Context: 25th September marked 108th birth anniversary of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay. In this context, let us understand the philosophy of Integral humanism given by him.
Integral Humanism:
Background:
The doctrine of Integral Humanism was born from Upadhyaya’s desire to have “uniquely Indian” ideas guide the journey of the newly independent nation, as opposed to the many Western ‘isms’ like individualism, communism and socialism which developed in West.
He explained that Bharatiya (Indian) thought views life as a unified whole, with the physical, mental, and spiritual dimensions closely intertwined. In contrast, the Western approach often isolates and compartmentalizes aspects of life.
Integral Humanism focuses on the holistic development of society and the individual, encompassing both material and spiritual well-being. It integrates the traditional Indian concepts of dharma (duty), artha (wealth), kama (desires), and moksha (spiritual liberation).
Key features:
‘Integral Humanism’ presents ‘Indigenous socio-economic model’ in which human being remains at the center of development.
The aim of Integral Humanism is to ensure dignified life for every human being while balancing the needs of individual and society.
It supports sustainable consumption of natural resource can be replenished integral humanism enhance not only political but also economic and social democracy and freedom.
As it seeks to promote diversity it is best suited for a country as diverse as India.
The philosophy of integral humanism is based on the following three principles.
Context:The new session of the Lok Sabha (18th) started with an intriguing development when the newly-elected Speaker initiated a motion to condemn the Emergency imposed in 1975.
Introduction: In 1975, India experienced its greatest political crisis since independence when Internal Emergency was declared on 26 June. The Emergency was a 21-month period from 1975 to 1977.
Crisis in the Pre-Emergency period:
By the beginning of 1973 popularity of the Government led by Indira Gandhi began to decline.
Little dent was being made in rural or urban poverty or economic inequality, nor was there any lessening of caste and class oppression in the countryside.
The immediate provocation for the rising discontent was the marked deterioration in the economic situation. A combination of recession, growing unemployment, rampant inflation and scarcity of foodstuffs created a serious crisis.
The burden of feeding and sheltering nearly 10 million refugees from Bangladesh during 1971 had depleted the grain reserves and, combined with the cost of the Bangladesh war, had led to a large budgetary deficit. The war had also drained foreign exchange reserves.
Monsoon rains failed for two years in succession during 1972 and 1973, leading to a terrible drought in most parts of the country and a massive shortage of foodgrains, and fuelling their prices.
The year 1973 also witnessed the notorious oil shock when world prices of crude oil increased fourfold, leading to massive increase in the prices of petroleum products and fertilizers. This drained foreign reserves, further increased the budgetary deficit and deepened economic recession.
Economic recession, unemployment, price rise and scarcity of goods led to large-scale industrial unrest and a wave of strikes in different parts of the country during 1972 and 1973, culminating in an all-India railway strike in May 1974. The railway strike lasted twenty-two days but was broken in the end.
In May 1973, there was a mutiny in Uttar Pradesh by the Provincial Armed Constabulary , which clashed with the army sent to discipline it, leading to the death of over thirty-five constables and soldiers.
To tackle the deteriorating economic, political and law and order situation firm and clear leadership was needed, as exhibited during the Bangladesh crisis and in the handling of foreign affairs.
The Emergency:
The then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed proclaimed Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution because of prevailing "internal disturbance".
The proclamation suspended the federal provisions of the constitution and Fundamental Rights and civil liberties.
The government imposed strict censorship on the Press and stifled all protest and opposition to the government.
The main leaders of the Opposition were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. Among those arrested were Jay Prakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Congress dissidents such as Chandra Shekhar.
A series of decrees, laws and constitutional amendments reduced the powers of the judiciary to check the functioning of the executive.
The Defence of India Act and MISA were amended in 1975 to the detriment of the citizens’ liberties.
Another law, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act passed in 1974, was also frequently used to target political opponents
In 1976, an effort was made to change the basic civil libertarian structure of the constitution through its 42nd Amendment.
Popular hopes were raised and in 1975, Twenty-Point Programme by Indira Gandhi was announced. Its aim was the socio- economic upliftment of the vast mass of the rural poor.
The programme promised to liquidate the existing debt of landless labourers, small farmers and rural artisans and extend alternative credit to them, abolish bonded labour.
It aimed to implement the existing agricultural land ceiling laws and distribute surplus land to the landless, provide house sites to landless labourers and weaker sections, revise upwards minimum wages of agricultural labour, provide special help to the handloom industry, prevent tax evasion and smuggling.
Three million house sites were provided to the landless and the Dalits.
About 1.1 million acres of surplus land was distributed to the landless; this was, however, less than 10 percent of the surplus land.
The Bonded Labour System stands abolished throughout the country with the enactment of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
Discontentment among people:
Within a few months, however, the people started getting disillusioned with the Emergency.
Popular discontent from mid-1976 reached its zenith six months later.
Relief to the people did not last long. Economic growth of the first year of the Emergency was not sustained.
Agricultural output declined; prices rose by 10 per cent by the end of 1976.
The corrupt, black marketeers and smugglers resumed their activities as the shock of the Emergency wore off.
The poor were disenchanted with the slow progress in their welfare and workers were unhappy because of limits on wages, bonus and dearness allowance and restrictions on the right to strike
Government servants and teachers became discontented because they were being disciplined in their workplaces and in many cases were being forced to fulfil sterilization quotas.
So far as the common people were concerned, matters took a turn for the worse, for there were no avenues of protest or any other mechanism for the voicing and redressal of their grievances. Even common people and not merely intellectuals and political workers lived in an atmosphere of fear and insecurity .
The bureaucracy and the police now have increased power that ‘was unchecked by criticism and exposure from the Press’.
A major reason for the growing unpopularity of the Emergency regime was, however, the development of an extra-constitutional centre of power associated with the rise to political power of Sanjay Gandhi, who held no office in the government or Congress.
Pushed by Sanjay Gandhi, the government decided to promote family planning more vigorously and even in an arbitrary, illegitimate and authoritarian manner. Incentives and persuasion were increasingly replaced by compulsion and coercion and above all by compulsory sterilization.
Thus, the climate of fear and repression, corruption and abuse of authority and excesses committed by the authorities prevailed.
Context: In the book "Remaking History — 1948 Police Action and the Muslims of Hyderabad", Afsar Mohammed delves into the events surrounding the 'Police Action' and sheds light on how people coped with the trauma and changes in their social fabric during Operation Polo.
Introduction
In the wake of World War II, the British government came up with a series of diplomatic measures to break the deadlock with the Indian Congress, which had embraced a policy of non-cooperation:
Cripps Mission (1942), asserted that the British government had no intention of transferring the paramountcy of the Crown to any other entity within India.
Princely States' demand for Sovereignty: They considered forming their own union, conceiving themselves as either sovereign entities or as an influential third force in India's political arena.
June 3rd Plan, played an integral role in clarifying the princely states' status. It was determined that the states had the freedom to choose between joining either of the two dominions, India or Pakistan. Importantly, Lord Mountbatten did not grant sovereign status to the princely states during this time.
Sardar Patel was responsible for overseeing the states' ministry within the interim cabinet, worked to secure the allegiance of the princely states to the Indian dominion. Assisted by V.P. Menon, the ministry's secretary, Patel appealed to the princely rulers, particularly in matters of defence, communication, and external affairs.
By August 15, 1947, a total of 136 princely states had joined the Indian Union.
Brief history of Hyderabad
Quli Qutb Shah had taken control from the Bahamani kingdom in 1512 and laid the foundation of the fortified city of Golconda.
In the year 1591, under the leadership of Mohammed Quli Qutub Shah, the fifth sultan of the Qutb Shahi dynasty, Hyderabad was founded.
Aurangazeb successfully captured Golconda in 1687.
Asaf Jah I, the viceroy of Mughal empire declared himself the Nizam and established an independent rule over the Deccan. Hyderabad assumed the role of a prominent capital city, now under the successive rule of Nizams belonging to the Asaf Jahi dynasty.
Hyderabad, a landlocked state in southeastern India, had a distinctive geographical.
Despite a predominantly Hindu population, comprising 87%, Hyderabad was under the rule of Nizam Osman Ali Khan, a Muslim ruler.
Hyderabad's political landscape was marked by the dominance of a Muslim elite, with the Muslim nobility and the influential pro-Nizam Muslim party, Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, at the forefront.
2. Demand for Independence:
In June 1947, Nizam Osman Ali Khan issued a declaration (firman) expressing Hyderabad's desire to regain its independence upon the transfer of power.
The Government of India, however, rejected this declaration, viewing it as a "legalistic claim of doubtful validity."
3. Concerns:
India argued that Hyderabad's strategic location, situated at the crossroads of the main communication routes connecting northern and southern India, had the potential to pose a threat to national security by serving foreign interests.
Therefore, as a provisional measure, a temporary Standstill Agreement was established, although Hyderabad had not yet agreed to accede to India and the agreement only assured that Hyderabad would not join Pakistan.
4. Negotiations:
Negotiations were initiated through intermediaries, with K.M. Munshi representing India and the Nizam's envoys, Laik Ali and Sir Walter Monckton, guided by Lord Mountbatten.
By December 1947, India accused Hyderabad of repeatedly violating the Standstill Agreement, while the Nizam claimed that India was blockading the state, which India denied
5. 'Heads of Agreement' Deal:
In June 1948, Lord Mountbatten proposed the 'Heads of Agreement' deal, offering Hyderabad the status of an autonomous dominion within India.
The plan outlined restrictions on Hyderabadi armed forces and the disbanding of voluntary forces.
Although the plan was approved and signed by the India, it was rejected by the Nizam, who insisted on complete independence or dominion status within the British Commonwealth.
6. International Mediations:
The Nizam attempted to seek arbitration from U.S. President Harry S. Truman and intervention from the United Nations.
7. Communist Uprising:
A communist-led uprising in Telangana, stemming from a peasant revolt in 1946 against feudal elements, escalated in 1948, creating a situation the Nizam struggled to suppress.
The Razakars, a militia affiliated with Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, supported the Muslim ruling class and carried out acts of intimidation against Hindu communities.
The state police and Razakar militia suppressed communist and peasant revolts, involving atrocities against the Hindu population, forced conversions, and the resettlement of Muslims from outside the state.
Operation Polo
The Indian Army was deployed to Hyderabad in response to the deteriorating law and order situation and the operation was referred to as a "Police Action" because it was viewed as an internal matter within India.
The Indian government was deeply concerned about the idea of Hyderabad arming itself with support from Pakistan. Sardar Patel likened the concept of an independent Hyderabad to "an ulcer in the heart of India" that required surgical removal.
This period marked the initiation of negotiations between India and Hyderabad, culminating in the annexation of Hyderabad, known as "Operation Polo" or sometimes referred to as "Operation Caterpillar."
Fearing potential reactions from other regions of India, a state of emergency was declared as 36,000 Indian troops entered Hyderabad to ensure order and stability.
Following the surrender of Hyderabad, the Nizam of Hyderabad delivered a radio address on the 23rd of September 1948.
After the annexation, the Nizam retained his position as the head of state, in line with other princely rulers who had acceded to India.
The Nizam disavowed the complaints made to the United Nations, despite protests from Pakistan and criticism from other nations. The UN Security Council did not pursue the matter further, ultimately leading to Hyderabad's integration into India.
