काश यह दूसरी आजादी कि लड़ाई होती

अन्ना हजारे के आन्दोलन जिसको कुछ लोगों ने " दूसरी आजादी " कि लड़ाई का नाम ही नहीं दिया उसकी जीत का जश्न भी मना डाला | भारत कि आजादी कि लड़ाई सौ वर्षों से ज्यादा चली और हजारों लोगों ने अपनी जान कुर्बान की, अनगिनत लोगों ने अपनी पूरी ज़िन्दगी जेल में काट दी , न जाने कितने लोगों ने अपना घर बार कैरिएर त्याग दिया था | देश प्रेम के साथ शोषण और गरीबी से मुक्त ज़िन्दगी का सपना ही आजादी था | आजादी से उनका मतलब ज़मीन, भोजन , पानी , शिक्षा , रोज़गार, मकान , उचित मजदूरी मिलने से था, उन सब कि आँखों में यही सपना था कि आजादी आएगी तो भूख, गैर बराबरी, उत्पीडन, शोषण से मुक्ति लाएगी, सब के पास काम होगा और अपना देश खुशहाल होगा | उन्होंने सोचा था कि आजादी मिलेगी तो जातिवाद, सांप्रदायिक नफरत जैसे शब्द अर्थहीन हो जायेंगे | आजादी कि लड़ाई सफल हुई क्योंकि उसमे किसान, मजदूर, छात्र, नौजवान, माध्यम वर्गीय, बुध्जीवी और महिलाएं शामिल थे, समाज के हर तबके और हर समुदाय का उसको समर्थन हासिल था जबकि नेतृत्व बुर्जुआ पूंजीपति के हाथ में ही था जिससे आजादी से जुडी आकाँक्षाओं को पूरा नहीं किया जा सका | यह सच है कि आज आजादी के ६४ वर्ष बाद भी शहीदों का सपना अधूरा है और उसको पूरा करने के लिए बुनियादी संघर्ष कि ज़रुरत है जो हमें सम्पूर्ण आजादी दिला सके |

अन्ना के आन्दोलन भ्रष्टाचार को आधार बनाकर माध्यम वर्ग द्वारा किया गया आन्दोलन है जिसको हमारे कॉर्पोरेट- मीडिया ने और अतिरंजित करके प्रस्तुत किया कि जैसे लोकपाल बिल हो जाने से आजादी के संघर्ष कि अधूरी रह गयी अपेक्षाएं स्वतः पूर्ण हो जायेंगी समाज में भेदभाव उत्पीडन ,शोषण समाप्त हो जायेगा, गैर बराबरी मिट जाएगी, जातीय और सांप्रदायिक नफरत ख़त्म हो जाएगी, सब शिक्षित होंगे और सब के पास काम होगा, भोजन होगा और मकान होगा | बड़े खेद का विषय है कि मीडिया द्वारा अन्ना को मसीहा साबित करने के लिए जानबूझ कर भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ इस आन्दोलन को दूसरी आजादी की लड़ाई की संज्ञा दी गयी जिसमे न तो कोई व्यापक समझ थी और न ही व्यापक जन समर्थन| नव उदारवादी आर्थिक नीतियों के प्रभाव में विकसित हुए नए माध्यम वर्ग द्वारा किये गए "कर्निवाली संघर्ष" को दूसरी आजादी बताना आजादी कि महान लड़ाई के साथ मज़ाक वह शहीदों का अपमान है| दूसरी आजादी कि लड़ाई हो और उसमे आम मजदूर, किसान, दलित, पिछड़े, अल्पसंख्यक न तो शामिल हों न ही उनके मुद्दे हों| देश के मूलभूत समस्याएं जिस आन्दोलन का हिस्सा न हों और उस आन्दोलन दूसरी आजादी कह देना निसंदेह एक घिनौना मज़ाक है| देश के किसी भी कोने पर अगर छात्र, नौजवान, मजदूर, महिला, किसान अपनी जाएज़ मांगो को लेकर आन्दोलन या प्रदर्शन करें तो राज्य द्वारा उसका दमन किया जाता है | लेकिन इस "दूसरी आजादी" के तथाकथित संघर्ष में सरकार द्वारा दमन जैसे कोई चीज़ देखने को नहीं मिली| और अगर आन्दोलन का विश्लेषण करें तो उससे यह एहसास होता है कि वोह विभिन्न टीवी चैंनलों पर चल रहे " रेआलिटी शो " कि तरह है, और लोग अपना अपना किरदार बखूबी निभा रहे हैं

यह सही है के आज भी शहीदों के अरमानों, आकांक्षाओं और आजादी के आदर्शों को पूरा करने के लिए दूसरी आजादी कि लड़ाई कि ज़रुरत है लेकिन वोह लड़ाई वही होगी जिसमे देश कि बुनियादी समस्याओं को केंद्र में रख उसकी जड़ के पूँजीवाद और नयी आर्थिक नीति के खिलाफ संघर्ष हो जिसमें देश कि व्यापकतम जनता को लामबंद किया जाये | यह निसंदेह एक राजनैतिक आन्दोलन होगा न कि अराजनैतिक तमाशे के साथ किया गया मीडिया प्रायोजित तथाकथित संघर्ष |

hhhhh

Modernity in India

Some people think that whatever is contemporary, is modern. Our idea-fashions and even, ideology and traditions, which characterize our life today is all modern. which is contemporary and is therefore categorized as modern. Fundamentalism, terrorism, increasing communalism and rapid incidence of corruption are likewise contemporary, and therefore, they are all modem. Such an under­standing of modernity is erroneous.

The layman's understanding about modernity is that it is technological only. In other words, if there is new technology, or innovation, it is said to be the attainment of modernity. The advancement in communicator agriculture and transport is considered by common people as the only criterion of modernity. In Dipankar's views, technology is only one part of modernity. Modernity involves certain other features also such as human values and relationships.

Admittedly, the modern society is a consumer society. In U.S. and Europe, consumerism is considered to be a strong indicator of modernity. More there is consumerism, more there is modernity. Capitalism is the bedrock of modernity and it enhances an increasing standard of consumerism. The situation in India is different. In our country, consumerism has given rise to inequality; the poor have become poorer in the race of uplifting their standard. And, in such a situation, it is mistaken to align modernity with increasing consumerism.

It is unfortunate that in India modernization, somehow or other. is associated with unlawful, illegal and violent behaviour. Those who are affluent, often commit crime. Dipankar Gupta comments as under on this mistaken aspect of modernity:

"In India, we have not paid attention on the mainsprings of modernity, but have been quick to declare certain sectors as modern because of their acquisition of artefacts and technology. This has also led to frequent complaints against modernity, especially when egregious offences are committed in contemporary locales or their perpetrators are those who were mistakenly seen as modern because they possessed explosive material objects. Thus, sexual harassment, violence in public places, dowry deaths and a host of other fairly uncivilized forms of conduct get posted as modern. Looked at closely, none of these things is really modern. They arc carry-overs of attitudes from the past."

In most of the cases, the elites and the middle class define traditionalism as modernization. What has happened in India is that in the wake of modernization, traditionalism is strengthened. Some of our traditions have been redefined as modernity. Caste is reorganized to suit to the needs of the politicians. Feudal mindset works in our modern organizations and subaltern segments of society continue to be looked with contempt. Most of the abuses of our translations are interpreted as items and aspects of modernity. Fundamentalism and the ideology of Hindutva could be referred to as new forms of modernity. In fact, traditionalism has re-appeared in new form of modernization, Such a modernization is fake and erroneous.

India's modernity is specific to Indian social structure. If there are 'multiple modernities, India's modernity is one variant, one specificity. If modernity is multi-dimensional, Indian modernity is determined by Indian traditions. Here, there is modernization traditions. It is because of the specificity of Indian social structure modernity can't be explain without reference to its traditions.

Both 'Yogendra Singh' and 'Dipankar Gupta' accept that modernity, in a way or the other, either strengthens traditions or traditions are mistaken as modernity. What is modernity? In the Indian context, the consensus is that it has' universalistic norms, there is emphasis on achievement, its roots are in secularism, it is democratic in its design and media, communication, values, morals and ethics are its dimensional features. And, then, importantly, which is the direction of modernization or social change? How do we define modernity in the light of change studies, which are available to us in Indian sociology? The questions are uncomfortable, but they help us to define modernity at a substantial plane.

Modernization and social change in India:-

The policies of the Indian nation-state and its constitution revolve round making India a modern nation. It means we have adopted modernization as our goal. In other words, capitalism, democracy, ­rationality, industrialism, science and technology and above - secularism constitute our society's structure and value components. It is also expected that our categorical values would provide us continuity. It should also be clear that national social structure should aim to attain secularism, democracy, rationality and equal relations between people as a mark of modernity.

Sociology n Truth

What is truth ? it is always very important question in all discourse.. Man is a product of history and hence of becoming; there is nothing in him that is either given or defined in advance. History begins nowhere and it ends nowhere. Everything in man has been made by mankind in the course of time. Consequently, if truth is human, it too is a human product. Sociology applies the same conception to reason. All that constitutes reason, its principles and categories, has been made in the course of history.

Everything is a product of certain causes. Phenomena must not be represented in closed series: things have a 'circular' character, and analysis can be prolonged to infinity. if anyone try to explain to explain truth psychologically and subjectively. However, the nature of the individual is too limited to explain alone all things human. Truth, reason and morality are the results of a becoming that includes the entire unfolding of human history.

experience can take place on one level only. Reason is placed on the same plane as sensitivity; truth, on the same plane as sensations and instincts. But men have always recognised in truth something that in certain respects imposes itself on us, something that is independent of the facts of sensitivity and individual impulse. Such a universally held conception of truth must correspond to something real. It is one thing to cast doubt on the correspondence between symbols and reality; but it is quite another to reject the thing symbolised along with the symbol. This pressure that truth is seen as exercising on minds is itself a symbol that must be interpreted, even if we refuse to make of truth something absolute and extra-human. in reality truths and errors are mixed, the latter having often been moments in the evolution of truth. In the history of creations, there are unforeseeable novelties.
truth changes at the same time. Truth, one could say, is enriched; but it does not really change. It has certainly been enlarged and increased in the course of the development of history; but saying that truth grows is quite different from saying that it varies in its very nature.

above i have produced some views of Emile Durkheim on this very issue .....