her name

News Intervention Bureau
-
0
Malaika Arora drops ‘Khan’ from her name

Hindi film actor Malaika Arora-Khan has dropped “Khan” from her surname. She had suffixed “Khan” to her surname after her marriage to actor Arbaaz Khan, the brother of Hindi film industry’s superstar Salman Khan. Malaika and Arbaaz had divorced in May 2017 but she continued to use full name with “Khan” appended to her family name in public and in her social media accounts.

Malaika shot to fame with her popular dance number “Chal Chaiyya Chaiyya” in the 1998 super hit Hindi film “Dil se”.

Malaika Arora announced the riddance of Khan from her surname by updating her Instagram account. It’s now malaikaaroraofficial. Malaika had been using Khan in her social media accounts even after a year of her divorce with Arbaaz Khan.

The film industry’s grapevine in Mumbai is rife with talks that Malaika is dating another actor Arjun Kapoor. The two have often been spotted together at public functions.

1...460461462463Page 461 of 463

News Intervention is the new age digital media platform that has news analysis, opinion pieces, news briefs, news videos and documentaries.
News Intervention raises all those issues that may have been overlooked by big media houses or have been deliberately buried to serve vested interests. We firmly believe that each life matters and every individual regardless of religion, nationality, race, caste or creed must have the right to live life with dignity.

Contact us: editor@newsintervention.com

© Copyright - NewsIntervention