Showing posts with label GS MAINS (Ist PAPER). Show all posts
Showing posts with label GS MAINS (Ist PAPER). Show all posts

20 March 2016

Savarkar unplugged: From film and science to caste and Hindutva

Savarkar unplugged: From film and science to caste and Hindutva

 

Born in Nashik in 1883, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is one of the most controversial figures in the history of the Indian Independence movement. His fraught relationship with the Congress party and Mahatma Gandhi, and his conceptualization of the idea of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism, lends him perennial relevance in Indian politics.

However, as in the case of many other contemporaneous leaders, debates on Savarkar are often shallow because the bulk of his writing was in his mother tongue, Marathi. These essays have rarely been translated.

In this first of a new series of translated journalism for Mint on Sunday, we publish translated excerpts from Savarkar’s speeches, interviews and essays. These provide insights into Savarkar, who died in 1966, as a modernist, a rationalist and a strong supporter of social reform.

We would like to thank Ranjit Savarkar of the Savarkar Smarak in Mumbai, for giving us the permission to translate the originals.

On film

In this undated interview to a Marathi journalist that has been republished in a book of his essays, Vividha Lekh, or Various Essays, Savarkar spoke about the virtues of modern cinema.

“The movies are one of the beautiful gifts of the 20th century. This is the machine age. We are surrounded by things that have been made with the help of machines. The world of entertainment cannot be an exception to this rule. Please understand that I refuse to condemn the advances made in technology. I would like modern machines to spread rapidly so that the whole of humanity is happier.”

“I dislike any restrictions on the innovative spirit of the human mind. That is because modern progress and modern culture have emerged out of innovation. The very essence of the progress made by humanity over the past many years in science and knowledge can be found in contemporary cinema. There is no better example of the use of modern technology than the movies, and that is why I will never back any restrictions on them.”

These remarks by Veer Savarkar are a stinging answer to the contempt with which Mahatma Gandhi has spoken about movies. When I asked Savarkar whether he was implicitly criticizing Gandhi, he asked me: “Is there anything common between Gandhi and me?”

“I saw my first silent movie when I was a student in London, and I liked it immensely. I have seen some talkies as well, but not too many.”

“I doubt the theatre can compete with the movies. It will barely survive in a corner just as the folk arts barely survive in our villages today. But its best days are behind it.”

“There is no need to feel bad about this. What is the use of the wooden plough in the age of the tractor? The wooden plough will be used only where there are no tractors. I deeply oppose the charkha philosophy of going back to nature.”

“Films are even superior to novels. However well written be the biographies of national heroes such as Shivaji, Pratap or Ranjit, there is no doubt their stories will be more enjoyable and impactful on the screen.”

“Films can even be used to educate our youth. We see life reflected very well on screen. It is better to borrow a good thing rather than have nothing at all. But one should neither blindly copy the work of others.”

“As in all other fields, it is essential that our people are nationalists in the field of cinema as well. Everything else comes after that. The film industry too should believe that it will do everything possible for the progress of the entire nation.”

“Our movies should focus on the positives of the country, keep aside the negatives and have pride in its victories. There is no value in making movies on national defeat or on our failings. These should be forgotten. Our youth should be inspired by movies that focus on the positive side of things.”

On the Constitution of free India

In his presidential address to the annual session of the Hindu Mahasabha held in Calcutta in 1939, Savarkar spoke about how Hindus and Muslims could bury their historical differences in a common Hindustani constitutional state.

The National Constitution of Hindustan: The Hindu Sanghanists Party aims to base the future constitution of Hindustan on the broad principle that all citizens should have equal rights and obligations irrespective of caste or creed, race or religion, provided they avow and owe an exclusive and devoted allegiance to the Hindustani State. The fundamental rights of liberty of speech, liberty of conscience, of worship, of association, etc., will be enjoyed by all citizens alike. Whatever restrictions will be imposed on them in the interest of the public peace and order of National emergency will not be based on any religious or racial considerations alone but on common National grounds.

No attitude can be more National even in the territorial sense than this and it is this attitude in general which is expressed in substance by the curt formula ‘one man one vote’. This will make it clear that the conception of a Hindu Nation is in no way inconsistent with the development of a common Indian Nation, a united Hindustani State in which all sects and sections, races and religions, castes and creeds, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Anglo-Indians, etc., could be harmoniously welded together into a political State on terms of perfect equality.

But as practical politics require it, and as the Hindu Sanghanists want to relieve our non-Hindu countrymen of even a ghost of suspicion, we are prepared to emphasize that the legitimate rights of minorities with regard to their religion, culture and language will be expressly guaranteed: on one condition only that the equal rights of the majority also must not in any case be encroached upon or abrogated. Every minority may have separate schools to train up their children in their own tongue, their own religious or cultural institutions and can receive Government help also for these, but always in proportion to the taxes they pay into the common Exchequer. The same principle must, of course, hold good in case of the majority too.

On Muslims and modernization

At the very end of a sharp essay on the religious idiocies of the Hindus and Muslims, published in the May 1935 issue of the magazine Manohar, Savarkar asked Indian Muslims to “for the sake of their humanity” learn from Turkey under Kemal Ataturk.

Just as it is my duty to repeatedly tell the Hindu nation to abandon its silly religious customs, observances and opinions in this age of science, so I will also tell Muslim society, which is an inevitable part of the Hindustani nation, that it should abandon as quickly as possible its troublesome habits as well as religious fanaticism for its own good—not as a favour to the Hindus, not because the Hindus are scared of your religious aggression, but because these practices are a blot on your humanity, and especially because you will be crushed in the age of science if you cling on to an outdated culture.

You should abandon the belief that not even a word in the Quran can be questioned because it is the eternal message of God, even as you maintain respect for the Quran. But the norms that seemed attractive to an oppressed but backward people in Arabia at a time of civil strife should not be accepted as eternal; accept the habit of sticking to only that which is relevant in the modern age...

Oh Muslims, just think what the Europeans reduced you to after they escaped from the clutches of the Bible, to master the sciences that are beneficial for our times. You were pushed out of Spain, you were subjected to massacres, you were crushed in Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria. Your control over Mughal India was snatched away. They are ruling you in Arabia, Mesopotamia, Iraq and Syria.

Just as our yagnyas, prayers, Vedas, holy books, penances, curses could not harm the Europeans, so too will your Quran, martyrdoms, namaaz, religious lockets will make no difference to them.

Just as the maulvis sent armies to war in the belief that the men who fought under the banner of Allah would never lose, so did our pundits peacefully sit back to repeat the name of Rama a million times. But none of this prevented the Europeans, with their advanced weapons; they not only decimated the Muslim armies, but they even toyed with the fallen flag of Allah.

And that is why Kemal Ataturk has broken the bonds of all religious laws that have kept the Turkish nation backward. He has borrowed civil law, criminal law and military law from Switzerland, France and Germany, to replace the rules in the Quran.

The literal meaning of what is said in the Quran no longer matters. The only question today is what is essential for national advancement in the light of modern science. Turkey can hold its own against Europe today because Kemal has given primacy to modern science in his nation. If Turkey had remained bound within the covers of the Quran, as it was during the reign of Kemal Sultan or the Khalifa, then the Turks would still be licking the boots of the Europeans, as the Indian Muslims are doing today.

If they want to advance as the Turks have done, Indian Muslims should abandon the religious fanaticism that has been nurtured over a thousand years, and accept modern science.

On the age of machines

Savarkar often called on his supporters to welcome the age of the modern machine. Here, in an essay published in the magazine Kirloskar, and republished in a book of his essays on the scientific approach, he argued that India would continue to lag behind Europe as long as its leaders believed in superstition rather than science.

It was 200 years ago that Europe entered the era that our country is now entering. This means we are two centuries behind Europe. We are entering what economists describe as the age of the machine. The spread of machines some 200 years ago in Europe challenged traditional beliefs and habits.

There were fears that humanity would lose its essence in the machine age, religion would be undermined, humans would begin to act like machines, our bodies would shrivel and the prosperity that was promised with the use of machines would itself be destroyed. Men would be reduced to being paupers rather than eating well. Such shrill warnings were spread across Europe by a class that stuck to tradition and religious naiveté.

The reason machines are not more widely used by our people is because of the religious beliefs in our society. Europe too did not accept machines 200 years ago because of the power of Christian religious beliefs. There was a massive earthquake in Lisbon in the 18th century. The religious leaders of Europe preached to the people that the earthquake was the result of the Protestant perfidy against the religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics. It was a punishment because Protestant marriage ceremonies were led by women, Protestant priests were allowed to marry, the words of the Pope are not considered infallible. It was in reaction to these reasons that the people decided to protect themselves against future earthquakes by trying to finish off the Protestants.

Such naive people were incapable of even understanding that there were physical explanations for earthquakes, let alone trying to use seismology to design machines that could perhaps help them predict the risk of an earthquake. Europe could truly embrace the machine age only when its religious beliefs were demolished by the scientific approach.

But in India, even someone as influential as Gandhiji swears by his “inner voice” to say that the Bihar earthquake is a punishment for the caste system. And that he is still waiting for his inner voice to tell him why Quetta was rocked by an earthquake. And then there are Shankaracharya and other religious leaders who swear by the religious books that the earthquake was caused by attempts to do away with the caste system.

What can one say about the religious naiveté of the ordinary people in a country when its prominent leaders hold such views? Europe is in the year 1936 while we are in the year 1736.

On the unpopular tasks of the social reformer

In the same collection of essays on the scientific approach, where he also mocked those whose religious sentiments get hurt very easily, Savarkar wrote about how the true social reformer has to accept unpopularity.

And that is why any reformer who seeks to root out harmful social practices or preach new truths has first of all to compromise his popularity. That is what Jesus meant when he told the majority who opposed him: “Ye build sepulchres unto those whom your fathers stoned to death!” Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad are today the gods and prophets of millions of people, but look at how they were treated by their contemporaries. Jesus was killed. Buddha had to face a murderous attack. Mohammad had to flee, was injured in battle, was condemned as a traitor.

So, reformers who rock the boat, who become unpopular, who disturb the social balance, who hurt religious sentiments, who turn their back on majority opinion, who think rationally—all these reformers face the inevitable consequences of their actions. Every reformer has had to face these challenges. This is because social reform—by definition rooting out any evil social custom—means taking on the persistent social beliefs of the majority.

And the reformer who pits himself against the religious practices of millions will be the most unpopular. And the man who has made popularity his business will give in to the popular will out of fear, but who wants to do some good, will eventually be overcome by his fear, will leave the road to social and religious reform.

A true social or religious reformer should only be driven by the desire to do good. As far as I am concerned, so that I am not torn about the choice between popularity and public good, I have this stamped on my mind: Varam Janahitam Dhyeyam Kevala Na Janstuti (It is best to think only of the welfare of people, not praise them).


On untouchability

Savarkar was a strong opponent of the caste system. He repeatedly argued that what the religious books say about untouchability is irrelevant. The social practice was unfit for a modern society. In his collection of essays on breaking the caste system, he welcomed the constitutional provision that made untouchability a crime.

“Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law”

—Article 17 of the Indian Constitution

It was a golden day for all humankind and Hindu Sanghatan when the Constituent Assembly unanimously took this decision. These words should now be carved on some eternal pillar like the Ashoka Pillar, so important are they.

This historic decision should be seen as the success of the hundreds of saints, social reformers and political leaders who worked so hard over the centuries to break the shackles of untouchability. The practice of untouchability is now not just an evil that has to be criticized but a crime that will be punished. Citizens are now not just been advised to abandon the practice of untouchability, but have been told that it is against the law to practise it.

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution has used the word untouchability in the singular. There should have been an explanatory note in the interests of clarity. After all, there could be instances when untouchability has to be practised for medical or personal reasons. These may not be damaging to society. Of course, Article 17 is meant to deal with only that untouchability that men and women have to face if they are born into a particular caste...

Besides untouchability, social cleavages and hierarchies of all types have been frowned upon. These practices may not be punishable but will be looked down upon. This is implicit in Article 17, given the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and in its preamble. And later, in the sections about fundamental rights, it is clearly stated that no citizen of the Indian state will be discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, caste, gender or place of birth. They are all equal under the law. In this way, the Constitution has taken the wrecking ball to the edifice of social discrimination.

On revolution

In 1952, Savarkar went to Pune to announce the closure of Abhinav Bharat, the revolutionary outfit that he had set up as a student to fight for independence. In a public speech, he said that revolutionary organizations have no place in a constitutional state, echoing the views of his friend B.R. Ambedkar.

The end of the age of revolution and the coming of swarajya means that our primary national duty in the new age is to abandon the methods of rebellion so that constructive and lawful politics will gain primacy. To overthrow foreign rule, we had to inevitably have secret societies, armed revolt, terrorism, civil disobedience; these were holy. But if we stick to these methods after we have got our freedom, then the damage we will inflict will be worse that what even are enemies can do...

The establishment of swarajya does not mean that Ramrajya will follow immediately.

(After explaining how 200 years of colonial rule had damaged India, Savarkar says) ...it is our duty as citizens to support our national government that we should at least for some time bear whatever pain lies ahead. So that the national government gets time to address important questions. We should support the government with our hard work and patience. There is a lot of criticism of the mistakes the government has made... The people have still decided to hand power to the Congress. They have not snatched power from you. It is only fair to point out that had the difficult task of setting matters right not been given to the Congress, but to the socialists, communists or Hindutva parties, they too would have made similar mistakes, either because of inexperience or the lust for power.

4 November 2015

The threat to global centrist politics Is the world headed for another round of ideological wars?

The threat to global centrist politics

Is the world headed for another round of ideological wars?
The election results in two very different countries over the past few days offer some clues on an unlikely common theme: the future of global centrist politics based on a broad consensus.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won a landslide victory in Turkey this week. His populist appeal seems to have survived despite a fragile economy. Stephen Harper earlier lost power in Canada to Justin Trudeau. Both Erdoğan and Harper—despite their differences—have been outsiders who challenged the consensus politics of their respective countries.
There are similar examples elsewhere in the world. Alexis Tsipras got a fresh mandate from Greek voters in September to take on the continental financial establishment. Viktor Orbán in Hungary is another outsider who recently took a tough stance on the refugees pouring into his country. Matteo Renzi in Italy is also a bit of a maverick prime minister.
In Asia, think of leaders such as Joko Widodo in Indonesia or Shinzo Abe in Japan. And then there is Narendra Modi in India, very self-consciously an outsider.
These are elected leaders. Also look at the advances made by the National Front in France or Podemos in Spain in local elections—two very different ideologies but having an outsider mentality in common. Add to that the election of the Marxist Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. Or the initial momentum of Donald Trump on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side of the US presidential primaries.
What binds all these strands together? The Great Moderation in economics had been accompanied by a Great Moderation in politics. There was a basic continuity in policy. That also increased the chances of global coordination since leaders were essentially pursuing their respective national interest from a common ground.
The emergence of the consensus is worth recounting. The years immediately after the end of World War II saw the rise of a social democratic consensus that brought parties across the ideological spectrum together. Many shared power in grand alliances in Europe in a bid to avoid the brutal divisiveness that plunged Europe into slaughter during the war. This was the era when the great sociologist Daniel Bell wrote about the end of ideology.
The economic stress of the 1970s shattered this social democratic consensus. That was the period when Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagan in the US, Deng Xiaoping in China and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shook their respective elites.
The end of communism may not have led to the end of history. But global politics once again moved towards a consensus based on market economics combined with US geopolitical power. If the 1950s saw conservative parties make their peace with social democratic policies, then the 1990s saw social democratic parties embrace market economics.
Is the post-1990 consensus being challenged now with the rise of politicians who do not come from within the established system of political bargaining? Some global thinkers had predicted after 2008 that the crisis would come in three stages: a financial crisis followed by an economic crisis followed by a political crisis. Is that moment approaching?
The consensus after 1990 did serve the world well. But the advances made by maverick politicians over the past few years show that this consensus could be under stress. It is almost impossible to forecast whether the world is headed for another round of ideological wars, such as the one during the Thatcherite era in the UK, when the Labour Party responded to her new policies by swinging to the extreme left under Michael Foot.
The cracks in the centrist core could be a source of worry if extreme politics takes over. Things need not fall apart when the centre does not hold. But they could lose direction.

5 September 2015

No export of democracy

Democracies celebrate Magna Carta, not war victory. Such actions only encourage Bonaparteism and, in no way, strengthen the people's say. I was dismayed to see a full-page advertisement in newspapers to commemorate the victory in the 1965 war against Pakistan. The advertisement said: "The Indo-Pak War of 1965, which began on August 5 and ended on September 23, is one of the biggest tank battles since World War II. Pakistan launched troops inside Kashmir under Operation Gibraltar in early August 1965.

"Further operations were stalled when Indian Army captured the strategic Haji Pir Pass on August 28, 1965. Pakistan then launched operation Grand Slam in Akhnoor sector, but India opened the Western Front to counter the same. Pakistan's 1 Armoured Division was badly mauled in the Battle of Asal Uttar with nearly 100 tanks destroyed. Other major battles were fought at Poonch, Phillora, Barki and Dograi."

True, India had an upper hand but it was at best 55 per cent against 45 per cent. Lahore was the yardstick. We could not take it and had to bypass it. General J N Chaudhuri, who was the Chief of Army Staff at that time, told me subsequently in an interview that he had never planned to occupy Lahore. It would have unnecessarily pinned down a large number of troops and we would have suffered heavy casualties. Pakistan, he said, would have defended the city with all it resources and fought us in every house, every street.

This may well be a valid explanation. Yet, the general impression is that India failed to take Lahore. A small contingent which reached the Ravi Bridge, bypassing Lahore, was severely crushed. General Chaudhuri's defence was that the march to the Ravi Bridge was neither authorised, nor did it figure in his scheme of things. This must be true. But the thinking of an average person is different. He believed that India lacked strength to occupy Lahore.

General Chaudhuri said that their main purpose was to destroy Pakistan's armour, particularly the Patton tank which America had given them. The Ichhogil Canal in the area came in handy. Indian troops breached it to let the water spread. The tanks got stuck in the water. The question which remains unanswered is: Who was responsible for the 1965 war? General Mohammad Ayub Khan, who was then Pakistan's Marshal Law Administrator, and Commander-in-Chief told me that it was 'Bhutto's war'. Bhutto sent infiltrators into Kashmir, without talking him into confidence. In fact, General Ayub's son, Gohar Ayub, apart from confirming about what his father had said, went public with part of the information.

Gohar used to live in a palatial house in the suburbs of Islamabad. This was where he hosted a lunch for me. Mushahid Husain, then the editor of 'Muslim', had arranged it. I remember the day distinctly because I heard about the assassination of Indira Gandhi at Gohar's house. He spoke about her only for a while and that too cursorily. In fact, Gohar was keen to tell me something which was not complimentary to our armed forces. His story was that our armour had chinks. I was sure it had. But I was taken aback when he said that a copy of topmost secret papers from India's military headquarters would be "with us before they reached Nehru's table".

Those days you could walk through South Block corridors from one end to the other in New Delhi. Security requirements had not yet blocked the passage. Nor had gates been built within gates. How could a paper conceivably reach Pakistan intelligence agencies before a messenger covered a few yards to deliver it at Nehru's office?

At that time Gohar did not give the example of an Indian brigadier parting with the 1965 war plan for a sum of Rs 20,000. However, he did remark that his father was "contemptuous of Indian officers selling their country for a few thousand rupees". I did not join issue with him because it was the first time I was hearing of any such thing. But I told Gohar about a remark his father had made against the Kashmiris when I met him in Islamabad in 1972. I had gone there to interview Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was briefly the president after Pakistan's debacle at Dhaka.

'Bhutto's mujahideen'

Ayub said Bhutto had assured him that the Kashmiris would rise in revolt once they knew the Pakistan army was in their midst. Ayub referred to the infiltrators as 'Bhutto's mujahideen'. According to Ayub, he told Bhutto that if he knew anything about Kashmiris, they would never raise the gun.

Gohar was wrong in saying that the reports on Kashmir reaching his father were 'doctored'. His father had himself told me that Bhutto never took him into confidence on the scale of infiltration. (Ironically, that's exactly what Nawaz Sharif, in exile at Jeddah, told me about Pakistan's misadventure at Kargil). Pakistan's attack in '65 began with hundreds of infiltrators - mujahids (liberators), as Bhutto, then Pakistan's foreign minister, hailed them - stealing into Kashmir.

The report of the intrusion first appeared in the Indian press on August 9, 1965, along with Ayub's assurance to Kewal Singh, while accepting his credentials as India's high commissioner at Rawalpindi, that Pakistan would reciprocate every move from India for better cooperation. He argued that infiltration into Kashmir was not the same thing as infiltration into India. The 'uprising' that Pakistan expected to foment failed because local Kashmiris did not help the infiltrators. And when I interviewed Bhutto, he did not deny Ayub's allegation that the 1965 war was his doing. However, he said that he has "learnt a lesson and wouldn't repeat it."

If at all New Delhi was keen to talk about the 1965 war victory, however limited, it should have dwelt more into the benefits of being a democratic state instead of violence and weapons. India's advantage is that sovereignty remains with the people. In Pakistan, the interest of the armed forces comes first. New Delhi cannot export democracy, but it should help Pakistan get back the rule where the people have the final say.

20 February 2015

PM gives slogan: "Swasth Dharaa. Khet Haraa." - Healthy Earth. Green Farm.

PM launches 'Soil Health Card scheme', presents Krishi Karman Awards from Suratgarh, Rajasthan

PM gives slogan: "Swasth Dharaa. Khet Haraa." - Healthy Earth. Green Farm.


The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, today called for focusing attention on the health of soil in agricultural areas across the country, to boost productivity and bring about increased prosperity.

He was speaking after launching the Union Government`s nationwide `Soil Health Card` Scheme from Suratgarh, Rajasthan. He described agriculture as the key to poverty eradication.

Referring to the song "Vande Mataram," he said that in order to achieve land that is truly "Sujalam, Suphalam," it is necessary to nurture the soil. He said the soil health card scheme is a step towards fulfilling this dream.

Calling for soil testing to be made a regular feature, the Prime Minister said a new class of entrepreneurs could set up soil testing labs even in small towns.

The Prime Minister said schemes such as the soil health card scheme, and the recently launched Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao scheme were relevant across the country. Therefore he had recently launched the Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao scheme in Haryana, and was now launching this scheme in Rajasthan. He said it was essential to save both "Beti" and "Dharti Ma."

The Prime Minister also spoke of the importance of water. He said that it was essential to use water judiciously and not waste even a drop. He said excess and scarcity of water were both dangerous, and therefore, the key to good agriculture was drops of water - "boond-boond paani." Prime Minister said he had asked each state to come up with agriculture plans under the aegis of the NITI Aayog.

14 crore Soil Health Cards are envisaged to be issued over the next 3 years. 

Text of PM’s address on launching of the 'Soil Health Card' Scheme




उपस्थित सभी मंचस्थ वरिष्ठ महानुभाव, राज्यों से पधारे हुए कृषि मंत्री, सरकारी अधिकारी, देश के अलग अलग कोने से आए हुए प्रगतिशील किसान, और प्यारे मेरे किसान भाईयों और बहनों,

भारत सरकार आज से एक नवीन योजना का आरंभ कर रही है। इस योजना का आज इस धरती से आरंभ हो रहा है, वह योजना हिंदुस्तान के सभी किसानों के लिए है।

आमतौर पर भारत सरकार ज्यादा से ज्यादा दिल्ली के विज्ञान भवन में कुछ लोगों को बुला करके कार्यक्रमों को करने की आदत रखती है। लेकिन मैं पुरानी आदतों को बदलने में लगा हूं। कुछ समय पहले भारत सरकार ने ‘बेटी बचाओ, बेटी पढ़ाओ’ इस अभियान का प्रारंभ किया। कई योजनाओं का प्रारंभ किया। लेकिन हमने तय किया कि योजनाएं हरियाणा में लागू की जाएं, शुरूआत वहां से की जाए क्योंकि हरियाणा में बेटों की तुलना में बेटियों की संख्या बहुत कम है और हरियाणा के लोगों को बुला करके बात बताई।

आज ये कार्यक्रम राजस्थान की धरती पर हो रहा है। अभी हमारी मुख्यमंत्री वसुंधरा राजे बता रही थीं कि हमारे पास केवल एक प्रतिशत पानी है। अब एक प्रतिशत पानी है तो हमने कुछ रास्ते भी तो खोजने पड़ेंगे। राजस्थान को प्यासा तो नहीं रखा जा सकता। ..और यही तो राजस्थान है जहां कोई लाखा वणजारा हुआ करता था। जो जहां पानी नहीं होता था। वहां पहुंच जाता था, बावड़ी बनवाता था और प्यासे को पानी पहुंचाता था।

जब मैं गुजरात में मुख्यमंत्री के नाते से काम करता था, मेरा ये सौभाग्य था कि दक्षिण राजस्थान में नर्मदा का पानी गुजरात से राजस्थान पहुंचाने का मुझे सौभाग्य मिला और उस समय हमारे भैरोसिंह जी मुझे कहा करते थे कि नरेंद्र भाई राजस्थान को कोई रूपया दे दे, पैसा दे दे, हीरा दे दे, उसके लिए इतनी पूजा नहीं होती है, जितनी पूजा कोई पानी दे दे तो होती है।

पानी ये परमात्मा का प्रसाद है। जैसे मंदिर में प्रसाद मिलता है, गुरूद्वारे में प्रसाद मिलता है और एक दाना भी हम ज़मीन पर नहीं गिरने देते। अगर गिर जाए तो लगता है, पाप कर दिया है। ये पानी के संबंध में हमारे मन में यही भाव होना चाहिए कि अगर एक बूंद भी पानी बरबाद हुआ, गलत उपयोग हुआ तो हमने कोई न कोई पाप किया है, परमात्मा की क्षमा मांगनी पड़ेगी।

पानी का इतना महातम्य..और हम राजस्थान और गुजरात के लोग तो ज़्यादा जानते हैं, क्योंकि बिना पानी जि़ंदगी कितनी कठिन होती है, ये हम लोगों ने अनुभव किया है। .. और इसलिए आज किसानों के लिए ये कार्यक्रम का आरंभ हमने उस धरती से शुरू किया है, जहां मरूभूमि है, जहां पानी की किल्लत है, जहां का किसान दिन रात पसीना बहाता है, उसके बाद भी पेट भरने के लिए तकलीफ होती है.. उस राजस्थान की धरती से देश के किसानों को संदेश देने का प्रयास ..और इसलिए मैं आज राजस्थान के किसानों के चरणों में आ करके बैठा हूं।

हमें हमारे कृषि विकास को, परंपरागत कृषि पद्धतियों से बदलना पड़ेगा और इसके लिए वैज्ञानिक तौर तरीकों को अपनाना पड़ेगा। एक समय था, हमारे देश में बीमारू राज्य जैसा एक शब्द प्रयोग हुआ करता था..बीमारू! जिसमें कि पिछले 20 साल से ये शब्द प्रयोग चल रहा है। बीमारू राज्य का मतलब होता था- बिहार, मध्यप्रदेश, राजस्थान, उत्तर प्रदेश..ये बीमारू राज्य हैं। लेकिन मुझे विश्वास है कि राजस्थान के लोगों ने ऐसी सरकार चुनी है, आपको ऐसे मुख्यमंत्री मिले हैं, देखते ही देखते ये राजस्थान बीमारू श्रेणी से बाहर निकल जाएगा।

मैं ये इसलिए कह रहा हूं कि मध्यप्रदेश की गिनती भी बीमारू राज्य में होती थी। लेकिन मध्यप्रदेश में शिवराज सिंह चैहान के नेतृत्व में आर्थिक विकास का एक अभियान चला और उसका परिणाम ये आया कि आज मध्यप्रदेश और छत्तीसगढ़ बीमारू राज्य में गिने नहीं जाते। उन्होंने जो विशेषता की, क्या की? मध्यप्रद्रेश ने जो सबसे बड़ा काम किया है, इसके लिए .. शिवराज जी तो आज आ नहीं पाए, लेकिन उनके राज्य को प्रथम नंबर का अवार्ड प्राप्त हुआ, तो सबसे ज्यादा कृषि उत्पादन के लिए हुआ। कृषि क्षेत्र में उन्होंने क्रांति की। उन्होंने सिंचाई की योजनाओं को आधुनिक बनाया, उन्होंने फसल को किसान के साथ आधुनिक शिक्षा पद्धति से जोड़कर develop किया..और कोई कल्पना नहीं कर सकता था कि गंगा-यमुना के प्रदेशी कृषि क्षेत्र में आगे बढ़ सकते हैं, मध्यप्रदेश ने गंगा और यमुना के प्रदेशों को पीछे छोड़ दिया और आज देश में नबंर एक पर आकर खड़ा हो गया। वही एक ताकत थी जिसके कारण मध्यप्रदेश आज बीमारू राज्य की श्रेणी से बाहर आ गया।

राजस्थान में भी हम कृषि को, किसान को, गांव को, गरीब को.. एक के बाद एक जो कदम ले रहे हैं, राजस्थान सरकार और भारत सरकार मिल करके जो परिवर्तन लाने का प्रयास कर रहे हैं, उससे मुझे विश्वास है कि वसुंधरा जी के नेतृत्व में भी इसी सरकार के कार्यकाल में राजस्थान अब बीमारू नहीं रहेगा, ये मेरा पूरा विश्वास है।

मैं चुनाव में आया तब भी, कैंसर स्पेशल की चर्चा मैंने की थी। यहां की ट्रेन “कैंसर स्पेशल” के नाम से चर्चित हो गई थी। ये स्थितियां बदलनी हैं। मैंने अभी एक नीति आयोग के तहत सभी राज्यों को अपने अपने राज्य में कृषि को लेकर एक “हाई पावर कमेटी” बनाने के लिए कहा है; “एक्सपर्ट कमेटी” बनाने के लिए कहा है। नीति आयोग को भी कहा है कि वो भी एक एक्सपर्ट कमेटी बनाए। राज्य अपने राज्य की कृषि समस्याओं को ले करके, अपने राज्य में कृषि विकास के रास्ते तय करते हुए, वे अपनी योजना बनाएं। देश के सभी राज्य और भारत सरकार मिल करके उसमें से common minimum चीज़ों को छांट लें और पूरे देश में इसे कैसे लागू किया जाए..। अब तक top to bottom दूनिया चलती थी, अब हम bottom to top चलाने जा रहे हैं। पहले राज्य कृषि के विषय में योजना बनाएंगे, फिर भारत सरकार उनके साथ बैठ करके बनाएगी और वो काम अभी प्रारंभ हो चुका है।

इसी तरह पानी .. राज्यों के बीच कुछ न कुछ समस्याएं हैं। उन राज्यों का फैसला हो जाए, बातचीत हो जाए। बैठ करके, बातचीत करके रास्ते खोजे जाएं और देश की समृद्धि की यात्रा में छोटी मोटी जो भी कठिनाईयां हैं, उन कठिनाईयों से रास्ते निकाल करके हम तेज़ गति से आगे बढ़ना चाहते हैं। देश को तेज़ गति से नई ऊंचाईयों पर ले जाना चाहते हैं।

आज Soil Health Card.. पूरे देश के लिए इस योजना का आरंभ हो रहा है। और Soil Health Card के लिए उसका घोष वाक्य है- “स्वस्थ धरा, खेत हरा”। अगर धरा स्वस्थ नहीं होगी तो खेत हरा नहीं हो सकता है। खातर कितना ही डाल दें, खाद कितना ही डाल दें, बीज कितना ही उत्तम से उत्तम ला दें, पानी में धरती को डूबो करके रखें, लेकिन अगर धरती ठीक नहीं है, धरा ठीक नहीं है तो फसल पैदा नहीं होती, अच्छी फसल पैदा नहीं होती। कम फसल पैदा होती है। हल्की क्वालिटी की फसल पैदा होती है। इसलिए किसान को पता होना चाहिए कि जिस मिट्टी पर वो मेहनत कर रहा है, उस मां की तबीयत कैसी है? ये धरा मेरी मां है। अगर घर में मेरी बूढ़ी मां अगर बीमार है, तो मैं चैन से सो नहीं सकता हूं। मैं तो किसान हूं, धरती का बेटा हूं, मैं धरती की बेटी हूं, अगर ये धरा बीमार हो तो मैं कैसे चैन से सो सकता हूं और इसलिए.. हमारी धरा, हमारी माता, ये हमारी मिट्टी, इसको बीमार नहीं रहने देना चाहिए। उसको और बीमार नहीं होने देना चाहिए। उसकी तबीयत की चिंता करनी चाहिए, उसके स्वास्थ्य की चिंता करनी चाहिए और उसकी जो कमियां हैं, उन कमियों की पूर्ति करने के लिए वैज्ञानिक तौर तरीके अपनाने चाहिएं।

जैसे शरीर बीमार होता है और उसमें कभी डाक्टर कहते हैं- ये खाओ, ये न खाओ। कभी डाक्टर कहते हैं- ये दवाई लो, ये दवाई मत लो। कभी डाक्टर कहते हैं- थाड़े दिन आराम करो। जैसा शरीर के लिए नियम होते हैं न, वैसे ही सारे नियम ये मां के लिए भी होते हैं, ये मिट्टी के लिए भी होते हैं। ये हमारी मां हमने ऐसे वैसे नहीं कहा है। हमने उस मां की चिंता करना छोड़ दिया! क्योंकि हमें लगा- मां है, बेचारी क्या बोलेगी, जितना निकाल सकते हैं, निकालो! पानी निकालना है, निकालते चलो! यूरिया डाल करके फसल ज्यादा मिलती है, लेते रहो! मां का क्या होता है! कौन रोता है! हमने मां की परवाह नहीं की। आज समय की मांग है कि हम धरती मां की चिंता करें। अगर हम धरती मां की चिंता करेंगे तो मैं आपको वादा करता हूं, ये धरती मां हमारी चिंता करेगी।

जिस मनोभाव से मैंने बेटी बचाओ, बेटी पढ़ाओ का काम चलाया है, उतने ही मनोभाव से ये धरती रूपी मां को बचाने के लिए मैंने अभियान छेड़ा हुआ है और मुझे मेरे किसान भाईयों का साथ चाहिए, सहयोग चाहिए ये, मां को बचाने है, ये मिट्टी को बचाना है, ये धरा को बचाना है और तब जा करके हम सुजलाम सुफलाम भारत का सपना देख सकते हैं। वंदे मातरम गाते ही कितना गर्व होता है, लेकिन वंदे मारतम हमें संदेश देता है ‘सुजलाम सुफलाम’ भारत माता का। ‘सुजलाम सुफलाम’ भारत माता! तब तक ‘सुजलाम सुफलाम’ नहीं बन सकती, जब तक इस माटी के प्रति हमारी ममता न हो, ये मां के प्रति हमारा प्रेम न हो। ये मां की रक्षा करने के लिए हम कदम न उठाएं। इस दायित्व को पूरा करने के लिए Soil Health Card एक उपाय है।

आज से 40 साल 50 साल पहले अगर हम बीमार होते थे तो गांव का वैद्यराज भी कोई जड़ी बूटी देता था, हम ठीक हो जाते थे। लेकिन वक्त बदल गया। बड़े से बड़े डाक्टर के पास जाते हैं, तो भी वो दवाई पहले देता नहीं है। आपको जांच करने के बाद कहता है- ऐसा करो, ब्लड टेस्ट करा के ले आओ, यूरिन टेस्ट करा के ले आओ, कफ का टेस्ट कारा के ले आओ और हम लेबोरेट्री में जा करके रक्त परीक्षण करवाते हैं, लोहे का, हमारे रक्त का परीक्षण करवाते हैं, फिर उसकी रिपोर्ट के आधार पर डाक्टर तय करता है कि आपकी ये समस्या है। आपको ये इंजेक्शन लेना पड़ेगा, ये दवाई लेनी पड़ेगी, ये खाना पड़ेगा, ये नहीं खाना होगा ..ब्लड टेस्ट की रिपोर्ट के आधार पर करता है। जैसा शरीर का है, ब्लड टेस्ट कराने के बाद डाक्टर दवाई देता है, वैसे ही किसान को भी अपनी धरती की ये टेस्टिंग कराना ज़रूरी है.. किस उसमें कोई बीमारी तो नहीं है? कोई कमी तो नहीं आ गई? कोई तकलीफ तो नहीं हो गई है? और अगर हो गई है, तो धरा के भी डाक्टर होते हैं? वो हमें बताएंगे कि ये..ये करिए, आपकी मिट्टी के लिए ये काम आएगा। अब तक हमने नहीं किया है, लेकिन अब हमें करना होगा ताकि इसके कारण हमारी मेहनत बच जाएगी, हमारे पैसे बच जाएंगे, हमारा साल बच जाएगा और हम फसल जितनी चाहते हैं, उतनी प्राप्त कर सकते हैं।

और किसान को..अब परिवार बढ़ता जा रहा है। पहले दो भाईयों के बीच में दस बीघा ज़मीन होगी, तो अब पांच भाईयों के बीच में दस बीघा ज़मीन हो जाती है तो फसल ज्यादा पैदा किए बिना किसान का परिवार ज्यादा चलने वाला नहीं है। इसलिए ये Soil Health Card, जिसका मंत्र है- “स्वस्थ धरा” और जिसका संदेश है- “खेत हरा”। “स्वस्थ धरा, खेत हरा”, ये सपना साकार करने के लिए मेरा सभी किसान भाईयों से आग्रह है कि हम हर वर्ष अपनी धरती का, अपनी खेती की ज़मीन का मिट्टी के नमूने का परीक्षण करवाएं। सरकार इस योजना को देश व्यापी लागू कर रही है। उसको और अधिक वैज्ञानिक बनाना है। जैसे आजकल हर छोटे मोटे शहर में ब्लड टेस्ट की लेबोरेट्री होती है, पेथालाजी लेबोरेट्री होती है, हम चाहते हैं कि आने वाले दिनों में लाखों की तादात में ऐसे नए entrepreneur तैयार हों, जिनको ये सायल टेस्टिंग का काम आता हो। वे अपनी लेबोरेट्री बनाएं और वे किसानों को लैब में परीक्षण करके दें। जहां एपीएमसी है, एपीएमसी के लोग भी अपने यहां एक लैब बनाएं और जितने किसान आते हैं, उनको माटी का परीक्षण करके देने की व्यवस्था खड़ी करें। इतना ही नहीं, मैं देश की सभी राज्य सरकारों से आग्रह करता हूं कि अपने अपने राज्य में 10वीं कक्षा, 11वीं कक्षा, 12वीं कक्षा, कालेज, जहां भी ज्ञान की स्कूल है, वहां पर लेबोरेट्री होती है। स्कूल की लेबोरेट्री फरवरी महीने से जून महीने तक बंद रहती है, क्योंकि बच्चे exam में लग जाते हैं, बाकी vacation शुरू हो जाता है। स्कूल की लेबोरेट्री को ही vacation के समय में soil टेस्टिंग लेबोरेट्री में convert करें। हम 10वीं- 12वीं कक्षा के बच्चों को soil टेस्टिंग सिखाएं। vacation में उन गरीब बच्चों की इनकम भी होगी और जो विज्ञानशाला होगी उसको कमाई भी होगी और उस इलाके के जो किसान होंगे, उनकी मिट्टी का परीक्षण भी हो जाएगा। एक पंथ, अनेक काज, हम एक के बाद एक काम को आगे बढ़ा सकते हैं। आगे चल करके यही विद्यार्थी, अगर ये विषय उनको आ गया तो स्वयं अपनी लेबोरेट्री खोल सकते हैं। वो अपना व्यापार धंधा इसी में शुरू कर सकते हैं और मेरा अनुभव है, जब मैं गुजरात में था, मैंने पूरे गुजरात में soil हैल्थ कार्ड लागू किया था। उसका परिणाम ये आया कि किसान मुझे कहने लगा कि साब हमें तो मालूम नहीं था कि हमारी मिट्टी ऐसी है। हम तो हर साल फसल डालते थे और हमारे रिश्तेदारों को तो ज्यादा फसल होती थी, हमारी नहीं होती थी। अब पता चला कि तकलीफ क्या थी। किसी ने कहा कि भई मैं तो ये दवाई डालता था, ये मिट्टी का परीक्षण करने के बाद पता चला कि मैं बेकार में दस हज़ार रूपए की दवा फालतू में डाल देता था। किसी ने देखा कि मैं फलाना फर्टिलाइज़र डालता था, ये परीक्षण के बाद पता चला कि मुझे तो फर्टिलाइज़र की ज़रूरत ही नहीं थी। हम जो फालतू खर्चा करते हैं, ये मिट्टी परीक्षण के कारण हमारा फालतू खर्चा अटक जाएगा। मैं विश्वास दिलाता हूं कि माटी परीक्षण के द्वारा हमें जो सूचना मिली हो अगर उस पद्धति से हम खेती करेंगे, उस पद्धति से फसल का फैसला करेंगे, उस पद्धति से पानी का उपयोग करेंगे, उस पद्धति से दवाई और फर्टिलाइज़र का उपयोग करेंगे, बिना मेहनत, अगर तीन एकड़ भूमि होगी तो किसान कम से कम 50 हज़ार रूपया बच जाएगा, ये मैं आज आपको विश्वास दिलाता हूं.. जो कि फालतू में ही जाता था ..। एक किसान का 50 हज़ार रूपया बच जाना, मतलब उसकी जि़ंदगी में बहुत बड़ी जीत हुई है।

हम वैज्ञानिक तरीके से आगे बढ़ेंगे। फसल ज्यादा होगी, वो अलग, कमाई ज्यादा होगी वो अलग। फालतू खर्चा बच जाएगा। इसलिए मैं यहां आग्रह करने आया हूं कि जैसे हम बीमार होते हैं, ब्लड टेस्ट करवाते हैं, आप हमारी इस माटी का भी प्रतिवर्ष, खेती का सीज़न शुरू होने से पहले, उसका सायल टेस्टिंग कराना चाहिए। सरकार उसके लिए एक बड़ा अभियान चलाने वाली है, आप उसको सहयोग दीजिए।

दूसरी बात है, पानी। एक बात हमें समझनी होगी, पानी का अभाव जितना खतरनाक है, उतना ही पानी का प्रभाव भी खतरनाक होता है। हम पानी के अभाव के लिए तो रोते रहते हैं, लेकिन पानी के प्रभाव के कारण होने वाली परेशानियां.. उसकी तरफ हमारा ध्यान नहीं होता है। मुझे बताईए, हमारे गंगानगर इलाके में क्या हुआ? पानी तो था! लेकिन पानी का जो अनाप-शनाप उपयोग किया और उसके कारण हमारी मिट्टी का हाल क्या हो गया। सारा साल्ट मिट्टी पर कब्जा करके बैठ गया है। पूरी मिट्टी बरबाद कर दी, पानी ने बरबाद कर दी! क्यों? हमने पानी का अनाप-शनाप उपयोग किया। इसलिए मेरे भाईयों बहनों! पानी का अभाव और पानी का प्रभाव दोनों से बच करके चलना अच्छी खेती के लिए आवश्यक है और पानी के प्रभाव से बचना है तो हमें drip irrigation को लेना होगा। हमें पानी के अभाव से बचना है तो भी drip irrigation काम आएगा। हम micro irrigation पर चलें, स्प्रींकलर पर चलें।

इस्राइल! इस्राइल के अंदर राजस्थान से ज्यादा बारिश नहीं होती है। मैं और वसुंधरा जी दोनों इस्राइल गए थे। क्योंकि राजस्थान और गुजरात दोनों जगह पर बारिश कम है, हम चाहते थे कि पानी कम है तो खेती हमें आगे बढ़ानी है। और वहां से जो लाए हम.. आपने देखा होगा, आपके यहां olive की खेती हो रही है। इसी बेल्ट में हो रही है, आपके यहां खजूर की खेती हो रही है और आने वाले दिनों में राजस्थान खजूर export करने लग जाएगा। एक छोटा सा प्रयास कितना बड़ा परिवर्तन लाता है, वो राजस्थान की धरती ने देखा है। अगर हम, जो इस्राइल ने किया है, drip irrigation के द्वारा.. टपक सिंचाई..बूंद बूंद पानी..। कभी कभी मैं ये बात बड़े आग्रह से कहना चाहता हूं, अगर फसल भी, जैसे घर में बच्चों को बड़ा करते हैं न.. वैसा ही काम है। बालक को बड़ा करने के लिए जितनी care करनी पड़ती है, फसल को भी बड़ा करने के लिए उतनी ही care करनी पड़ती है। अब मुझे बताइए मेरे किसान भाईयों बहनों, मैं एक छोटा सा विषय आपके सामने रखता हूं। मैं आशा करता हूं, ज़रा गौर से सुनिए। मान लीजिए आपके घर में तीन साल का बच्चा है। लेकिन उसके शरीर में उसका विकास नहीं हो रहा है, ऐसे ही मरा पड़ा रहता है, बिस्तर पर ही पड़ा रहता है, उसके साथ खेलने का मन भी नहीं करता है, कभी हंसता नहीं है, ऐसी मरी पड़ी सूरत ले करके पड़ा रहता है, तो मां बाप को लगता है, कि बच्चे को कोई बीमारी है, कुछ करना चाहिए। मान लो, आपको, उस बच्चे का वजन बढ़े ऐसी इच्छा है, बच्चा तंदूरूस्त है, ऐसी इच्छा है तो कोई मां ये कहेगी कि बाल्टी भर दूध ले करके, दूध में केसर पिस्ता डाल करके, बढि़या सा दूध तैयार करके, फिर उस दूध में बच्चे को नहलाएगी? और रोज़ एक एक बाल्टी दूध से नहलाएगी! क्या बच्चे की तबीयत में फर्क आएगा क्या? माताएं बताएं, आएगा क्या? बच्चे की तबीयत में फर्क आएगा? बाल्टी भर रोज़ केसर का दूध, उसको नहलाते चले जाएं, बच्चे के शरीर में कोई बदलाव आएगा क्या? नहीं आएगा न? लेकिन एक चम्मच ले करके दो दो बूंद दूध उसको पिलाएंगे, दिन में 10 बार-12 बार पिलाएंगे तो महीने भर में उसके शरीर में बदलाव आना शुरू होगा कि नहीं होगा? बाल्टी भर दूध नहलाने से उसका शरीर नहीं बनता है। दो दो बूंद पिलाने से उसका शरीर बनने लग जाता है।

फसल का भी .. किसानों की सोच ऐसी है कि खेत लबालब पानी से भरा होगा पूरी फसल डूबी हुई होगी। पानी ही पानी नज़र आएगा तब फसल होगी। ये वैसी ही सोच है, जब बीमार बच्चे को दूध से नहलाते हैं। फसल को आप पानी से नहलाओ, ये ज़रूरी नहीं है। फसल को एक बूंद पानी पिलाना पड़ता है, एक-एक बूंद पानी पिलाना पड़ता है और इसलिए बूंद बूंद पानी से ही फसल अच्छी होती है। Flood-Irrigation से नहीं होता है। इसलिए मैं किसानों से आग्रह करने आया हूं कि भारत जैसे देश को यदि आगे बढ़ना है, तो हमें पानी बचाना पड़ेगा। “per drop more crop”.. एक एक बूंद पानी से अधिकतक फसल कैसे प्राप्त करें, ये ले करके हमें चलना है, तब जा करके हम कृषि क्षेत्र को आगे बढ़ा सकते हैं।

ये Soil Health Card की बात हो, पानी बचाने की बात हो, कृषि क्षेत्र को आगे ले जाने का प्रयास हो। मैं मेरे देश के किसानों से कहना चाहता हूं.. मैं पूरी तरह समझता हूं कि हिंदुस्तान को अगर आगे बढ़ना है, तो हिंदुस्तान में गांव को आगे बढ़ाना पड़ेगा। गांव को को अगर आगे बढ़ना है तो किसान को आगे बढ़ाना पड़ेगा और किसान को अगर आगे बढ़ना है तो हमारे कृषि क्षेत्र में क्रांति लानी पड़ेगी। इसलिए मेरी सरकार.. गरीबी के खिलाफ लड़ाई लड़ने का अगर सबसे बड़ा कोई ताकतवर हथियार है तो वो हमारी खेती है, हमारे किसान हैं, हमारी कृषि है, हमारी माटी है, हमारी फसल है। इसलिए सरकार की सारी योजनाएं कृषि क्षेत्र को आधुनिक बनाना, कृषि क्षेत्र को ताकतवर बनाना, इसी पर हमने केंद्रित की है और वैज्ञानिक आधुनिक कृषि के लिए आज हमें वैज्ञानिक योजनाएं ले करके, आज राजस्थान की धरती से उसका आरंभ कर रहें हैं।

आने वाले दिनों में, मैं किसानों से भी कहना चाहता हूं, हमें हमारी कृषि को आर्थिक रूप से भी अब जोड़ना चाहिए, उसका आर्थिक बैलेंस भी करना चाहिए। हमें अगर आगे बढ़ना है, तो किसानों को तीन भाग में खेती करनी चाहिए, तीन भाग में। एक तिहाई जो वो खेती करता है, अपनी परंपरागत करता रहे, उसमें आधुनिकता लाए, वैज्ञानिकता लाए, technology लाए। एक तिहाई हम वृक्षों की खेती करें, पेड़ की की खेती करें। आज हमारे देश में इतना टिम्बर इम्पोर्ट करना पड़ता है। हमारे खेत के किनारे पर हम बाड़ लगाते हैं और दो दो फीट दोनों किसानों की ज़मीनें खराब करते हैं। उस बाड़ की जगह पर अगर हम पेड़ लगा दें तो 15-20 साल के बाद वो पेड़ हमें लाखों रूपया दे सकते हैं। ज़मीन भी खराब नहीं होगी। पेड़ लगने से ज़मीन को भी लाभ होगा और हमारी फसल को भी लाभ होगा। एक तिहाई पेड़,एक तिहाई हमारी रेग्यूलर खेती और एक तिहाई पशु पालन, poultry farm , fisheries , इन कामों पर लगाया जाए। दूध उत्पादन करें, पाल्ट्री फार्म चलाएं, फिशरीज वाला काम करें। आप देखिए, किसान को कभी रोने की नौबत नहीं आएगी, गांव की economy बदल जाएगी। इसलिए मैं आज आपसे आग्रह करने आया हूं कि हम एक नए तरीके से कृषि जीवन को आगे बढ़ाने की दिशा में आगे काम करें। इसीलिए आज जब Soil Health Card आपके यहां आरंभ हो रहा है।

श्रेष्ठ कृषि करने वाले देश के किसानों को आज सम्मानित करने का मुझे अवसर प्राप्त हो रहा है। हम उनसे सीखें, वो किस प्रकार की फसल उगाए हैं, क्या प्रयोग किए हैं, हम उनसे जानें और हमारे इलाके में हम उनको लागू करें। मैं फिर एक बारे वसुंधरा जी का आभारी हूं, उन्होंने भारत सरकार का इतना बड़ा समारोह अपने यहां organize किया, इतनी बड़ी सफलता के साथ organize किया। मैं इसके लिए राजस्थान सरकार को हृदय से अभिनंदन करता हूं और मैं आपको विश्वास दिलाता हूं कि जितनी बातें आपने उठाई हैं, उन सारी बातों का समाधान हम मिल-जुल करके करेंगे और राजस्थान को नई ऊंचाईयों पर ले जाने में भारत सरकार कोई कसर नहीं छोड़ेगी, ये मैं आपकों विश्वास दिलाता हूं। 

21 January 2015

Nehru & the World

The policy of non-alignment had a pro-West tilt in the initial years (1947-48 and 1951) because Nehru was wary of the Soviet Union not least because of the activities of the Communist Party of India. However, subsequently it emerged as a policy of equidistance from the super powers. After the outbreak of the Korean War, he was concerned over the spread of the Cold War to Asia and advocated China’s admission to the UN that would hopefully facilitate a settlement of the Korean conflict. The proposal was opposed by America. Nevertheless, India played a successful mediatory role in breaking the stalemate that had developed in the negotiations on the issue of repatriation of the Prisoners-of-War that brought to an end the conflict in Korea. For this, it was made the Chairman of the Neutral Nations’ Repatriation Commission in Korea (1953-54).

Equally significant was India’s role in bringing to an end the conflict in Indo-China. At the four-power Geneva conference, Krishna Menon and Lester Pearson of Canada worked closely (during February-July 1954) to ensure its success, although India was not formally a member of the conference. In recognition of its role, India was made the Co-Chairman of the International Control Commission for Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, along with Canada. Within six months, however, the Geneva settlement started to collapse; the collaboration with Canada also began to decline.

India’s influence in international affairs reached its peak during the mid-1950’s as the policy of non-alignment came to acquire a positive value particularly in the context of its mediatory role in conflicts involving the major powers. India’s support was sought on important international issues. Nehru’s policy did make India proud. In 1955 India played a major role in the Bandung Conference, and was also instrumental in the “package deal” that facilitated the entry of 16 newly-independent States to the UN. India’s new-found influence as a non-aligned State maintaining equidistance from the Super powers was, however, short-lived as the credibility of India’s non-alignment policy came to be questioned in the West in the context of two events ~  the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Suez and the Soviet intervention in Hungary. “Both of these were clearly invasions”, wrote Brecher later, “without getting into the legal technicalities of aggression or non-aggression”, as both involved invasion by alien forces. He accused India of invoking “a double-standard in responding to the two crises” (1963). To New Delhi, the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt appeared to be an attempt by the two imperialist powers to coerce Egypt to submission. It was viewed as an imperialist war and condemnation was, therefore, spontaneous; but when the Soviet forces invaded Hungary, India’s response was ambiguous because, as Brecher commented, “India stressed what it called the broader implications of the problem”.

The Indian response to the Hungarian crisis was certainly influenced by Cold War considerations, though Nehru regretted the Soviet Union’s atrocities in Hungary. Another factor influencing Nehru’s decision was the lack of proper information from the Indian Embassy in Budapest. This is evident from the account of the events given later by KPS Menon, who was then Ambassador to Moscow and concurrently accredited to Budapest. Matters were made worse by Krishna Menon’s speech in the UN General Assembly explaining India’s decision to abstain from voting on a resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary as it amounted to a virtual defence of the Soviet Union, although he did not have the prior clearance either from Nehru or the MEA, for the stand he had taken in the General Assembly. That Nehru was not too happy with the Soviet Union’s actions later became clear from his letter to Eisenhower (7 November) in which he wrote that there was nothing to choose between Suez and Hungary, but in the absence of adequate information he was unwilling to come out against the Soviet Union publicly. However, India’s actions ~ Menon’s in particular ~ damaged its reputation as a non-aligned State. In the post-Suez years, it could never recover the prestige that it came to acquire during 1954-55 by playing the role of a successful mediator in conflicts involving the great powers, partly because of certain changes in the international environment ~ the beginnings of a rapprochement in US-Soviet relations and the emergence of militant anti-colonialism in the newly-independent States in Asia and Africa ~ and more specifically, because of the deterioration in India’s relations with China since 1959 and especially after the India-China border war of 1962.

India’s humiliating defeat tarnished her image, and Nehru left a legacy of conflict with China which has not yet been resolved. He himself was largely responsible for this.   An  opportunity to resolve the border conflict was lost in 1960, when Zhou en Lai visited India and proposed a “package deal” under which China would recognise the McMahon Line alignments as constituting the border in the eastern sector in return of India’s recognition of Chinese “legitimate interests” for determining the boundary in the western sector.  This proposal certainly merited serious consideration, but because of fear of parliamentary criticism, it was rejected by Nehru. He also missed another opportunity to avert the war in July 1962, when Krishna Menon had informal negotiations with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Marshal Chen Yi in Geneva. An arrangement for the forward posts had been suggested which “implied that both sides would claim obsession of some of the Aksai Chin, and that the territory would have to be divided, leaving the (Aksai Chin) road on the Chinese side”.

Another legacy that Nehru had left for posterity was the unresolved Kashmir dispute which has been the most important factor in souring India-Pakistan relations since independence. It can be nobody’s case to argue that Nehru was responsible for the origin of the conflict; it was the dithering Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir who was responsible because of his prevarication over the issue of accession of his state to either India or Pakistan, before independence.  Another area where Nehru’s policy was deficient was his failure to pay attention to India’s relations with the neighbouring States. This is reflected in the fact that during 1947-57 he did not find time to visit any of the countries in South Asia to reaffirm their friendship, a deficiency which the present government is trying to correct.

20 January 2015

Memories of Jawaharlal Nehru

An eminent scientist and educationist recalls the various facets of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, as empathetic listener, concerned politician, and a keen observer of science

In the summer of 1945 when I was in a summer camp of the Students’ Congress on the bank of the river Ravi in Lahore, Jawaharlal Nehru came to the city after being released from jail. We all went to the railway station to receive him. I could not get anywhere close to him and was pushed to the edge of the large crowd gathered outside the railway station. A platform had been built and Nehru stood at the centre, trying to quieten the very large crowd while attempting to persuade it to allow some of the distinguished friends to join him on the central stage. I was a little amused at his belief that the dense crowd could be so persuaded. But pretty soon, I found that Nehru had disappeared in the middle of the crowd, and using his brief baton streaking a path through which he managed to get Dr. Khan Sahib (Khan Abdul Jaffar Khan) to walk through to the central stage! This impressive accomplishment was done through a magical persuasion of the crowd. I began to feel that he did have a special relation with people in numbers.
The same afternoon Jawaharlal, responding to our invitation, came to visit us in our study camp. We eagerly gathered in a small tent which was furnished with a table and a chair for him. He started chatting with us as he walked in and was escorted to the single chair and we all sat on the floor in front of him. Our secretary walked next to his chair and pulled out a large sheet of paper on which he had written the welcome address he had prepared. We were all eager to hear how he would address this supreme leader of India and share his desire of joining him in our struggle for Independence. He looked at him and declaimed in a vibrating voice making flattering references to him, and stopped, because he saw Nehru rising from his chair. Nehru ordered him to stop and said that he had not come here to listen to this nonsense. “Sit down and let us talk,” he said. The speed at which he dispensed with formalities struck us, as did his passion and seriousness. “We have a war of independence to fight.” I do not remember everything he said, but I do remember we were all ready to walk with him ...
My brother ’s interaction

I had once visited Shahdara in Delhi to listen to Nehru speak. I found the way to get to the lecture venue. It was pretty disorganised and very crowded. The bus service was almost non-existent. We waited a long time for Nehru to appear and after he finished speaking, we started trying to find a bus back to New Delhi, a rather difficult enterprise. As night descended, I was concerned for my mother waiting at home; she would worry that I would lose my way in the then riot-torn Delhi.
Nehru could talk to scientists with great ease. There were deep friendships with people like Homi Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai and some others
When I finally reached home at about 1.30 a.m., I learnt that my brother, Omi, decided that the only sensible way of finding out the time at which the function in Shahdara got over was to somehow get the time from the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister was available on call and gracious enough to respond personally and give assurance of help to the boy in case he needed it.
Omi remembered that there was a big public telephone booth near India Gate. He took out a chawani from his pocket and dialled the number of the Prime Minister. When it was answered by a “hello,” Omi immediately asked, “Is this Panditji’s home?” The answer was immediate, “Yes, brother, this is Jawaharlal speaking. Tell me what’s the matter.”
The Prime Minister understood my mother’s worries and appreciated Omi’s clever way of finding when his brother could be expected to return home. Omi was told to wait another half-hour and get back if I had still not returned ...
At the Kingsway refugee camp

Unaccompanied by any security, Nehru visited the refugee camp in Delhi to express his pain and unhappiness at the terrible attack on occupants of the servants’ quarters of the neighbouring infectious diseases hospital.
Nehru was convinced that the attack and the killing was most likely by some of the refugees in the camp. Steeped in sorrow and anger, he shouted, “I feel like blowing this camp into smithereens.” He sat down and started talking to the refugees in quiet words asking them if it was to perpetuate violence that everyone had fought for Independence. He even went on to observe that he thought the people were not worthy of Independence at all if such behaviour was to continue. He also said that a lot of people were ashamed of the violence but also deep in pain. After that there was calm in the camp as Nehru had shared the grief of the refugees. But then one boy stood up and started shouting, asking, ‘What do we do when our people are getting killed and continue to get killed?’ at which Nehru held him tight and shook him and asked if retaliation would ensure the violence stops. At least someone should have the maturity to cease violence. Then he embraced the boy and sat down for a quiet talk...almost a quiet cry together ...
Contribution to science

Nehru could talk to scientists with great ease. There were deep friendships with people like Homi Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai, Hussain Zaheer and some others. He pioneered the scientific temper movement. You do not have to be doing quantum mechanics or electromagnetic theory to have a scientific temper, though it might help. It implies greater freedom to be different, less constraints and more freedom to fly. It also demands that all points of view might have ab initio rights, prejudice has less chance to reign and seniority need not always rule.
Nehru visited the Ooty Cosmic Ray Laboratory without fanfare or publicity, accompanied by party colleague K. Kamaraj. The visit happened because I had enquired the Director of my Institute, Dr. Homi Bhabha, whether he would like to invite and accompany the Prime Minister to our laboratory. Dr. Bhabha said it would be nice if I sent an invitation to the Prime Minister. So I sent him a hand written note, as suggested.
On the day of his visit there was no formal reception or speeches. They entered the large dark room in which our cloud chamber was operating. We laid a couple of stools for them to sit right before the chamber and I started explaining what we were doing and why. And then Nehru asked what the project was about and what its outcomes would be.
It was my turn to talk a little about high energy interactions of cosmic rays; coming from the far reaches of our galaxy and beyond, they would occasionally collide with nuclei of our instruments, revealing the nature of their interaction in production of other fundamental particles. Some of these particles were new, and lived only for a short time, decaying in our instrument to reveal their properties. This charming set of events was shown to the two distinguished visitors through a couple of cloud chamber events.
Thanks to Nehru’s emphasis on self-reliance, it created a deep influence on the growth of science even in non-independent countries.Yash Pal is former Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The article is an edited excerpt from a speech he recently delivered at the 75th session of the Indian History Congress.)

19 January 2015

States of the Union

Cooperative federalism was a prominent theme on Narendra Modi’s agenda even before he became prime minister. As chief minister, he often accused the UPA of “coercive federalism”, violating the federal spirit and reducing the states to a “subservient” position. His position was that India required a “vibrant and functional federal structure” where states are given their due. However, the question worth asking is whether the government will walk the talk, given that party incentives often change with location.
Barring the institutionalisation of local self-government, Indian federalism has rarely seen any deliberate redesign in terms of its structure or in the arrangements with regard to power and resource distribution. Even a cursory reading of the reports of the commissions set up to examine Centre-state relations in India reveals a conservative streak rather than innovative zeal. Further, governments have also acted according to their convenience. The tragedy of the Inter-State Council says it all.
Most changes in Indian federalism have been evolutionary and have come in the form of tweaks and adjustments. Consequently, the structure remains the same but new processes are worked into it. Much of the federalisation of the Indian polity in the 1990s that we often refer to was in the form of new practices and patterns of interaction. Given their informal status, they are contingent on the existing power relations. More importantly, the changes are largely unintended and have been brought about by social, political and economic currents affecting the political system as a whole.
For instance, the emergence of a competitive multi-party system and the institutionalisation of a coalitional system not only made it tough for the Centre to play hardball with the states but also fulfilled some of their longstanding demands. The participation of state-based parties in Central governments fulfilled their desire to have a greater say in national-level decision-making. The Supreme Court, in the Bommai judgment of 1994, made Article 356, often used to dismiss state governments controlled by political parties opposed to the ruling party at the Centre, judicially reviewable. The court’s observations, and the fact that Central governments depended on state-based parties for survival, made Article 356 extremely tough to use, thus removing a major irritant in Centre-state relations.
Similarly, the embrace of economic reforms helped transform financial dynamics between the Centre and the states. With greater discretionary powers, states competed for market-based investment and this marginally reduced the Central government’s influence over a state’s development trajectory. This access to new revenue sources fulfilled the persistent demand for more financial resources and autonomy. If states today have greater political and economic autonomy than the period before the 1990s, it is probably an incidental benefit rather than the result of concerted efforts.
In this context, NDA 2’s decision to do away with the Planning Commission and scrap policy planning from “top to bottom” — probably the biggest sore point in Centre-state relations — will go down as a major reform in India’s federal history. By recognising states as stakeholders while reimagining the commission and pushing the idea that strong
-
states do not weaken the Union, the government appears to be making the right noises. At the same time, since May 2014 several irritants have emerged as well. The removal and appointment of governors, the home ministry’s instructions to Haryana on the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, to Telangana to hand over law and order powers to the governor of Hyderabad and to the National Investigation Agency on the Burdwan blasts probe are instances that remind us that cooperative federalism remains on the horizon of our expectations. They also indicate the four challenges that the BJP will have to override to institutionalise harmonious Centre-state relations. First, the BJP was only responding to its own political incentives when pushing the cooperative federalism rhetoric. Speaking against the Centre, especially when the Congress is in power has always been an attractive position, as it has often acted as a glue to bring non-Congress parties together. Now that the BJP has a comfortable majority of its own and appears to be riding the crest in the state elections as well, how much of the rhetoric will the party want to take forward. In the past, parties have changed positions when the opportunity structure changed. 
The DMK is one of the few parties that have articulated a position on various dimensions of Centre-state relations, a position crafted when it was primarily active only at the state level. However, when it was in power at the Centre for nearly 14 years and could have pushed its Centre-state reform agenda, it chose to press mute. New institutionalism literature tells us that when actors are integrated with the system, they see only “what they like” and when they are alienated, they begin to see “what they dislike”. The fracas over governors is a good example of the BJP seeing the virtues of the same system they were critical of when in opposition. Second, party organisation matters. As the BJP expands its territorial reach, the need for centralised coordination will increase. Polity-wide parties like the BJP and the Congress use an integrationist and aggregative strategy to appear as cohesive units. Polity decentralisation and party centralisation are unlikely to go together. Third, all federations are dynamic and there is a continual pressure to renegotiate the balance of power and resources between levels of government. The challenge is to constantly innovate and balance different demands. Is the party willing to invest in this exercise? Finally, in parliamentary systems, government-opposition relations could also change the existing incentive structure. The pressure to focus on short-term electoral victories rather than long-term intergovernmental engagement, especially when challenged by the Opposition, will pose the real challenge. The Congress short-circuited federal relations to maintain its dominance. The question is, will the BJP travel the same path? -

Rear view: Lost in Lanka

By the middle of 1987, Rajiv Gandhi was besieged by many domestic problems of extreme gravity. Yet he decided to mediate in the catastrophic ethnic strife in neighbouring Sri Lanka between the ruling Sinhala majority and the highly aggrieved Tamil minority concentrated in the northern and eastern regions of the island republic. The problem had begun long ago, when the Sinhala-dominated government imposed Sinhala as the only language of the country, and it escalated so fast as to become nearly intractable. India’s policy on Sri Lanka, which Rajiv inherited from his mother, was as complex as the situation in the island.
Indira Gandhi did not like the efforts of Sri Lanka’s veteran and wily executive president, J.R. Jayewardene, to draw in the United States, some west European countries and Israel, to help out with his difficulties. She wanted the problem of Sri Lanka to be resolved with Indian assistance without any “any foreign intrusion”. So she had seen to it that her foreign policy advisor, G. Parthasarathy, and a nominee of Jayewardene worked out an arrangement for devolution of power to the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka that would be acceptable to the Sinhala majority also. The effort remained a work in progress. At the same time, she was keen to ensure that Sri Lankan Tamils did not feel let down by India. There was so much sympathy and support for them in Tamil Nadu that they could use the Indian state as a safe haven and also a training field, with the Central government benignly looking away.
Rajiv did not like this and changed the policy. Meanwhile, of the various Tamil groups resisting Sinhala domination, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) emerged as the most influential and powerful. Eelam in the name stood for complete independence. This was the brainchild of its leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran who, as the world witnessed, was a “brutal fighter”.
The old fox, Jayewardene, was usually in awe of Indira. But he found it easy to deal with her son and successor. Fairly early during their negotiations, the two agreed on a new approach. The Sri Lankan government had so isolated the northern Tamil area as to virtually force India to do some “bread bombing” of Jaffna to enable the starving people to eat. Yet, the two sides broke new ground soon enough. New Delhi and Colombo decided to sign an agreement on solving the problem and to cajole or coerce the LTTE to accept it. The Rajiv-Jayewardene accord was duly inked on July 29 in Colombo in an immensely tense atmosphere. But, as Rajiv’s MoS for External Affairs K. Natwar Singh (who later became foreign minister) has recorded in his autobiography, One Life Is Not Enough, its implementations created more problems than
it solved. In the first place, even while the agreement was being signed, Sri Lanka’s prime minister, R. Premadasa, and a senior minister, Lalith Athulathmudali, made no secret of their opposition to it. Something even more startling happened a little later. Seeing that Jayewardene was talking seriously to Rajiv surrounded only by Sri Lankan officials, Foreign Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao asked Natwar Singh to go and find out what was afoot. Rajiv told him that Colombo was a besieged city and Jayewardene feared that there might be a coup before nightfall. So he had asked for an Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) immediately. To Natwar’s question of whether he would like to consult his senior colleagues before sending troops, Rajiv replied that he had already ordered a division of the army to get to Colombo as fast as possible. Before signing the agreement, Rajiv had sent for Prabhakaran in Delhi, and was apparently satisfied with the LTTE supremo’s verbal acceptance of the draft accord. Tamil Nadu’s hugely popular chief minister, M.G. Ramachandaran, was also in Delhi and reportedly gave Prabhakaran a lot of money. However, when asked to surrender arms, as required by the July 29 accord, the LTTE insisted on a series of preconditions, including the release of all Tamil prisoners in government custody and a halt to Sinhala colonisation of the island’s eastern region. How terribly high the Sinhala rage against Indian intervention in their country was became known at the time of Rajiv’s departure for home. At the guard of honour, a Lankan soldier tried to hit him with the stem of his gun. The prime minister’s youthful reflexes saved his life. At the Bandaranaike International Airport, the Sri Lankan prime minister was conspicuous by his absence. When asked about this “discourtesy”, Rajiv blandly replied: “Some presidents have a problem with their prime ministers, and some prime ministers have a problem with their presidents.” The latter part of the statement was a clear reference to his row with the then president, Giani Zail Singh. For a short while, an uneasy peace lasted in Sri Lanka. But even the Tamils of that country turned against India because the IPKF had to storm and capture the LTTE headquarters in Jaffna, though at a high cost. Several IPKF commanders have written books about the often vague and even contradictory instructions from Delhi. This should explain why the much-respected Indian army suffered a dent in its image. Over a thousand Indian soldiers were killed. In 1989, when Rajiv was defeated in the election, Premadasa had replaced Jayewardene as Lanka’s president. He lost no time in demanding the IPKF’s withdrawal. The new Indian prime minister, V.P. Singh, was happy to undo what Rajiv had done. When the first batch of the IPKF landed in Chennai, no one in the Tamil Nadu government was willing to receive it. Only the governor, P.C. Alexander, welcomed them. Even more sadly, there is no memorial for the IPKF anywhere in India. Only the Sri Lankans have built one in Colombo. - Evidently, they realise that India spilled blood and spent from its treasury to save their country’s unity. -

17 January 2015

Venture Capital Funds for Scheduled Caste launched


Shri Thaawar Chand Gehlot, Union Minister of Social Justice & Empowerment, launched the schemes of ‘Venture Capital Fund for Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Green Business scheme’ here today.

The Government of India has launched this ‘Venture Capital Fund for Scheduled Castes’ with initial capital of Rs. 200 crore. IFCI Ltd. will act as Sponsor, Settler and Asset Management Company (AMC) / Nodal Agency to operate the scheme. The IFCI Ltd. would contribute Rs.50 crore which would comprise Rs.5.00 crore as sponsor and Rs. 45 crore as investor.

The objectives of the Venture Fund are as follows:

• It is a Social Sector Initiative to be implemented nationally in order to promote entrepreneurship amongst the SCs who are oriented towards innovation and growth technologies.

• To provide concessional finance to the SC entrepreneurs, who will create wealth and value for society and at the same time will promote profitable businesses. The assets so created will also create forward/ backward linkage. It will further create chain effect in the locality.

• To increase financial inclusion for SC entrepreneurs and to motivate them for further growth of SC communities.

• To develop SC entrepreneurs economically.

• To enhance direct and indirect employment generation for SC population in India

NSFDC’s ‘Green Business Scheme’ for providing financial assistance has been launched keeping into the concern for the climate change. Under this Scheme, loan for unit cost upto Rs.1 lakh at concessional rate of interest will be provided to Scheduled Castes for activities such as e-rickshaw, Solar Pump and Solar energy powered implements, poly house etc.

Cabinet Minister Shri Gehlot informed that the aim of ‘Venture Capital Fund for Scheduled Caste’ is to provide support and concessional finance. Under the scheme, financial assistance upto Rs.15.00 Crore for a period upto 6 years would be provided to the SC entrepreneurs.

He expressed that this scheme would motivate SC Entrepreneurs for contributing in national growth as well as to enhance direct and indirect employment generation.

Minister of State Shri Krishan Pal hoped that these schemes would be helpful in achieving social equality & harmony and Prime Minister’s resolution of “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas” .

Minister of State Shri Vijay Sampla expressed that these schemes would be helpful in fastening the speed of development of Scheduled Castes.

Secretary, Shri Sudhir Bhargava speaking on this occasion informed that this fund would be able to promote entrepreneurship amongst those SCs who are oriented towards innovation and technologies. SC entrepreneurs will create wealth and value for society which will create multiplier-effect in the SC Community. 

12 January 2015

Relevance of Swami Vivekananda as Youth Icon of India

Every year since 1985, the Government of India observes 12th January, the Birth Anniversary of Swami Vivekananda as National Youth Day. To quote from the Government of India's Communication, “it was felt that the philosophy of Swamiji and the ideals for which he lived and worked could be a great source of inspiration for the Indian Youth.”
India is one of the youngest nations in the world, with about 65 percent population under 35 years of age.    It is expected that by the year 2020, the population of India would have a median age of 28 years only as against 38 years for US, 42 years for China and 48 years for Japan. The youth are indeed the most dynamic and vibrant segment of the population in any country.
Swami Vivekananda once said, “Whatever you think, that you will be. If you think yourselves weak, weak you will be; if you think yourselves strong, strong you will be.”
He also said, “See for the highest, aim at that highest, and you shall reach the highest.”
His message was simple yet powerful. Vivekananda conveyed his ideas directly to the people, especially to the youth. His message broke through the shackles of caste and creed and spoke of a language of universal brotherhood. What he said captures the great importance of his ideas and ideals among the youth in our country today. He personified the eternal energy of the youth and their restless quest for truth. It is entirely fitting that 12thJanuary, the birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, is observed as National Youth Day to rekindle the eternal message of this great patriot and son of India. 
But how to make youth realise  the relevance of Swami Vivekananda in these exciting and challenging times, when on the one hand people and nations are engaged in the noble task of developing the personality and leadership qualities of the youth by involving them in various nation-building activities, while on the other hand there are challenges of hunger, poverty, unemployment, corruption and terrorism.
Among the various ways which Swami Vivekananda suggested to rebuild the Indian society, Education was the primary means for empowering the people. He once said, “The education which does not help the common mass of people to equip themselves for the struggle for life, which does not bring out strength of character, a spirit of philanthropy, and the courage of a lion – is it worth the name? Real education is that which enables one to stand on one’s own legs.” For him, education meant secular learning that built character and instilled human values in students.
The Government of India while commemorating the 150th Birth Anniversary of Swami Vivekananda sanctioned a “Value Education Project” of the Ramakrishna Mission (an organisation established by Swami Vivekananda which is widely recognized for its commendable work in the areas of value based education, culture, health, women’s empowerment, youth and tribal welfare and relief and rehabilitation), to help to inculcate in children a moral compass and a value system against the tide of commercialism and consumerism that is sweeping our societies.
It also gave an endowment of US$ 1.5 million to the University of Chicago, for establishing the Swami Vivekananda Chair to focus on Vivekananda, through lectures, seminars and suitable related academic activities on Indian Culture and Indian Studies. The Chair will be held by each scholar for a period of two years.  The University of Chicago will also facilitate exchange of research scholars between the University of Chicago and the Government of India. This permanent endowment will help spread the message of harmony of religions, understanding between nations and the spiritual oneness of humanity, which Swami Vivekananda worked for.
According to Swami Vivekananda, “Teach yourselves, teach everyone his real nature, call upon the sleeping soul and see how it awakes. Power will come, glory will come, goodness will come, purity will come, and everything that is excellent will come when this sleeping soul is roused to self-conscious activity.”
The Government is also making efforts to convert teachings of Swami Vivekananda into practice in the current context.  To meet the need and aspirations of more than a billion people is not an easy task unless some integrated action is taken in areas where the country has a core competence. Agriculture, Education, Healthcare, Reliable and Quality Electric power, Surface transport and Infrastructure for all parts of the country, Information and Communication Technology and Strategic sector are the areas closely inter-related and if the work on these areas for an integrated action start in the right earnest it will lead to food, economic and national security of India.

     The Government has embarked on the mission of building a united, strong and modern India to fulfil the vision of the great thinkers like Vivekananda. “Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat”, following the principle of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas”. These  are not merely slogans but a commitment to the people particularly to youth to take the nation to new heights. A number of path-breaking initiatives have been introduced recently. ‘Make in India’ campaign has been launched to develop India as a global manufacturing hub. ‘Digital India’ initiative seeks to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. ‘Skill India’ is being launched to impart necessary skills to prepare Indians for the opportunities in Indian Economy as also the opportunities abroad. A number of initiatives, including Smart Cities Project, have been launched for developing infrastructure. In all these ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’ and ‘Clean Ganga’ Mission have been launched for building a clean and green India.
All these initiatives of the Government require active involvement and support of youth as they are the major stakeholders of future of this country. Skill development and Entrepreneurship is the flagship programme to put India on the road to become developed nation. Government is making all efforts to invest hugely in youth of the country because it is necessary in the ambitious task of building a modern and prosperous India. And as Swami Vivekananda once exhorted, “Arise! Awake! And stop not till the goal is reached”, let us all unite and work for the country with Purity, patience, and perseverance as the Swami felt long ago that these three are essentials to success.

Featured post

UKPCS2012 FINAL RESULT SAMVEG IAS DEHRADUN

    Heartfelt congratulations to all my dear student .this was outstanding performance .this was possible due to ...