To H.H. the Dalai Lama

Mumbai; May 29, 2007

Your Holiness,

On 10th of May, I had written an open letter to you. I strongly felt about the issue of mass conversion of tribes, nomads and illiterate poor Indian population in the faith of Buddhism. An event was to be organized in Mumbai on May 27th, where as the organizers claimed, more than one lakh Hindus including 1000 nomadic tribes families were to embrace Buddhism. I requested you from my heart not to be part of this event. The request came from my heart and was unadulterated.

I had your postal address (in Himachal Pradesh), but I didn't post it. Somehow, I had a feeling that I should not post it. The feeling was similar to the feeling when we wish something very deeply from God. We don't register our wish in any book, or get a receipt for our prayers at a temple. We wish, we ask Him and we know He has known.

I was eagerly waiting for the event to take place on May 27th. The next morning, I eagerly opened the newspaper. I came to know that you didn't attend that mass conversion which was being lauded as the largest mass conversion in India. I came to know that you even didn't attend the two days international conference on Buddhism and World Peace, which was organized to mark the conversion of Dr. Ambedkar into Buddhism.

I was touched and I can't explain the satisfaction in me when I saw this news report today: (Link: https://www.lankaeverything.com/vinews/srilanka/20070527004024.php?PHPSESSID=cea0605e5193ec72828bc0bf7d4beacd )

But the two-day fete, which included an international conference on `Buddhism and World Peace,’ did not start on a grand scale as the spiritual leader Dalai Lama did not turn up to inaugurate it. That, however, did not dampen the spirit of the monks. In his message, the Dalai Lama said conversion to the Buddhist faith was not so important as were efforts to change society.

Your message conversion to the Buddhist faith is not so important as are efforts to change society has touched me deeply. I feel you answered my prayers. No one can be more specific than this. Your message not only answered to the points that I raised in my letter, but also it explains your stand over the issue. Please bless those people also who see politics in the religious conversions, as you have blessed me. With my heartfelt regards.

Yours in peace,

I address you, the powerful

[Read this in conjugation to my writing Open Letter to H.H. the Dalai Lama on May 10, 2007]

To the editor, Hindustan Times

On May 9, 2007, Hindustan Times Mumbai reported under heading Nation's largest religious conversion at racecourse, that on Sunday, May 27th, India's biggest religious mass conversion will be held at Mahalaxmi Racecourse, Mumbai, where more than one lakh people including 1000 nomadic tribes families will embrace Buddhism. The organizers declared that His Holiness Dalai Lama would perform the rites.

On May 27, 2007, HT again published a report about the International Conference on World Peace and Humanistic Buddhism, which was held in Mumbai on May 25 and 26. The same report asserted that on Sunday, about 20,000 people will convert to Buddhism.

On May 28, 2007, a day after the event, HT reports that about 200 (Two Hundred) nomads and other people converted to Buddhism in the mass conversion. The report also tells that Dalai Lama didn't come to attend or perform the rites.

Why should not I accuse your newspaper of sensitizing the issue and creating hypocrisy? Your tale of 1 lakh, then 20000 and finally 200 is a story in itself. There is already a politics out there of getting more and more Hindus converted to Buddhism and Christianity. I am not saying that religious conversion should be banned. But why all the Christian missionaries have their base in tribal areas? And why all the people converting to Buddhism are poor and illiterate? The present scene more than indicates that there is politics and hidden agenda involved in this issue. Nomads, tribal and illiterate poor people are joining other religions not because of some real spiritual inclination or sense of enlightenment. They are converting because they are falling pray to the agenda of some people and organizations who want to weaken Hindustan. But why your newspaper got involved in spreading false messages and collecting cheap publicity for those organizations? We expect better examples of mature journalism from HT.

To the editor, Times of India

TOI reported about the mass conversion on May 28th under the heading Thousands embrace Buddhism. I want to bring out major flaws in your report. These are from your report:

Though the number of people present at Mahalaxmi Race Course was a little less than the expected figure of 100,000..

By evening, their number had swelled to at least 50,000.

..thousands of eager hands went up in the air amid loud Buddhist chants and ‘Jai Bhim’ slogans, initiating hundreds of new converts into the Buddhist fold.

In the first sentence quoted here, you mention that the number of new converts were a little less than one lakh. In the second sentence, you say it was at least 50,000! And in the last quoted sentence, you talk about hundreds of new converts! I never expected such laggard attitude in your esteemed newspaper.

Reference: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Thousands_embrace_Buddhism/articleshow/2078096.cms

To Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa, President, Sri Lanka

I can see from the report published in the Indian news papers that you participated in the two-day International Buddhist Conference in Mumbai, and you lauded the contribution of Dr. BR Ambedkar to Buddhism. In the same conference, you said: He (Dr. Ambedkar) had pioneered the renaissance of Buddhism in India and was responsible for millions embracing Buddhism in the land of its birth. The international meet was to mark the 50th anniversary of Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism.

You have yourself counted the teachings of the Buddha as metta (loving kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (rejoicing in other’s good fortune) and upeka (equanimity). I am not sure how someone responsible for millions embracing Buddhism becomes a great man in your religion. Have you people forgotten the teachings of Buddha and have focused only in increasing the headcounts in your faith? Doesn't that make you equal to some secret society in North Korea, which wants more people to come under its fold? In any case, from today onwards, you should be more admiring to the Hindus. While standing on the Indian soil, you talk of millions embracing Buddhism, and none among Hindus protest.

Reference: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=d5e35d17-9284-4533-9482-ce0b18a19e53

To the men and women who got converted

Hi, As you must be feeling great after getting released from the atrocities of your religion of birth, I am happy that you did what you wanted to do; and more than other things, no upper caste person prevented you from this. As you are now Buddhists, you are free from the clutches of the discriminating Hindu caste system and oppression system. I want to say something to you.

If your child is in school, in some time he or she will need to apply to a government seat, either for educational or for job. Should I expect that now you shall mark yourself as General Category?

To the members of parliament in India

As a matter of fact, converts into Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism continue to remain Scheduled Castes and get benefit of the caste based reservation system. Is this justified? As they have converted out from Hindu caste system, they are now equal to all and are free from the discrimination and stigma attached to their castes. But why the rules made by you keep them in the reserved categories? Can you justify why should they continue to be included under SCs? If not, why don't you make the corrections?

Thorat Committee and Art of Making Reports : Part-II

Know your AIIMS:

AIIMS was created to be the premier medical institute in India by the central government in 1956.

It has been ranked repeatedly at the top in its field in annual surveys (starting in 1997) published by India Today.

It ranked first in Asia in the medical colleges and institution survey (MCIS) conducted by WHO for 2006-07.

It earned the First Priority Hospitals (FPH) standard by Time Magazine.

As per Forbes (Germany), most European nations recommend AIIMS for medical tourism in Asia.

The hospital has been able to maintain high standards of quality while seeing large numbers of patients (3.5 million in 2006) at very low cost to patients.

MBBS at AIIMS has a batch size of 50. (33 Gen, 11 SC/ST, 1 phy handicap, and 5 international students nominated by Government of India). Around 75000 students appear for its entrance test every year.

Main courses offered by the institute are: MBBS, MD/MS, DM/MCh, BSc courses in Nursing, Paramedical and medical specialties, MSc, MBiotech, PhD in many specialties, etc.

Recently Dr. BR Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital’s construction has been completed. It specializes in medical, radiation and surgical oncology.

Know your Dr. P. Venugopal

Director of AIIMS since year 2003.

Dr. Venugopal has been associated with AIIMS for 48 years. He joined the institute in 1959 as an undergraduate, did his post-graduation from AIIMS and has been associated with it ever since. He joined AIIMS as a faculty member in 1970.

He performed the first Heart Transplant surgery In India in 1994.

It was after this pioneering surgery by him, that the Govt. of India passed an act allowing transplant of hearts of Brain Dead patients (mostly accident cases) to needy Cardiac Patients. Hundreds have benefited by that Act.

He is one of the topmost cardiac experts in India.

He has received several international awards in his field.

He has conducted over 50,000 open heart surgeries.

He was decorated with Padma Bhushan in 1998 for his achievements.

After the events of being sacked by the board headed by health minister, Dr. Venugopal said, “I am looking forward to maintaining the autonomy and dignity of the institute for which I have always fought,” adding he could ignore the “personal humiliation” meted out to him.

Know your Dr. A. Ramadoss

Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare.

He is President of AIIMS.

Member of Rajya Sabha (elected in 2004).

He was a student of Madras Medical College and did his MBBS from there.

He belongs to the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founded by his father Dr S. Ramadoss.

Got Dr. Rajashekharan (a close relative of his) elected as chairman of the selection committee at AIIMS.

Some of his contributions to India are:

Urged film and sports stars to not endorse soft drinks
Publicly contested UN figures on AIDS in India
Advocated statutory warnings for smoking on screen

He is nicknamed “the minister for Venugopal affairs”; and “a bull in a china shop” infamously.

The war between the veterans

The tussle between the AIIMS director Dr. Venugopal and Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss is almost two years old. The AIIMS director and the Health Minister did not get along from the very beginning as Venugopal was seen as a BJP-appointee. Problems began with Ramadosss stay at the AIIMS guest house when he became Health Minister.

In May 2006, when the protests against proposed 27% reservations in central universities gained momentum all over the country, many students from AIIMS joined the protests. They staged a strike and all medical services were shut but parallel OPDs were started after the strike had been carried out for a long time. The strike continued till 31 May 2006 when the doctors called off their strike after the Supreme Court of India orders. Union health minister Dr. Ramadoss accused Dr. Venugopal for supporting the protesting students. 

On 5th of July, 2006, a day before the birthday of Dr. Venugopal, AIIMS governing body met over an ‘extra ordinary meeting’ in the morning. As president of AIIMS, health minister Ramadoss presided over the meeting. Dr. Venugopal was member-secretary body and he too had come for the meeting. But he was asked to wait outside of the meeting room by Dr. Ramadoss. Dr. Venugopal waited outside the room for over one hour. Then he was called in and handed over his termination letter. Points to be noted here are:

Decision or discussion over the fate of the director of AIIMS was not in the agenda of the meeting.
There was no consensus in the 15 member board on sacking the Director, but no voting was carried out.
Three members, including BJP’s VK Malhotra were vocal in their opposition to the decision, but were not heard.

The despotic manner in which Dr. Ramadoss carried out this episode invited wide criticism from the press. But most of the newspapers in my memory wrote some sort of obituary for Dr. Venugopal, as if he was a dead man. The TOI made a mockery of him, under title “Ramadoss’s birthday gift to Venugopal: Sack letter”.

The day after, Dr. Venugopal filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, challenging the decision to sack him. Senior counsel Arun Jaitley (BJP) appeared for Venugopal in the court. The attitude of the government here is noticeable. The Centre told the court that it was willing to withdraw the resolution seeking termination of services of director Venugopal provided he relinquished his office on his own. It showed that the government was very sure that court will not try to interfere in its decision to sack the director, and they would continue running the country as their farmland! But, on July 7, the Delhi High Court stayed the sacking orders. It was a victory of one man standing against the clout of a despotic minister backed by the government of India.

It should be noted that the Mandal-II protests were a success not only in AIIMS, but also in IIT Delhi and many other institutes. The increased reservations were to put large pressures on the limited infrastructure and education facilities, therefore many industry leaders and experts criticized this law. Some members of national knowledge commission, a think tank set up by the government of India had resigned in protest against the dictatorial attitude of the government. Also, AIIMS has a history of coming out to the causes of the national importance. During the Emergency, AIIMS Students Union was among the first organizations in the country to go on strike, and was banned by the government. Protests were held all over India, but one man  the union health minister Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss made sure that he uses the issue to gain control over the institute. The war instigated by Dr. Ramadoss not only attacked the AIIMS director and the autonomy of the institute but also spoiled the educational environment in an institution of higher learning.

Those who supported Dr. Venugopal:

1)     The BJP: It was the NDA government which had appointed Dr. Venugopal as the director of AIIMS in 2003. Therefore it was natural that the BJP came to his support and called him one of the greatest doctors of India. BJP spokesperson Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad said, This public humiliation is completely unwarranted. The government should not interfere in the functioning of AIIMS. (But after a while, like all other issues that BJP took up, gradually the party became less vocal on the issue and afterwards became totally silent. Loss of a strong opposition is not because of the weakness of the BJP or NDA, it is because of the ruthless manner in which the Congress party goes after its adversaries until they become silent.)

2)     The TDP: There were some attempts by the party to make this issue an issue of pride of people from Andhra Pradesh. Deccan Herand News reported on July 6, 2006 that the TDP had sought the intervention of President A P J Abdul Kalam and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to reinstate ousted AIIMS Director P. Venugopal to the post and demanded the removal of Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramdoss in this connection. Party spokesman M V Mysoora Reddy said, “His unceremonial removal is a great insult to all Telugu-speaking people and Union Ministers from Andhra Pradesh”.

Some comments from other netizens

Just four of these comments would assure you that the Indian electorate is very much learned about the issue. Public understands what is Truth and what is Thorhat!

“If IIMs can have autonomy and Mr. Narayan Murthy can get vocal about mere decrease in fee or reservation, why a different set of rules for Dr. Venugopal and AIIMS?”

“Health minister Dr. Ramadoss studied at Madras Medical College (possibly on a quota seat) … He appointed his sisters father-in-law as a member of the AIIMS committee and he is son-in-law of the Tamilnadu congress president….. If he had ever practiced medicine, then he would have known what Dr. Venugopal has done for Indian Medicine and would have not been so vengeful…”

“Coming from a rich background riding the caste politics from Vanniyar community, this minister has no qualifications to be a politician, except that he is the son of an influential casteist politician, from a small region in TN.”

“He (Dr. A. Ramadoss) wouldn't have survived in private sector if he had behaved like that.”

Thorat Committee and Art of Making Reports : Part-I

Let me put the conclusion of my analysis in the beginning itself  Thorat Committee is about politics, not about equality. Now please go through my analysis in two parts (Thorat Committee and Art of Making Reports  Part-I and Part-II). Can you sense something unusual? I have used a cue from the Thorat committee. They have displayed a smart piece of artistry in preparing their report: First write down the conclusions and then start the investigations to prove the conclusions! To your relief, I have not perfected this art.

I have tried not to be judgmental and attempted to base my conclusion from the facts, which no one can dispute. I hope you like this analysis.

            What is Thorat Committee?

Three-member Thorat Committee was constituted by the government of India in September, 2006 to look into allegations of discrimination against reserved category students at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). This followed the tussle between the AIIMS director Dr. P Venugopal (who wanted to maintain the autonomy of the institute) and Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, Union Health and Family Welfare Minister (who wanted to take control of management decisions and working). The war between the two got a real high when the minister held Dr. Venugopal responsible of criticizing the government over proposed 27% caste based OBC reservations (rule 9 of the conduct rules prohibits a government servant from criticizing the government in the media), leading to sacking the director. Delhi High Court stayed the sacking order, but this embarrassment didn't deter the minister from continuing the war. The committee got its name from its head Mr. S. K. Thorat.

            The committee members

S. K. Thorat, Chairperson of University Grants Commission – Head
K. M. Shyam Prasad, Vice-President of the National Board of Examinations
R. K. Srivastava, Director-General of Health Services.
 

            The idea behind the committee

A Times of India report appeared on September 12, 2006, titled, “Dalit students abused’ at AIIMS.” This prompted health minister Anbumani Ramadoss to set up the Thorat inquiry the same evening.

            Submission of report

The committee submitted its report to Anbumani Ramadoss, Union Health and Family Welfare Minister on May 5, 2007. 

Conclusions and recommendations of the committee

Major conclusions and recommendations are under:

AIIMS Director Dr. P. Venugopal played a provocative role in the origination of the students agitation against 27% OBC reservations.
 

The committee reports that more than two thirds of the reserved category students confirmed to them that they had faced caste based discriminations in the institute, their evaluation was not proper, they often got less than expected marks, higher caste faculty members enquired about the castes of the students during viva voce, and they shifted their hostels to remain safe.
 

The committee suggested towards more objective based tests to prevent disclosure of identity of the students to the evaluators.
 

The committee recommended that a committee of students, residents and faculty be set up to examine and study social divisions on the campus and suggest measures to remedy the situation.
 

            Modes of investigations by the Thorat committee

Thorat Committee never interacted with any one from the faculty of AIIMS.
 

The committee had to meet the alleged victims secretly for its task of recording evidence, because the Director of AIIMS, Dr. P. Venugopal didn’t cooperate with them in the investigations.
 

            My objections to the Thorat committee report

          

          The most important point is that the Thorat committee report can't be looked at in isolation. Some important factors and objections to the committee report are:

a)     The background leading to the formation of the committee (tussle between Health Minister and the Director) is a very important factor, which points towards the fact that this committee might have been formed by the minister to set scores with the director. 

b)     Timing of the committee formation: Why the committee was formed in the year 2006 (exactly after the High Court stayed the sacking of the Director)? If the alleged discrimination of the reserved category students are being done for a long time, why didn't the minister bothered to look at the matter before?

c)     Members of the committee: They come from positions where they can't make the government unhappy, for the sake of their own careers.

d)     Times of India exclusive article: Why didn't the minister, who is the president of the institute for many years, come to know about the alleged discriminations before a Times of India article came up? Also, Times of India has been famous for creating its own stories and strongly pushing them.

e)     Who should conduct inquiry: Why was the committee formed and its report submitted to the Health Minster when the matter involving was a clear case of alleged human rights violation. Why the matter was not reported in front of the National Human Rights Commission?

f)       Emotional response: In the emotionally charged condition, when the fate of the law enforcing the 27% quota in central educational institutions is hanging in the Supreme Court, how could the committee make sure that the reserved category students who took part in the investigation were speaking unbiased truth? Some allegations like their evaluation was not proper and they often got less than expected marks are vague statements. Ask any student and he or she will say that the evaluation was not proper or the marks were less than expected. This is the basic psychology of students and examinees.

g)     If the higher caste faculty members really enquired about the castes of their students during viva voce, why didn't the professors belonging to the castes of the reserved category students protest, or inform the minister who is the President of the institute?

h)     Why didn't the committee consult even a single faculty member? At least it should have consulted the faculty belonging to the castes of reserved categories, to get the real picture from those who are learned and mature enough.

i)        The methodology of investigation consisting of only asking the alleged victims doesn't seem convincing.  

j)       Accountability of Dr. Ramadoss: If the alleged caste based discriminations are true, then as President of AIIMS, what is the accountability of Health Minister Dr. Ramadoss in maintaining a healthy non-discriminatory atmosphere in the institute?

k)      Thorat Committee's recommendations of forming another committee of students, residents and faculty to examine and study social divisions on the campus and suggest measures to remedy the situation means this committee didn't do its job properly. This was the very purpose for which the Thorat committee was formed and now the committee, after investigating for over 8 months, wants another committee to do its job! Why should not the committee report be accounted null and void?

Need for greater autonomy of premier institutes

It should be noted that the Public Accounts Committee Report (2004-2005) tabled in the parliament spoke of the need to back off from interference in the AIIMS functioning. The premier institutes like IIMs, IITs, IISc, and AIIMS have been able to excel to the present level and made an international brand of themselves because of the dedicated faculty and management contributions. A level of autonomy is very important for the continual growth of such institutions, otherwise the bureaucracy can play havoc on the quality of education. The politicians of India have a proven track record of interfering in all public institutions, creating new hurdles, quotas and licenses, and ultimately degrading the quality.

Conclusions

            Conclusions are drawn after keeping in view the background and events leading to the present condition, as presented in Part-II of this article and the above mentioned objections.

            Dr. P. Venugopal is an eminent figure in the medical field in India, a true recipient of the Padma Bhusan. He has been associated with the AIIMS for over 48 years and if now there are some allegations which make him a casteist and an autocratic leader, the allegations should be investigated in a nonpartisan manner, also taking note of the events that are precursor of the present situation.

        

The manner, in which the present Health Minister Dr. A. Ramadoss has tried to dilute the autonomy of the AIIMS and to bring down Dr. P. Venugopal from his chair, is a story of a despotic minister who runs on his whim.

The Thorat Committee report should not be looked at in isolation. The committee and its report have many aspects which make one suspect its real intentions (See My objections to the Thorat committee report). It seems the committee was formed by the minister of health to get even with the AIIMS director, who didn't toe his lines. The committee seems to conclude exactly what was expected of it, and blamed exactly who were expected to be blamed by it; it was a grand design to frame up the AIIMS director Dr. P. Venugopal. Therefore I say – Thorat Committee is about politics, not about equality.

Open Letter to H.H. the Dalai Lama

Mumbai; May 10th, 2007

Your Holiness,

I address to you as to one of the greatest spiritual leaders of this contemporary world. I have some apprehensions and want to convey my feelings to you.

Yesterday (May 9) Hindustan Times, Mumbai edition published a report on the front page titled Nation's largest religious conversion at racecourse (http://ht09may.notlong.com). I came to know that on 27th of May, 2007, India's biggest religious mass conversion will be held at Mahalaxmi Racecourse, Mumbai, where more than one lakh people including 1000 nomadic tribes families will embrace Buddhism. The report contains the following statements: People from 42 nomadic tribes will convert to Buddhism, The Dalai Lama will perform the rites, We tribal never followed Hinduism, so there is no question of relinquishing it Conversions were a protest against the government apathy; don't even get shelter and food, and literacy rate is just 0.06%.

Hinduism, at no point of time, could to be defined under a fixed set of principles and beliefs. Hindus are so diverse and far from each others in terms of practices, customs and beliefs that it is very difficult to summarize what Hinduism exactly stands for. One accepted definition is that who ever was born and lived in this land called Hindustan or India, are Hindus. Tribal and nomads, in my opinion, are more Hindu than people who regularly visit temples. They worship the sun, rivers and natural forces, which is a part of the Hindu custom and practices everywhere. They may not be as educated as or as settled as common societies, but they are all Hindus by nature. The difference in skin colors or dialect doesn't matter; they are all my brothers and sisters. Everyone born in Mother India and whoever has drunk her water and ate what comes out of her soil are her own sons and daughters. I don't understand how someone can say that the tribal are not Hindus. They may not know a word called Hinduism, but they have lived it for generations. 

The government apathy over development in tribal areas is a real concern. Even after 60 years of freedom, the tribal people have not seen the life which populace in cities enjoys. We could have done so much to make their lives more comfortable and happier; alas, we have not done enough. But to use religion as a means of retaliation don't seem logical. We need to be part of the system to bring changes.

From my childhood, I have been inspired by the struggle of the Tibetans for their independence. Whenever I see your picture, I feel a feeling of reverence. The atrocities in the hands of China have made Tibetans depart from their own motherland. But I have this solace that India has patronized your cause; it has not back tracked and is second motherland to the Tibetan Buddhists. India has helped Tibetans preserve their free spirit, culture, tradition and education, and their existence has never before posed any threat to the local culture and tradition so far.

As you know, India and Hinduism are so close and engraved into each other that you hit one and the other bleeds. How can your Holiness be part of such an agenda? Religion is a personal matter, but such mass conversions are more politics than religion. Buddhism is not alien to India and even Hindus have learnt a lot from Buddhist ideas. But such mass scale religious conversions make many like me uncomfortable. Are these nomads educated enough to decided about leaving their age old beliefs to accept new ones now, or is their decision a real retaliation against neglect? Why should your Holiness be involved in these events? I love my motherland, and I consider all Indians my brothers and sisters, irrespective of their religion or belief. But I feel shattered when I come to know that my motherland which supported you as her child, suffers in the name of religion. No one can separate India and Hinduism. Hinduism is not merely a religion; it is a way of life for all who consider India as motherland. I pray to you please don't be part of such mass scale conversions. This is my sincere request to you as to the highest figure in Buddhism today.

If anywhere in this letter, I have been less than devout reverent to you please excuse my naivety.

Balance of Power the IIT Way

In international relations, Balance of Power is a concept in power politics. Within a balance of power system, a state may choose to engage in either balancing or bandwagoning behavior. Balancing or hard balancing refers to a state joining a weaker coalition to counter the influence or power of a stronger coalition. Balancing is a military action, intended to increase the power or threat of power of one state relative to another. Bandwagoning refers to the act of weaker states joining a stronger power or coalition within balance of power politics & it occurs when weaker states decide that the cost of opposing a stronger power exceeds the benefits to be gained from supporting it.

If we search beyond the international relations, the following meanings can be derived from the term “Balance of Power”:

Balance of Power is a musical rock band from Great Britain.
Balance of Power is a computer game first released for Apple Macintosh.
Balance of Power is a 1986 album by the Electric Light Orchestra.
Balance of Power is a book by New Zealand cricket captain Stephen Fleming.
Balance of Power is a novel by Richard North Patterson

But I learnt a new meaning of Balance of Power, the day I visited IIT Bombay. Yes, I mean Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. (Just for information, do you know that Jairam Ramesh (Congress MP) is a product of IIT Bombay? You may know about Nandan Nilekani and Kanwal Rekhi as its more famous alumni.)

Shivaji and Ambedkar, under the same roof

When you reach the reception area in the main academic building of IIT Bombay, you will find two busts there. One is of the Shivaji and the other is of BR Ambedkar. Neither personality needs an introduction. But their statues do. I could not get time to find out which was installed earlier. But the statue of Shivaji was installed at a more appropriate place and was covered with glass casing. The statue of BR Ambedkar was in the open, and it seemed that they tried hard to look for a convenient place for it. That is why the wall before his statue looks askew in this picture. It seems to me that the Shivaji's statue was present there from before and a new statue of BR Ambedkar was installed later on.

Balance of Power

Why from the whole universe of great scientists and thinkers did the IIT authorities choose to install these two figures there?

Shivaji, Chatrapati Shivaji Raje Bhonsle to be precise, is one of the greatest heroes in India. His rule is called one of the six golden pages in Indian history. He inspired the freedom fighters of India‘s freedom struggle. Shivaji was a deeply religious Hindu but he respected all religions within the region. Shiv Sena has taken inspirations form the Maratha king and many important locations like international airport were named and renamed after him. You can feel the presence of Shivaji everywhere in Maharastra. So I was not surprised to find him at an IIT also.

BR Ambedkar is a Bharat Ratna; first he fought for the rights of lower caste and untouchables among Hindus and then started the Dalit Buddhist Movement. He is credited for being chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. (Ambedkar hated Hinduism and was a fierce critic of Gandhiji. Taking note of his state of mind, it surprises me why the Congress party made him in charge of writing the rules for Indian democracy!). Several political parties like the BSP and Dalit organizations have made him their paragon and constant source of inspiration. Go to any slum in Mumbai, and you will find his statue or temple guarding the area.

But a pragmatist will say that Maratha are ‘upper caste’ community and its leader Shivaji was also upper caste. So the balance of power seems to be tilted in favor of these so called upper caste people. (It looks dirty, but there are people who would support this notion). The remedy? Install another statue of a person from the lower caste; who can be better than BR Ambedkar himself? So another statue of BR Ambedkar comes under the same roof. This decision may have been taken by some director with a different set of inspiration, or under demands from some local politicians.

Well, I don't have an objection until things work out under some reasonable logic. Neither of these two gentlemen had any relations with IIT B. Also, some political organizations have vested interests in promoting them. Why should an IIT install busts of people who are neither related to the institute nor do they provide any inspiration to the students/faculty? I have no objection, until it is followed by some sound logic. We can't let politics acquire a position adjacent to the reception desk! Balance of Power should not be an extracurricular learning at an IIT.

The world is not yet perfect

On 3rd of May, 2007 Mumbai edition of HT published a shocking news report on their first page. In a village called Kulakaji near Pune, some so called upper caste people attacked and killed a lower caste man because he was getting his own well dug. The strong men had so far prevented the weaker sections in the village from digging their own well, so that their own wells continue to supply water in good quantities. The man, let us call him Dinesh, was 48 and a father of three. He used to work for Indian Railways and after retiring from services he was back in his village. Despite protests from the strongmen of the village, the Panchayat had given him rights to get his own well dug and granted him Rs 60,000. Dinesh was ready to share water with other villagers at the time of scarcity. 

One evening, the strongmen attacked him with axes. They left him bleeding. No one came to save him. Later, his son carried him to a hospital 2 km away. But he died on the way. 

It was reported that all the so called lower castes in the village had converted to Buddhism earlier. After his murder, the community mourning his death put up two pictures near his cadaver, one of Gautam Buddha and another of BR Ambedkar.

Confrontation to reach peace

I know that perhaps no one from that village is going to read this article for some time. But there are lessons that are to be learnt for all. I have been to villages and know that there are separate areas for some particular castes to put their huts. Time has changed and they are allowed in all public places like temples. But they can't do anything they like, without the permission of the landlords, which are invariably from upper castes (many are OBCs though). I don't believe that Hinduism has some castes as lower and some others as higher. So I use the term so called before the terms. This divide between the sections of so called lower and upper are not only deep but whatever superficial actions are taken to bridge the gap results in more atrocities against the lower castes. I am sure about one thing, that through confrontation we shall reach no solution.

Converting as an escape  

The lower sections are increasingly leaving their innate religion and embracing Buddhism or Christianity. The key is to understand the reasons behind the trend. It is not that their fathers and forefathers didn't have the option of converting to any other religion. They didn't convert because in Indian way of life, we don't really believe in changing our religion. Even the outcastes used to think that they were as Hindu as the Maaliks, and they must play the role set for them in the society without complaining. Their attitude of surrender didn't make their lives much comfortable though and they were still subjected to atrocities and humiliations from time to time. But often the strong castes in villages took care to allow them a certain level of freedom and peaceful living.

In the changing times, with increased political movements targeting the so called lower castes and dalits, there is more and more awareness of their own rights. With a good number of younger people moving to cities in order to earn and through exposure to the outside world, they no longer want to remain sidelined. Now they will raise voices and protest. In many parts of India, the naxals and similar groups too exploited their insecurities and helped them in taking revenge against the oppressors.

Let us come to the question of religious conversion. Very few of the revered and popular Hindu Saints have talked against the caste system. Many of the famous Hindu Saints have credited the caste system with the survival instinct of Hinduism in India. While they don't support any caste based atrocities, they still say that Brahmins are the brain; Kshtriys the arms and Shudras the legs of the Hindu body. This condition has prevailed and I still hear the same explanation even these days. Very few Hindu organizations like Arya Samaj tried to connect to the lowest sections and helped create an environment where all Hindus are equal. A lot of people still believe that their castes are based on their karma as done in their previous births. Under these circumstances, the Dalits saw no hope. And it was not difficult for the organizations seeking to spread Buddhism in India, to lure them and get them mass converted to their belief. This is the reason why most of the Christian missionaries always worked in the tribal areas. Almost all the people being mass converted either to Buddhism or Christianity are from the so called lower castes today. Perhaps Islam lost in this race of conversion because they don't take the converts as equal to the indigenous Muslims and casteism still persists there. I wonder how long the Hindu saints will take before realizing that this is a real threat to the Hinduism in India. 

Caste based reservations: concocted solution 

The government has taken the easiest and the most ineffective way to impart justice to the people like Dinesh. The system of caste based reservations is actually not benefiting the target groups. The real beneficiaries of the caste based reservations are the richer among the reserved category castes. I have a case here. A daily wage worker used to visit our house during my childhood. He was very popular among other workers because he had achieved a great feat his son was studying in graduation. Time passed and his son graduated; but he could not get a government job. After several years of struggle, the graduate took his father's spade and came to work. It was shocking. That day, I realized that this reservation system is not working in India. Many of my friends who are getting the benefit of the present reservation system are sons and daughter of engineers, school principals, or village pradhans. They would have got the same seats on their merit; the system of reservations made them achieve with lesser fight. Also, the system of reduced merit criteria helps the beneficiaries remain mediocre for their entire lives. If I am sure of getting admission with 40% marks, why should I toil to get 90%? Do you think the reservation system will help people like Dinesh? Let us suppose Dinesh got his job with the Railways because of the reservation for SC/ST candidates. But will his family get a justice now?

Let us think how the government is going to help the family of Dinesh. Most probably, the strongmen from his family will go underground for several months, until the atmosphere in the village calms down. Then one day, they will return back in their previous roles. They will buy their freedom by paying the local police and the Panchayat. Is any politician really doing something to make social justice a reality? The case of this village in Pune is not an isolated case. Even today, people across the country are being killed, attached, looted and humiliated just because they were born in a family belonging to some particular castes. They are fleeing villages, changing names, converting to Buddhism or Christianity, raising guns and joining Naxals. They are ready to do whatever they can to escape their present state of disgraced lives under Hindu casteism. Is government doing something? Are Hindu organizations doing something? Is the caste based reservations helping someone? Are the champions of Dalit movement doing something? How long will the hapless children mourn behind bodies of their murdered parents? How long will the rot last?