Amendment ruins the Official Language Act, CM moved for fresh Amendment

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

In the matter of governance of Orissa in Oriya, here is my mail to Chief Minister of Orissa demanding repeal of Odisha Official Language (Amendment) Act, 2018 or re-amendment of the Act to remove the defects :

 

To

The Hon’ble Chief Minister, Orissa,

Bhubaneswar.

Sub: Orissa Official Language Act violated through Amendment, 2018 : Request for re-amendment to do away with the defects and for action against the Officer(s) responsible for rendering even the Hon’ble Chief Minister inconsequential  

Ref: Cabinet Resolution Dated 14.3.2018 read with the CMO letter No. 773/CM dt.19.5.2017 and Resolution No.18715/G.A. dt.31.7.2015

Hon’ble Sir,

With a heavy heart, I am writing you to say that, your noble intention to remove all defects from the Orissa Official Language Act, 1954 in order to make it flawlessly functional has been derailed by mischievous brains in bureaucracy and consequently, its amendment passed by the Assembly and assented to by the Governor, has become a more notorious instrument to destroy the original purpose of the Act , while rendering you absolutely inconsequential in the matter of the Resolution of the Cabinet you had presided over on March 14, 2018.

In looking back to the chain of events, I may state that, against the backdrop of ‘Fast onto Death’ by famous language activist Gajanan Mishra in July 2015, the new phase of official action on working of the Official Language Act commenced with creation of a Ministerial Committee by you under the Resolution referred to above, to find out how the Act could be implemented.

You were kind enough to nominate me as a member to the said Committee and in that capacity, I had conducted a thorough research into why the Act, being de jure in force since 1954, was de facto defunct and found out the following defects:

  1. The Government was not empowered in the Act to frame Rules to implement the Act; and
  2. There was no provision of punishment against contravention of the Act.

Accordingly, I had given my advice on 3.9.2015 with draft outlines of two legislation – one, for empowering the Government to frame the Rules and the other, for provision of punishment against nonuse of Oriya as official language.

For the first time the Government could know the above two inherent defects in the Act from my communication and you were kind enough to inform the Assembly on 14.12.2015 that necessary amendment of the Act was on the anvil.

From the notes in the concerned file it transpires that, the then officer-in-charge of the aforesaid Ministerial Committee Sri G.V.V.Sharma had objected to the proposal for punishment, and the file was then thus strangulated that, the Committee went into oblivion.

There was no other way for us than starting a movement in the name of Bhasha Andolan and commencing a campaign known as Black-Flag-Campaign for propounding the cause.

After 39 days of this campaign, on 21.5.2016, you were kind enough to get apprised of the serious situation and appreciating the extraordinary urgency the campaign had generated for official action, you promulgated an Ordinance of Amendment to the Act that implemented my advice and empowered the Government to frame Rules to drive the Act ahead. We had postponed the Black-Flag-Campaign till August 15, 2016, as, to our comprehension, which official indication to the Press had generated, all obstacles to implementation of the Act were to have been removed by then.

Bureaucracy foiled your noble attempt by producing a stillborn set of Rules that was so ineffectual and ill-conceived that, even the Government did not prefer to apprise the Assembly of it, when the Ordinance was laid as a Bill.

As our Black Flag Campaign continued, you were kind enough to discuss the matter with us vide the CMO communication dated 19.5.2017 under reference. We appraised you of the lacunae in the Law and gave you a fresh memorandum detailing why and how the amendment, 2016 should be further amended. A draft of the proposed amendment was submitted to you on that occasion.

After lapse of a period of six months, you held a Cabinet meeting at Puri on 26.12.2017 that almost agreed with our demand and decided to provide for suitable punishment to whosoever employee and Department fail to impart service in Oriya Language. We objected to that in view of the fact that: (1) there was an attempt to reduce the scope of the Act by shrewd coinage of words like “extensive use”, (2) Departments being run with people’s money, the contemplated punishment to ‘Department’ would lead to punishing the people for offences of the employees. And, the Black-Flag Campaign continued.

The State Cabinet met again under your Presidentship on 14.3.2018. It superseded the defective Resolution dated 26.12.2017 on the Act and almost entirely agreeing to our demand, it made it clear that for nonworking in Oriya, only the erring employee and official will be punished, not the Department. In complete acceptance of our argument it resolved, “as there is no provision for imposing penalty against the Officers and employees who are violating the provisions of the notifications under the Act, Government have decided to bring the amendment immediately providing penalties for such erring Officers and employees…so that they will implement the provisions of the notification in its letter and spirit” (Para 2 and 3 of the Press Note of the GA & PG Department, dated 14.3.2018).

But, Sir, your above noble decision has been rendered inconsequential in the amendment drafted by bureaucracy and adopted by the Assembly, as detailed below:

Firstly, the Statement of Object and Reasons of the Amendment do not carry the Reasons spelt out in the above quoted resolution of the Cabinet meeting presided over by you on 14.3.2018. It is based on the superseded resolution of 26.12.2017, completely suppressing the resolution dated 14.3.2018.

Secondly, while illegally using the superseded resolution dated 26. 12.2017, the officer concerned has also tampered with the said resolution. When, even that Resolution had laid down that for non-use of Oriya the Department AND the employees will be suitably punished, the amendment , claiming to have been based on that resolution, provides for punishment to employees OR Department, which is blatantly unauthorized and illegal.

Thirdly, the scope of the Act originally covering the whole of Orissa and all and every Office in the State of Orissa, the amendment has reduced this scope to “extensive use of Oriya Language”, which clearly means that the Act will not be used in whole of Orissa and in all and every official purpose in the State. No amendment can kill the basic purpose of the Act, as this particular amendment has been worded to do. 

Thus Sir, your intention to amend the Act to make it flawless for implementation of the Act “in its letter and spirit” has been brutally done away with by the mandarins while drafting the amendment.

These gross mistakes were overlooked by the Minister Mr. Arukh who moved the Bill in your absence and who just read out the reply to the debate as obviously prepared by the scheming mandarin that had drafted the amendment with a deliberate design against the people of Orissa.

On behalf of Bhasha Andolan, which has been spearheading the movement for inviolable implementation of the Act, I had brought these defects to the notice of the Governor with a request for returning the Bill for reconsideration of the Assembly to make the Law flawless. But, the anti-Oriya mentality of the bureaucracy is such that, the said memorandum was not put up properly before the Governor.

With these words, Sir, I request you on behalf of Bhasha Andolan and the people of Orissa, to please review the entire matter and take suitable and exemplary action against the Secretary concerned, who has rendered the Chief Minister of the State so absolutely inconsequential in matter of amendment of the Act as per Resolution of the Cabinet on 14.3.2018;

And, to please ensure that the Amendment, 2018 is put afresh before the Assembly in its coming session for amendment thereon or for fresh amendment of the Act to do away with the defects enumerated and detailed supra.

With this hope and deep regards,

Yours,

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak,

Chairman,

Bhasha Andolan, Orissa.

28.6.2018

Bhubaneswar.

Advertisements

NO to Utkal, YES to Orissa. Why?

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Orissa’s State Anthem is not yet created, despite the State Legislature having resolved in favor of the song captioned ‘Bande Utkal Janani’ several years ago. This song is inherently defective and needs a law to enforce it, which, in the changed political scenario in Orissa, may not be possible. In my discussion in Oriya language, I have suggested why a new Anthem carrying the name Orissa, instead of Utkal, should be created. Here is the same, already published online.

ଉତ୍କଳ ନୁହେଁ, ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜାତିର ପ୍ରାଥମିକତା ହିଁ

ଓଡ଼ିଶା

ସୁଭାଷ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ

ଓଡ଼ିଶା ପ୍ରଦେଶର ଚାରି ପ୍ରମୁଖ ଅଙ୍ଗ ହେଲେ ଉତ୍କଳ, ତୋଷଳ, କଳିଙ୍ଗ, ଓ କୋଶଳ । “ବନ୍ଦେ ଉତ୍କଳ ଜନନୀ” ଗୀତର କବି ଲକ୍ଷ୍ମୀକାନ୍ତ ମହାପାତ୍ର ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ଖଣ୍ଡର ବାସିନ୍ଦା । ତେଣୁ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ନ ଲେଖି ସାବଲୀଳ ଓ ସ୍ଵାଭାବିକ ଶୈଳୀରେ ସେ ଉତ୍କଳ ଶବ୍ଦଟିକୁ ତାଙ୍କ କବିତାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିଥିଲେ । ଏହା ଆଞ୍ଚଳିକବାଦର ଥିଲା ଏକ ସୁକ୍ଷ୍ମ ସ୍ଵାକ୍ଷର ।

ଏପରି ଆଞ୍ଚଳିକବାଦ ଅନେକଙ୍କ ଜୀବନରେ ଥାଏ । ସେଥିପାଇଁ ଗଞ୍ଜାମଜନ୍ମିତ ବିଜୁବାବୁ ତାଙ୍କ ଶିଳ୍ପବେପାର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାନଗୁଡିକୁ ତଥା ପୁରସ୍କାର ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପକୁ କଳିଙ୍ଗ ନାମରେ ନାମିତ କରିଥିବା ବେଳେ ତୋଷଳ ଓ କୋଶଳ ଅଂଚଳରେ ସେହି ସେହି ନାମରେ ନାମିତ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିଗୋଚର ହୁଏ । ତେଣୁ ଏହି ନାମଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଆଞ୍ଚଳିକ ବୈଶିଷ୍ଟ୍ୟର ପ୍ରଜ୍ଞାପକ ହୋଇଥିବାବେଳେ ଏବଂ ବେଳେବେଳେ ସେଗୁଡିକର ନାମୋଚ୍ଚାରଣରେ ଅଧିକ ପୁଲକିତ ହେଊଥିବା ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିମାନେ ଆଞ୍ଚଳିକବାଦର ଅନୁବର୍ତ୍ତୀ ହେଉଥିବାବେଳେ, ଏହି ଚାରି ନାମଚେତନାକୁ ହୃଦୟରେ ସାଇତି ରଖି ସମଗ୍ର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜାତିର ମାତୃଭୂମି ଭାବେ ପରିଚିତ ହୋଇଥିବା ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡର ନାମ ହେଉଛି ଓଡ଼ିଶା ।

ଓଡ଼ିଶା ହେଉଛି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜାତିର ଐକ୍ୟର ରୂପକଳ୍ପ , ଅଂଶବିଶେଷର ନୁହେଁ ।

ଭାଷା ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନର କଳାପତାକା ଅଭିଯାନ ଏକ ନୂତନ ସର୍ବବ୍ୟାପି ଜାତୀୟଅସ୍ମିତାର ସୁଖଦ ସ୍ପର୍ଶ ଦେଇ ସାରା ଓଡ଼ିଶାକୁ ଦୀର୍ଘ ନିଦ୍ରାରୁ ଜାଗ୍ରତ କରାଇଲାପରେ କେହି କେହି ଭାଷାପ୍ରେମୀ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ଲେଖି ରାଜ୍ୟ-ସଂଗୀତ ପ୍ରବର୍ତ୍ତିତ ହେଉ ବୋଲି ମତଦେବା ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିଛନ୍ତି ।ଏହା ଏକ ଅତ୍ୟନ୍ତ ସ୍ଵାଗତଯୋଗ୍ୟ ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବ ।

ମାତ୍ର ଏହି ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବକୁ ସର୍ବାନ୍ତଃକରଣରେ ଗ୍ରହଣ କରିବା ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ କେତେକ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତି ବିଭାଜନବାଦୀମାନେ ହିଁ ଏପରି ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବ ଦେଉଥିବା କହୁଛନ୍ତି ଓ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ସୃଷ୍ଟିତତ୍ତ୍ବ ନ ଜାଣିଥିବା ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିମାନେ ହିଁ ଏହି ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବକୁ ବେଶୀ ବିରୋଧ କରୁଥିବା ଦେଖାଯାଉଛି । ତେଣୁ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ସୃଷ୍ଟି ଇତିହାସ ଉପରେ ସାମାନ୍ୟ ଦୃଷ୍ଟି ଦେବା ।

ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ସୃଷ୍ଟି ଇତିହାସ

ଏହି ଇତିହାସ ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ କରେ ଯେ, ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ପ୍ରଦେଶ ସୃଷ୍ଟିପାଇଁ କେବେ କୌଣସି ଦାବି ହୋଇନଥିଲା । ଦାବି ହୋଇଥିଲା ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ପ୍ରଦେଶ ସୃଷ୍ଟିପାଇଁ । ପ୍ରଦେଶଟି ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ପ୍ରଦେଶ ଭାବେ ଗଠିତ ହୋଇନଥିଲା । ଗଠିତ ହୋଇଥିଲା ‘ଓଡିଶା’ ପ୍ରଦେଶ ଭାବେ । ୧୮୭୦ରେ ଦୀନବନ୍ଧୁ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକଙ୍କ ନେତୃତ୍ବରେ ପାରିତ ‘ଘୁମୁସର ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବ’ ପ୍ରଭାବରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡର ଏକୀକରଣ ପାଇଁ କୁଳଗୌରବ ମଧୁସୂଦନଙ୍କ ନେତୃତ୍ବରେ ଉତ୍କଳ ସମ୍ମିଳନୀ ଯେଉଁ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ କରିଥିଲା, ତାହା ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ସୃଷ୍ଟି ପାଇଁ ନୁହେଁ , ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ସୃଷ୍ଟିପାଇଁ ଚାଲିଥିଲା ।

‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ସୃଷ୍ଟି ହେଲେ ତାର ସୀମା କଣ ହେବ, ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ତା କଣ ହେବ ଓ ତାର ଆର୍ଥିକ ପରିଚାଳନା କିପରି ହେବ ତାହା ସ୍ଥିର କରିବାପାଇଁ ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ସରକାର ଏହା କମିଟି ଗଠନ କରିଥିଲେ, ଯାହାର ନାମ ଥିଲା ‘ଓଡିଶା ବାଉଣ୍ଡରୀ କମିଶନ” (ଭାରତ ଶାସନର ସଂକଳ୍ପ, ୧୮. ୯. ୧୯୩୧), ଯହିଁରେ ଭାରତର ପୂର୍ବତନ ସ୍ବରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ସଚିବ ସାମୁଏଲ ଓ’ଡୋନ୍ନେଲ ଅଧ୍ୟକ୍ଷ ଥିବା ହେତୁ ତାକୁ ଓ’ଡୋନ୍ନେଲ କମିଟି ଓ ସଂକ୍ଷେପରେ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା କମିଟି’ ବୋଲି କୁହା ହେଉଥିଲା । ଲକ୍ଷ୍ୟ କରିବାର କଥା, ଏହି କମିଟି ନିଯୁକ୍ତିର ଉଦ୍ଦେଶ୍ୟରେ ଓ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟନିର୍ବାହରେ କେବଳ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ଥିଲା, ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ନ ଥିଲା । ତେଣୁ ଓଡ଼ିଆମାନଙ୍କୁ ତାଙ୍କ ସ୍ବତନ୍ତ୍ର ମାତୃଭୂମି ଦେବାପାଇଁ ଯେଉଁ ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ ନିଆହୋଇଥିଲା ତାହା ଥିଲା ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ସୃଷ୍ଟି ପାଇଁ, ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ପାଇଁ ନୁହେଁ । ଉଲ୍ଲେଖନୀୟ ଯେ, ଏହି କମିଟି ବିରୁଦ୍ଧରେ ସ୍ଵର ଉଠିଥିଲା ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ଅଂଚଳରୁ । ‘ଉତ୍କଳ କେଶରୀ’ ହରେକୃଷ୍ଣ ମହତାବ ଏହାକୁ କିପରି ବିରୋଧ କରୁଥିଲେ ତାହା ତାଙ୍କରି କାଗଜ ‘ପ୍ରଜାତନ୍ତ୍ର’ରେ ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇଥିଲା ୧୯୩୧ ନଭେମ୍ବର ୨୩ ତାରିଖରେ ।ଏକଦା ଗାନ୍ଧିଜୀଙ୍କ ନିକଟତମ ହୋଇପାରିଥିବା ସେତେବେଳର ବିଶିଷ୍ଟ କଂଗ୍ରେସ ନେତା ନିରଞ୍ଜନ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ ୨୧.୩.୧୯୩୩ ତାରିଖରେ କଂଗ୍ରେସ ବିରୁଦ୍ଧରେ ତୀବ୍ର ଅଭିଯୋଗ ଆଣି ଏହି ଦଳ କିପରି ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଭୌଗୋଳିକ ସମିଶ୍ରଣକୁ ଭଣ୍ଡୁର କରିବାକୁ ଚେଷ୍ଟା କରୁଥିଲା ତାହା ଦର୍ଶାଇ ଥିଲେ ( ଆଶା , ୨୫.୩.୧୯୩୩ ) । ସେ ମହତାବଙ୍କ ନାମ ନ ନେଇଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ , ଗୋପବଂଧୁଙ୍କ ତିରୋଧାନ ପରେ ସେ ଯେହେତୁ ଥିଲେ କଂଗ୍ରେସର ବାସ୍ତବ ନିୟନ୍ତା, ସେହେତୁ ଏହା ଅକ୍ଲେଶ ଅନୁମେୟ ଯେ, ନିରଞ୍ଜନ ନାମ ନେଇନଥିବା ଖଳନାୟକ ଥିଲେ ମହତାବ । ଏହି ମହତାବ ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ଥାଇ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାକୁ ସରକାରୀ ଭାଷା କରିବାକୁ ବିଧାନସଭାରେ ଆଗତ ପ୍ରଥମ ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବକୁ ଭୟଙ୍କର ବିରୋଧ କରାଯାଇ ତାହାକୁ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟାହାର କରିବା ପାଇଁ ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବକ , ସମ୍ବଲପୁରବାସୀ ପଣ୍ଡିତ ଲକ୍ଷ୍ମୀନାରାୟଣ ମିଶ୍ରଙ୍କୁ ବାଧ୍ୟ କରିଯାଇଥିଲା (ବିଧାନସଭା ବିବରଣୀ , ୧.୧.୧୯୪୮) ।

ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସୃଷ୍ଟି ପୂର୍ବରୁ ବି ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସରକାର’

ଅପରପକ୍ଷେ ବିହାର ସହ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ମିଶି “ବିହାର-ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସରକାର” ଚାଲିଥିଲା , ଯାହାର କୌଣସି ଫର୍ଦ୍ଦରେ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ନଥିଲା । ଏହି “ବିହାର-ଓଡ଼ିଶା” ବିଧାନ ପରିଷଦରେ ୨.୯.୧୯୩୨ରେ ସ୍ଵତନ୍ତ୍ର ‘ଓ଼ଡ଼ିଶା’ ପ୍ରଦେଶ ଗଠନ ପାଇଁ ତୁରନ୍ତ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ ନେବାକୁ ଲକ୍ଷ୍ମୀଧର ମହାନ୍ତି ଏକ ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବ ଆଗତ କରିଥିଲେ (ବିହାର ଏବଂ ଓଡିଶା ବିଧାନ ପରିଷଦ ବିବରଣୀ , ଖଣ୍ଡ-୧, ଭାଗ-୨୫, ସଂଖ୍ୟା -୫, ପୃ.- ୩୦୭) । ଏହି ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବରେ କେଉଁଠିହେଲେ ସେ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ନାମ ନେଇନଥିଲେ।

ଭାରତ ଦାୟିତ୍ଵରେ ଥିବା ସ୍ଵରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ସଚିବ ସାର୍ ସାମୁଏଲ ହୋରେ ସ୍ଵତନ୍ତ୍ର ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ପ୍ରଦେଶ’ ସୃଷ୍ଟି ପାଇଁ ୨୪.୧୨.୧୯୩୨ତାରିଖରେ ଲଣ୍ଡନରେ ଘୋଷଣା କରିଥିଲେ , ଯହିଁ ଉପରେ ବିଚାରବିମର୍ଶ ପାଇଁ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ନେତାମାନେ ଭୁବନାନନ୍ଦ ଦାସଙ୍କ ଅଧ୍ୟକ୍ଷତାରେ ଏକାଠି ହୋଇଥିଲେ ୨.୨.୧୯୩୩ରେ । ହୋରେଙ୍କ ବିବୃତ୍ତିରେ ବା ଓଡିଶା ନେତାମାନଙ୍କ ଏହି ବୈଠକରେ ଯେଉଁ ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡର ନାମ ଆଲୋଚିତ ହୋଇଥିଲା ତାହା ଥିଲା କେବଳ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ , ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ନୁହେଁ ।

‘ତୃତୀୟ ଗୋଲ ଟେବୁଲ ବୈଠକ’ରେ ଯେଉଁ ଶ୍ୱେତପତ୍ର ଉପସ୍ଥାପିତ ହୋଇଥିଲା, ତାହା ଏକ ସ୍ଵତନ୍ତ ପ୍ରଦେଶ ଭାବେ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ସୃଷ୍ଟିର ଉଦ୍ଘୋଷଣ କରିଥିଲା ଓ ତାର ସୀମା ସରହଦ ବି ଘୋଷଣା କରିଥିଲା (ଭାରତ ସରକାରଙ୍କ ପ୍ରେସ ନୋଟ ୧୮.୩.୧୯୩୩) । ଏଥିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଅଂଚଳମାନଙ୍କରୁ ବହୁ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ସ୍ଥାନ ବାଦ ପଡ଼ିଯାଇଥିବାରୁ ଆମ ତତ୍କାଳୀନ ନେତୃତ୍ଵ ତହିଁର ତୀବ୍ର ପ୍ରତିବାଦ କରିଥିଲେ । କିନ୍ତୁ ଯାହା ଲକ୍ଷ୍ୟଣୀୟ ତାହା ହେଲା, ଏହି ସମଗ୍ର କାରବାରରେ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ କେଉଁଠି ବି ନଥିଲା , ଥିଲା କେବଳ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’।

କନିକା ରାଜା ରାଜେନ୍ଦ୍ର ନାରାୟଣ ଭଞ୍ଜ ଦେଓ ୨୨.୩.୧୯୩୩ ତାରିଖରେ ଶ୍ଵେତପତ୍ର ଉପରେ ଆଲୋଚନା ପାଇଁ ‘ବିହାର-ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବିଧାନ ପରିଷଦ’ରେ ଯେତେବେଳେ ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବ ଆଗତ କଲେ , ରାଏ ବହାଦୁର ଲୋକନାଥ ମିଶ୍ର ତହିଁରେ ଏକ ସଂଶୋଧନ ଆଗତ କରିଥିଲେ, ଯହିଁରେ କୁହା ହୋଇଥିଲା, ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବ ଶେଷରେ ଯୋଡ଼ାହେଉ: “and that having considered it, this Council is of opinion that the boundary demarcated for the new Province is highly disappointing in as much as it does not include even the areas unanimously recommended by the Orissa Boundary Committee and also excludes the Parlakimedi estate proposed by the majority of the said Committee” (ବିହାର ଏବଂ ଓଡିଶା ବିଧାନ ପରିଷଦ ବିବରଣୀ, ଖଣ୍ଡ ୩୬, ସଂଖ୍ୟା -୨୪, ପୃ -୧୫୨୯) । ଏଠି ବି ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ଶବ୍ଦ ନଥିଲା , ଥିଲା କେବଳ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ।

ଏହି ବିତର୍କରେ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ର ସୀମା ସମ୍ପର୍କରେ ସରକାର ପୁନର୍ବିଚାର କରନ୍ତୁ ବୋଲି ବିଧାୟକୀୟ ଅଭିମତ ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇଥିବାବେଳେ, ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା କମିଟି’ର ସଦସ୍ୟ ଥିବା ଶ୍ରୀ ସଚ୍ଚିଦାନନ୍ଦ ସିହ୍ନା ଏହି ସୀମା ସଂକୋଚନ ବିରୁଦ୍ଧରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆମାନେ ନିଶ୍ଚୟ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ କରିବା ଉଚିତ ବୋଲି ମତ ଦେଇଥିଲେ (A selection from the speeches and writings of Sachchidananda Sinha, (Patna, 1942), pp.165-165) ଏବଂ ଅନ୍ୟତମ ସଦସ୍ୟ ଶ୍ରୀ ଟି .ଆର ଫୁକୁନ ମଧ୍ୟ ତାଦ୍ଦୃଶ ମତ ରଖିଥିଲେ (ଆଶା , ୨୭.୩.୧୯୩୩) ।

ଶ୍ଵେତପତ୍ର ଉପରେ ବିଚାର କରି, ଏ ସବୁକୁ ବିଚାରକୁ ନେଇ , ଜଏଣ୍ଟ ପାର୍ଲିଆମେଣ୍ଟାରୀ କମିଟି ବାଦ ପଡ଼ିଯାଇଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସଂଲଗ୍ନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଅଞ୍ଚଳଗୁଡ଼ିକୁ ଗଢ଼ା ହେବାକୁ ଥିବା ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ପ୍ରଦେଶ’ରେ ମିଶାଇଦେବାକୁ ସୁପାରିଶ କଲେ ଓ ୧୯୩୪ ନଭେମ୍ବର ୨୨ରେ ଏହି ଜଏଣ୍ଟ କମିଟିର ଅଧ୍ୟକ୍ଷ ଲିନ୍ଲିଥଗୋ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀଙ୍କ ଦାବିର ସଫଳତା ଘୋଷଣା କଲେ , ସେ କହିଥିଲେ, “A separate Province of ‘Orissa’ would, however, be perhaps the most homogeneous Province in the whole of British India, both racially and linguistically”, ଯହିଁରେ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ଶବ୍ଦର ନାମଗନ୍ଧ ନ ଥିଲା, ଥିଲା ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ।

ଏହି କମିଟିର ସୁପାରିସ ଅନୁସାରେ ସାନ୍ଧ୍ରତାସମ୍ପନ୍ନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଅଂଚଳର ଏକତ୍ରୀକରଣ ବଳରେ ନୂଆ ପ୍ରଦେଶ ସୃଷ୍ଟିପାଇଁ ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ପାର୍ଲିଆମେଣ୍ଟରେ ଅନୁମୋଦନ ପାଇଁ ଯେଉଁ ଚିଠା ଆଦେଶ ଉପସ୍ଥାପିତ ହେଲା ତାହାର ନାମ ଥିଲା “The Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936” ଏବଂ ଏହିପରି ଭାବେ, ୧୮୭୦ ସେପ୍ଟେମ୍ବର ୧୧ ତାରିଖରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡକୁ ଏକତ୍ର କରି ଏକ ଶାସନାଧୀନ କରିବାକୁ ଗଞ୍ଜାମର ଘୁମୁସରରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିବା ଅଭିଯାନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ଜାତୀୟତାର ପାବନପୀଠ ସମ୍ବଲପୁରରେ ସଶକ୍ତିକୃତ ହୋଇ ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ପାର୍ଲିଆମେଣ୍ଟରେ ସଫଳତା ଅର୍ଜନ କରିଥିଲା ୧୯୩୬ ଜାନୁଆରୀ ପହିଲାରେ । ତାର ୧୩ ବର୍ଷ ପରେ ୧୯୪୮ଜାନୁଆରୀ ପହିଲାରେ ଗଡ଼ଜାତ ମିଶ୍ରଣ ସମାପ୍ତ ହେବା ପରେ ଆମ ମାତୃଭୂମି ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ତାର ଶେଷ ଭୌଗୋଳିକ ରୂପ ପାଇଛି ।

ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଏହି ଜନ୍ମ ବୃତ୍ତାନ୍ତରେ କେଉଁଠି ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ଆସିନାହିଁ ଭୌମିକ ଚିତ୍ରରେ , ଭାଷାଭିତ୍ତିକ ରାଜ୍ୟଗଠନ ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବରେ , ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ କର୍ମସରଣୀରେ , ସୀମା ନିରୂପଣ କମିଟିରେ, ପାର୍ଲିଆମେଣ୍ଟାରୀ ବିବରଣୀରେ ଓ ସ୍ଵତନ୍ତ୍ର ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ପ୍ରଦେଶ’ ଗଠନ ସମ୍ପର୍କୀୟ କୌଣସି ଆଇନରେ ବା ଆଦେଶରେ ।

ଆମ ପ୍ରଦେଶର ନାମ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ପ୍ରଦେଶ’ , ଆମ ଶାସନର ନାମ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଶାସନ’ , ଆମ ବିଧାନସଭାର ନାମ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବିଧାନସଭା’ , ଆମ ହାଇକୋର୍ଟର ନାମ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ହାଇକୋର୍ଟ , ଆମ ମୁଖ୍ୟମନ୍ତ୍ରୀଙ୍କ ପଦବୀ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ମୁଖ୍ୟମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ’ , ଆମ ରାଜ୍ୟପାଳଙ୍କ ପଦଵୀ ହେଲା ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା ରାଜ୍ୟପାଳ’ । ସୁତରାଂ ଆମ ରାଜ୍ୟର ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ ବନ୍ଦନାରେ ‘ଓଡିଶା ବନ୍ଦନା’ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ ବନ୍ଦନା’ ହେବ ବା କାହିଁକି ? ରାଜ୍ୟ ବନ୍ଦନାରେ ‘ଓଡ଼ିଶା’ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତେ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ଆଦୌ ସମୀଚିନ ନୁହେଁ । ଉତ୍କଳକୁ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ପ୍ରତିଶବ୍ଦ ବୋଲି କେହି କେହି ଯୁକ୍ତି କରୁଛନ୍ତି । ଅଂଶବିଶେଷ ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣାବୟବର ପ୍ରତିଶବ୍ଦ କିପରି ହେବ ? ଯଦି ବି କେବଳ ଯୁକ୍ତିପାଇଁ ଏହି ଯୁକ୍ତି ଗ୍ରହଣ କରାଯାଏ, ତେବେ ମୂଳ ଶବ୍ଦ କବ୍ୟବହାର ନ କରି ପ୍ରତିଶବ୍ଦ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯିବ କାହିଁକି ? ତେଣୁ ଆମ ରାଜ୍ୟ-ସଙ୍ଗୀତର ନାମ ଉତ୍କଳକୈନ୍ଦ୍ରିକ ନୁହେଁ, ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣତଃ ଓଡିଶାକୈନ୍ଦ୍ରିକ ହେବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ ।

ଓଡ଼ିଶାକୁ ନେଇ ନୂଆ ଗାନ ହେଉ

କାନ୍ତକବିଙ୍କ ଲିଖିତ ‘ବନ୍ଦେ ଉତ୍କଳ ଜନନୀ’ ଗୀତଟି ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ରାଜ୍ୟ-ସଂଗୀତ ଭାବେ ଏଯାଏଁ ଆଇନସିଦ୍ଧ ହୋଇନାହିଁ , ଯଦିଓ ଓଡିଶା ବିଧାନସଭା ଏଥିପାଇଁ ଏକମତ ହୋଇଥିବାର ବହୁବର୍ଷ ବିତିଗଲାଣି । ଏହାକୁ ରାଜ୍ୟ-ସଂଗୀତ ଭାବେ ପ୍ରବର୍ତ୍ତୀତ କରିବାକୁ ହେଲେ ଏକ ବିଧେୟକ ଏଥିପାଇଁ ବିଧାନସଭାରେ ଆଗତ କରିବାକୁ ହେବ ଓ ତାହା ଯେ ନିଶ୍ଚୟ ସର୍ବସମ୍ମତିରେ ଗୃହୀତ ହେବ ତାହା କହିହେବନାହିଁ । କାରଣ , କୋଶଳ ଅଂଚଳ ପରି ଏକ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ ଅଂଚଳରେ ‘ଉତ୍କଳ’ ଶବ୍ଦକୁ ଏବେ ପ୍ରବଳ ବିରୋଧକରାଯାଉଛି ଓ ଏହାକୁ ଏକ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦିଷ୍ଟ ଅଂଚଳର ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟବାଦୀ ବିସ୍ତରଣ ବୋଲି ଅଭିଯୋଗ ହେଉଛି ଓ ଉପରୋକ୍ତ ଆଲୋଚନା ଦୃଷ୍ଟିରୁ ଏ ଅଭିଯୋଗ ବି ଯଥାର୍ଥ ମନେହେଉଛି । ବିଧାନସଭାରେ ସ୍ବତନ୍ତ୍ର ଆଇନ ପ୍ରଣୟନ ବ୍ୟତୀତ ବନ୍ଦେ ଉତ୍କଳ ଜନନୀ ଗୀତକୁ ସାରା ଓଡିଶା ଉପରେ ଲଦିଦିଆଯାଇ ପାରିବନି ଏବଂ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଉପସ୍ଥିତ ସ୍ଥିତି ଯାହା, ଏପରି ଯଦି ଏକ ଆଇନ ଆଗତ ହୁଏ, ସମଗ୍ର ବିଧାନସଭା ତାକୁ ସମର୍ଥନ କରିବ ନାହିଁ । ବହୁମତରେ ଏକୁ ଯଦି ଆଇନ କରାଯାଏ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ପାଇଁ ତାହା ଆତ୍ମଘାତୀ ହେବ ।

ସୁତରାଂ, ଏପରି ଉଦ୍ୟମ ନ ହେଉ । ଯଦି ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଏକ ରାଜ୍ୟ-ସଂଗୀତ ନିଶ୍ଚୟ ଆବଶ୍ୟକ, ତେବେ ଓଡିଶା-କୈନ୍ଦ୍ରିକ ଏକ ସଂକ୍ଷିପ୍ତ ସଂଗୀତ ନୂଆକରି ରଚିତ ହେବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ । ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ସରସ୍ଵତୀ ସମ୍ମାନ , ଜ୍ଞାନପୀଠ ପୁରସ୍କାର , ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଏକାଡ଼େମୀ ପୁରସ୍କାର ପ୍ରାପ୍ତ ବହୁ କବି ଏବଂ ଜାତୀୟ ଓ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ଖ୍ୟାତିସମ୍ପନ୍ନ ବହୁ ସଙ୍ଗୀତଜ୍ଞ ଅଛନ୍ତି । ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଭିତରୁ ସଭ୍ୟ ଚୟନ କରି ଓଡିଶା ସରକାର ରାଜ୍ୟ-ସଂଗୀତ ପ୍ରଣୟନ ପାଇଁ ଏକ କମିଟି ଗଠନ କରନ୍ତୁ ଓ ମାଆ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ବନ୍ଦନାରେ ସେହି ସଂଗୀତ ସମ୍ପୁର୍ଣ୍ଣ ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରୀୟ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା ସହ ଜାତୀୟ ସଂଗୀତ ସମ ସସମ୍ମାନେ ଗାନ କରାଯାଉ । ସେ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ବନ୍ଦେ ଉତ୍କଳ ଜନନୀ ସଂଗୀତକୁ ସାରା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଉପରେ ଲଦିବା ବନ୍ଦ ହେବା ଉଚିତ ।

Share this:

Raja : the Pristine Communistic Festival of Orissa

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Raja is Orissa’s pristine communistic festival, wherein all artificial caste divides vanish in the effervescence of nubile girls of all castes that wipes out every iota of the spread of social inequality, when the farming community, comprising all castes and status in social strata, reorients itself with the perception that all of them are children of the same mother, i.e. Mother Earth. No wonder, Raja is Orissa’s festival of universal brotherhood addressed to Mother-right in its splendid entirety.

Orissa, the motherland of Buddha, son of Suddodan literally meaning inventor of high quality paddy, is the only land that had rejected Brahmavad (Cult of Veda projecting Brahma as creator) with promulgation of its own philosophy of Maithunavad (Cult of coition establishing Mother as creator).The two all-time best Buddist epoch-makers of Orissa, given by Uddiyan, the modern Sambalpur region,Indrabhuti, the Chief of Sambalaka, created Vajrayan and his sister Laxminkara, queen of Suvarnapur (Sonepur)created Sahajayan that together formulated the Cult of Coition, which eventually metamorphosed to Cult of Jagannath. So, Jagannath is so much the epitome of mother-right in the citadel of who agro-magic manages the affairs.

When a nubile Oriya girl for the first time menstruates, she takes a ceremonial bath with fanfares and retires to total rest in a secluded room and on completion of the period, takes a fresh bath on the soil and then with appropriate attractive makeup dazzles as suitable for suitors. In tribal heritage, she prefers the suitor that succeeds in dragging her to his chest. This exactly happens to Jagannath, the epitome of Mother Right from Bath Festival (Snana Yatra) to Car Festival (Ratha Yatra). This happens also to the Mother Earth. In Oriya vocabulary, Raja is menstruation. In the period of menstruation, as Oriya girls (and women) take total rest, even coition quashed as a conjugal right of the husband during the period, Jagannath the epitome of Mother-Right rests in Anasara Ghar (room for rest); the Mother Earth also takes rest till Basumati-Snana (Bath on the soil).

Scriptural injunctions in vogue in Orissa emphatically say,

ବୃଷାନ୍ତେ ମୈଥୁନସ୍ୟାଦୌ  ତଦ୍ଦ୍ବିତୀୟେ ଦିନତ୍ରୟଂ

ରଜସ୍ଵଳା ସ୍ୟାତ୍ ପୃଥିବୀ କୃଷିକର୍ମ ବିଗର୍ହିତମ୍  ।

ହଳାନାଂ ବାହନଂ ଚୈବ ବିଜାନାଂ ବପନଂ ତଥା

ତାବଦେନ  ନ କୁର୍ବୀତ  ଯାବତ୍ ପୃଥ୍ବୀ ରଜସ୍ଵଳା ।

ପୃଥ୍ବୀ ରଜସ୍ଵଳା ଯାବତ୍ ଖନନଂ ଛେଦନଂ ତ୍ୟଜେତ୍

ଅନ୍ୟ କର୍ମାଣି କୁର୍ବୀତ ପୈତ୍ରଂ  ଦୈଵଂ ନମାନୁଷମ୍ ।

This Orissan practice is reflected in the Report of Census of India, 1911, in the following term: “Earth prepares herself for being fertilised by menstruating . During that time, there is an entire cessation from all ploughing, sowing and other farm works.” (Vol I, p.189).

In celebrating this peculiar festival, people of Orissa make the earth equal to their mothers. From this, comes the concept of equality, as to the mother, all her children are the same and entitled to all her wealth. This concept has given birth to the Cult of Jagannath, which is entirely Orissan.

Hence Raja is absolutely Orissan and is linked to its pristine communistic perception.

It is sad that, non-Oriyas and a section of anglicized Oriyas are writing this unique Oriya festival Raja as Rajo or Razo. Conscious Oriyas ,in order to keep its Oriya origin undiluted, even though they are not aware of the philosophical background of Raja, have started objecting to wrongful non-Oriya spelling of the peculiar Oriya word Raja, as the following video would showt:

Ceiling on Private Wealth be the New Mission this New Year

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The New Year 2016 has come to us. Let us not make it barren.

The new year has come uniformly to all of us, who live in human society. Nobody has been left behind in 2015 and nobody has been conveyed over anybody into 2017. So, 2016 has come for the equal time span to all of us in this world.

This time span equally available to all of us must also be viewed as an opportunity to wipe out inequality – financial and social – to establish that all of us are not only born equal, but also are born to equality.

The last year like preceding ones was lost to 99% of the members of human society as only 1% that comprise the machine owners, mines owners, money hijackers, land-grabbers, weapon manufacturers and monopoly traders kept the world under their pernicious grip, with their commission agents ruling the roost.

We all that constitute the 99% should wake up to destroy this grip and save our society from the greedy and inhuman 1%, so that the time span that has uniformly come to us does not go barren.

To ensure this, some may recommend a violent class war. But, averse to violence, I stand for leash on avarice.

New Theory of Political Economy

India’s emancipator Mahatma Gandhi, because of whom mostly, the world has been saved from political imperialism, had advanced a new theory of political economy. That is, Theory of Trusteeship.

Wealth accumulators should consider themselves as trustees of the people but for whom their wealth could not have been generated, was the essence of this theory.

He was murdered by the agents of the rich, because this theory was anathema to their avarice.

Gandhiji gave birth to a new world order where independence of the nations became essence of existence. But, the Political Economy of Trusteeship, which he had advanced as against Political Economy of Capitalism and Political Economy of Socialism, has not gained ground after his assassination. This is now threatening the world with a class war between the affluent 1% and the rest 99%, which, unless Gandhiji’s idea is heeded to, will certainly be violent and wipe out the 1% along with their associates and acolytes from the world in their entirety.

Violent Class War in Scriptural economy

We have seen this in Mahabharata, where Muni Vyasa had told in the mouth of his hero SriKrushna that, occupiers of upper strata should always act partners of the people in the lower strata and vice versa in order to avoid class war and prosper. The verse is:

Devan Bhavayatanena Te Deva Bhabayantu Bah / Parasparam Bhavayantah Shreyah Paramabapsyatha //( Srimad Bhagavat Gita, 3/11).

Kauravas did not study its significance and got extinguished in the class war where the clarion call of Krushna was to wipe out completely the avaricious occupiers of power, despite them being close relations. Death to the greedy – is what Krushna had said.

We see this in the concept of Mahakali too. A corpse (Shava) was lying on the way of advancing revolution (Mahakali) and that Shava became Shiva when a foot of that Mahakali touched its chest. This simple episode suggests that the dormant society was in slumber when Mahakali symbolizing the mass revolution kick-started it into action and that collective force wiped out the gene of the exploiter Raktavirjya, as so emphatically shown in Devi Mahatmya.

So, complete extermination of the exploiters is what scriptures also provide for.

But, should we resort to this?

When this question haunts, and both the political economies – capitalism and socialism – have failed to stop concentration of wealth in the hands of only 1%, the alternative to these two theories – Theory of Trusteeship that Gandhiji had advanced – seems the only alternative.

Gandhi the Only Alternative

Gandhi’s Theory of Trusteeship is the only refuse available to the world at present to save the earth from possible blood bath.

To bring the avaricious rich to this theory, they are required to be dragged into the habit of staying satisfied with limited wealth, so that they can tame their unlimited greed.

And, therefore, the commission agents of the rich that are in power with the help of the rich and running the administration for benefit of the rich, in order to save their masters from physical extermination, should impose ceiling on private wealth of the rich and their associates, before the tortured and exploited 99% respond to SriKrushna’s call: Hato Ba Prapsyasi Swargam, Jitva Ba Bhokshase Mahim / Tasmaduttistha Kaunteya Yuddhaya Krutanishchayah // (If you die in the battle, heaven would be yours, if you win the battle, yours shall be the land. Hence, Arjuna, decide to fight. And, fight.) (Srimad Bhagavat Gita, 2/37)

So, if life is not to be lost in a fight, for whosoever love the people, and love the earth, and love universal brotherhood, love peace and harmony, and love the future generation, should wake up to demand for ceiling on private wealth to make the aggressive runners after wealth habituated with limited wealth; so that Gandhiji’s Theory of Trusteeship could emerge as the alternative political economy, which may forestall a catastrophic class war.

Hence, dear friends, ceiling on private wealth be the new mission this new year.

Indian Parliament showed no concern for the soul of India; President should refuse assent to the Juvenile Justice Bill 2015

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Majority of the members of Indian Parliament have shown no concern for the soul of India, as has been established by passing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015 on 22nd December in the Rajya Sabha completing its parliamentary course that had got the stamp of adoption in the Lok Sabha on 7th May. It is such a mockery of legislation, having not paid any heed to cries of India for justice to its soul – Nirbhaya, that, the President should do good by refusing the Bill his assent.

Had Jyoti Singh of New Delhi not been brutalized by a gang of satyrs in December 2012, too savage and severe for medical science to save her life, this Bill would not have been generated at all. Her indomitable will to live to see the bruits punished by her motherland had kept her alive till in utter despair she allowed her breathe to pass away. Her desire to see the criminals punished did not die with her death. We the People of India took her to be the symbol of our tortured yet courageous entity by calling her Nirbhaya, the soul of India.

It was soon found that the youngest of the criminals that brutalized Nirbhaya was juvenile, four months to cross the age of 18 years.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (as amended in 2006) was protecting him from punishment applicable to adult criminals. Hence, as demanded by whole of India, the Bill in question was conceived to reduce this age limit to 16 from 18 to give justice to Nirbhaya by punishing the youngest and yet the severest savage.

When the Bill was drafted it was inherently defective meant as if to ensure escapement to this young bruit. It was a haphazard draft very much in need of vetting in a Parliamentary Select Committee. The age factor was creating confusion. The approach was not based on criminology of rape. Before leaving the House in protest, Sitaram Yechury, leader of CPI (M), had rightly asked, “Today you are demanding the juvenile age to be reduced from 18 to 16 ; what if tomorrow a 15-year old commits a horrendous crime?” Members, who passed the Bill, did not bother about the question. Had the Bill been sent to Select Committee, members thereof might have stumbled upon the angle I am pointing to. But that did not happen.

The members did not bother to make the new law applicable to the juvenile criminal because of whose savagery Nirbhaya had lost her life. Minister-in-charge Maneka Gandhi had made it clear in the House that the Bill won’t be retrospective. Sad, the members could not catch even then that the main purpose of going for the new law was going to be defeated. They did not bother about this mischief.

The Supreme Court refused to intervene, because, by applying the old law of 2000 to set free the criminal in absence of any law to keep him under the Court’s clutch any further, the High Court had committed no illegality.

Before passing the Bill, the Rajya Sabha was aware of this. It was aware of the fact that unless given retrospective effect, the core purpose of engagement with the Bill before it was to be lost. It should have woken to the occasion and made the Bill retrospective. Had it acted diligently and passed the Bill in time with retrospective effect, at least from December 16, 2012 the day on which the horrendous crime having shocked the country had necessitated this new Law, the bruit that according to government has not reformed, could not have been put back in the society, to the panic of the society, as has been done.

It is better for the President, in the circumstances, to refuse his assent to this Bill, so that legislative wisdom may get a new chance to do away with the wrong the lawmakers have committed in this case in the aspect as discussed above.

Governance of Orissa in Oriya // CM apprises Assembly of Rules on the Anvil

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

ama bhasa ama rajabhasaOur struggle for governance of Orissa in Oriya is fetching success step by step despite a ruling party MP trying to misguide the people.

In reply to a question, i.e. UDAQ No. 2325 from Member Nabakishore Das, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has told the Assembly on 14th December that the government is now finalizing the Rules to make it a must for the authorities to use Oriya as the Official Language.

The Chief Minister has almost admitted that notwithstanding enactment and instant enforcement of Orissa Official Language Act in 1954, which had stipulated that “Oriya shall be the language to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the State of Orissa”, the administration is not running in Oriya.

We had, in our meetings with the ministers, submitted various departmental circulars that had directed the departmental officers to work in Oriya language. These circulars were not traceable in headquarters. We had collected them – credit goes certainly to Joint Convener of Odia Bhasa Sangram Samiti Dr. Subrat Kumar Prusty – from the guard files of field offices at great pain and given copies thereof to the government to show how the Act was not functioning. In his reply referred to above, the Chief Minister has cited those circulars. Despite such circulars, the officers are not using Oriya language for official purpose.

JB's OrderIn course of my investigation I stumbled upon the order of Chief Minister J. B. Patnaik, as he then was, directing all offices to use Oriya as the language of administration. This was a mandatory order from the Chief Minister of the constitutional government.

It is surprising that despite such clear orders from the Chief Minister himself, officers did not care to use Oriya.

In the regime of the present Chief Minister, various orders have also been issued for administration in Oriya; such as GA Department letter No.10552 of 17/4/2013. Another instance is letter No. 16086 of 12/6/2013 of the same department that controls all other departments. Yet, the officers did not use Oriya as official language.
What could be the reasons of this?

On research I found, there were no Rules to drive the Act ahead. The contraveners of the Act should have been subjected to disciplinary action; but there was no provision to administer discipline, including necessary prosecution for offense against the State. I found the Act itself had no provision for framing of the Rules. The Officers knew this lacuna and knew that they should be enjoying immunity under the shade of the deficient Act even if they continue to contravene it.

To eradicate this lacuna, I submitted the draft of proposed amendment to the Act of 1954 along with a draft of the proposed Rules to the Chairman of Official Language Advisory Committee Hon’ble Minister Sri Debi Prasad Mishra. Behind this was the collective wisdom and support of the entire leadership of the Odia Bhasa Sangram Samiti led by eminent poet Shankarshan Parida and fortunately for the State of Orissa, the Chairman and members of the ministerial committee formed by the Chief Minister wholeheartedly appreciated the initiative. The same has officially been posted in the dedicated website for public suggestions if any.

We are most happy to note that the Chief Minister has approved the website titled ODIARE SHASANA entirely dedicated to our demand for governance of Orissa in Oriya. On his behalf, Minister Debi Prasad Mishra who heads the Official Language Advisory Committee (formerly the Joint Action Committee) has launched this site in the presence of all the Ministers and representatives of the Odia Bhasa Sangram Samiti, that constitute the Committee and author of the proposed Language Policy Dr. Debi Prasanna Pattanayak.

We congratulate the Chief Minister for having informed the House as noted supra that the Rules are currently under active consideration of the Government for adoption.

Once the Act is amended and Rules adopted, no Officer, whatsoever be his / her rank and status, would dare to play mischief with our people’s right to get governance of our State in our mother tongue Oriya.

We put below the Assembly document carrying the question and the CM’s answer as a matter of documentation.

Reply of the CM

Kejriwal the confusing new right

Saswat Pattanayak

Arvind Kejriwal suddenly discovers in Modi a coward and psychopath, simply because he finally becomes a victim of fascist vendetta now. However, this outrage is a social media melodrama as it was Kejriwal himself who has contributed the most in the resulting chaos that prevail today. Modi/Shah and their BJP goons are professionally committed as communal politicians and xenophobes who have always practiced hate politics to perfection. Indian public had always rejected such right-wing fanatics throughout the country’s democratic history. It is Kejriwal who lent them a humane face through his creation of a hoopla over the corruption bogeyman, only with the sole aim to destabilize what he and his right-wing allies Shanti Bhushan, Kiran Bedi and Kumar Vishwas felt as “dynasty politics”.

Bhushan who funded the creation of AAP was also the same man who was one of the founders of BJP in 1980 – the only aim at that time was to oppose Indira Gandhi because she had dared to “misuse her power” by ensuring that India aims to become a “socialist” and “secular” country. When BJP failed to gain any momentum in India owing to their rabidly communal agendas, these reactionaries floated an outfit by the name of AAP to espouse the same anti-Congress politics, but on a more populist political plank: Corruption.

Prior to advancing the carefully orchestrated political party AAP, Kejriwal was at the forefront of the anti-socialist formation called “India Against Corruption” and an anti-secular formation called “Youth for Equality” – the sole aim of these so-called apolitical movements (ably supported by the likes of objective corporate media comprising Arnav Goswami/Rajat Sharma) was to excite the otherwise indifferent middle class students into getting wet dreams over the potential demise of Congress and the Left in India; to materialize the RSS reveries of a Congress-Mukt Bharat into reality.

Aam Aadmi Party – many of whose stalwarts subsequently have gone back to their BJP family – thereafter emerged as the New Right in India, the first outfit to succeed in legitimizing capitalistic meritocracy as an acceptable political proposition in a society whose collective progress depends on reservation policies, to allow for a political scope for rabidly communal elements of this society to gain a respectable electoral mandate that was virtually impossible to obtain prior to Kejriwal and his team arrived as the educated “we-are-not-political-we-are-you” actors, and to create for the first time in India’s history a Parliament without an empowered Opposition.
It is not Modi, but Kejriwal who created an imagination for a new India whose socio-economic policies could be drafted without the Congress and the Left. And when Kejriwal is not given that rightful due, and instead is treated like he were an outsider, it is only natural that he calls his former bosses names. But even then, Modi continues to heave a sigh of relief, because Kejriwal once again is letting him to be used as a tool to diminish the current debate just when Rahul Gandhi cries vendetta. Because educated Indian bourgeois class and its aspirants know quite well, that when vendetta too appears meritocratic, it is no longer to be treated as a misuse of power.