Podcasts about bal gangadhar tilak

He's an elder statesman in the worlds of journalism, policy and economics in India -- and he takes the long view. Niranjan Rajadhyaksha joins Amit Varma in episode 388 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about his life and learnings. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Niranjan Rajadhyaksha on Twitter, Mint and Artha Global. 2. The Rise of India -- NIranjan Rajadhyaksha. 3. Niranjan Rajadhyaksha interviewed in Marathi by Think Bank: Part 1. Part 2. 4. MV Rajadhyaksha and Vijaya Rajadhyaksha. 5. The Times of India obituary of MV Rajadhyaksha. 6. Adventures of a Bystander -- Peter F Drucker. 7. The Theory of Moral Sentiments -- Adam Smith's book that contains the concept of the impartial spectator. 8. The Impartial Spectator columns by Niranjan Rajadhyaksha and Shruti Rajagopalan. 9. Ratatouille -- Brad Bird. 10. The Overton Window. 11. John Maynard Keynes on Alfred Marshall. 12. The Rooted Cosmopolitanism of Sugata Srinivasaraju — Episode 277 of The Seen and the Unseen. 13. The Rise and Fall of the Bilingual Intellectual -- Ramachandra Guha. 14. Understanding India Through Its Languages — Episode 232 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Peggy Mohan). 15. Wanderers, Kings, Merchants: The Story of India through Its Languages — Peggy Mohan. 16. The Heckman Equation -- a website based on James Heckman's work. 17. Select episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Suyash Rai (1, 2) and Rahul Verma (1, 2). 18. Stri Purush Tulana by Tarabai Shinde on Amazon and Wikipedia. 19. Kalyanche Nishwas by Vibhavari Shirurkar (Malati Bedekar) on Amazon and Wikipedia. 20. Makers of Modern India -- Ramachandra Guha. 21. Simone de Beauvoir (Wikipedia, Britannica, Amazon) and Germaine Greer (Wikipedia, Britannica, Amazon). 22. Gopal Ganesh Agarkar's essay on education for girls. 23. The omnibus volume of BR Nanda's biographies of Gokhale, Gandhi and Nehru. 24. The Adda at the End of the Universe — Episode 309 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vikram Sathaye and Roshan Abbas). 25. This Be The Verse — Philip Larkin. 26. Rohit Lamba Will Never Be Bezubaan -- Episode 378 of The Seen and the Unseen. 27. Volga Se Ganga (Hindi) (English) -- Rahul Sankritayan. 28. In Service of the Republic — Vijay Kelkar & Ajay Shah. 29. Turning Over the Pebbles: A Life in Cricket and in the Mind -- Mike Brearley. 30. Slow Horses (book one of Slough House) -- Mick Herron. 31. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 -- Tony Judt. 32. On Warne -- Gideon Haigh. 33. The Essential Keynes -- John Maynard Keynes. 34. The Age of Uncertainty — John Kenneth Galbraith. 35. Asian Drama -- Gunnar Myrdal. 36. Aneesh Pradhan on Spotify, Amazon, Instagram, Twitter and his own website. 37. Malini Goyal is the Curious One — Episode 377 of The Seen and the Unseen. 38. The UNIX Episode -- Episode 32 of Everything is Everything. 39. The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development -- Michael Kremer. 40. Why Abhijit Banerjee Had to Go Abroad to Achieve Glory -- Amit Varma. 41. Why Talent Comes in Clusters -- Episode 8 of Everything is Everything. 42. The Dark Knight Rises -- Christopher Nolan. 43. Thinking it Through -- The archives of Amit Varma's column for Mint. 44. Remembering Mr. Shawn's New Yorker -- Ved Mehta. 45. Videhi -- Vijaya Rajadhyaksha. 46. Select pieces on the relationship between Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish: 1, 2, 3, 4. 47. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy -- Joseph Schumpeter. 48. Maharashtra Politics Unscrambled — Episode 151 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Sujata Anandan). 49. Complaint Resolution Systems: Experimental Evidence from Rural India -- Chinmaya Kumar and MR Sharan. 50. Parkinson's Law — C Northcote Parkinson. 51. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 52. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 53. The Forgotten Greatness of PV Narasimha Rao — Episode 283 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vinay Sitapati). 54. The Life and Times of KP Krishnan — Episode 355 of The Seen and the Unseen. 55. Lant Pritchett Is on Team Prosperity — Episode 379 of The Seen and the Unseen. 56. The Reformers — Episode 28 of Everything is Everything. 57. The Tragedy of Our Farm Bills — Episode 211 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ajay Shah). 58. Public Choice Theory Explains SO MUCH -- Episode 33 of Everything is Everything. 59. The Logic of Collective Action — Mancur Olson. 60. Ashutosh Salil and the Challenge of Change — Episode 312 of The Seen and the Unseen. 61. Rational Ignorance. 62. The State of Our Farmers — Ep 86 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Gunvant Patil, in Hindi). 63. India's Agriculture Crisis — Ep 140 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Barun Mitra & Kumar Anand). 64. The Indian State Is the Greatest Enemy of the Indian Farmer — Amit Varma. 65. The Worldly Philosophers --  Robert Heilbroner. 66. The Clash of Economic Ideas — Lawrence H White. 67. Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency -- Kenneth Arrow, Hollis Chenery, Bagicha Singh Minhas and Robert Solow. 68. Room 666 -- Wim Wenders. 69. Laapataa Ladies -- Kiran Rao. 70. The Brave New Future of Electricity -- Episode 40 of Everything is Everything. 71. What I, as a development economist, have been actively “for” — Lant Pritchett. 72. National Development Delivers: And How! And How? — Lant Pritchett. 73. Economic growth is enough and only economic growth is enough — Lant Pritchett with Addison Lewis. 74. Smoke and Ashes -- Amitav Ghosh. 75. Sata Uttarachi Kahani -- GP Pradhan. 76. Gopal Ganesh Agarkar and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. 77. Collections of VD Savarkar's Marathi essays: 1, 2. 78. Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva -- Janaki Bakhle. 79. Savarkar Te BJP -- SH Deshpande. 80. Sarvakarancha Buddhiwad Ani Hindutvawad -- Sheshrao More. 81. Swatantryaveer Savarkar Ek Rahasya -- DN Gokhale. 82. Shodh Savarkarancha -- YD Phadke. 83. The Taking of Pelham 123 -- Tony Scott. 84. Sriram Raghavan (IMDb) (Wikipedia) and Vijay Anand (IMDb) (Wikipedia). 85. Manorama Six Feet Under -- Navdeep Singh. 86. Agatha Christie and Frederick Forsyth on Amazon. 87. Salil Chowdhury and RD Burman on Spotify. 88. Haikyu -- Haruichi Furudate. 89. Pramit Bhattacharya Believes in Just One Ism — Episode 256 of The Seen and the Unseen. 90. Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister — Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay. 91. Dilip José Abreu: an elegant and creative economist — Rohit Lamba. Niranjan would like to inform listeners that Spontaneous Order would be translated to Marathi as उत्सफूर्त व्यवस्था. This episode is sponsored by CTQ Compounds. Check out The Daily Reader and FutureStack. Use the code UNSEEN for Rs 2500 off. Amit's newsletter is active again. Subscribe right away to The India Uncut Newsletter! It's free! Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new video podcast. Check out Everything is Everything on YouTube. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. Episode art: ‘The Impartial Spectator' by Simahina.

Among all the talk about ‘knowledge economy' it is easy to forget that universal schooling is a relatively new phenomenon. Mandated first in a few European countries in the 18th century, it did not reach many others until the 20th. And the idea that women have an equal right to be educated frequently encountered stiff opposition, often from the privileged who feared that knowledgeable females would upset the social status quo.Just about everywhere, the right to women's education was hard won: for instance Bal Gangadhar Tilak, one of the influential leaders of Indian independence movement, campaigned vociferously for decades against sending girls to school, complaining that it would lead to increased competition for jobs and to women neglecting their ‘domestic duties'. Mary Carpenter, the acclaimed Victorian education reformer, maintained that neatness and needlework, rather than a full academic curriculum, were ‘essential to a woman'.Fast forward to 2024 and even though the gap between male and female educational attainment has narrowed world-wide, there are still many places where women lag behind, even in something as basic as literacy. According to UNESCO, women today account for almost two-thirds of all adults unable to read. So how did we get here? And how can we close this gap? Iszi Lawrence follows the story of women's education with Jane Martin, Professor of Social History of Education at Birmingham University; Parimala V. Rao, Professor of the History of Education at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi; Dr. Karen Teoh, Associate of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard and World Service listeners.(Photo: Teenage girls and boys learning in classroom. Credit: Maskot/Getty Images)

When the Aryans or a people came to India(what has been referred to as the subcontinent or Indian subcontinent), they mixed with the locals and created a composite culture. This had many of the local pre-existing element and probably some new elements. But during the British rule over India, orientalist historians presented/created/built the Aryan theory to demonstrate how they were the rightful rulers of India for, according to their words, the Aryans of India had digressed and had to be civilised by his Aryan brothers from Great Britain. This was probably an abuse of the word civilised and civilidsations. Post independence of India we see many marxist historians pitching their support for an Aryan invasion theory, later proven to be not even if not otherwise. Based on todays understanding we can say that some people probably migrated into India and added to the existing culture, this probably led to the Rigvedic civilisation. But it may not be correct to say that everything in it was foreign. Somethings might be. Many Indians such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, author of Arctic home of the Aryans, also conceded that some peoples, groups might have come into the Indian geographical and cultural sphere and added to it. Today, in west, when a foreigner joins their culture the term used is cultural enrichment. Can't such courtesy be extended to places they once ruled? But what is the truth? Well, we would probably have a better picture in the coming days with newer innovations and scientific advancements and methods to discover the past, our pasts. Or shall we say "Pasts" --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/history0/message

Bipin Chandra Pal, one of the members of the Lal-Bal-Pal trio in Congress, others being  Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai. A nationalist,  writer and thinker, and above all, a man who was uncomprosingly independent in his views.

  Introduction: 6 दिन पहले Supreme Court ने केंद्र को राजद्रोह कानून के अंदर आने वाले सभी cases को थामने के लिए कहा। जितने भी trials, proceedings, सुनवाई Indian Penal Code (IPC) की धारा Section 124A के तहत होनी थी, उन सभी को रोकने के आदेश दिए जब तक केंद्र अपना वादा नहीं निभा लेता। कौन सा वादा? IPC की 124A पर पुनर्विचार करने का वादा और उसमें ज़रूरी बदलाव करने का वादा। मगर ये कब हुआ, क्यों Supreme Court चाहता है Sedition के क़ानून में बदलाव, क्या होता है Sedition का कानून, क्या कहता है ये कानून और आख़िर क्यों अब तक केंद्र नहीं निभा पाया बदलाव लाने का वादा, इन सभी पेचीदा सवालों के जवाब जानेंगे इस FYI में  Body: नमस्कार,आदाब, सत्श्रीअकाल, मैं वही पुरानी होस्ट Sahiba Khan और आप सुन रहे हैं ज्ञान के भंडार वाला favourite podcast - FYI. आज थोड़ा दिल थाम कर बैठ जाएं क्योंकि आज बात होने जा रही है एक ऐसे कानून की जिसने दशकों से भारत में डर बरपाये रखा है, जो हमारा नहीं बल्कि अंग्रेज़ों को हमें दी गई सौगात थी जिसे वैसे तो हमें आज़ादी के समय ही हटा देना चाहिए था मगर कुछ कारणों से नहीं हटाया। आज हम बात करेंगे IPC की धारा 124A यानी कि Sedition law की - बोले तो राजद्रोह कानून। अब इसी कानून में SC ने बदलाव करने को कहा है और आपको बताती चलूँ कि जो BJP सरकार इस कानून की सरपरस्त हुआ करती थी और इसी कानून के तहत कई लोगों को जेल में भी डाला, उसी कानून पर कोर्ट की फटकार के बाद कहा है कि वो इसमें बदलाव सुझाएंगे , मगर कुछ दिनों में।   मगर सबसे पहले आ जाते हैं कि ये Sedition Law होता क्या है? IPC की धारा 124A कहती है कि - “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government estab­lished by law shall be punished with im­prisonment for life, to which fine may be added…” हिंदी में समझेंगे अब -  "जो कोई भी, शब्दों द्वारा, या तो बोले गए या लिखित, या संकेतों द्वारा, या साक्षात दिख रहे प्रतिनिधित्व द्वारा, घृणा यी कि नफ़रतें फैलाने का या अवमानना माने बात न सुनन, ये काम करता है, या सामने वाले को provoke यानी कि उत्तेजित करता है या कानून द्वारा स्थापित सरकार के प्रति लोगों में असंतोष पैदा करने की कोशिश करता है, उसे दंडित किया जाएगा। आजीवन कारावास से, जिसमें जुर्माना जोड़ा जा सकता है…”   तो ये हैं देशद्रोह कानून के शब्द, संविधान के अनुसार। इस प्रावधान में 3 और explanations जोड़े गए हैं: Disaffection शब्द जो असल कानून में इस्तेमाल किया गया है उसमें disloyalty यानी कि गद्दारी और दुश्मनी में शामिल होगा दूसरा, गर किसी ने कुछ ऐसा कहा है जो सरकार की नीतियों या उनके प्रयासों की निंदा करता है, इस उद्देश्य से कि वो कानून या फिर वो नीति दूसरों के हित के लिए कानून के दायरे में रहकर बदली जा सके, बगैर नफरत या असंतोष फैलाये, तो वो भी इस कानून की श्रेणी में नहीं आएगा। और तीसरा और आखिरी विवरण है कि अगर किसी ने सरकार के खिलाफ अपना रोष जताया या असंतोष जताया, नफरत फैलाये बिना या फिर किसी को उत्तेजित किये बिना, तो उसे भी इस कानून से बाहर रखा जाएगा।  मगर ये कानून आखिर आया कहां से? चलिए इसके इतिहास में थोड़े गोते लगाते हैं  ये कानून Thomas Macaulay नाम के अंग्रेज़ के दिमाग की उपज था। उसी ने Indian Penal Code भी बनाया था जिसके अंदर ये धारा आती है। 1860 जब ये IPC लगाया गया, तब किसी भूल-चूंक से देशद्रोह वाली धारा उसमें लगाना भूल गए। मगर 1890 में Special Act XVII (17) लगा कर इसे IPC की धारा 124A के तहत add कर दिया गया।  इसमें आपको उम्र क़ैद की सज़ा हो सकती थी इसे अंग्रेज़ों ने लगाया था ताकि उनके खिलाफ जो बग़ावत हो रही है उस पर काबू पाया जा सके। आपको शायद जानकर ताज्जुब होगा कि हमारे सबसे बेहतरीन freedom fighters जैसे Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat and Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad और Mahatma Gandhi, इन सभी को देशद्रोह कानून के तहत सज़ा सुनाई गई थी।  1898 में Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak के केस की सुनवाई हुई थी जो काफी मशहूर रही और इतिहास के पन्नों में जिसका नाम दर्ज कराया गया।    उसके बाद आज़ाद भारत में भी ये कानून रहा और कई बार सरकारों ने इस क़ानून का गलत इस्तेमाल किया उन लोगों को जेल में पहुंचाने के लिए जो सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करते थे। कई बार अदालतों ने इस कानून के तहत बदलाव लाने की बातें कहीं और ये भी कई बार अपने बयानों में बोला कि केवल सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करना इस कानून के तहत नहीं आता। कभी Supreme Court ने Romesh Thapar v State of Madras में यही बात कही तो कहीं Punjab and Haryana High Court ने Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) में यही दोहराया। यहाँ तक कि Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) के केस में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने ये तक कह दिया कि आईपीसी की धारा 124ए मुख्य रूप से अंग्रेज़ों के लिए देश में असंतोष और dissent यानी कि असहमति को दबाने का एक उपकरण एक टूल थी, और फिर अदालत ने इस प्रावधान को असंवैधानिक घोषित किया। हालांकि 1962 में Supreme Court ने Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar के केस में इस धारा के तहत सजा सुनाई मगर साथ ही साथ सरकारों को ये भी कहा कि वो इसका दुरुपयोग करने से बचें। अदालत ने ज़ोर दिया कि हर भाषण या comment जो सरकार की निंदा करता हो या फिर अपना असंतोष बयान करता हो वो देशद्रोह नहीं हो सकता जब तक उस बयान ने अफरा-तफरी न मच रही हो या फिर कानून व्यवस्था में कोई दिक्कत ना आ रही हो। मतलब Public law and order maintain रहे बस। आपको बताती चलूँ कि ये public order की बात कानून में कहीं लिखी नहीं गई है मगर कई बार अदालतों ने ये कहा है इसलिए अब ये एक norm बन गया है कि अगर ऐसा हो रहा हो तब ही आप किसी बयान को देशद्रोह में count करें। और इसी केस के बाद से public order एक बहुत बड़ा शब्द बन गया आगे इस कानून के तहत आने वाले cases में। Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) के केस में कहा गया कि किसी भी बयान को sedition या देशद्रोह मान लेने से पहले सही से आंकना चाहिए कि लोग ये क्यों कह रहे हैं।    Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) के फैसले में ये कहा गया कि भले ही आपने वो स्पीच या वो बयान नहीं लिखा हो मगर अगर आप उस बयान को circulate करते पकड़े जाते हैं  देशद्रोह का मुक़दमा लगेगा।    भारत के law commission और यहां तक ​​कि Supreme Court  की लगातार रिपोर्टों ने राजद्रोह कानून के बड़े पैमाने पर दुरुपयोग पर ज़ोर दिया है।Kedar Nath वाले मामले में  तो पुलिस पर आरोप लगा कि वो पहले देखें कि जिस बयान की वजह से वो IPC की धारा 124A लगा रहे हैं वो सही में इसके अंतर्गत आता भी है या नहीं।  पिछले साल की ही बात है - Vinod Dua v Union of India का केस देख लें। दिवंगत पत्रकार Vinod Dua पर देशद्रोह कानून के अंतर्गत आरोप लगा कि उन्होंने आख़िर कैसे प्रधानमंत्री Narendra Modi के खिलाफ ये बोला कि उन्होंने Covid-19 महामारी को भारत में सही से नहीं संभाला। हालांकि अदालत ने उनके खिलाफ सभी FIR रद्द कर दी थीं और कहा था कि ऐसा कोई भी केस उनके खिलाफ नहीं बनता।     तो इस कानून की अब क्या स्थिति है ?   Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha, Kanhaiya Lal Shukla जैसे कई और पत्रकारों ने और Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra ने इस कानून के खिलाफ याचिकाएं दायर की इसमें 7 -judge बेंच ये फैसला लेगी कि क्या Kedar Nath केस में जो observations किये गए थे वो सही थे या नहीं, क्या उस केस में सही तरीके से सुनवाई ली गई थी, फैसला हुआ था या नहीं।  हालांकि सरकार ने पहले तो कहा कि कुछ cases में इस कानून का दुरुपयोग का मतलब ये नहीं कि इस कानून को ही हटा दिया जाये। मगर फिर केंद्र भी इस पर राज़ी हो गया कि colonial क़ानून पर सलाह-मश्वरा उन्हें मंज़ूर है।    Conclusion: अदालत का हस्तक्षेप इस केस में बहुत ज़रूरी इसलिए है क्योंकि अगर अदालत इस प्रावधान को रद्द करता है, तो उसे Kedar Nath वाले फैसले को रद्द करना होगा और पहले के फैसलों को बरकरार रखना होगा जहाँ freedom of speech को तवज्जो दी गई थी हालाँकि, अगर सरकार कानून पर सोच-विचार करने का निर्णय लेती है, तो होगा ये कि या तो भाषा को तोड़-मरोड़ कर बात वही हो जाएगी और प्रावधान को दोबारा नए सिरे से सोचने का पॉइन्ट ही नहीं रहेगा। अब देखना ये होगा कि ये सोच-विचार, परामर्श इस कानून को कहाँ तक लेकर जाती हैं।  क्या अदालत कानून ही रद्द कर देगी या फिर सरकार को मौक़ा देगी इसे दोबारा बेहतर तरीके से फ्रेम करने का। हम आपको बताते रहेंगे। हमें बताएं कि आपको क्या लगता है - आज़ाद भारत में कितना ज़रूरी है ऐसा अंग्रेज़ों द्वारा बनाया गया कानून। हमें बताएं ABP Live Podcasts के twitter handle पर। फिलहाल मैं चलती हूँ। मैं हूँ Sahiba Khan, podcast की sound-designing की है ललित ने और आप सुन रहे हैं ABP Live Podcasts की पेशकश FYI. 

  Introduction: 6 दिन पहले Supreme Court ने केंद्र को राजद्रोह कानून के अंदर आने वाले सभी cases को थामने के लिए कहा। जितने भी trials, proceedings, सुनवाई Indian Penal Code (IPC) की धारा Section 124A के तहत होनी थी, उन सभी को रोकने के आदेश दिए जब तक केंद्र अपना वादा नहीं निभा लेता। कौन सा वादा? IPC की 124A पर पुनर्विचार करने का वादा और उसमें ज़रूरी बदलाव करने का वादा। मगर ये कब हुआ, क्यों Supreme Court चाहता है Sedition के क़ानून में बदलाव, क्या होता है Sedition का कानून, क्या कहता है ये कानून और आख़िर क्यों अब तक केंद्र नहीं निभा पाया बदलाव लाने का वादा, इन सभी पेचीदा सवालों के जवाब जानेंगे इस FYI में  Body: नमस्कार,आदाब, सत्श्रीअकाल, मैं वही पुरानी होस्ट Sahiba Khan और आप सुन रहे हैं ज्ञान के भंडार वाला favourite podcast - FYI. आज थोड़ा दिल थाम कर बैठ जाएं क्योंकि आज बात होने जा रही है एक ऐसे कानून की जिसने दशकों से भारत में डर बरपाये रखा है, जो हमारा नहीं बल्कि अंग्रेज़ों को हमें दी गई सौगात थी जिसे वैसे तो हमें आज़ादी के समय ही हटा देना चाहिए था मगर कुछ कारणों से नहीं हटाया। आज हम बात करेंगे IPC की धारा 124A यानी कि Sedition law की - बोले तो राजद्रोह कानून। अब इसी कानून में SC ने बदलाव करने को कहा है और आपको बताती चलूँ कि जो BJP सरकार इस कानून की सरपरस्त हुआ करती थी और इसी कानून के तहत कई लोगों को जेल में भी डाला, उसी कानून पर कोर्ट की फटकार के बाद कहा है कि वो इसमें बदलाव सुझाएंगे , मगर कुछ दिनों में।   मगर सबसे पहले आ जाते हैं कि ये Sedition Law होता क्या है? IPC की धारा 124A कहती है कि - “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government estab­lished by law shall be punished with im­prisonment for life, to which fine may be added…” हिंदी में समझेंगे अब -  "जो कोई भी, शब्दों द्वारा, या तो बोले गए या लिखित, या संकेतों द्वारा, या साक्षात दिख रहे प्रतिनिधित्व द्वारा, घृणा यी कि नफ़रतें फैलाने का या अवमानना माने बात न सुनन, ये काम करता है, या सामने वाले को provoke यानी कि उत्तेजित करता है या कानून द्वारा स्थापित सरकार के प्रति लोगों में असंतोष पैदा करने की कोशिश करता है, उसे दंडित किया जाएगा। आजीवन कारावास से, जिसमें जुर्माना जोड़ा जा सकता है…”   तो ये हैं देशद्रोह कानून के शब्द, संविधान के अनुसार। इस प्रावधान में 3 और explanations जोड़े गए हैं: Disaffection शब्द जो असल कानून में इस्तेमाल किया गया है उसमें disloyalty यानी कि गद्दारी और दुश्मनी में शामिल होगा दूसरा, गर किसी ने कुछ ऐसा कहा है जो सरकार की नीतियों या उनके प्रयासों की निंदा करता है, इस उद्देश्य से कि वो कानून या फिर वो नीति दूसरों के हित के लिए कानून के दायरे में रहकर बदली जा सके, बगैर नफरत या असंतोष फैलाये, तो वो भी इस कानून की श्रेणी में नहीं आएगा। और तीसरा और आखिरी विवरण है कि अगर किसी ने सरकार के खिलाफ अपना रोष जताया या असंतोष जताया, नफरत फैलाये बिना या फिर किसी को उत्तेजित किये बिना, तो उसे भी इस कानून से बाहर रखा जाएगा।  मगर ये कानून आखिर आया कहां से? चलिए इसके इतिहास में थोड़े गोते लगाते हैं  ये कानून Thomas Macaulay नाम के अंग्रेज़ के दिमाग की उपज था। उसी ने Indian Penal Code भी बनाया था जिसके अंदर ये धारा आती है। 1860 जब ये IPC लगाया गया, तब किसी भूल-चूंक से देशद्रोह वाली धारा उसमें लगाना भूल गए। मगर 1890 में Special Act XVII (17) लगा कर इसे IPC की धारा 124A के तहत add कर दिया गया।  इसमें आपको उम्र क़ैद की सज़ा हो सकती थी इसे अंग्रेज़ों ने लगाया था ताकि उनके खिलाफ जो बग़ावत हो रही है उस पर काबू पाया जा सके। आपको शायद जानकर ताज्जुब होगा कि हमारे सबसे बेहतरीन freedom fighters जैसे Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat and Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad और Mahatma Gandhi, इन सभी को देशद्रोह कानून के तहत सज़ा सुनाई गई थी।  1898 में Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak के केस की सुनवाई हुई थी जो काफी मशहूर रही और इतिहास के पन्नों में जिसका नाम दर्ज कराया गया।    उसके बाद आज़ाद भारत में भी ये कानून रहा और कई बार सरकारों ने इस क़ानून का गलत इस्तेमाल किया उन लोगों को जेल में पहुंचाने के लिए जो सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करते थे। कई बार अदालतों ने इस कानून के तहत बदलाव लाने की बातें कहीं और ये भी कई बार अपने बयानों में बोला कि केवल सरकार या उसकी नीतियों की निंदा करना इस कानून के तहत नहीं आता। कभी Supreme Court ने Romesh Thapar v State of Madras में यही बात कही तो कहीं Punjab and Haryana High Court ने Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) में यही दोहराया। यहाँ तक कि Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) के केस में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने ये तक कह दिया कि आईपीसी की धारा 124ए मुख्य रूप से अंग्रेज़ों के लिए देश में असंतोष और dissent यानी कि असहमति को दबाने का एक उपकरण एक टूल थी, और फिर अदालत ने इस प्रावधान को असंवैधानिक घोषित किया। हालांकि 1962 में Supreme Court ने Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar के केस में इस धारा के तहत सजा सुनाई मगर साथ ही साथ सरकारों को ये भी कहा कि वो इसका दुरुपयोग करने से बचें। अदालत ने ज़ोर दिया कि हर भाषण या comment जो सरकार की निंदा करता हो या फिर अपना असंतोष बयान करता हो वो देशद्रोह नहीं हो सकता जब तक उस बयान ने अफरा-तफरी न मच रही हो या फिर कानून व्यवस्था में कोई दिक्कत ना आ रही हो। मतलब Public law and order maintain रहे बस। आपको बताती चलूँ कि ये public order की बात कानून में कहीं लिखी नहीं गई है मगर कई बार अदालतों ने ये कहा है इसलिए अब ये एक norm बन गया है कि अगर ऐसा हो रहा हो तब ही आप किसी बयान को देशद्रोह में count करें। और इसी केस के बाद से public order एक बहुत बड़ा शब्द बन गया आगे इस कानून के तहत आने वाले cases में। Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) के केस में कहा गया कि किसी भी बयान को sedition या देशद्रोह मान लेने से पहले सही से आंकना चाहिए कि लोग ये क्यों कह रहे हैं।    Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) के फैसले में ये कहा गया कि भले ही आपने वो स्पीच या वो बयान नहीं लिखा हो मगर अगर आप उस बयान को circulate करते पकड़े जाते हैं  देशद्रोह का मुक़दमा लगेगा।    भारत के law commission और यहां तक ​​कि Supreme Court  की लगातार रिपोर्टों ने राजद्रोह कानून के बड़े पैमाने पर दुरुपयोग पर ज़ोर दिया है।Kedar Nath वाले मामले में  तो पुलिस पर आरोप लगा कि वो पहले देखें कि जिस बयान की वजह से वो IPC की धारा 124A लगा रहे हैं वो सही में इसके अंतर्गत आता भी है या नहीं।  पिछले साल की ही बात है - Vinod Dua v Union of India का केस देख लें। दिवंगत पत्रकार Vinod Dua पर देशद्रोह कानून के अंतर्गत आरोप लगा कि उन्होंने आख़िर कैसे प्रधानमंत्री Narendra Modi के खिलाफ ये बोला कि उन्होंने Covid-19 महामारी को भारत में सही से नहीं संभाला। हालांकि अदालत ने उनके खिलाफ सभी FIR रद्द कर दी थीं और कहा था कि ऐसा कोई भी केस उनके खिलाफ नहीं बनता।     तो इस कानून की अब क्या स्थिति है ?   Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha, Kanhaiya Lal Shukla जैसे कई और पत्रकारों ने और Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra ने इस कानून के खिलाफ याचिकाएं दायर की इसमें 7 -judge बेंच ये फैसला लेगी कि क्या Kedar Nath केस में जो observations किये गए थे वो सही थे या नहीं, क्या उस केस में सही तरीके से सुनवाई ली गई थी, फैसला हुआ था या नहीं।  हालांकि सरकार ने पहले तो कहा कि कुछ cases में इस कानून का दुरुपयोग का मतलब ये नहीं कि इस कानून को ही हटा दिया जाये। मगर फिर केंद्र भी इस पर राज़ी हो गया कि colonial क़ानून पर सलाह-मश्वरा उन्हें मंज़ूर है।    Conclusion: अदालत का हस्तक्षेप इस केस में बहुत ज़रूरी इसलिए है क्योंकि अगर अदालत इस प्रावधान को रद्द करता है, तो उसे Kedar Nath वाले फैसले को रद्द करना होगा और पहले के फैसलों को बरकरार रखना होगा जहाँ freedom of speech को तवज्जो दी गई थी हालाँकि, अगर सरकार कानून पर सोच-विचार करने का निर्णय लेती है, तो होगा ये कि या तो भाषा को तोड़-मरोड़ कर बात वही हो जाएगी और प्रावधान को दोबारा नए सिरे से सोचने का पॉइन्ट ही नहीं रहेगा। अब देखना ये होगा कि ये सोच-विचार, परामर्श इस कानून को कहाँ तक लेकर जाती हैं।  क्या अदालत कानून ही रद्द कर देगी या फिर सरकार को मौक़ा देगी इसे दोबारा बेहतर तरीके से फ्रेम करने का। हम आपको बताते रहेंगे। हमें बताएं कि आपको क्या लगता है - आज़ाद भारत में कितना ज़रूरी है ऐसा अंग्रेज़ों द्वारा बनाया गया कानून। हमें बताएं ABP Live Podcasts के twitter handle पर। फिलहाल मैं चलती हूँ। मैं हूँ Sahiba Khan, podcast की sound-designing की है ललित ने और आप सुन रहे हैं ABP Live Podcasts की पेशकश FYI. 

Can a cartoon stir unrest and bring down an elected government. Police in Maharashtra thought so when they had arrested Aseem Trivedi ten years ago for sedition. Then 24, Trivedi had tried to highlight corruption through his cartoons. The sedition case went on for several years before being struck down by Bombay High Court in 2015. The case was gone, but the stigma stayed. And Trivedi, a Kanpur lad, quit the profession forever. On Thursday, when the Supreme Court put the sedition law in abeyance, Trivedi heaved a sigh of relief. Not only because he was a victim of the IPC's section 124 (A), but also because he was one of the petitioners seeking scrapping of the law. From cartoonists to stand-up comedians and satirists to small political activists and opposition leaders, sedition law has been invoked by police in various states at what experts call a very low threshold. While arguing their case, experts point out the difference between treason and sedition. The first one is an act done against the state while the latter is against the government of the day. And criticising the government, they say, should not be penalised. Some even say that even a court decision should be under the purview of criticism. In 2016, the Allahabad High Court had held that criticism of the judiciary or a court ruling is not sedition. Former BJP leader and Union minister Arun Jaitley was the petitioner in the case. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which is the law against sedition, was introduced in 1870 by the British government. And it was Thomas Macaulay who had introduced the law while drafting the penal codes. Its purpose was to stop Indian colonial subjects from expressing dissent against Britain's rule. At that time, sedition was also an offence under Britain's own penal code. While Macaulay's own country expunged the law in 2016, it stays in India.   In the first two hearings, the central government tried to defend the law. But on the third one, on Wednesday, it told the apex court that it was reviewing it. The next hearing will take place in July now, while one of three judges listening to the case, CJI NV Ramanna, retires in August.  So what does the law say? Under British rule, the punishment prescribed was transportation “beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life”. This was amended to life imprisonment in 1955. It is still a harsh law and entails a maximum punishment of life imprisonment for anyone who, “by words spoken or written, or by visible representation… brings into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law.” And, how did the British use it? During the Independence movement, this law was used extensively to try and crush political dissent. In fact, some of the prominent pre-independence cases where Section 124A was involved were against freedom fighters like Bal Gangadhar Tilak

The Gita is set in a narrative framework of a dialogue between Pandava prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Krishna. At the start of the Dharma Yudhha (righteous war) between Pandavas and Kauravas, Arjuna is filled with moral dilemma and despair about the violence and death the war will cause in the battle against his own kin. He wonders if he should renounce and seeks Krishna's counsel, whose answers and discourse constitute the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna counsels Arjuna to "fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty to uphold the Dharma" through "selfless action".The Krishna–Arjuna dialogues cover a broad range of spiritual topics, touching upon ethical dilemmas and philosophical issues that go far beyond the war Arjuna faces. Krishna is also said as the first motivational speaker in human history. Numerous commentaries have been written on the Bhagavad Gita with widely differing views on the essentials. According to some, Bhagavad Gita is written by Lord Ganesha which was told to him by Vyasa. Vedanta commentators read varying relations between Self and Brahman in the text: Advaita Vedanta sees the non-dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman (universal soul) as its essence, whereas Bhedabheda and Vishishtadvaita see Atman and Brahman as both different and non-different, while Dvaita Vedanta sees dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman as its essence. The setting of the Gita in a battlefield has been interpreted as an allegory for the ethical and moral struggles of the human life. The Bhagavad Gita presents a synthesis of Hindu ideas about dharma, theistic bhakti, and the yogic ideals of moksha. The text covers jnana, bhakti, karma, and Raja Yoga (spoken of in the 6th chapter) incorporating ideas from the Samkhya-Yoga philosophy. The Bhagavad Gita is the best known and most famous of Hindu texts, with a unique pan-Hindu influence. The Gita's call for selfless action inspired many leaders of the Indian independence movement including Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi; the latter referred to it as his "spiritual dictionary".

The Gita is set in a narrative framework of a dialogue between Pandava prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Krishna. At the start of the Dharma Yudhha (righteous war) between Pandavas and Kauravas, Arjuna is filled with moral dilemma and despair about the violence and death the war will cause in the battle against his own kin. He wonders if he should renounce and seeks Krishna's counsel, whose answers and discourse constitute the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna counsels Arjuna to "fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty to uphold the Dharma" through "selfless action".The Krishna–Arjuna dialogues cover a broad range of spiritual topics, touching upon ethical dilemmas and philosophical issues that go far beyond the war Arjuna faces. Krishna is also said as the first motivational speaker in human history. Numerous commentaries have been written on the Bhagavad Gita with widely differing views on the essentials. According to some, Bhagavad Gita is written by Lord Ganesha which was told to him by Vyasa. Vedanta commentators read varying relations between Self and Brahman in the text: Advaita Vedanta sees the non-dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman (universal soul) as its essence, whereas Bhedabheda and Vishishtadvaita see Atman and Brahman as both different and non-different, while Dvaita Vedanta sees dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman as its essence. The setting of the Gita in a battlefield has been interpreted as an allegory for the ethical and moral struggles of the human life. The Bhagavad Gita presents a synthesis of Hindu ideas about dharma, theistic bhakti, and the yogic ideals of moksha. The text covers jnana, bhakti, karma, and Raja Yoga (spoken of in the 6th chapter) incorporating ideas from the Samkhya-Yoga philosophy. The Bhagavad Gita is the best known and most famous of Hindu texts, with a unique pan-Hindu influence. The Gita's call for selfless action inspired many leaders of the Indian independence movement including Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi; the latter referred to it as his "spiritual dictionary".

C Rajagopalachari, the first Indian and last Governor general of India, was also known s CR, Rajaji, or Mango of Salem. He was a Statesman, Writer, Lawyer and a freedom fighter. He got inspired by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and joined the Independence movement. He held the position do Member of Municipality of Salem. After Mahatma Gandhi returned to India in 1919, Rajaji became his true follower. His thoughts matched that of Mahatma Gandhi, he was against untouchability, Oppressions of farmers and other ill practices. He became an official member of Indian National Congress and encouraged the party to fight 1937 General Elections. The party won the elections and Rajaji became the Premier of Madras Presidency.  He was a strong advocate of World Peace and lectured the then Vice President if America Richard Nixon about the emotional effects of Nuclear weapons.  After India became independent he became the Governor of West Bengal. and later the Governor General of India. Listen in to know more about this Great Indian. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Born in a Parsi family in Navsari, Bombay, Dadabhai Nouroji was famous as 'Grand Old Man of India". A guide and mentor of the likes of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, he was the first Indian to become a member of parliament in the House of Commons in London.  He was a merchant, a political leader, a teacher and an author, he wrote a book "Poverty", which spoke about how Britishers were using Indian resources for their own economic benefit and leading India towards poverty. He formed many societies and movements in London. He was instrumental in formation of Indian National Congress and also presided over the party many times.  Listen in to know more about this great Indian. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bipin Chandra Pal was a Indian Freedom Revolutionary who was famous as "Father of revolutionary Thoughts" Born in now Bangladesh's Syelhat. He was one of the Lal Bal Pal triumvirate. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal, along with Sri Aurobindo Ghosh were the extremist voices of freedom movement.  The famous Indian personality Bipin Chandra Pal started teaching in his own college and later went to England to study Comparative Theology. In England he realized what it was live in an independent nation, thus he returned with the feeling of working for his nation's independence. Then happened Bengal Partition and it made the freedom fighters very angry and that led to the beginning of a more determined struggle for Freedom. Pal was one of the main leads in the Swadeshi movement. Initially being a part of Congress party, Pal dissociated himself with the party after realizing that their mode of protest was peaceful, which according to him was a futile way of attaining freedom.  Later Pal completely removed himself from active politics and took refuge in writing books and journals.  Listen in to know more about Bipin Chandra Pal in our podcast- "Famous Indian Personalities" Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Not(PolicyWTF): Reforming Procurement (Sanjeev Kumar Must Be Smiling)  Pleasant surprises in policymaking in India— RSJSince we take great pleasure in highlighting policy screw-ups around here, it is only fair we appreciate measures that aren’t PolicyWTFs when they make an occasional appearance on our landscape like rare migratory birds. Last week we had one such sighting. (Deep breath). The Procurement Policy Division (PPD) in the Department of Expenditure (DoE) under the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Government of India (GoI) released the ‘General Instructions on Procurement and Project Management’. The press release reads:“These guidelines attempt to incorporate into the realm of Public Procurement in India, innovative rules for faster, efficient and transparent execution of projects and to empower executing agencies to take quicker and more efficient decisions in public interest. Some of the improvements include prescribing strict timelines for payments when due. Timely release of ad hoc payments (70% or more of bills raised) is expected to improve liquidity with the contractors especially Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).”Importantly, it has this line too:“Alternative methods for selection of contractors have been permitted, which can improve speed and efficiency in execution of projects. In appropriate cases, quality parameters can be given weightage during evaluation of the proposal in a transparent and fair manner, through a Quality cum Cost Based Selection (QCBS), as an alternative to the traditional L1 system.”  This is critical. In ‘appropriate cases’, from now on, quality of service will also be given weightage during evaluation of projects. It sounds absurd but it’s true. Quality wasn’t an explicit parameter for choosing suppliers in government contracts so far. So, yes, this is a reform. Bravo!Puraane Paap I have written about the tyranny of the L1 system and its pernicious effects before. From our edition #22 (Trishul: Ek ‘Tender’ Prem Katha):“The procurement of goods and services by the Government of India is still largely governed by the Contract Act 1872 and Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and General Financial Rules (GFR) that are amended periodically. The most prevalent mechanism of awarding a contract in government departments and PSUs over the last century has been the L1 system, also called the Least Cost Selection Method. There is a bit of history to this. The colonial government wasn’t too keen on spending a lot on projects in India. A minimal threshold of quality was all that was needed at the lowest cost. Though alternatives like the Quality and Cost Based System (QCBS) and Quality Based System (QBS) are being gradually adopted, the L1 system still holds sway after seven decades. Yes, we love our colonial past a lot that way. So, you could lie your way through the technical bid claiming excellent capabilities. Once you crossed that threshold, all you needed was some friendly insider who helped you price your bid lower than your rivals only marginally. Voila, you’re in business.Three problems arose out of this. First, since technical bids didn’t have a weightage, the projects were often won by less competent firms who ended up either not completing the project or did a shoddy job. Examples of this are visible all around us in government infrastructure projects. Second, it encouraged rent-seeking behaviour among public servants who had the information about rival bids. In that cult classic, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro, municipal commissioner D’mello was playing two builders (Ahuja and Tarneja) to maximise his benefits till one of them bumps him off. Third, it led to crowding out of honest, competent players from the government tender market because they wouldn’t play ball.”   What’s Changed?Anyway, I went through this 22-page document released by the department and a few things stand out. First, there are concrete measures identified to make it easy for suppliers dealing with the government. The guidelines suggest 75 per cent of payment due must be paid within 10 working days of the submission of the bill and the remaining within 28 working days. Beyond this, penal interest would apply. There’s also guidance on how government entities should operate when they get into legal disputes with their suppliers. The entities should not appeal against judgments of lower courts in routine matters and decision to appeal should be reviewed by a special committee that should consider both legal merits and the practical chances of success after doing a cost-benefit analysis. This will encourage those suppliers who have stayed away from government contracts because of the jhanjhat they entail.   Second, a few other common bugbears of the government procurement process have been eliminated. For instance, the single bidder scenario in an open tender. Earlier the tender would be scrapped and a new one floated if there was only one bidder. This is no longer a necessary requirement and if the single bidder checks all the boxes, the process can continue with them to its conclusion. Also, the government entities can now quote a fixed budget for a project in the tender itself for the bidders to apply. This will take away the guesswork and protracted negotiations to get a bid under a budget that the government has in mind for specific time-bound projects. Finally, we have the Quality-cum-Cost Based Selection (QCBS) now allowed for procurement of works and non-consultancy service where the procurement has been declared Quality Oriented Procurement (QOP) by the competent authority and where the estimated value of the tender does not exceed Rs.10 crore. Even here, the weightage of non-financial parameters cannot exceed 30 per cent. This isn’t wholesale dumping of the L1 procurement system as it is made out to be but it is a continuation of the changes in the procurement process that started in 2017. And I hope as the confidence in this grows, we will phase out the L1 system completely and have a procurement framework that’s modern, not a colonial relic.p.s: There’s always a lot of life lessons to learn from any government gazette and this time I learnt the difference between ‘may’, ‘should’, ‘shall’ and ‘allowed’. I have reproduced it below for your enlightenment:“(i) Instructions containing ‘may’ are to be considered desirable or good practices which procuring entities/ project executing agencies are encouraged to implement but not mandatory. (ii) Instructions containing ‘should’ are required to be followed in general. However, there may be circumstances where it may not be practical/ desirable to implement them. In such cases, the concerned officer / agency may deviate by recording reasons in writing for not implementing the same(iii) Instructions containing ‘shall’ are mandatory; any deviation shall require (our take: note the meta level usage of shall here) relaxation of rules from the DoE (iv) Instructions containing ‘allowed’ indicate an optional course of action to be decided upon on merits” Aur kahan milega itna content!A Framework a Week: What’s a Policy Success? Tools for thinking public policy— Pranay KotasthaneWhatay coincidence! I also have something not-so-terrible to discuss. Rarer than sighting rare migratory birds. Anyways, it’s always fun to identify a policyWTF. The gotcha feeling is unmistakable. Policy watchers like us experience immense satisfaction in identifying governments’ stupidities. Moreover, limited state capacity in India means that policyWTFs surface at a daily cadence. Ideas that seemed great on paper regularly morph into egregious policies. As important as exposing government incompetence is in a democracy, we also realise the limits of analyses focusing on policy failures alone. The dominance of the language of incompetence and disillusionment with the State can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Fed only on a diet of policy failures, those of us who can afford, give up entirely on the State. Those who can’t afford, resign themselves to a State that can give occasional handouts and provide short-term benefits. To escape this narrative of cynicism and despair, we need to systematically understand policy successes in India. The caricature that India progresses despite its governments, not because of it, surely can’t be true. There are plenty of examples where government policies effectively resolved the biggest challenges of the day. The Green Revolution, the 1991 reforms, the National Pension System (NPS) reform, Fiscal Budget Responsibility and Budget Management Act, and the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) are just some candidates for successful policy measures that come to mind.But identifying isolated successes doesn’t go far enough. We need frameworks that can help understand what a policy success really entails. We need to understand the elements that are more likely to make policies successful in the Indian context. A search on these lines led me to this book Successful Public Policy: Lessons from Australia and New Zealand, which has a good review of literature on this topic. Let’s discuss a few of them.Framework 1: Programmatic-Political AxesThe first framework assesses success on two parameters - programmatic efficiency and effectiveness on one hand, and political coalition building and communication on the other. My illustration of this framework is below.This framework helps explain why the farm laws cannot be classified as a policy success or why this government doesn’t project demonetisation as a terrific policy reform anymore. Stories, Stories, StoriesThe crucial point is that calling a policy successful is at its core an intensely political claim. Apart from good “craft work”, it involves shaping the narrative so that it is widely seen as a success. As the authors write:“Policy successes, like policy failures, are in the eye of the beholder. They are not mere facts but stories. Undoubtedly, ‘events’—real impacts on real people—are a necessary condition for their occurrence. But, in the end, policy successes do not so much occur; they are made. To claim that X—a public policy, program or project—is a ‘success’ is effectively an act of interpretation, indeed of framing. To say this in a public capacity and in a public forum makes it an inherently political act. It amounts to giving a strong vote of confidence to certain acts and practices of governance. In effect, it singles them out, elevates them and validates them. For such an act to be consequential it needs to stick; others need to become convinced of its truth and need to emulate it. The claim ‘X is a success needs to become a more widely accepted and shared narrative. When it does, it becomes performative: X looks better and better because so many say so, so often. When the narrative endures, X becomes enshrined in collective memory through repeated retelling and other rituals. Examples of the latter include the conferral of awards on people or organisations associated with X, who then subsequently receive invitations to come before captive audiences to spread the word; the high place that X occupies in rankings; and the favourable judgements of X by official arbiters of public value in a society, such as audit agencies or watchdog bodies, not to mention the court of public opinion. Once they have achieved iconic status, success tales—no matter how selective and biased certain critics and soft voices may claim them to be (see, for example, Schram and Soss 2001)—serve as important artefacts in the construction of the self-images and reputational claims of the policymakers, governments, agencies and societal stakeholders that credibly claim authorship of their making and preservation (Van Assche et al. 2011)” —[Successful Public Policy: Lessons from Australia and New Zealand]Given the importance of narratives, objective classification of policies into successes or failures becomes difficult. Framework 2: A Fourfold MeasureBuilding on the previous framework, the editors develop a four-fold assessment in order to eliminate getting swayed by narratives alone. Broadly speaking, programmatic assessment measures effectiveness and efficiency, process assessment indicates implementation capability, and political assessment measures narrative power. I quite liked the fourth dimension. The temporal assessment, in the authors’ words, looks at the policy ‘not as a snapshot but as a film’. Policies with desirable effects almost always need regular software updates to account for unintended and unanticipated consequences. Take the case of Minimum Support Pricing policies in the context of food shortage in India. It did achieve the programmatic, process, and political goals but failed the temporal test because it evergreened the subsidies for a few crops. I recommend the book to anyone interested in policy engineering. I hope to do something similar in the Indian context to get out of a declinist policy discourse. Do you have any policy candidates in mind that meet the criteria outlined above? India Policy Watch: Charging For Sedition Is Our Parampara Insights on burning policy issues in India— RSJAnother week and another demand for a sedition case. This time it is from the left or the liberal wing. And their target is the eminent public intellectual Kangana Ranaut who in a discussion with another formidable intellect on Times Now claimed that India got her real azaadi in 2014 and what happened in 1947 was but a ‘bheekh’ (alms) that our generous colonial overlords had given us. This was enough. Demand for sedition charges poured in. Is this sedition? In the world of social media whataboutery, all kinds of parallels were drawn with other cases where this government has filed charges of sedition. It is useful to go back into history a bit to understand sedition in India (Section 124-A of the IPC) and how it has evolved to become the ogre it is today. A Brief History Of Sedition The first documented case of sedition was back in 1891. In the Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose case, the proprietor of a weekly Bangla newspaper Bangobasi was charged for articles that appeared in it. What sort of articles? Well, the colonial government was considering passing the Age of Consent Bill which sought to raise the age of consent for Indian girls to be subject to sexual intercourse from ten to twelve. Bangobasi saw this as an unnecessary intervention of the state into the customs of Hindu society and severely criticised it. This would have made an interesting case even today on how much the state should intervene in the traditions of a society. The jury was unable to reach a consensus and Justice W. Comer Petheram discharged the case and let out the accused on bail.It is the next case that set the definition for sedition in colonial India whose imprint hasn’t vanished yet. This was Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak case where Tilak in his newspaper Kesari had carried an article titled ‘Shivaji’s Utterances’ that exhorted Indians to wake up to the foreign debasement of their culture. Tilak had sought for swarajya in his pages using Shivaji’s ghost in heaven as the medium. The article had no direct call for action or incitement to disorder. The case came up before Justice Arthur Strachey of the Bombay High Court and he defined sedition in such broad and blatantly partisan strokes that it was almost impossible for the jury to return any other verdict than guilty. Tilak was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment and a precedent was set. Puraane Paap Once MoreSo, what were these broad strokes that Justice Strachey applied on sedition that continue to haunt us in independent India? First, it was not necessary for the speaker (or writer) to incite people to commit acts of violence or insurrection against the state for it to be considered sedition. Just the intention to arouse negative feelings about the government was good enough. Mind you, this almost replaced the state with the government. Abusive language against the government, portraying it as corrupt or hostile to its own people or calling it partial could all be considered sedition. The presumed intention itself going literally by the words of the speaker could be considered seditious. It didn’t matter if they were being used for irony or for satire. The real intent was irrelevant. Second, the judgment introduced a new element in free speech debates. Who is the intended audience and what’s their character? In Tilak’s case, the Bombay High Court was convinced that since Tilak wrote in Marathi, he was talking to an ignorant and gullible class of people who could be easily swayed by the impassioned texts asking them to rise in revolt against the government. So, not only the presumed intent of the speaker was to be judged but also the intellectual abilities of the audience to decide on the seditious nature of a speech or a column. Third, and quite incredibly, it didn’t matter what the consequence of the speech or text was in deciding on sedition charges. The accused couldn’t plead that no one actually developed any negative feelings against the government because of their speech. Nor was the truth relevant. The accused couldn’t argue that what she was saying was the truth. What mattered was presumed intent and the possibility of an impact. Quite honestly, this wasn’t any longer in the realm of law. This was metaphysics. Yet, a large part of this interpretation of sedition is what remains with us till today. By the mid 19th century, sedition was a minor offence (“misdemeanour”) in England and at its worst could attract a few years in prison. It was a bailable offence and there were rarely any convictions on charges of sedition in England by the time it was introduced as Section 124-A of IPC in 1870 in India. However, as we saw in Tilak’s case, the colonial government interpreted this section in the most illiberal way possible. And the tone was set. In the debates at the Constituent Assembly, the speakers who were victims of sedition law under British rule, drafted Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) to take the sting out of sedition charges. After 1947, few of our Courts ruled against sedition charges that were brought up against the leaders of Hindu Mahasabha or the Communist Party for making inflammatory speeches against the state or against other communities that could lead to violence. These judgments spooked Nehru and others in his cabinet. The wounds of partition were fresh and the spectre of violence was all around. Nehru blinked and the First Amendment to the Constitution that curbed freedom of speech was passed in June 1951. This has been chronicled in Tripurdaman Singh’s Sixteen Stormy Days - The Story of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India.But this wasn’t all. In the Code of Criminal Procedure that came into force in 1974, Indira Gandhi made sedition a cognisable offence for the first time in our history. Now, police could make an arrest on charges of sedition without a warrant. Sedition thus became a non-bailable, cognisable and non-compoundable offence in India. A triple whammy that both sides of the political divide are happy to apply to the other. And in last five years things seemed to have gotten worse. Because in India, allegiance to free speech isn’t about conviction. It’s about convenience.p.s: Contrast the 1951 buckling of the Indian government to what happened to the Sedition Act of 1798 that was passed in the US House of Representatives. Here’s an excerpt from the House History website:“In one of the first tests of freedom of speech, the House passed the Sedition Act, permitting the deportation, fine, or imprisonment of anyone deemed a threat or publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government of the United States. The 5th Congress (1797–1799), narrowly divided between the majority Federalists and minority Jeffersonian Republicans, voted 44 to 41 in favor of the Senate-passed bill. Federalists championed the legislation fearing impending war with France and out of the desire to hold the majority in Congress and to retain the White House, then occupied by Federalist John Adams. In an era when newspapers served as political parties' chief organs, the Republican press was particularly vicious in its attacks on Federalists and the Adams administration. “Liberty of the press and of opinion is calculated to destroy all confidence between man and man,” noted one of the bill’s supporters, John Allen of Connecticut. “It leads to the dissolution of every bond of union.” Republicans defended the First Amendment protecting free speech and press. “What will be the situation of the people?” James Madison of Virginia demanded. “Not free: because they will be compelled to make their election between competitors whose pretensions they are not permitted by act equally to examine, to discuss and to ascertain.” Signed into law by Adams on July 14, the law proved immensely unpopular with the public and the President lost re-election to Thomas Jefferson in 1800. Under the incoming Republican administration, the Sedition Act eventually expired on March 3, 1801; however, arguments made for and against it shaped subsequent debate about constitutional protections of free speech.” PS: Read more on sedition in edition #115.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] Sedition in India: Colonial Legacy, Misuse and Effect on Free Speech from EPW.[Framework] BCG’s Public Impact Diagnostic Tool provides another way to measure policy success. [Note] A Guide for starting a low-cost, primarily remote setup podcast. Subscribe at publicpolicy.substack.com

On 23rd July, some of the interesting events that took place were: 1829: William Austen Bert got the patent of typograph. 1856: Bal Gangadhar Tilak was born. 1927: First station of AIR was opened in Bombay. https://chimesradio.com    http://onelink.to/8uzr4g   https://www.facebook.com/chimesradio/   https://www.instagram.com/vrchimesradio/   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

क्रांतिकारियों के पक्ष में लिखने पर तिलक हुए थे गिरफ्तार, 6 साल की सजा काटते हुए लिखी थी गीता रहस्य

The extremists wanted to extend the boycott to all over India and refuse cooperation so that task of administration becomes impossible. The main extremist leaders were Lala Lajpat Ray, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal. They were called Lal Bal Pal. They had become so popular that British got alarmed. The slogan was “Swaraj is my Birthright” They wanted to disobey the unjust laws; they wanted to kick the loyalists out of the society. They wanted all that Gandhi would take up in future minus non-violence. This was the first phase of the passive resistance. The moderates were moderates. They did not like these new techniques of struggle. They even thought of using the Boycott in only special circumstances. The extremists were far more popular than the moderates. Before this session, the extremists would have taken over congress had they elected a leader among them. But it was not done. The moderates were politically intelligent. In 1906, the session at Calcutta was presided by Dada Bhai Naoroji. The moderates chose Dada Bhai Naoroji to preside the Congress. Dada Bhai Naoroji, the Grand Oldman of India was respected by the moderates and extremists alike. But, in this session, the congress was compelled by the extremists to adopt following resolutions which were accepted by the moderates with half heart. These were as follows: Resolution on Partition of Bengal Resolution of Self Government (Swaraj) Resolution on Swadeshi Resolution on Boycott. Thus in Calcutta session of 1906, under the leadership of Dadabhai Naoroji, Congress adopted Swaraj as the Goal of Indian people. But here a bit of politics was played by the Moderates. They, by no means wanted to be tagged as radical. The toned down the resolution in a compromised state and made it “self government means that obtaining the self governing British Colonies“. Thus the whole meaning of Swaraj of the extremists was changed. The extremists were defeated in this politics and the difference became apparent. Congress was now bound to split. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rahul182/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rahul182/support

Aurobindo Ghosh was an Indian philosopher, yogi, and Indian nationalist. He is popular as Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo Ghose was born in Calcutta on 15 August 1872. His father, Krishna Dhun Ghose was a doctor and a former member of Brahmo Samaj. And his mother Swarnalata Devi. Sri Aurobindo's English proficiency was very fluent because of his schooling in  Darjeeling which was a center of British life in India back at that time. His father wanted him to enter the Indian Civil Service so he was sent to England. He cleared the written exams but intentionally delayed the practical to get himself disqualified for the service. Upon returning to India in 1893, he joined Baroda State Service. That's when he started taking an active interest in the politics of India's independence struggle against British rule. He started writing for the “Vande Mataram” newspaper and pleaded with people to join the independence movement. He organized several meetings and also got the support of other extremist leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal. Sri Aurobindo was also involved in the controversy of the Alipore Bombing in 1908 but no hard evidence was found against him. Later he was sent to jail for writing in the press against the Britishers. In 1910 he moved to Pondicherry and withdrew himself from all political activities. In Pondicherry, Sri Aurobindo performed secluded yoga and started a magazine named “Arya”. In parallel, he also worked on writing books like The Life Divine, The Synthesis of Yoga, Essays on The Gita, The Secret of The Veda, Hymns to the Mystic Fire, and more.   In 1930, he wrote a poem, “Savitri” which became his greatest literary achievement. With his increase of followers, he with the help of his spiritual collaborator, Mirra Alfassa, founded the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Sri Aurobindo Ghosh was one of the influential leaders who taught the importance of spiritual education. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Khudiram Bose was one of India's youngest revolutionaries. He was born on December 3rd, 1889, in Medinipur, district of Bengal. His parents died when he was a newborn, so he was raised by his older sister and her husband. Sri Aurobindo and Sister Nivedita visited Midnapore in 1903 when Khudiram heard their speech in which they urged India's youth to join the independence movement. Bose was so inspired by their speech that he actively took part in Sri Aurobindo's secret planning in the freedom movement. While still in college, he entered the Martyrs Club in 1904. Khudiram was just 16 years old when he carried out some revolutionary activities during the Partition of Bengal in 1905. Khudiram and Prafulla tried to kill Magistrate Douglas Kingsford, a British judge. However, due to poor timing, two British women were killed by the bomb instead of Kingsford. People rallied to his defense after he was arrested. Khudiram Bose was given the death penalty by the judge. This decision was voted down by the entire Bengal. Bal Gangadhar Tilak defended the two young men in his newspaper Kesari and called for immediate Swaraj. Despite all efforts, the Britishers considered nothing, and finally, on 11 August 1908, he was executed.  His funeral procession passed through the city, and as the carriage passed by, people proceeded to throw flowers on the body. Khudiram Bose is known as the youngest Indian freedom fighter to give his life in the fight for independence. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lala Lajpat Rai or the Lion of Punjab was an inspirational leader, orator, journalist, author, and fierce freedom fighter. He was born on 28th January 1865 in Firozpur, Punjab. His father was Munshi Radha Krishan Agarwal and his mother Gulab Devi Agarwal. Lala Lajpat Rai studied law in Lahore where he met many freedom fighters. He was influenced by the movement of Swami Dayanand Saraswati and became part of Arya Samaj. He later joined Indian National Congress and in 1884 he moved to Hisar which was the changing point of his life. He established a branch of the Indian National Congress in Hisar.    While studying law, he practiced journalism and started writing to influence people for freedom. His contemporaries were Aurobindo Ghosh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal. Lal Bal Pal together started protesting and agitating. These leaders together launched the Swadeshi movement and Civil Disobedience movement which was later promoted by Mahatma Gandhi.    In 1914, he quit law practice to dedicate himself to the freedom of India. In 1917 he went to several countries like Britain, United States to influence the Indian community residing there. He founded the Indian Home Rule League of America in New York and also became the President of the Indian National Congress. Lala Lajpat Rai started several reforms and spoke against issues like the caste system, position of women, untouchability, and more. He also established several schools and colleges for the youths of India.    In 1928, the British government set up the Commission, headed by to report on the political situation in India. The Indian political parties boycotted the Commission because it did not include a single Indian in its membership. On 30 October 1928, Lajpat Rai led a non-violent, peaceful march in protest against it. The protesters chanted "Simon Go Back" and carried black flags. The Superintendent of Police, James A. Scott, ordered the police to lathi charge where Lajpat was seriously injured. Despite being extremely injured, Rai addressed the crowd and said, "I declare that the blows struck at me today will be the last nail in the coffin of British rule in India". He passed away on 17 November 1928. Bhagat Singh, who was a witness to the event, vowed to take revenge on one of the greatest leaders of India. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From childhood, Tilak followed the path of honesty. He is one of the main Indian independence activists and social reformers. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first leader of the Indian Independence Movement. He was born on 23rd July 1856 in Ratnagiri. His father was a school teacher named Gangadhar Tilak and his mother Paravti Bai Gangadhar. Tilak did his college in Pune and studied law in Bombay(now Mumbai). Later in his life, he became a Mathematics teacher in a school which was a turning point in his political career. He converted the school into an institution that promoted self-service and self-empowerment. Tilak identified education and the English language as the important tools to reach the Britishers. He established the Deccan Education Society in Pune, New English School for Primary Studies, and Fergusson College for Higher Education. In parallel, he edited and published the Marathi newspaper “Keshri” and English newspaper, “The Maratha” where he openly criticized the Britishers. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was called “The Father of Indian unrest”. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Vipin Chandra Pal were the three most popular people of that time and the trio was known as Lal Bal Pal. In 1890 Tilak joined Indian National Congress and took forward the Indian Independence movement along with the other leaders. In 1905 when the Divide & Rule Policy came to be for the Partition of Bengal, Tilak raised an appeal to take the policy back and boycott foreign goods. The Indian National Congress had two groups. One that supported moderate means and social reforms known as the moderates, the other who just wanted independence. Lal Bal Pal followed the extremist ideology. In 1907 Tilak was sent to jail on sedition charges where he preached the slogan, “Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it.” In 1914, he created Home Rule League formed on his slogan. In 1916 he was given the title of “Lokmanya”. Mahatma Gandhi called him “The Maker of Modern India” and Nehru called him “The Father of the Indian Revolution”. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak was one of the strongest advocates of Indian Independence. Listen to this episode of Famous Indian Personalities and other interesting kids podcasts on free Chimes Radio mobile apps. Available on Google and Apple App stores. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Complete Bhagavad Gita Audiobook. Bhagavad Gita or Song Celestials translated by Sir Edwin Arnold, Read by Jothi; Chapter 1 Arjuna's Grief; Arjuna Vishada Yoga Chapter 2 Yoga of Knowledge; Sankhya Yoga Chapter 3 Karma Yoga Chapter 4 Renunciation of Action; Jnana Karma Sanyasa Yoga Chapter 5 Yoga of True Renunciation; Karma Sanyasa Yoga Chapter 6 Yoga of Meditation; Dhyana Yoga Chapter 7 Knowledge and Wisdom; Jnana Vignana Yoga Chapter 8 Imperishable Brahman; Akshara Brahma Yoga Chapter 9 The Royal Secret; Rajavidya Rajaguhya Yoga Chapter 10 Divine Glories; Vibhuti Yoga Chapter 11 The Cosmic Form; Vishwarupa Darshana Yoga Chapter 12 Yoga of Devotion; Bhakti Yoga Chapter 13 The Field and Its Knower; Kshetra Kshetrajna Vibhagha Yoga Chapter 14 The Yoga of Gunas; Gunatraya Vibhaga Yoga Chapter 15 Yoga of the Supreme Spirit; Purushottama Yoga Chapter 16 Divine and Devilish Estates; Daiva Asura Sampat Vibhaga Yoga Chapter 17 The Threefold Path; Shraddhatraya Vibhaga Yoga Chapter 18 Liberation Through Renunciation; Moksha Sanyasa Yoga. About Bhagvat Gita: The Bhagavad Gita (/ˌbʌɡəvəd ˈɡiːtɑː, -tə/; Sanskrit: भगवद् गीता, IAST: bhagavad-gītā /bɦɐɡɐʋɐd ɡiːtäː/, lit. "The Song of God"), often referred to as the Gita, is a 700-verse Hindu scripture that is part of the epic Mahabharata (chapters 23–40 of Bhishma Parva), dated to the second century BCE. The Gita is set in a narrative framework of a dialogue between Pandava prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Krishna, an avatar of Lord Vishnu. At the start of the Dharma Yuddha (righteous war) between Pandavas and Kauravas, Arjuna is filled with moral dilemma and despair about the violence and death the war will cause in the battle against his own kin. He wonders if he should renounce and seeks Krishna's counsel, whose answers and discourse constitute the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna counsels Arjuna to "fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty to uphold the Dharma" through "selfless action". The Krishna–Arjuna dialogues cover a broad range of spiritual topics, touching upon ethical dilemmas and philosophical issues that go far beyond the war Arjuna faces. Numerous commentaries have been written on the Bhagavad Gita with widely differing views on the essentials. According to some, Bhagavad Gita is written by Lord Ganesha which was told to him by Vyasa. Vedanta commentators read varying relations between Self and Brahman in the text: Advaita Vedanta sees the non-dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman (universal soul) as its essence, whereas Bhedabheda and Vishishtadvaita see Atman and Brahman as both different and non-different, while Dvaita Vedanta sees dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman as its essence. The setting of the Gita in a battlefield has been interpreted as an allegory for the ethical and moral struggles of the human life. The Bhagavad Gita presents a synthesis of Hindu ideas about dharma, theistic bhakti, and the yogic ideals of moksha. The text covers Gyān, Bhakti, Karma, and Rāj Yoga (spoken of in the 6th chapter) incorporating ideas from the Samkhya-Yoga philosophy. The Bhagavad Gita is the best known and most famous of Hindu texts, with a unique pan-Hindu influence. The Gita's call for selfless action inspired many leaders of the Indian independence movement including Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi; the latter referred to it as his "spiritual dictionary" Read more Hindu Books on sagesutr.com

श्रीमद भगवद गीता सार नेपाली भाषामा/ Shreemad Bhagwat Geeta-1/ Nepali Language श्रीमद भगवद गीता सार नेपाली भाषामा/ Shreemad Bhagwat Geeta-1/ Nepali Language The Bhagavad Gita Sanskrit: भगवद् गीता, . "The Song of God"),[1] often referred to as the Gita, is a 700-verse Hindu scripture that is part of the epic Mahabharata (chapters 23–40 of Bhishma Parva). The Gita is set in a narrative framework of a dialogue between Pandava prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Krishna. At the start of the Dharma Yudhha (righteous war) between Pandavas and Kauravas, Arjuna is filled with moral dilemma and despair about the violence and death the war will cause in the battle against his own kin. He wonders if he should renounce and seeks Krishna's counsel, whose answers and discourse constitute the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna counsels Arjuna to "fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty to uphold the Dharma" through "selfless action".The Krishna–Arjuna dialogues cover a broad range of spiritual topics, touching upon ethical dilemmas and philosophical issues that go far beyond the war Arjuna faces. Krishna is also said as the first motivational speaker in human history. Numerous commentaries have been written on the Bhagavad Gita with widely differing views on the essentials. According to some, Bhagavad Gita is written by Lord Ganesha which was told to him by Vyasa. Vedanta commentators read varying relations between Self and Brahman in the text: Advaita Vedanta sees the non-dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman (universal soul) as its essence, whereas Bhedabheda and Vishishtadvaita see Atman and Brahman as both different and non-different, while Dvaita Vedanta sees dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman as its essence. The setting of the Gita in a battlefield has been interpreted as an allegory for the ethical and moral struggles of the human life. The Bhagavad Gita presents a synthesis of Hindu ideas about dharma, theistic bhakti, and the yogic ideals of moksha. The text covers jnana, bhakti, karma, and Raja Yoga (spoken of in the 6th chapter) incorporating ideas from the Samkhya-Yoga philosophy. The Bhagavad Gita is the best known and most famous of Hindu texts, with a unique pan-Hindu influence. The Gita's call for selfless action inspired many leaders of the Indian independence movement including Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi; the latter referred to it as his "spiritual dictionary". --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/devotional-lovers/message

After the Rebellion of 1857, nationalist movements cropped up across the country. The idea of a free India became prevalent during this time. Indian National Congress (INC) Inspired by AO Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji and Surendranath Banerjee founded INC in 1885 It was the first time an organisation recognised India as a country The organisation initially did not have a well-formed ideology and was a debating society that met annually The idea was to let Britishers rule India while obtaining some kind of rights for the Indian citizens But it did not last long and the party was divided into two factions - Moderates and Extremists Moderates and Extremists Moderates were led by Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale who opposed the extremists led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai. The extremists were forced out of INC and the Tilak was later arrested, which led to INC losing its credibility. Aligarh University and the Muslim League In 1875, under Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh was founded (renamed Aligarh Muslim University in 1920) Bengal was divided into two in 1906 - East Bengal and West Bengal The Muslim faction in the country did not feel INC is inclusive and they formed The Muslim League The Revolutionaries Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919 was a turning point in the revolutionary movement The work of the revolutionaries including Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki gained recognition Both of them tried to assassinate British officials and were captured and executed Jugantar was established in April 1906 by Aurobindo Ghosh, his brother Barin Ghosh, Bhupendranath Datta, Raja Subodh Mallik. They collected and manufactured arms and explosives for revolutionary activities. Ghadar Party and its movement to conduct a Pan-India rebellion in the British Indian Army. All India Conference of Indian Christians was founded in 1914 with KT Paul as its first president Find the affiliate links to the equipment and resources we use to make this podcast here. Find Writer & Geek's guide to podcasting here. Source: Indian National Congress Wikipedia Indian Independence Movement Wikipedia Timeline of Indian History from 1857 to 1947 10 Events That Led to Indian Independence Image courtesy Canva

Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it. Lokamanya #BalGangadharTilak a personality to whom words would do no justice. An inspiration for many revolutionaries. The father of the Indian unrest.

Some of the greatest speeches of the free world resonate to date; "Give me blood and I shall give you freedom", said Shubhash Chandra Bose. "Freedom is our birthright", said Bal Gangadhar Tilak. "I have a dream", said Martin Luther King Jr. Some speeches gave you goosebumps, some speeches angered you, and then there are just some speeches which leave you shocked and disappointed making you wonder if the Freedom Of Speech is being misused. Bharat tere tukde honge, inshallah inshallah or desh ke gadaro ko goli maro saalo ko, does this remind you of something? Hate speech or constructive criticism? Sometimes, actually most of the time media houses turn speeches out of context or the context out of the speeches and turn it into material for propaganda, maybe, something that sells and gets them more viewers. In this episode, we are looking to discuss some speeches that are turned into a hate speech or how some particular words of a speech are taken out of context after which these words individually have a different interpretation. How far could someone go to turn criticism into hate? How could this be tackled in the digital age?

Punjab Kesari” Lala Lajpat Rai, one of the members of the Lal-Bal-Pal trio, the others being Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal, the so called extremist faction of the Congress. Founder of DAV. Writer, thinker, educationist.