SR Darapuri: A Police Man and a Social and Political Activist

 

 SR Darapuri: A Police Man and a Social and Political Activist

S.R. Darapuri is widely recognized as a respected and principled figure in India, known for his transition from a distinguished career in the Indian Police Service (IPS) to a committed human rights activist and Ambedkarite. His general reputation is that of an upright, fearless, and compassionate individual dedicated to social justice, particularly for marginalized communities such as Dalits, Adivasis, and minorities. Below is a detailed overview based on available information:

 Professional Background and Reputation as an IPS Officer

- Career: Darapuri, born on December 16, 1943, in Punjab, served as an IPS officer (1972 batch) in Uttar Pradesh, rising to the rank of Inspector General of Police before retiring in 2003. His last posting was at the Armed Training Centre in Sitapur. During his tenure, he was known for his integrity and humane approach to policing

- Policing with a Mission: Darapuri viewed policing as a mission to serve and help people, earning a reputation for fairness. His son noted that he avoided unnecessary violence, such as not shooting a miscreant who fired at his jeep and working to reduce caste-based divisions in the police mess.

- Colleagues’ Respect: He was reportedly well-regarded by both juniors and seniors in the police force, and his batchmate, Kiran Bedi, highlights his professional standing.

 Activism and Social Justice

- Post-Retirement Activism: After retiring, Darapuri became a prominent human rights activist, focusing on the rights of Dalits, Adivasis, women, and minorities. He is a vocal Ambedkarite and converted to Buddhism in 1995, aligning with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of social justice and non-violence.

- Organizations and Roles: He is associated with several organizations, including the All India People’s Front (Radical) as National President, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) as Vice President, and Dr. Ambedkar Mahasabha as a founder-member. He also advocates for forest rights, the Right to Information, and the Right to Food.

- Fearless Advocacy: Darapuri has been outspoken against government policies and police actions, notably criticizing the handling of the 2018 Kasganj violence and the 2019 Bulandshahr incident. His activism has often put him at odds with authorities, leading to arrests during protests, such as in 2017 against Yogi Adityanath’s policies and in 2019 during anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests.

- Non-Violent Stance: Despite facing charges of inciting violence, Darapuri is widely regarded as a non-violent activist, following Ambedkar’s principles of peace and fraternity. Supporters argue that his arrests were politically motivated, and his commitment to peaceful protests is well-documented.

 Public Perception and Controversies

- Supporters’ View: Darapuri is seen as a champion of the marginalized, with a reputation for courage and conviction. Activists and colleagues describe him as a source of strength for those facing harassment, often intervening in cases of human rights violations. His work in empowering Dalit and tribal communities, especially in regions like Sonbhadra, has earned him admiration among grassroots activists.

- Criticism and Arrests: His activism has led to conflicts with the Uttar Pradesh government, particularly under Yogi Adityanath. He faced arrests in 2017, 2019, and 2023, with accusations of inciting violence or disturbing public order, which he and his supporters claim are fabricated to silence his dissent. For instance, in 2020, he criticized the UP government’s “name and shame” hoardings targeting anti-CAA protesters, calling them a violation of privacy and a threat to life and liberty.

- Personal Resilience: Despite health challenges, including Parkinson’s disease, and personal losses, such as the death of his first wife in 2021, Darapuri’s remarriage at 81 and continued activism reflect his determination. His personal life, including his family and second marriage, has been covered positively, highlighting his ability to balance personal and public commitments.

 Political Engagement

- Elections: Darapuri contested Lok Sabha elections in 2009 (Lucknow) and 2014-2019 (Robertsganj) with the All India People’s Front (Radical) but was unsuccessful. His political involvement is seen as an extension of his activism, not a pursuit of power.

- Critique of Governance: He has criticized various governments, including those led by Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party, for neglecting Dalit development and broader state progress.

 Critical Perspective

Darapuri’s reputation is overwhelmingly positive among human rights activists, Dalit communities, and those who value his principled stand against injustice. His critics, primarily within governmental and political circles, view him as a disruptive figure due to his vocal opposition to policies like the CAA and his protests against state actions. However, these criticisms often lack evidence of wrongdoing, and his arrests have been condemned by figures like Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as baseless. His commitment to non-violence and Ambedkarite principles bolsters his credibility as a moral and ethical voice, though his confrontations with authorities have made him a polarizing figure in some political contexts.

 Conclusion

S.R. Darapuri is generally regarded as an honourable and courageous individual who transitioned from a respected IPS officer to a tireless advocate for the marginalized. His reputation is built on integrity, non-violence, and a steadfast commitment to social justice, though his activism has drawn state backlash, leading to arrests that many see as attempts to suppress his voice. His influence remains significant among activists and communities fighting for equality in India.!

Dr. Ambedkar’s State Socialism and Socialist Economy and his probable reaction to today’s Corporate and Market-based Economy

 

Dr. Ambedkar’s State Socialism and Socialist Economy and his probable reaction to today’s Corporate and Market-based Economy

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a staunch advocate of state socialism and a socialist economy, emphasized economic justice, equality, and state intervention to uplift marginalized communities. His vision, as outlined in works like *States and Minorities* (1947), prioritized public ownership of key industries, equitable distribution of resources, and safeguards against economic exploitation. Given this, his reaction to today’s corporate and market-based economy would likely be critical, though nuanced, based on his pragmatic approach to social and economic issues.

 Likely Reactions:

1. Criticism of Corporate Dominance:

   - Ambedkar would likely view the concentration of wealth and power in corporations as a form of economic inequality that undermines social justice. His belief in state control over industries like agriculture, insurance, and key utilities suggests he would oppose unchecked privatization and corporate monopolies.

   - He might argue that the profit-driven market economy exacerbates caste and class disparities, as marginalized groups often lack access to capital, education, and opportunities in a competitive system.

2. Concerns Over Marginalized Communities:

   - Ambedkar’s focus on uplifting Dalits and other oppressed groups would lead him to critique the market economy’s failure to address systemic inequalities. He might point out that corporate-driven growth often bypasses rural and underprivileged populations, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.

   - He could advocate for affirmative action in the private sector, similar to his push for reservations in public institutions, to ensure representation and economic inclusion.

3. Support for State Intervention:

   - Ambedkar would likely call for stronger state regulation of markets to prevent exploitation and ensure equitable wealth distribution. His vision of state socialism included nationalizing key sectors to prioritize public welfare over private profit, which contrasts with today’s deregulation and free-market policies.

   - He might propose policies like wealth taxes, land reforms, or public investment in education and healthcare to counter the inequities of a market-driven system.

4. Pragmatic Engagement:

   - While critical, Ambedkar was not dogmatic and recognized the need for economic progress. He might acknowledge the role of markets in driving innovation and growth but insist on robust checks to align them with social justice goals.

   - He could support entrepreneurship and economic opportunities for marginalized groups, provided the state ensures a level playing field through subsidies, training, and access to resources.

 

 Contextual Considerations:

- Globalization: Ambedkar might view globalization skeptically, as it often prioritizes corporate interests over local economies. However, he could see potential in global cooperation for social justice if it aligns with his egalitarian principles.

- Technology: He might appreciate technology’s potential to democratize opportunities (e.g., education, jobs) but criticize its corporate control, advocating for public ownership or regulation of tech platforms.

- Caste Dynamics: Ambedkar would likely highlight how caste networks influence corporate hiring and market access, perpetuating exclusion. He might push for policies to break these barriers.

 Conclusion:

Dr. Ambedkar would likely oppose the excesses of today’s corporate and market-based economy, particularly its tendency to widen inequality and marginalize vulnerable groups. He would advocate for a mixed economy with strong state intervention, public ownership of critical sectors, and policies to ensure economic inclusion for Dalits and other oppressed communities. While open to market-driven growth, he would insist on aligning it with social justice and equality, staying true to his vision of state socialism as a tool for systemic change.

Courtesy: grok

PROPERTY AND THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND TRIBES IN INDIA

 

PROPERTY AND THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND TRIBES IN INDIA

 Bhagwan Das,  July 20,1985.

Property gives security, power and prestige. Desire to own property has become one of the most powerful motivating urges of human-kind. So long as man remains master of 'property' it does not prove to be harmful; it is when property becomes the master of man that the problems begin to arise. Buddha the greatest teacher of man was not in favour of accumulating property and yet like most saints of medieval India he did not glorify property. He advocated the middle path and because of his teachings in the countries which follow Buddhism, the disparity between rich and poor is not as wide as it is in countries where theistic religions are followed.

Concentration of property in few hands leads to or results in exploitation and impoverishment of a large number of people. To perpetuate their hold, the propertied classes use all means at their command especially religion, education, and laws. Disparities in all spheres of life give birth to conflicts culminating in violent upheavals. This is inevitable because changes cannot be brought about through peaceful means. Although political revolutions eat up their own children yet there is a kind of romance attached to the word revolution.

India is one of the poorest countries of the world where fifty to sixty percent people live below poverty line and a large majority of the people own no property. Yet in India we have a small number of people who own most of the property in the form of land, industry and real estate.

Most modern economists and historians attribute this to colonial rule which lasted barely 150 to 200 years but poverty of India goes back to thousands of years. According to ancient Brahminic laws, framed in the name of God or gods, a large number of people  who created wealth were not allowed to own property. They had to be kept perpetually in want and dependent in the name of religion. They were not allowed any leisure so that they may have no time and energy to think. They were not allowed to bear arms so that they may not revolt. Inspite of modern laws, independence of the country situation has not changed very much in the 568, 000 of villages where nearly 80 percent of people live.

Property in the form of land is owned by the upper land- holding castes. During the British regime India was divided into two groups, namely British India and princely states.

Princely states followed different land and property laws according to the laws of the rulers and the tradition of different states. British in the territories directly under their control introduced land reforms and property laws keeping in view their needs and interests. While originally it was collection of revenue in subsequent decades it was the desire to protect the interest of classes which provided the soldiers.

Scheduled Tribes people in certain areas rebelled against the new system introduced by the British and enforced through the members of exploiting classes. A compromise was reached and laws banning transfer of property to non-tribals were enacted. But enactment of law is one thing and its implementation is quite different. Tribals continue to be exploited by the 'plains people' whom they contemptuously call 'Dikko!

Scheduled Castes people in many states, provinces in India were not allowed to own property, land etc. In Punjab (Punjab, Delhi, Haryana included) their duties and responsibilities as 'menials’ were recorded. They could not purchase land so long as they remained within the Hindu-fold, by embracing Islam, Christianity or Sikhism they could get rid of this stigma. After the advent of independence these restrictions were removed but Scheduled Castes people did not even then have any right on the land on which they had built their huts while legal restrictions have been removed, majority of the Scheduled Castes still own no property.

When Constitution was being drafted Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was against inclusion of 'Right to Property' in the Constitution. But Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel and Mr. K.M.Munshi were vehemently opposed to this suggestion. They belong to the propertied class. Majority of the members in the Constituent Assembly belonged to this class and no class can be expected to commit harakiri jeopardising its own interests, or sources of power and prestige.

Land reforms and introduction of new taxes and enhancement of taxes have been introduced as measures to control the fast-growing power of propertied classes but like all good laws these have not been properly implemented. Taking advantages of loop holes deliberately left by the law makers, the purpose of land-reform laws has been defeated.

To defeat the Laws landlords in some states have divorced their wives while they still continue to live with them. Some have got the land mutated in the names of fictitious persons or even in the names of dogs and cats owned by them.  In Punjab one can find names like 'Potato’ son of 'Tomato’ recorded in land revenue papers.

On the other hand, where land has been allotted with great pomp and show to the members of the Scheduled Castes what was given was 'patta! and useless sheet of paper and no the actual land. Himachal made an announcement that land shall be granted to all Untouchables but what was given was barren land where nothing could be grown.

Dr. Ambedkar in his famous book 'States and minorities had dealt with this problem. He had criticised Pundit Jawahar Nehru for in the resolution moved by him in 1946 there was mention of 'Socialism'. After his bitter experience in 1937 when mere mention of the word socialism had angered many of the Congressmen, Pundit Nehru did not want to antagonize his colleagues while he wanted time to consolidate his position after freedom of India.

Dr. Ambedkar’s remedy was 'nationalization of land' and allotment to landless people. He was not in favour of creating peasant proprietors with small patches of land which did not solve any problem at all. On the contrary fragmentation of land into small non-viable parcels created more problems and led to pauperisation of the farmers. He was in favour of allotment to 'collectives'. After the failure of collectives in Soviet Russia many people appear to be afraid of repeating the mistake but Dr. Ambedkar thought in the Indian circumstances this was the best solution. Besides this he desired creation of separate villages of Untouchables so that they may live in peace and security. Migration to the cities is the other alternative.

Untouchables were not allowed to own property. Now they have the right to own property but do not have the means to own property. Since India is now a socialist state the right way to make it socialist is not to encourage the growth of private property but to distribute it equitably and enforce laws which were framed to reduce the disparities. Peaceful and constitutional means have not produced the desired results. Socialism it appears cannot be brought about through peaceful and constitutional means. The classes which have no property and have no hope of security or end of exploitation cannot but think of violent means which is the only way through which socialism has been brought in countries where it is being practiced. By strengthening the propertied classes and weakening the landless and property-less people socialism can never be brought about in any country.