Poona Pact of 1932: The Beginning of "Caste Reservation Politics" and Part of British "Divide and Rule" Policy

Poona Pact: The beginning of "caste reservation politics". It was part of British govt's "divide and rule" policy. Ambedkar was used as a means to divide Hindus on basis of castes, just like Jinnah was to divide Indians on basis of religion. 

As part of the British policy to "divide and rule" India by dividing Hindus on the lines of castes and hence make them weaker, the British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald had taken a decision to give separate electorates to 'depressed castes' for the Election of members of provincial Legislative Assemblies in British India. Mahatma Gandhi was doing a fast until death to stop this law. The British used Ambedkar as a means to end Gandhi's fast. BR Ambedkar was a known critic and hater of Gandhiji, as it is clear from his writings and speeches. Gandhi finally agreed to Ambedkar and ended his fast. A pact was signed at Yerwada Central Jail in Poona (where Gandhi ji was doing his fast). It was signed by Ambedkar on behalf of the 'depressed castes' and by Madan Mohan Malviya on behalf of the 'other caste Hindus' and Gandhi ji. 

The terms of the Poona Pact were as follows.

• There shall be electoral seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general electorate. Seats in the provincial Legislatures were total 147. These figures were based on the total strength of the Provincial Councils announced in Ramsay MacDonald's decision.
• Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject (irrespective of castes
• In the Central Legislature, 18% of the seats allotted to the general electorate for British India in the said legislature shall be reserved for the Depressed Classes.
• The system of primary election to a panel of candidates for election to the Central and Provincial Legislatures as hereinbefore mentioned shall come to an end after the first ten years unless terminated sooner by mutual agreement under the provision of clause below.
• The system of representation of Depressed Classes by reserved seats in the Provincial and Central Legislatures as provided for in clauses (1) and (4) shall continue until determined otherwise by mutual agreement between the communities concerned in this settlement.
• In every province out of the educational grant, an adequate sum shall be earmarked for providing educational facilities to the members of Depressed Classes.

----------- 

From an article by Source: The Hindu: 

In late September 1932, B.R. Ambedkar negotiated the Poona Pact with Mahatma Gandhi. The background to the Poona Pact was the Communal Award of August 1932, which, among other things, reserved 71 seats in the central legislature for the 'depressed castes'. Gandhi, who was opposed to the Communal Award, saw it as a British attempt to split Hindus, and began a fast unto death to have it repealed.

In a settlement negotiated with Gandhi, Ambedkar agreed for 'depressed castes' candidates to be elected by a joint electorate. However, on his insistence, slightly over twice as many seats (147) were reserved for the 'depressed castes' in the legislature than what had been allotted under the Communal Award. In addition, the Poona Pact assured a bigger representation of the 'depressed castes' in the public services while earmarking a portion of the educational grant for their uplift.

It is also highly unlikely that a clever politician like Ambedkar would not have weighed the consequences of not signing the Poona Pact. It would also not have been lost on him that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, with the Muslims of India strongly backing him, was watching and waiting to take advantage of the evolving situation.

The Poona Pact had several positive outcomes for Ambedkar. It emphatically sealed his leadership of the 'depressed castes' across India. Most of all he succeeded in making the 'depressed castes' a formidable political force for the first time in history.

As Ambedkar remarked in a 1943 address to mark the 101st birthday celebrations of Mahadev Govind Ranade, all he wanted was “a settlement of some sort”; that he was not “prepared to wait for an ideal settlement”. It is very much in this spirit that he affixed his signature to the Poona Pact.

----------- 

Reading about it, we can notice that the Poona Pact was 'win-win' for the British Govt and Ambedkar and a 'loss-loss' for Congress and Mahatma Gandhi. Through the Poona Pact, the British Govt got away with their original 'caste-divide plan' and successfully ended Gandhi's fast. BR Ambedkar on the other hand established himself as the prime leader of 'Dalits' and consolidated them into a political force. 

The success of Poona Pact showed that the British could get away dividing Hindus in the lines of castes and they would succeed if they pitted a Hindu against another Hindu, like they did by pitting Ambedkar, a Hindu, against Gandhi or Malaviya, also Hindus. 

On the other hand, Congress and Gandhi ji had to concede from their earlier position of protesting against the  Ramsay MacDonald's decision of caste reservation in legislative assemblies. But we can understand that Gandhi ji and Congress did not have much choice than to concede. If they did not agree, India's independence movement would have degenerated into an internal mess with Hindu castes fighting against each other. In order to focus on our freedom movement, they would have given away their position, from which Ambedkar, a Gandhi-hater and who also made his followers quit Hinduism later on, gained prominence. 

New Farm Bills by Modi Govt are Good and Punjab Needs to Set Its Priorities Right

 

Rich Educated Muslims Joining IS and Influencing Others In India

At the beginning of the "Islamic State" wave, there were reports of large scale radicalization of Muslim youth all across the world including India. At that time it was widely said by media and poverty and lack of education was causing Muslims to get radicalized and join the IS. Although the profiles of the men who carried out 9/11 attacks or the attack on Indian parliament had proved this theory wrong, still, due to being repeated so many times, this theory had remained stuck in public imagination. 

But time and again, new facts have been proving this theory wrong. Highly educated and rich Muslims have not only been radicalized and went on to join the IS in Syria/Iraq, they have also influenced more Muslims to join them and become terrorists. 

Here is a latest news related to this which caused my thoughts to trigger:

Missing Bengaluru youth helped many join IS, killed in Syria

A business management graduate belonging to a wealthy Bengaluru family who has been missing for around seven years and was suspected to have joined the Islamic State is now known to have been killed in Syria.

Sources said the death of Faiz Masood had been confirmed by a doctor arrested in Bengaluru recently by the NIA in connection with an Islamic State Khorasan Province case. Abdur Rahman, an opthalmologist, was among the Bengaluru youths who travelled to Syria in 2013-14 to join the IS.

Investigations have revealed that Masood, then 27, who left behind his parents, wife and two young children, was closely associated with the IS in Syria and Iraq and was a key contact in Syria for Bengaluru youths trying to join the terror outfit.

Questioning by the NIA, other central and state agencies of Rahman and an alleged associate — a fellow doctor, also from Bengaluru — has reportedly revealed that the two of them had met Masood at the Syrian border town of Atme, when they crossed over from a Turkey refugee camp in end 2013.

Rahman and his associate, both 22 and medical students at the time, said Masood died in an attack on a camp that left one of them with minor injuries. This prompted them to give up plans of joining the IS and return within days of making it to Syria, seeking financial help of their parents, officials said.

Investigators claimed Rahman and his associate, who went to become doctors after returning to India, admitted that Masood’s death, the injury to one of them, as well as the serious infighting they saw among IS cadre had disillusioned them. Another alleged associate of Rahman, an aeronautical engineer, has reportedly also told investigators that Masood had facilitated his travel to Syria to join the IS. He left before the two medical students and stayed longer before suffering an injury to his arm and returning.

Masood had left for Qatar in September 2013 and disappeared soon after. His disappearance was not reported to the police by his family. Security agencies stumbled upon his name in 2014-15, as being one of those from India possibly killed in fighting in Syria, when they began looking closely at identities of IS recruits from India.

Masood was part of a group of wealthy Muslim youths from east Bengaluru who met often in 2012-13 and discussed religion. Several from the group later left to join the IS when it was established around mid-2013.

The Syria trip in 2013-14 of Rahman and others was also facilitated by a dentist and a computer applications graduate who earlier lived in Bengaluru and are currently working in Saudi Arabia.

Rahman was arrested on August 17 by the NIA on charges of conspiring with Jahanazaib Wani and his wife, held from New Delhi in March, to carry out activities of the Islamic State of Khorasan Province unit in India. In its statement, the NIA said Rahman was “in the process of developing a medical application for helping injured ISIS cadres in conflict-zones and a weaponry-related application for the benefit of ISIS fighters”.

In the first charge sheet filed in the case last week, the NIA alleged that Wani, who belongs to Kashmir, and others “were also provoking some gullible youth to participate in anti-CAA protests actively”. “In case these protests failed to provoke the Muslims, they were planning for arsoning of Government buildings & public property so that riots could happen and they could exploit the sentiments of Muslims,” the NIA said.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/missing-bengaluru-youth-helped-many-join-is-killed-in-syria-says-probe-6593768/

Can Rhea Get Away from Drug Case Putting All Blame On Sushant?

Ever since the Whatsapp chats of Rhea Chakraborty have come out where she is seen sourcing drugs; she has claimed innocence putting entire blame on Sushant Singh Rajput. She mentioned in her famous Aajtak interview that it was Sushant who used to consume drugs and she was only buying it for him. She claimed that she never did drugs herself and neither did her family. All these claims have fallen flat on her face with hard evidences that she was lying. 

First, the Whatsapp chats linking her to drug dealers started from year 2017, long before she had ever met Sushant. This proves that she was linked to drugs much before Sushant came into her life and hence she can't run away putting entire blame on Sushant. 

Second, Central Agnecies have found proof that drugs were procured at the Waterstone Club, and at Rhea’s residence too; apart from Sushant’s residence. It proves that she or her brother were dealing in drugs not only related to Sushant but also for others. 

In the probe, Sushant's staff Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant have also cofirmed that they procured drugs only for Rhea and the timeline also started from September 2019 (much after Rhea came into Sushant's life). 

According to IndiaToday report, Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant named Rhea Chakraborty, the one who was behind the purchase of illegal drugs for Sushant’s home. Samuel Miranda made a confession that he had purchased weed for the late actor from September 2019 to March 2020. He procured weed for Rs 2,500 per packet from Showik Chakraborty’s friend Suryadeep. He further named another drug supplier Kamaljeet (KJ). He further disclosed that Karmajeet used to deliver the weed to Waterstone Club, Prime Rose apartment (Rhea’s residence) and Mount Blanc apartment (Sushant’s residence). [Samuel Miranda, Dipesh Sawant Name Bollywood Celebs Who Attended Drug Parties at Sushant Singh Rajput’s Farmhouse]

It won't be easy for Rhea to just blame Sushant Singh Rajput for her entire involvement with drugs and save herself. Justice needs proofs and the proofs so far indict her and her brother clearly. 

Let us wait for this case closure to be able to know the details of this whole story. 

Did Rhea Really Love Sushant?

There is a news item from NDTV from April this year; it is titled, "Neither Sushant Singh Rajput Nor I Have Ever Admitted That, So It's Not True": Rhea Chakraborty On Rumoured Relationship With The Actor"

Rhea Chakraborty, in a recent interview with ETimes, denied reports about her rumoured relationship with Sushant Singh Rajput and said: "It's not true. Neither Sushant Singh Rajput nor I have ever admitted that, so it's not true. Sushant and I are really good friends. I've known him for eight years now. We were in YRF together and we had the same manager for a long period. Our friendship has evolved over the years. I love all my friends and I don't hide that. I am very public about my love for the people in my life, whether they are girls or boys."

She added that she "doesn't know" what the actor thinks about her. "Whereas Sushant is a concern, he's one of the nicest and the coolest person I know. I don't know about him but to me, he's super cute and attractive. But I don't know what he thinks about me."

It is easy to understand that she was aware of people's suspicion about the couple being in love, and she specifically clarified to remove the doubt. She denied that she and Sushant were in love. 

Does the fact that Rhea and Sushant were not in love contradict the fact that they were living in together? Many people have "no strings attached" affairs and hence we can't say for sure that there is a contradiction. May be Sushant and Rhea were living together without any plan about marriage. Or may be one of them loved the other but the other did not plan to marry. Hence, we can understand that Rhea or Sushant won't be publicly admitting that they were together. 

But once Sushant died, Rhea came out in the open and admitted that they were "a couple". In the famous Aajtak interview, she strongly mentioned that she and Sushant were "living like a couple". And in this news item from June 19th, "Rhea confirmed that the two were indeed dating and were even living together during the lockdown." 

The question is: Why did Rhea deny her relationship with Sushant until he was alive; but admitted that they were in love immediately after he died? Was it because of a "convenience or was there a deeper conspiracy? In June, no one was blaming Rhea for Sushant's death. At that time, it was not necessary for her to disclose her relationship status to the media. It can be understood that she chose to disclose her relationship status soon after Sushant died "in order to make people take her statements seriously and with authenticity!" 

And what were those statements? The statement which solved the Sushant death case even before it made people wonder. She mentioned that Sushant had mental problems and he had stopped taking medicines which explained his death! People can look at it as a very "convenient" act. 

Now that Sushant is not alive, Rhea can speak anything and it will be difficult for people to do "fact checks". All we got are Sushant's roommates, while many of them were Rhea's friends, and hence we shall never be able to trust them fully!

Now, the biggest question: If Rhea loved Sushant, how could she administer him with drugs? How could she procure the drugs putting her own reputation at risk, ask detailed methods about how to give him drugs and then help him get addicted? What kind of a lover would do that? We can understand that may be girlfriends with no commitment to marry someone could do that! Or someone who was using Sushant could do that!

Rhea Chakraborty's last movie was in 2018. She did not have a movie for last 2 years. All she got was a Rumi Jaffrey's proposed film with Sushant; based on her own statements. Can we understand that all she was doing in Sushant's flat was to keep him happy so that she could get one more movie? She claimed in Aajtak interview that the couple were expecting to get Rs 14 Crores from this movie. That would have been perhaps the biggest fee she ever got for her acting. So, is this all? 

Based on all facts and going through above aspects, does it not seem more appropriate that Rhea was with Sushant for a purpose? If she really "loved" Sushant, she would never have given him drugs in the manner she did. And if she was just being friends with Sushant to get her next movie-break, she should have been honest enough to mention it. But since she mentioned that she was Sushant's "lover", that changes everything. People doubt everything about her.