Thursday, 24 August 2017

Is Prasar Bharati its master’s voice?

Is Prasar Bharati its master’s voice?

By Jawhar Sircar
(Published in “The Hindu” on 25th August,2017)

While episodic outbursts when the public broadcaster commits some sin of omission or commission are natural, they usually peter away after some self-righteous indignation. Such transient interest can hardly achieve anything beyond a few column centimetres, as we need to look at what heavy chains bind Prasar Bharati before calling it a poodle.
On a leash
In 1990, V.P. Singh’s government passed a landmark Act to delink the two state monopolies, All India Radio and Doordarshan, from the government that earlier Congress regimes had used to the hilt. A new autonomous corporate holding, namely Prasar Bharati, was desired, but the bureaucrats of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry ensured, through two sections, 32 and 33, that effective control remained with them. In any case, the Act was put into cold storage throughout P.V. Narasimha Rao’s tenure and it was only on the Supreme Court’s order that it was taken out in 1997, dusted and operationalised.
After bundling off the first CEO who took ‘autonomy’ too seriously within a few months, the Ministry ensured for several years that its own Additional Secretaries doubled up as CEOs of Prasar Bharati. Though some were outstanding, they were vulnerable and the Ministry clamped ‘dominion’ status through total funding control. Some 48,000 employees recruited by the Ministry in the Soviet days were unceremoniously passed on to Prasar Bharati, weighing it down with unmanageable numbers and hardwired sarkari mindsets. Under law, their pay has necessarily to be borne by government but it invariably makes a hue and cry about Prasar Bharati bleeding it.
When the Prasar Bharati Board (one must compliment the present and previous one) demanded justice and autonomy, they were laughed away. There were, and still are, several excellent professionals in DD and AIR, but governmental systems demoralise and punish initiative. Almost every minister has enjoyed these hegemonic powers as secretaries could never exercise these without acquiescence or encouragement.
Colossal wastage
Some 10-12 years ago, a couple of ministers pumped money into DD for making its own serials, replacing the earlier successful model of Ramayan, Mahabharat and Buniyaad, and the result was pathetic. All they did was to enrich the private producers and damage DD’s TRPs beyond repair but, despite best efforts, that model has not been replaced even now. Over the decades, countless radio and TV stations were set up and even when it was known that less than 2% of India watches terrestrial transmission through rooftop rod antennas, not a single of the 1,400-plus towers could be shut down. These, and short wave radio transmitters, guzzle power, money and bind down a lot of manpower. So do the 45 TV studios whose 100-odd staff produce just half an hour’s programme per day. But then, who bells the cat that appoints everyone, including the board members? Section 17 transferred all assets and properties from the Ministry to Prasar Bharati, but in 20 years, the rules of transfer could not be made.
Every time the organisation hires ‘updated professionals’ from the open market to try to make old elephants run a bit like racehorses, ‘insiders’ are egged on to complain and inquiries instituted. Parliamentary committee recommendations enjoining autonomy and the Pitroda Committee report are all stuffed into lockers, while control is exercised daily through adroit divide and rule at the top. Until the organisation is forcefully decoupled from its massive sloth and totally detoxified, there is no option but to keep singing the master’s anthem.



Sunday, 20 August 2017

When Doordarshan fiddled with a Narendra Modi interview

When Doordarshan fiddled with a Narendra Modi interview 

By Jawhar Sircar
(Published in The Economic Times on 20th August,2017)

It was sad to see Prasar Bharati getting into an avoidable controversy and, as its former CEO, I was asked endlessly: was it legitimate and proper to ‘censor’ the pre-recorded Independence Day speech of the chief minister of Tripura, Manik Sarkar? Legitimacy and propriety are two distinct issues, but let us first look at the legal aspect.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that “it is imperative that Parliament makes a law placing the broadcasting media in the hands of a public or statutory corporate… whose constitution and composition must be such as to ensure its/their impartiality in political, economic and social matters and on all other public issues”. The Supreme Court also directed the public broadcaster to “ensure pluralism and diversity of opinions and views”. Incidentally, Parliament had already passed an Act in 1990 to to take the control of All India Radio (AIR) and Doordarshan (DD) away from the government and vest it with an autonomous public broadcaster. But P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government sat on it for five years and it was only in 1997 that the ministry was compelled to take it out and operationalise it.

Section 12 (2) (b) of the Act of Parliament makes it clear that Prasar Bharati’s duty is to safeguard “the citizen’s right to be informed freely, truthfully and objectively on all matters of public interest, national or international, and presenting a fair and balanced flow of information including contrasting views without advocating any opinion or ideology of its own”. The public broadcaster is in a weak position to raise questions on the speech of the Tripura CM and the fact that it did televise his public event on Independence Day is a different matter altogether. 

There is a Broadcasting Code that DD and AIR refer to often but that does not cover such eventualities and cannot overrule the law. The CM may have used strong words like “conspiracies” but the crux of what he stated is not untrue.

The rather sad fact is that the ruling party’s mentor organisation did not take part in India’s struggle for freedom. DD can, of course, raise questions if what one says falls within the ambit of, say, Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. It cannot “promote enmity on grounds of religion, race, language, etc” and this is one legal provision that could be used more effectively to punish hate crimes all over India. There is one similar incident that is necessary to recall. When the 2014 General Elections were on, the News Wing of DD interviewed Narendra Modi, who was then the opposition prime ministerial candidate. Prasar Bharati had no prior information but when this recording was not telecast, all hell broke loose. 
We had to step in, to advise the DG of DD’s News Wing to air it forthwith. The News Wing, however, decided, either on its own or after consulting someone, to telecast it after editing out some parts in which Modi had described the family of Congress president Sonia Gandhi. We thus had another row though one could understand the worry of government servants who run DD and AIR. It is like DD broadcasting a speech made by Rahul Gandhi or by Mamata Banerjee during the current dispensation.

The BJP obviously alleged that this “censoring” was inappropriate and Prasar Bharati had to give written instructions, once again, to telecast the complete unedited interview. Modi would not let a wide ball like this go unpunished and he came out castigating the “decline” in journalistic freedom in the public broadcaster, which he said invoked “horrific” memories of the Emergency. Modi continued to air his grievances against Prasar Bharati on World Press Freedom Day which was incidentally the very next day, May 3, 2014. He tweeted that he “was very sad to see our national TV channel struggling to maintain its professional freedom”. 

In an ironic twist, the wheel seems to have turned a complete circle, and while Prasar Bharati has reportedly not broadcast Tripura CM’s speech, Modi’s interview was actually broadcast in 2014, in spite of naysayers. 

Saturday, 19 August 2017

India’s Public Broadcaster and the Aborted Interview

India’s Public Broadcaster and the Aborted Interview

Jawhar Sircar
(Hindi Version published in BBC Hindi on 19th Aug, 2017)



             In the normal course, one would like to stay away from any controversy surrounding an organisation that one has headed for over four and a half years. But since the matter has a bearing on India’s democratic traditions and its federal polity, I would need to clear the air. This relates to the allegation that India’s public broadcaster has refused to broadcast the Independence Day speech of the Chief Minister of Tripura. The question that comes to our mind first is whether this action, as reported, falls within the ambit of the public broadcaster. During my tenure, I do not recall any such instance of questioning a Chief Minister’s speech and the deduction we arrive at is that under earlier regimes such monitoring or attempt thereof was possibly not there or not visible. It is not that earlier governments, that included Atal Behari Vajpayee’s regime as well, were not politically alert or hurt if a leader of an opposition party made strong remarks that criticised them. It simply means that they were more tolerant or more conscious of the fact that federalism demands that the heads of its constituent units or states be given sufficient space. Moreover, democracy also enjoins that contrary voices, however bitter, be heard. This incident appears, therefore, to be the first such case, or at least the only one we have in recent memory.

               When Justice Sawant delivered the historic verdict of the Supreme Court’s bench in 1995 in the matter filed before it by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, the very words that used were that “it is imperative  that  the  parliament makes a  law  placing the broadcasting  media  in  the  hands  of  a  public or statutory corporate …… whose constitution and composition  must be  such as to ensure its/their impartiality  in  political, economic and social matters and on all other public issues.” The Prasar Bharati Act was thus operationalised and now this body has to ensure these mandates that have been spelt out so clearly. The Tripura CM speech issue was thus a test case and it appears that the public broadcaster was found wanting. The fact that it did broadcast the Chief Minister’s Independence  Day event does not mean that it could refuse to carry out his address on the public radio and television. The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear when it directed the public broadcaster to “ensure pluralism and  diversity of opinions and views” and to “provide equal access to all the citizens and groups to avail of the medium.” In this background, there can no operational procedure  for dealing with a CM who may have used strong words but the crux of what he stated appear factually correct. This includes the rather sad fact that the organisation that spawned the ruling party did not take part in India’s struggle for freedom. One may find words like “conspiracies” that were used to be rather bitter, but the rest of CM’s statement is largely true. He said that “attempts are underway to create an undesirable complexity and divisions in our society; to invade our national consciousness in the name of religion, caste and community”. Several recent facts and events appear to lead to such a concussion.

             There is one example of similar circumstances that comes to mind. During the 2014 general elections, DD had interviewed Mr Narendra Modi, who was then the opposition candidate but this was not being telecast for unknown reasons. The DG of DD’s News wing was mulling over certain words that Mr Modi had used to describe Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s family but the moment it came to Prasar Bharati’s attention, we directed DD to telecast it. DD did so but it edited out some parts and immediately the BJP alleged that this was tantamount to censoring and that this was done at the behest of the ministry. Again, when this fact came to light, DD had to be given written instructions to telecast the complete unedited interview which became quite controversial then. Even Mr Modi rued the "decline" in journalistic freedom in the public broadcaster, which he said invoked "horrific" memories of the Emergency."On days such as this, I feel very sad to see our national TV channel struggling to maintain its professional freedom,"Mr Modi said on Twitter, while extending his wishes to journalists on the World Press Freedom Day.

                  This was on the 3rd of May 2014 and the wheel seems to have a complete circle. 







Thursday, 17 August 2017

There Should Be No Place in India for Modi’s Uncivil Words Against Hamid Ansari

There Should Be No Place in India for Modi’s Uncivil Words Against Hamid Ansari

By Jawhar Sircar
(Published in "The Wire" and "Ananda Bazar Patrika" on 17.08.2017)

Narendra Modi is definitely the best orator India has seen in a long while, but we must remember that he chooses his words with extreme care. So when he referred to the slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 by saying that he was not responsible for “every puppy that came in front of his car”, he meant to convey something that many of us missed. In the same vein, the very sharp words that he selected for the farewell speech of India’s longest-serving vice president carried a message that we need to understand.
Mohammed Hamid Ansari is a seasoned diplomat, he also knows the value of each word. So when he decided to state in his last interview as vice president that there is a sense of insecurity among India’s Muslims with “the breakdown of the ability of the authorities” to enforce the law, he was very serious. He bemoaned the fact that traditional Indian values of tolerance are not visible today, when mobs are lynching Muslims on the beef ban issue.
Can we see what it was in these sentiments that could provoke the prime minister to get so personal and dismiss the brilliant career of one of India’s most dignified public figures as “just” a West Asia specialist? As a prime minister who decides to look into each and every senior posting much more than anyone else before him, and thereby delays these orders for months and years, he knows perfectly well that diplomats and civil servants do not decide their own postings. In fact, this is the same Modi who rushed to every important Arab leader before his new-found bonhomiewith their arch enemy Israel. This remark could, therefore, be cleverly resetting of South Block’s priorities, so that all ambassadors from that region can now report home what India’s prime minister felt about Ansari’s ‘Middle East connection’. That would be really sad – in one stroke, it could damage the carefully-nurtured goodwill that generations of Indian foreign ministers, secretaries and ambassadors have built in West Asia so tirelessly. They successfully deprived Pakistan its critical advantage with fellow Muslims in so many countries and, of course, managed to ensure a lasting supply of India’s most necessary commodity, oil.
It was nice of Modi to admit, even while taking a jab at the diplomat and former vice president, that he had not really understood the nuances of diplomacy before he became prime minister. But that did not deter him from flying all over the world and hugging every head of state, whether they liked it or not. These hugs could neither get us the support we needed for Nuclear Suppliers’ Group membership, nor did we move any closer to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. In fact, we do not have a single friend in the neighbourhood except Bangladesh, which is not happy with us at all. Even the only ‘Hindu rashtra‘, Nepal, is more angry with India now than it was under the UPA. All the dramatics of suddenly dropping in without invitation or notice to say ‘happy birthday’ to then Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on December 25, 2015 backfired completely. International diplomacy, unfortunately, does not run like state or zilla parishad politics, where personal equations matter more. Thus, instead of blaming diplomacy as too tricky a business, he could have begun by appreciating the specialisations of life-long diplomats, like Ansari’s in Arab matters, rather than running them down.
Coming back to facts: Did the prime minister or the BJP really want the outgoing vice president to say that Muslims are indeed very happy at the beef ban and the lynchings, or that the latter have never taken place? Is it not the duty of constitutional officers to tell the government when an ‘offside’ or ‘foul play’ is happening, much too often and obviously systematically? Especially if the incumbent happens to be India’s senior-most Muslim? This is exactly the point. The planned outburst was aimed at the apolitical vice president only after the person he feared most, Pranab Mukherjee, had retired. Modi chose a moment when he could hit out at Ansari and to make it look ‘political –’ he had to drag on what his ancestors did for the Congress. The Ansari family’s chief contribution was to India’s freedom struggle, not to a party as was imputed, and it is a different matter altogether that the RSS, the force that runs the government, chose not to participate in this historic movement. Hindutva’s founder, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha, did go to jail for anti-British activities. But then he also wrote a series of mercy plea letters to the British, promising all the help they need if only he was released. The BJP must take a clear stand on what exactly its views are on Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience, the Quit India movement and other critical struggles in our nation’s history that its predecessors shunned, instead of taking potshots at those who suffered for the nation as Congress party members.
Sadly, the prime minister also interpreted Ansari’s post-retirement career in the Aligarh Muslim University and the National Commission for Minorities as “being only in Muslim circles”, hinting that his worldviews are restricted. But did Modi or Amit Shah ever work beyond their own culture, politics and religion? Do the Hindi belt leaders, who love to decide everyone’s diet, know even one language or culture of this great country that lies beyond go-kshetra? Tamil may be a difficult language, but if these Hindi-only cadres took the trouble to learn Odia or to understand a bit of Kodava or the Konkani culture, they would have realised the beauty of a plural India they never knew existed. Ansari is the epitome of refinement; he does not share the views of Muslim extremists and is thus comparable to Maulana Azad and Zakir Hussain where culture and plurality are concerned. It is sad that those whose professional qualifications do not come anywhere near his, like the aggressive Kailash Vijayvargia, are let loose to attack Ansari.
Let us be clear, Ansari was chosen for Modi’s barbs because he is India’s senior-most Muslim in political life. The message was an extension of the one the BJP put out before the Uttar Pradesh polls, when it did not put forth even a single Muslim candidate. This message is that ‘Muslims just do not matter and we do not care about them’. We have to see how long this ruthless, immoral electoral calculus will continue to work for them. What such repeated messages will instigate in the less patient section of the 18 crore Muslims of India is yet to be seen. While extremists on both sides may soon be ready for more violence, the great civilisation called India will not be.

Saturday, 12 August 2017

The RSS and the Tricolour

  
The RSS and the Tricolour
Jawhar Sircar
10 Aug, The Telegraph


As Indians get ready to celebrate the nation's 70th anniversary in few days, our main worry should not be whether some have suddenly decided to become anti-national, but it should be on a new dangerous game of competitive hyper-nationalism that has recently been unleashed. Ridiculous ideas are floated to instil this ‘nationalism’ like installing a military tank within the precincts of a genetically restless university. With systematic attacks on plurality, the atmosphere has already been heated to the desired degree that facilitates the branding of inconvenient dissent as anti-national. We shall soon witness how a government that excels in event management zaps the nation on its Independence Day with dollops of patriotic fare produced at public expense, which must of course come with that mesmerising oratory. But one fact is certain: the organisation that runs the party that runs the regime cannot just appropriate the ‘Indian national movement’ as its own.

             This is extremely relevant because of the well planned ongoing exercise to slaughter the Nehruvian legacy and pluck other national leaders of stature - from Gandhi to Patel - almost out of context to replant them on the rightists’ pantheon, that is so understaffed. True, both these leaders hailed from Gujarat, as does the Gir lion, whose weird gear-crunching ‘Make in India’ animation has put the traditionally-peaceful India’s elephant icon into the shade. But that cannot suffice and even Swami Vivekananda is not spared by those who cannot see beyond his saffron dress but fail to read his very stern anti-communal messages. And, in all such cases, the political right makes selective use of their words and deeds to claim them as as ‘mentors’ in the hope that their association may lend some ‘mainstream lineage’ and respectability to a sectarian and secretive ultra-national outfit. Despite tireless systematicattempts to distort history, the version we possess till now is quite clear that the Rashtriya Syawamsewak Sangh, the RSS, had refused to participate in the freedom struggle. It has, therefore, no right to claim its glory even though the Congress cannot also monopolise on any ‘sole heir’ status, for various reasons.

K.B. Hedgewar, who founded the RSS in 1925, did have some initial loose association with the freedom struggle but from the 1930s, he ensured that his boys in khaki shorts stayed away from this historic movement and the harshest of retaliation it attracted. His biographer, C.P. Bishikar quotes him as having said “Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism.” On the other hand, Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha, who is another cherished role model of the current ruling dispensation, had been active long before Hedgewar but he was rather mercurial. He did lead strident anti-British agitations and was jailed, but he also signed multiple clemency petitions to the colonial government, promising total cooperation if only they released him. The Congress retaliated in 1934 and banned its members from joining communal organisations like the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS and the Muslim League. In any case, during the critical phase of the Quit India movement and other agitations, not only was the RSS missing but we have British reports of the ‘good conduct’ and the law-abiding nature of its members, while so many thousands of women, children and men all over India braved the onslaught of imperial repression.

       Nana Deshmukh raised the issue in his book, RSS: Victim of Slander (1979) “One might well ask: why did the RSS not take part in the liberation struggle as an organisation? The question arose for the first time when Gandhiji launched his movement in 1929-30. It was decided that the members of the RSS were free to take part in their individual capacity”. Fine: but it may be educative to know which particular RSS member actually took part and what suffering he went through for it. The National Archives in Delhi have preserved the Home Ministry files that contain Intelligence Branch records of the role played by them as well as by the nationalists. It is only logical that the RSS and its dedicated cadre that runs the government should come clear on this phase of history before attempting to snatch credit in its new version of ultra-nationalism. This caveat is essential as we come to the next issue on how the RSS had actually opposed the Indian national flag.  On the eve of Independence, when much of the nation was bursting to celebrate freedom, the RSS’s mouthpiece, Organiser, declared that the Indian tricolour “will never be respected and owned by Hindus.The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.” Apart from distorting facts like the age old reverence of Hindus for ‘three’ as evident in the Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwar, this reveals the nonsense that rules the minds of those who peddle faith for votes. We must also understand the psyche that declares cow urine to be a divine antidote and declares that an elephant’s head was grafted on a decapitated Ganesha,  through plastic surgery in very ancient times.

           The earlier issues of the Organiser, such as those of 17th and 22nd July 1947, had also voiced the  opposition of the RSS to many such national issues, but to get to the root, we need to see the book Bunch of Thoughts that the second head of the RSS, M.S. Golwalkar published. He lamented that  “our leaders have set up a new flag for the country. Why did they do so? It just is a case of drifting and imitating...Ours is an ancient and great nation with a glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem at all these thousands of years? Undoubtedly we had. Then why this utter void, this utter vacuum in our minds.” We would, in all fairness, be enlightened if Guru Golwakar could show us the ancient national emblem or flag that he refers to, unless his intention is to substitute the nation's culturally-composite flag with the Bhagwa Dhwaj. This saffron ‘split flag’ of the RSS symbolises not only divisionism but is synonymous with Hinduism and Hindutva, that militate against the very plural reality of India.

                  Mahatma Gandhi's assassination on 30th January 1948, however, changed the political chessboard of India decisively. Government banned the RSS and the Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Patel declared quite unequivocally that “though the RSS was not involved…. his  assassination was welcomed by those of the RSS and the (Hindu) Mahasabha who were strongly opposed to his way of thinking and his policy”. Golwalkar repeatedly pleaded with Patel, but the leader whom the current regime seeks to appropriate, remained totally firm. He lifted the ban on the 11th of July 1949, only after the RSS undertook to stay away from politics, not be so secretive and to abjure violence. More important, it had to profess “loyalty to the Constitution of India and the national flag.” Is it this ‘complex’ that engendered the recent government order to publicly demonstrate patriotism every where, even in movie halls? 














Sunday, 6 August 2017

Sravan in Tarakeshwar

Sravan in Tarakeshwar

Jawhar Sircar, 6th Aug 2017
Ananda Bajar Patrika


            Millions all over India brave the lashing rains of the month of Sravan to reach the holy Ganga or the nearest river they can find. They fill up two pitchers with water and then carry them over long distances, just to pour it all on Siva’s head at selected places, like Tarakeshwar in Bengal. Rituals like these, that are unfortunately being misused by rowdies, may rather appear strange but it is through them that Hinduism ensures that its flock renews its physical and emotional links with the mighty Ganga. It is not just a river but is a metaphor for an all-embracing religion. Incidentally, all the three major pilgrimages in West Bengal, namely, Sagar, Kalighat and Tarakeshwar are linked to this Ganga. Of them, the temple of Taraknath is fairly recent and through its story, we can get to know a lot about the religious history of the Bengalis.

        In the 1950s, Benoy Ghose mentioned repeatedly that Tarakeshwar’s Siva-Puja was distinctly north-Indian and in, in fact, the Kolkata High Court had also said the same in 1934. It declared that “the Dashnami maths in Bengal were founded by Brahmans who came from the north-west provinces and not by local Bengali Brahmans”. To understand why was this cult was imported, we need to recall a bit about the Mangal Kavyas of the 16th and 17th centuries. These balladic poems had managed to bring the autochthonous people and their worship into Hinduism. Though the upper echelons of Shastric Brahmanism would have nothing to do with the masses, the vast majority of which had swung decisively towards Sufi Islam, the poor rural Purohits had to devise a response. After all, their very livelihoods were threatened and it is this class of Brahmans who produced the the Mangal Kavyas to valorise the deities of the folk. In the process, they ensured that the subaltern gods and goddesses invariably defeated the mighty Puranic devatas. Thus, the hideous one eyed snake goddess of the indigenous people, Manasa, proved to be more powerful than the Siva that Chand Saudagar worshiped and Dharmaraj of the western tract was so strong that his devotee Lausen could defeat Icchai Ghosh, even when Durga took his side.

         In the 16th century, Chaitanya had also campaigned vigorously to open up Hinduism to all social strata and his alter ego, Nityananda,  carried this forward after his death. But this Bengal Vaishnavism was devoted to one Puranic god, Krishna, so what about Siva and Durga, the pan-India deities of the Puranas which had succeeded the out-of-style Vedic ones like Brahma, Indra and Varun ? To understand how they were re-established in Bengal, we have to move two centuries forward, to the 18th, when momentous political and economic events overtook Bengal. Aurangzeb has died in the seventh year of the century after which chaos followed, in which Murshid Quli Khan set up his Nawabi, and exactly seven years before the century ended, Cornwallis introduced a new class of Bengali zamindars through his Permanent Settlement. Murshid Quli and the Bengal Nawabs favoured educated Hindus, and so many a landlord like the zamindars of Natore thrived. This is when many North Indian business families migrated to Bengal such as the Jains of Azimgang-Jiaganj and the  Jagatseths-Ominchands of Murshidabad. North Indian soldiers of fortune like Vishnudas and his brother, Bharamalla of Ayodhya and the Punjabi Khatris like the Barddhaman rajas could also settle in rather well during this period. The two brothers from Ayodhya brought the martial north Indian Dashnsmi sadhus to set up Taraknath’s temple in 1729. And some years later, the Barddhaman rajas installed 108 Siva-lingas in their famous temples at Nabab-hat. There are more such examples. As for the Devi, her worship was introduced with great fervour by the local Bengali zamindars, like Kansa Narayan of Taherpur during Shah Jahan’s time, but it picked up momentum only after the Battle of Plassey favoured Hindu interlocutors  like Nabakrishna Deb and Raja Krishna Chandra of Krishnanagar.

     The Dashnami sect that came in was entrusted not only Tarakeshwar, but a full network of other Siva temples in the region. This explains why Tarakeshwar’s Bhole Baba “paar karega” is in Hindi. Incidentally, the  Dashnamis played a rather controversial role in Bengal in the later decades of the 18th century and led the dreaded Fakir-Sannyasi raids that caused quite an uproar, just when the British were legitimising their control over the province. These Sadhus were Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s inspiration for his ‘Anandamath’works, where armed Hindu monks sang their Vande Mataram song: “glory to the Mother”. But it is not only the imported Dashnamis who rejuvenated Saivism in Bengal, which was, incidentally, much later than other parts of India. The Naths inspired by Gorokshanath, whose temple chief has now become Uttar Pradesh’s chief minister, also campaigned for Saivism here. This is evident from the folk songs of eastern Bengal, like Gopichrander gaan, that narrates the trials and tribulations of Matsyendra-nath, the true propagator of the mighty pan-Indian Siva. But, ironically, once Siva settled here his body and soul became totally Bengali as he is not revered as the mighty king of Kailash, but a fun-loving poor Bengali peasant. He wears a tattered loin cloth and makes merry with his ganas until an exasperated Parvati comes and chases him all over, to send him back to the fields.

       This peasant Siva is evident not only in the Sivayan poems, but is found in Dharma Thakur’s liturgical text, the Sunya Puran in the Atho Chaash section. That reminds us: this Puranic deity had to indigenise a lot in Bengal by absorbing much of the worship of local gods like Dharma-Thakur. I agree with several scholars like Ralph Nicholas that Dharma-raj’s wondrous charak-gajan, the hook swinging ritual, and  the stark rites of self-flaggelation were subsumed by Siva. Rituals that are a must during Siva’s festival in Baisakh, such as lwalking over blazing coals, inserting large hooks and needles into the body, rolling over clothed in dry thorny creepers and jumping from high on to big open swords are still practiced more severely by the die-hard worshippers of Dharmaraj, who have not yet moved over to Siva. This point is that even the imported Siva of Tarakeshwar is now totally Bengali and this is clear from the fact that the biggest gajan, the very indigenous summer festival of the local Siva, takes place at this site. Ashok Mitra’s comprehensive volumes on Bengal’s festivals mention that the Sravan trek to Tarakeshwar was originally a test of stamina and that even in the late 1950s, most of those who went to Taraknath were Marwaris. The hit film of 1977, Jai Baba Taraknath must have played a big role in popularising the Sravan pilgrimage to this temple among the locals. But, as in the rest of India, a new restless class has appeared, that gets into this water ritual purely for the fun and for the temporary sense of power it confers. 

           Tarakeshwar was in the news recently when Mamata Banerjee appointed a Muslim minister to oversee the infrastructure for pilgrims, but then, it has gone through these over-publicity phases in the past as well. During the 1870s, for instance, all of Bengal was in excitement over a criminal case involving an outraged husband, Nobin Chandra who had murdered his young wife, Elokeshi for having a torrid affair with the Mahanta of Tarakeshwar. It was so overwhelming that huge crowds starting thronging the court room calling for special protection and all newspapers carried the story in lurid colours, over weeks and months.  In fact, the popular art of Kalighat pats received an unexpected boost during this period and the painters produced numerous visuals of each scene in this murky affair.  Nobin was released soon due to the public outcry but the wicked Mahanta was sent to jail. So popular was this Elokeshi affair, that pilgrims visiting Tarakeshwar could even buy souvenirs with her name on them for the next several decades. 

            This was not all. In 1924, another Mahanta also became so infamous because of his voluptuousness and his open extortions that the people of Tarakeshwar and pilgrims rose in revolt. Two Akali leaders from Punjab, Swami Vishwanda and Swami Satchitananda started a long protest at the temple and the Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee had to intervene. It sent its President and Secretary, CR Das and Subhas Chandra Bose, to Tarakeshwar on the 8th of April to enquire and assuage local feelings. But CR Das’s compromise formula came in for criticism, si had to visit Tarakeshwar once again in May and declare that the Congress formally supported the satyagraha. Hell broke out soon when Gurkha guards employed by the Mahanta suddenly attacked many satyagrahis and slashed them with their khukris. The matter became quite serious and even Mahatma Gandhi expressed his concern. But peace was not in sight, even though the colonial administration became quite tough and started arresting the protestors. Finally on 22 August, the situation deteriorated so much that police had to open fire, injuring several satyagrahis. The movement finally ended when the Mahanta, Satish Chandra Giri, was removed and a Receiver stepped in. But the Brahman Sabha went on attacking poor CR Das.


        Thus, we see that in less than 300 years, Baba Taraknath has gone through a roller coaster of events and has seen a lot of excitement. He has, however, remained quite cool and unflapped. One reason could be because of the rivers of water that have been poured over his head.






The Bulldozer Is the Latest Symbol of Toxic Masculinity to Create Havoc in the Populace

  The Bulldozer Is the Latest Symbol of Toxic Masculinity to Create Havoc in the Populace                                               ...