मंगलवार, 13 मई 2014
Uniting The People Of The World In A Sharing Economy
Uniting The People Of The World In A Sharing Economy
By Mohammed Mesbahi
12 May, 2014
The time has come when we must demonstratein our millions not against this or that,but rather for who we are
In light of the dramatic changes that lie ahead, any person who perceives sharing as an answer to converging crises should think carefully about the meaning of redistribution. This term has very evasive and controversial connotations, and can breed tension, stress and even violence if promoted in the wrong context. There is a healthy
meaning of redistribution which is a result of right sharing, such as to redistribute a tonne of tomatoes from one region to another based on a system of fair and mutual exchange. But there is another meaning of redistribution, which entails forcing the rich people in society to surrender their personal possessions or wealth. That is exactly what communism tried to do, and it may inevitably involve a violent infringement of human free will.
meaning of redistribution which is a result of right sharing, such as to redistribute a tonne of tomatoes from one region to another based on a system of fair and mutual exchange. But there is another meaning of redistribution, which entails forcing the rich people in society to surrender their personal possessions or wealth. That is exactly what communism tried to do, and it may inevitably involve a violent infringement of human free will.
If a government really wants to share the nation’s resources it should start by dismantling the machinery of war, otherwise the finances procured by raiding the coffers of the rich are more likely to end up back in the military budget than with the poorest in society, thus supporting further warfare and reinforcing the status quo. Why weren’t the richest people and corporations taxed sufficiently in the first place? Where does the money go once they are taxed, to social needs or perverse subsidies? And why were they given so much opportunity for amassing their enormous fortunes, while the government was playing games with market forces and commercialisation?
It was the system that allowed the wealthy to go so far in enriching themselves, and now the disciples of the same system try to coerce the rich people into redistributing their wealth. This is an old and divisive tactic born of the factious ways of the past. Communism tried, socialism tried, and now even capitalism has joined the club. It may please the populists who blame the rich for all of society’s problems, but it will never bring a solution to social injustice as long as the system itself is based on the interests of privilege and wealth.
The surest way to bring about a reversal of extreme inequality is for a bulk of humanity to demonstrate on the streets, unceasingly through day and night, and with the vision of a united world to demand: ‘Enough of bailing out the banks, enough of austerity that doesn’t end, enough of aimlessly trying to tax the rich – it’s time to bail out the poor for a change through social transformation based on sharing, justice and common sense’. It is imperative that we look at these issues for ourselves with introspection and self-awareness, and no longer define our identities in terms of what we are against, such as capitalism or the rich.
Hence the implementation of sharing on the basis of justice must begin with a transformation in human consciousness led by our maturity and the reasoning of the heart. That is when a new understanding of sharing may arise in our minds, which may change our whole attitude to wealth and redistribution. When the nations of the world collectively act to end poverty in its totality, then the word ‘redistribution’ will fall into its right place and begin to assume a different meaning. Then we may begin to think in terms of a ‘just’ or ‘right’ distribution, and we will no longer need to use the word ‘fair’ in relation to global economic arrangements. These are important semantics to reflect upon, because it may help us to intuit what sharing has to achieve in its proper and holistic vision. Right distribution is aligned with right human relationship, but redistribution – even with the utmost good intent – can only arise in a society that is defined by legitimated theft, institutionalised injustice, and the endemic infringement of human free will.
Imagine if there were millions of people demonstrating for sharing across the world, then not even the rich would have to think about ‘redistributing’ their wealth. Nobody would need to confiscate their money from them, or coerce them into supporting an emergency programme to redistribute resources to the famished poor. A united voice of the world, all together for sharing and justice, will create such a force in society that people everywhere will follow its trend, including the billionaires. The wealthy are good people too, and many will come by themselves voluntarily at such a time and say ‘here it is’. They may not want to forcibly give up their wealth, but they may certainly want to share it once their hearts meld with an overwhelming call from the public to end hunger and poverty. They will not even hear the word ‘redistribution’ if they are standing with the people and sharing their wealth for the cause of upholding social justice. That is the stage we have to reach, which will mark the true revolution that only sharing can bring about.
Of course, the fair collection and redistribution of tax revenue is fundamental to just and democratic societies, and when resources are more equitably shared then there can no longer be such extremes of poverty and wealth. But in the creation of such societies we must respect the rich as much as the poor, even if many wealthy people resist the changes that are happening across the world. It may take time, but those people will eventually be left behind by the deafening cry for a new civilisation that is founded upon the principle of sharing.
Studying the meaning of sharing
In order to perceive for ourselves the importance of transforming society along these lines, we clearly need to think carefully about how we interpret the meaning of sharing in political and economic terms. For example, the idea that sharing means ‘to feed the hungry’ is, in fact, total nonsense. Who says it’s our food to share with the hungry? Only commercialisation does, with its diabolical cleverness that conditions our minds. What do we mean when we say that this food belongs to us, while some parts of the world have no food at all? How did we get that food in the first place, in a world with a huge surplus of food per capita?
To see the morality inside of this question, we will have to enquire into the unjust structural arrangements that have resulted in a world ridden with hunger and deprivation – the importing of food at a cheap price, the decimation of smallholder farming, the long history of theft from and exploitation of the poor, and so on. If we think ‘this is my food, and I am sharing it with the hungry’, it does not acknowledge or resolve the problem. How can we remain indifferent when we are told that people are starving in other countries, and then think that the food on our own plate is rightfully ours?
If we are straight and honest with ourselves, we will never think that this is our food to share. We will say: ‘The food in the world belongs to everyone, therefore I want my government to change its attitude towards poverty in order to end it’. The meaning of sharing is not ‘to feed the hungry’, but to irrevocably end poverty through implementing justice. Sadly, in the divided world of today where feeding the hungry is a matter of international responsibility born of emergency, an end to life-threatening poverty can only be brought about through a united voice of the people of the world.
The principle of sharing also has a tough side to its nature that is profoundly allergic to such words as charity, philanthropy and even altruism – words that have suited our collective complacency for millennia. Indeed, what is a philanthropist if not a ‘somebody’ with an ambitious and competitive mind who became rich by learning how to profit from an exploitative and unjust system? For how did the philanthropist make that money? As always it begins with discovering a talent for manipulating the system, or by inheriting wealth that is the product of a system based upon exploitation.
How else can the executives of large corporations be given millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and severance pay, while the army of workers who keep the business running are paid the minimum wage according to the law, often in overseas countries that offer no worker benefits at all? Then the philanthropist, in order to expand his image and reputation or salve his conscience, decides to give some money back to charity. He doesn’t ask the workers what should be done with that money. In effect, he makes money off the backs of the workers and gives a small portion of it away, at their expense.
We should ask ourselves: how can there be so much opportunity for making billions of dollars through commercialisation, when hundreds of millions of people are at risk of dying from hunger in other parts of the world? We always see the person who is making billions start to rub shoulders with the politician, and vice versa, but we never see the politician rubbing shoulders with the person dying from hunger.
Sharing as justice not charity
If the dictionary were to give an appropriately moral definition of the word charity, it would state: ‘an undignified act that results from complacency’. It is undignified because we can always do something to help achieve justice, but owing to our complacency we find it more convenient to give some crumbs to the needy. And once we give enough money to charitable causes, the establishment will eventually reward us in an honours list and give us a title.
Obviously no-one should advocate for an abolition of charity, which is a venerable necessity in our society when millions of people subsist in a state of dire poverty and desperation. Our hearts are essentially benevolent and caring, which is why we believe in giving to charity when we hear of humanitarian emergencies in distant countries. But why do such emergencies of Biblical proportions keep repeating themselves again and again, despite all the know-how and ingenuity of humanity? Because we are also complacent, and we often give without even thinking about justice. We do not collectively demand that our governments stop these preventable emergencies once and for all, whatever their cause.
When we give to charity without thinking about justice, then the act of donating has nothing to do with sharing the resources of the world. If sharing and charity were personified and met each other on the street, sharing would say to charity: ‘Who are you? I do not believe we have been introduced before’. The very existence of charity in a world of plenty symbolises the divide that exists between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots.
To be sure, if governments implemented the principle of sharing on a global basis it would signify the end of days for charitable giving. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, enough resources to provide healthcare and housing for all, enough knowledge and technology to empower even the poorest country to meet its needs. No matter how much of the world’s resources we collectively share with the people living in abject poverty, there will still be more than enough to satisfy the basic needs of all. How did the affluent countries accumulate so much resources and industry in the first place? How much of the food, fuel, minerals and land in the world have we appropriated from the people of less industrialised countries? These are the questions we need to ask if we want to perceive for ourselves the simple logic of sharing and justice.
The way of sharing
We should not accept the above propositions unless we have fully investigated for ourselves the meaning and implications of sharing as a solution to the world’s problems. It may seem too idealistic to believe that the key to social transformation lies with the massed goodwill of ordinary people, and that nothing will change unless people power becomes planetary. We may become slightly more aware of the possibility of changing the world situation by thinking of our own complacency, but if something inside of us has not confirmed it completely then after a few minutes we may quickly forget and revert back to our old conditioning.
We are so influenced by our environment and bombarded by the thoughts of others that it requires a certain courage, determination and perseverance to think freely and to know oneself. We are all part of the process of commercialisation, and we are all ultimately responsible for its pernicious conditioning within our societies. Once the way of sharing is deeply confirmed within us, however, and we understand it with rage, with passion inside, then it will mould our character in such a way that we will never be fooled by commercialisation again. The way of sharing is universal. You and I, let’s be together. Let’s share. It’s as simple as that, and forever will be.
Intellectual theories about social change will mean nothing unless the people rise up, pushing out the old order and heralding the new. That is where the real meaning of our lives begins, and where true power resides. We may think of the powerful as those who lead huge multinational companies, who have the capital needed to raze the Amazon rainforest, who have such control over resources that they can take over people’s lives. But in spiritual terms that is not power at all, it is completely the reverse.
True power is togetherness and sharing among millions of people, which is unifying, creative and healing on a worldwide scale. Unlike the very wealthy who live only for themselves, power in an individual sense is non-divisive and non-destructive, and rather distinguished by humility, inclusivity, harmlessness and detachment. And from a planetary or group perspective, it represents everything that brings about justice in society and equilibrium within the environment, and gives energy back to creation as it is. When all the nations come together and share the resources of the world, when humanity brings about balance in consciousness and in nature – that is power in the greatest sense. All the so-called powerful people in our present-day society are sustained only by commerce, by laws, by ideologies and beliefs. But when we no longer bow to their authority and come together as one, then we will see what power really is. To repeat a slogan often written on protest placards: why are we frightened when they are so few, and we are so many?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Mohammed Mesbahi is founder and chair of Share the World's Resources, a London-based independent civil society organization campaigning for a fairer sharing of wealth, power and resources within and between nations.
Hitler "Modi-fied"
Hitler "Modi-fied"
By Shehzad Poonawalla
12 May, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Countercurrents.org
My dear Indian voters,
Here is a simple exercise. Try it out. For the next five minutes please read the following few character, personality and political-traits and do try to guess which prominent politician is being referred to. Trust me, the answer will surprise many of you.
Hint 1: One-Man Party
He establishes full control over his party, creates a personality cult surrounding him & forces the hands of his party's Executive Committee, many of who believe he is too overbearing, into electing him as their undisputed leader. In the process, he completely sidelines, his mentor & founder of the party to a symbolic post who ultimately resigns.
Hint 2: Emergence as a panacea for all ills
This is the reason often attributed to his rise....
"Of crucial significance is the widespread feeling that the political system and leadership is utterly bankrupt. In such conditions, the image of a dynamic, energetic, 'youthful' leader offering a decisive change of direction and backed by an army of fanatical followers is not altogether unattractive. Many with grave doubts are prepared to give him a chance. "
Hint 3: Anti-meat eating propaganda
A die-hard vegetarian, he believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity and intends to tackle this problem also. Plans to introduce policies to cut back meat-consumption.
Hint 4: Invoking his "humble" origins
He was surely the poorest of us all. For lunch, he chose the cheapest item on the menu. But I never heard him complain, he never spoke of his poverty. Yet he had known poverty since his youth. As the others thought about their families, about their possessions and their money, he preached the battle for freedom.
Hint 5: Using speeches with catchy phrases
His inordinate use of trigger words helps him to maintain the support and attention of his audiences and allows them to get exceedingly excited about his speeches. These words add to his tactics of persuasion by creating word association. When referring to his country, he uses words that convey strength. When speaking about his opponents, he uses words that allude to weakness.
Hint 6: Controlling free-media
Some independent newspapers, particularly conservative newspapers and non-political illustrated weeklies, accommodated themselves to the leadership through self-censorship or initiative in dealing with approved topics. Journalists or editors who failed to follow these instructions are fired. Rather than suppressing news, the propaganda apparatus instead seeks to tightly control its flow and interpretation and to deny access to alternative sources of news.
Hint 7: Believing he is chosen by God for a "divine" mission
He says "I carry out the commands that Providence has laid upon me."
Hint 8 : His wealthy friends fund his political campaign
Prominent businessmen and industrialists financed his campaign and ascendency to power. See the whose-who of the capitalist class that funds his activities.
Hint 9: Makes promises galore
He promises riddance from inflation, corruption and unemployment, higher prices to farmers, profits to businessmen, economic development to the middle-class and restoration of the nation to its "rightful" place in the world. T he master speech maker offers them what they need most, encouragement. He gives them heaps of vague promises while avoiding the details. He uses simple catchphrases, repeated over and over.
Hint 10: Suffers from Fatal Narcissism
"It depends essentially on me, on my being, on my political skills," he says to his supporters.
Hint 11: His election posters & manifesto carry overt religious symbols and are centred only around himself, with only his picture appearing prominently.
What was your answer? It wasn't Adolf Hitler? Who were you thinking about?
Hint 1: One-Man Party
He establishes full control over his party, creates a personality cult surrounding him & forces the hands of his party's Executive Committee, many of who believe he is too overbearing, into electing him as their undisputed leader. In the process, he completely sidelines, his mentor & founder of the party to a symbolic post who ultimately resigns.
Hint 2: Emergence as a panacea for all ills
This is the reason often attributed to his rise....
"Of crucial significance is the widespread feeling that the political system and leadership is utterly bankrupt. In such conditions, the image of a dynamic, energetic, 'youthful' leader offering a decisive change of direction and backed by an army of fanatical followers is not altogether unattractive. Many with grave doubts are prepared to give him a chance. "
Hint 3: Anti-meat eating propaganda
A die-hard vegetarian, he believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity and intends to tackle this problem also. Plans to introduce policies to cut back meat-consumption.
Hint 4: Invoking his "humble" origins
He was surely the poorest of us all. For lunch, he chose the cheapest item on the menu. But I never heard him complain, he never spoke of his poverty. Yet he had known poverty since his youth. As the others thought about their families, about their possessions and their money, he preached the battle for freedom.
Hint 5: Using speeches with catchy phrases
His inordinate use of trigger words helps him to maintain the support and attention of his audiences and allows them to get exceedingly excited about his speeches. These words add to his tactics of persuasion by creating word association. When referring to his country, he uses words that convey strength. When speaking about his opponents, he uses words that allude to weakness.
Hint 6: Controlling free-media
Some independent newspapers, particularly conservative newspapers and non-political illustrated weeklies, accommodated themselves to the leadership through self-censorship or initiative in dealing with approved topics. Journalists or editors who failed to follow these instructions are fired. Rather than suppressing news, the propaganda apparatus instead seeks to tightly control its flow and interpretation and to deny access to alternative sources of news.
Hint 7: Believing he is chosen by God for a "divine" mission
He says "I carry out the commands that Providence has laid upon me."
Hint 8 : His wealthy friends fund his political campaign
Prominent businessmen and industrialists financed his campaign and ascendency to power. See the whose-who of the capitalist class that funds his activities.
Hint 9: Makes promises galore
He promises riddance from inflation, corruption and unemployment, higher prices to farmers, profits to businessmen, economic development to the middle-class and restoration of the nation to its "rightful" place in the world. T he master speech maker offers them what they need most, encouragement. He gives them heaps of vague promises while avoiding the details. He uses simple catchphrases, repeated over and over.
Hint 10: Suffers from Fatal Narcissism
"It depends essentially on me, on my being, on my political skills," he says to his supporters.
Hint 11: His election posters & manifesto carry overt religious symbols and are centred only around himself, with only his picture appearing prominently.
What was your answer? It wasn't Adolf Hitler? Who were you thinking about?
Well, all I can say is that you clearly read too much in-between the lines. For those who are inclined towards research, I am quoting the various sources from which I have culled out Hitler's traits.
For the rest, let me just leave you with this one theme Hitler often employed while dishing out his speeches to a hypnotised Germany while campaigning for power - " Besser morgen " which roughly means "better tomorrow" or as we in India like to say "Ache Din Aane wale hain"
Source 1: Hitler had sidelined his mentor Anton Drexler
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Anton_Drexler.html
Source 2: Ian Kershaw in "The Hitler Myth" published in History Today describes how h istoric attachments to heroic leadership combined with a mastery of propaganda techniques were used to mesmerise Germany into acceptance of the charismatic authority offered by the Nazi 'Fuhrer'.
http://www.historytoday.com/ian-kershaw/hitler-myth
Source 3: In a diary entry dated April 26, 1942, Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian, writing,
"An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling."
http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-germany-trivia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism
Source 4: A quote from the archives of Hitler's propaganda
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/tatsachenundluegen.htm
Source 5: Hitler's persuasive methods uncovered
http://joshwilmoth.hubpages.com/hub/Adolf-Hitlers-Tremendous-Persuasive-Ability
Source 6: THE PRESS IN THE THIRD REICH
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007655
Source 7: " Hitler As he believes himself to be" compiled by Dr Stein
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection1.htm
Source 1: Hitler had sidelined his mentor Anton Drexler
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Anton_Drexler.html
Source 2: Ian Kershaw in "The Hitler Myth" published in History Today describes how h istoric attachments to heroic leadership combined with a mastery of propaganda techniques were used to mesmerise Germany into acceptance of the charismatic authority offered by the Nazi 'Fuhrer'.
http://www.historytoday.com/ian-kershaw/hitler-myth
Source 3: In a diary entry dated April 26, 1942, Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian, writing,
"An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling."
http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-germany-trivia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism
Source 4: A quote from the archives of Hitler's propaganda
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/tatsachenundluegen.htm
Source 5: Hitler's persuasive methods uncovered
http://joshwilmoth.hubpages.com/hub/Adolf-Hitlers-Tremendous-Persuasive-Ability
Source 6: THE PRESS IN THE THIRD REICH
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007655
Source 7: " Hitler As he believes himself to be" compiled by Dr Stein
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection1.htm
Source 8: "Who financed Hitler" by Antony Sutton
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_07.htm
Source 9:
http://spartacus-educational.com/GERunemployment.htm
http://www.writework.com/essay/germany-and-its-support-hitler
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/elect.htm
Source 10: " The Führer Myth: How Hitler Won Over the German People" By Ian Kershaw
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909-5.html
Source 11: Posters of Hitler during his election campaign
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters/dragon.jpg
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters/nur.jpg
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters/hitler.jpg
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_07.htm
Source 9:
http://spartacus-educational.com/GERunemployment.htm
http://www.writework.com/essay/germany-and-its-support-hitler
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/elect.htm
Source 10: " The Führer Myth: How Hitler Won Over the German People" By Ian Kershaw
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909-5.html
Source 11: Posters of Hitler during his election campaign
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters/dragon.jpg
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters/nur.jpg
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters/hitler.jpg
I dedicate this article to Shri Mukul Sinha, whose loss will leave a great void in the avenue of civil rights and human rightsactivism. May his soul rest in peace.May his ultimate goal of Justice for victims of 2002 Gujarat riots be fulfilled.
Shehzad Poonawalla is a 1st generation, self-made, 26 year old, lawyer-activist engaged in politics and civil rights movement. Muslim by faith, Indian by conviction, Secularist by ideology and a committed Constitutionalist. Youngest Additional Private Secretary to Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Govt of India. Always ready to fight a battle, on the streets or in theTV studios. Fear nothing and nobody.
Tweet @Shehzad_Ind
Email: shehzadpoonawalla@yahoo.com
Email: shehzadpoonawalla@yahoo.com
असम नस्लीय सांप्रदायिक हिंसा का तांडव
लोकसंघर्ष ! |
|
Posted: 12 May 2014 04:25 AM PDT
हाल में ;मई १.२, २०१४ असम के कोकराझार में ४४ बांग्लाभाषी मुसलमानों की हत्या ने एक बार फिर क्षेत्र के बोडो व मुस्लिम रहवासियों के बीच पसरे तनाव को रेखांकित किया है। इस हिंसा के पीछे बोडोलैण्ड पीपुल्स फ्रन्ट का हाथ बताया जाता है, जिसकी विधायक प्रमिलारानी ब्रह्म ने कथित रूप से कहा था कि उनकी पार्टी के उम्मीदवार व असम के मंत्री वर्तमान चुनाव में विजय हासिल नहीं कर पाएंगे क्योंकि मुसलमानों ने उन्हें वोट न देकर एक गैर.बोडो उम्मीदवार को वोट दिया है। विधायक ने नहीं बताया कि उन्हें यह कैसे पता चला कि मुसलमानों ने किसे वोट दिया है। बताया जाता है कि उनके इस वक्तव्य के बाद हिंसा भड़क उठी। परंतु केवल इस वक्तव्य को हिंसा के लिए जिम्मेदार ठहराना ठीक न होगा। दोनों समुदायों के बीच अविश्वास का गहरा भाव है और उनके आपसी संबंध अत्यंत तनावपूर्ण हैं। इसी के चलतेए क्षेत्र में जुलाई २०१२ में हिंसा हुई थी। हालिया हिंसा सन् २०१५ में असम में होने वाले विधानसभा चुनाव के सिलसिले में मुसलमानों को चेतावनी देने का प्रयास भी है।
बोडो निवासियों की पार्टी ने यह आशंका व्यक्त की है कि उनके उम्मीदवार की हार से बोडोलैण्ड राज्य की उनकी मांग को धक्का लगेगा। यह मांग उनके एजेण्डे पर सबसे ऊपर है। बोडो निवासियों में व्याप्त असंतोष और बांग्लाभाषी मुसलमानों की परेशानियों का लंबा इतिहास है। जुलाई २०१२ में इस तनाव ने हिंसा का रूप ले लिया था और बोडो क्षेत्रीय स्वायत्तशासी जिलों कोकराझार व चिरांग, जिनका प्रशासन बोडो क्षेत्रीय परिषद के हाथों में है, और डूबरी के एक हिस्से में हुए खूनखराबे में १०८ लोग मारे गए थे, जिनमें ७९ मुसलमान, २२ बोडो व ४ अन्य शामिल थे। इसके अतिरिक्त, लगभग चार लाख लोग अपने घरों से बेघर हो गए थे।
इस तनाव और समस्या की जड़ में है यह गलत धारणा कि बंगालीभाषी मुसलमान बांग्लादेशी घुसपैठिए हैं। यद्यपि भाजपा और मोदी बार.बार यह कह रहे हैं कि वे वर्तमान चुनाव विकास के मुद्दे पर लड़ रहे हैं परंतु सच यह है कि वे सांप्रदायिकता भड़काने के मौके ढूंढते ही रहते हैं। देश के पूर्वी हिस्सों में अपने भाषणों में मोदी ने बंगाल की मुख्यमंत्री पर यह आरोप लगाया कि वे बांग्लादेशी घुसपैठियों की देखभाल पर अधिक ध्यान देती हैंए बंगाल के रहवासियों की देखभाल पर कम। असम में उन्होंने यह तक कह डाला कि काजीरंगा राष्ट्रीय उद्यान में एक सींग वाले गैंडो को इसलिए मारा जा रहा है ताकि बांग्लादेशी घुसपैठियों के रहने के लिए जगह खाली कराई जा सके। उन्होंने यह धमकी भी दी कि घुसपैठिये अपना सामान बांध लें क्योंकि १६ मई को उन्हें यह देश छोड़कर जाना होगा। इस तारीख को चुनाव नतीजे आने वाले हैं और मोदी को पूरा भरोसा है कि वे ही देश के अगले प्रधानमंत्री होंगे।
असम समस्या एक नासूर बन चुकी है। नौकरियों और जीवनयापन से संबंधित मुद्दों को तंगदिल ताकतों ने सांप्रदायिक रंग दे दिया है। वहां पर'असम केवल असमियों के लिए''का नारा दिया जा रहा है। ठीक उसी तरहए जैसे कि मुंबई में शिवसेना कहती रही है कि'महाराष्ट्र केवल मराठियों के लिए है'। असम में इस दुष्प्रचार और उसके कारण उपजी शत्रुता का पहला प्रगटिकरण था नैल्ली कत्लेआम ;१९८३, जिसमें लगभग ३,००० लोग,मुख्यतः बंगाली मुसलमान, लालुंग कबीलाईयों के हाथों मारे गए थे। यह कत्लेआम असम आंदोलन के दौरान हुआ था। यह आंदोलन असम की मतदाता सूचियों से 'बांग्लादेश के गैर कानूनी प्रवासियों' के नाम हटाने की मांग को लेकर चलाया जा रहा था। इस हत्याकांड की जांच के लिए त्रिभुवन प्रसाद तिवारी आयोग नियुक्त किया गया था परंतु इस आयोग की रपट कभी सार्वजनिक नहीं हुई। बोडो लोगों के आन्दोलन के बादए बोडो क्षेत्रीय परिषद बनाई गई और चार जिलो कोकराझार,चिरांग, बक्सा और उदयगिरी का प्रशासन चलाने की जिम्मेदारी बोडो को सौंप दी गई। इनमें से तीन जिलों में जुलाई २०१२ में भारी हिंसा हुई। यह दावा कि बोडो इस क्षेत्र में बहुसंख्यक हैं और उन्हें अपनी नस्लीय पहचान सुरक्षित रखने और अपने हितों की रक्षा करने का अधिकार है, में कोई दम नहीं है क्योंकि इस क्षेत्र में बोडो, कुल आबादी का २२ से २९ प्रतिशत ही हैं। स्वायत्तशासी परिषद के जरिए उन्हें मिले अधिकारों का बोडो ने जमकर दुरूपयोग किया है और समाज के दूसरे तबकों को हाशिये पर पटक दिया है। यह भी सही है कि बोडो क्षेत्रीय परिषद के निर्माण के बाद भी बोडो ने अपने हथियार नहीं डाले जबकि परिषद की स्थापना की मांग को स्वीकार करने की यह आवश्यक शर्त थी।
आबादी संबंधी आंकड़ों के अध्ययन से यह स्पष्ट हो जाएगा कि असम में बांग्लाभाषी मुसलमानों के बसने की प्रक्रिया अंग्रेजों की नीतियों के कारण शुरू हुई थी। बांग्लाभाषी मुसलमान, असम में बहुत लंबे समय से रह रहे हैं। उदाहरणार्थ,असम में सन् १९३१ में मुसलमानों की आबादी एक लाख से अधिक थी। अंग्रेज शासन के शुरूआती दौर में बंगाल की आबादी बहुत अधिक थी और बंगाली, राजनैतिक दृष्टि से अत्यंत जागरूक थे। उस समय असम की जनसंख्या अत्यंत विरल थी। अंग्रेजों ने २०वीं सदी की शुरूआत में एक ष्मानव रोपण नीति बनाई, जिसके तहत बंगालियों को असम में बसाया जाना था। इसके तीन उद्देश्य थे.पहलाए बंगाल पर आबादी का दबाव कम करना। दूसरा, बंगाल में बार.बार होने वाले अकालों व वहां फैल रहे जनाक्रोश को कम करना और तीसरा,असम में लोगों को बसाकर वहां से टैक्स इकट्ठा करना।
बांग्लादेशी घुसपैठियों के संबंध में जमकर दुष्प्रचार किया जा रहा है। परंतु पिछली सदी के जनसंख्या संबंधी आंकड़े बताते हैं कि इस क्षेत्र में रह रहे मुसलमान,वहां स्वाधीनता के पहले से रह रहे हैं। सन् १९४७ में देश के विभाजन के समय कुछ नये लोग यहां बसे। इसके पश्चात,सन् १९७१ में हुए भारत.पाकिस्तान युद्ध, जिसके नतीजे में बांग्लादेश अस्तित्व में आया, के बाद भी कुछ मुस्लिम असम में आकर बस गए। सन् १९७१ के बाद से असम में नए मुसलमान प्रवासी नहीं आए हैं। नील्म दत्ता की पुस्तक 'मिथ ऑफ बांग्लादेशी एण्ड वायलैंस इन असम' बताती है कि बांग्लादेश में प्रवासियों के बसने का सिलसिला १०० वर्ष से भी अधिक की अवधि से जारी है और सन् १९७१ के बाद से, प्रवासियों की संख्या में कोई वृद्धि नहीं हुई है। सन् १९८५ में हुए असम समझौते के अंतर्गत, सन् १९७१ तक असम में बसे सभी लोगों को भारतीय नागरिक के सारे अधिकार दे दिए गए हैं। इस समझौते के अनुसार, सन् १९७१ या उससे पहले से यहां रह रहे सभी प्रवासी, भारत के पूर्ण नागरिक हैं और अधिकांश मुसलमान इसी श्रेणी में आते हैं। कहने का अर्थ यह नहीं है कि असम में एक भी गैरकानूनी प्रवासी नहीं है। परंतु उनकी संख्या बहुत कम है और वे मुख्यतः आर्थिक कारणों से यहां आकर बसे हैं।
इन तथ्यों के बावजूद,सांप्रदायिक राजनीति के पैरोकार इस मुद्दे को जमकर उछालते आए हैं। वे इन गरीब व मजबूर प्रवासियों को घुसपैठिया कहते हैं। बांग्लादेश से जो हिन्दू भारत में आकर बसे हैं उनके लिए वे शरणार्थी शब्द का प्रयोग करते हैं जबकि मुसलमानों को घुसपैठिया बताते हैं। सन् २०१२ की हिंसा को सांप्रदायिक ताकतों ने राष्ट्रवादियों ;बोडो व विदेशियों ;मुसलमानों के बीच संघर्ष बताया था। इलाके में रह रहे बांग्ला बोलने वाले मुसलमानों की हालत बहुत खराब है। उन्हें नीची निगाहों से देखा जाता है और उनमें से कई को मत देने का अधिकार भी नहीं है। उनमें से अनेक को 'डाउटफुल' ;संदेहास्पद मतदाता घोषित कर दिया गया है। नफरत फैलाने वाली ताकतें यहां अतिसक्रिय है और यह मिथक फैलाया जा रहा है कि शासक दल,वोटों की खातिर घुसपैठियों को बढ़ावा दे रहा है। सच यह है कि जो लोग पड़ोसी देशों से हमारे देश में आ भी रहे हैं वे केवल आर्थिक मजबूरी के कारण ऐसा कर रहे हैं। हमारे देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में लाखों नेपाली विभिन्न प्रकार के काम कर अपना पेट पाल रहे हैं। परंतु उन्हें कभी निशाना नहीं बनाया जाता क्योंकि वे हिन्दू हैं। इसके विपरीत, बांग्लादेश से रोटी.रोजी की तलाश में भारत आने वाले मुसलमानों को देश का दुश्मन करार दे दिया जाता है।
वर्तमान हिंसा के पीछे चुनाव प्रचार के दौरान किया गया विषवमन है। बोडो लोगों ने क्षेत्रीय परिषद के गठन के बाद भी अपने हथियार नहीं डाले हैं और यह हिंसा का एक प्रमुख कारण है। इस मुद्दे पर ध्यान दिया जाना आवश्यक है। यह मांग भी की जा रही है कि अल्पसंख्यकों को आत्मरक्षा के लिए बंदूक आदि के लायसेंस दिए जाने चाहिए। परंतु ऐसा करने से हिंसा में और बढ़ोत्तरी होने की संभावना है। बेहतर तो यह होगा कि पुलिस या सेना का उपयोग कर, बोडो लोगों के पास जो अवैध हथियार हैं उन्हें सख्ती से जब्त किया जाए। इस तरह की मानवीय त्रासदी से निपटने के लिए राज्य और केन्द्र, दोनों सरकारों कौ फौरी कदम तो उठाने ही चाहिए,दूरगामी नीति भी बनानी चाहिए। विस्थापितों का पुनर्वास होना चाहिए और क्षेत्र का विकास। विकास के अभाव के चलते ही इलाके में नफरत की राजनीति शुरू हो गई है। दोनों समुदायों के आपसी संबंधों को सौहाद्रपूर्ण बनाया जाना अतिआवश्यक है।
-राम पुनियानी
|
सदस्यता लें
टिप्पणियाँ (Atom)