Everyone knows that Indians are sensitive about their religion. Before the elections they are very particular about doing such actions which they think will result in favorable verdict. This analysis is proved authentic by Rahul Gandhi saying openly that not only he respects old traditions but he intends to go further and show respect by making his programme based on these traditions.
This he showed as reported by press during Gujarat elections visiting many temples, what even press had no choice but to high light this fact. Some of Nehru’s admirers regretted that Nehru views on keeping religion outside politics was being abandoned and now being revived by his own family.
In support of this Rahul Gandhi is openly saying he would go by the conduct of Pandvas and the opposition is Kauravas. He has given no instance of his polices or his programme of action as Pandavas as against his opponent whom he accused as being Kauravas.
But a little reflection would show that before leaving the other group who created this situation as to be judged by correct criteria. Reference to religions from traditions for himself saying that he followed Pandavas. Kauravas were “neech”; as they did not show respect for women and no respects for womanhood. But the question that the needs to ask himself is how did this situation arise? Both Pandavas and Kauravas agreed on gambling, so no one gets the blames.
Pandavas in gambling even put Draupadi on the stake. They did not even lift their finger when Draupadi was being disrobed, crying to be saved from this insult. Not only they, but the elders like Bhisma Pithamaha and Dronacharya kept cowardly silent, even when she was being disrobed and asking for help.
Now examine what Rahul meant by calling himself as Pandavas. I would have been happy if he was giving promise that in present India there will never be bullets used for maintaining law. In that connection I may remind him that if police firing does take place, serious consequences will follow.
Bringing religion is unacceptable in our republic. Death by police firing raises a very important question as to the responsibility of State or the Central governments. I may in this connection point out that the Socialist party of J.P. and Dr. Lohia had proposed a policy regarding police firing in independent India. It was a straight one namely that in a free democratic country like India, any police firing leading to the killing of citizens must automatically lead to the resignation of the State government. The leaders should promise that in Independent India, no State government or Central Government should have legal sanction to open fire on the crowds. And if a situation reaches that stage it shows the complete incompetency of State government which should lead immediately to the resignation of the government.
In fact, Socialist Party had to face this situation early in free India. The party was expected to do well, considering the sacrifices and contribution to freedom struggle and especially to the most important phase of 1942 movement.
The Socialist Party was even then able to form a government in only the then State of Travancore with Chief Minister Thanu Pillai. Some time later there was agitation in Travancore and police firing took place leading to the death of some demonstrators. Immediately Dr. Lohia and many others like us demanded resignation of our government of Thanu Pillai. I am still of the view that in free India police killing of the demonstrators by police must automatically lead to resignation of the government if human right violations are to be avoided – and this has been proved by subsequent events in India, as is shown by official figures released by Government of India that at least over 50,000 people have been killed by the police firings – this happened because correct human right standards were not accepted and followed, namely the automatic resignation of State government in such an eventuality. This will show ignoring violation by the state of people’s rights can and will always lead to the calamitous situation as has happened in the past.
I do not know why Rahul thinks that Pandavas are to be supported as against Kauravas whom he calls neech.
In the matter of gambling both of them were agreed. So the blame is equal. It is only during the play, that the Pandavas had lost their balance when they chose to put Draupadi on stake.
Even when Draupadi was crying for help, the Pandavas kept shamefully silent. The explanation can only be that both Pandavas and Kauravas agreed on behaving as if Draupadi is not their equal, but a mere chattel of man.
Draupadi, of course, never forgot it and showed that she will not keep contact with Pandavas unless she was given the blood of Duryodhan being killed. Draupadi, sought the only option namely, the killing of Duryodhan. But even upto now most of the people consider that keeping silent was the only correct answer. These people do not treat women as equal to men; that is why the cry of Draupadi remains silent in the shameful discrimination as treating them as a personal chattel.
Of course now luckily people will not tolerate such a shameful action by men. The only way this attitude can be changed is by accepting women’s demand that they should have initially one third MLA - MPs (to start with) in the parliament and legislature. I warn the women again coaxing them to wall for the legislation. I may say that only Parliaments legislation or State Legislators can do it. In this fight for justices they should be hope that quite a large number of Indian men will vote with women.
Let the demand for women be that they will no longer suffer any insult to their womanhood. This step will be a fitting reply. This will also announce boldly the women resolve that they will have a separate identity. India does not need Savitri, India needs Draupadi. This alone will give respect to womanhood.