The World Is An Ugly Thing
Photo Credit - Wikimedia Commons The world is an ugly thing;
you only have to say so.
Then shadows of cranky crows
dissolve into fans of peacock feathers;
orang-utans start remembering
the shadows of their mothers’ dreams;
the arms of a May sun
stop battering the somnolence of timid bougainvilleas.
The world is an ugly thing:
you only have to say so.
Note: This poem was first published in the now defunct webzine 'Pyrta' edited by Janice Pariat.
 |
| ହସ୍ତୀ ଚଞ୍ଚଲ (ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍) |
ତୃତୀୟ ମୋଗଲ ଶହନଶାହ ଜଲାଲୁଦ୍ଦିନ ଆକବରଙ୍କର ମୃତ୍ୟୁ ସମ୍ପର୍କରେ ଗୋଟିଏ ଆଖ୍ୟାନ ପ୍ରଚଳିତ ଅଛି । ୧୬୦୫ ମସିହାର ସେପ୍ଟେମ୍ବର ମାସରେ ସେ ରୋଗାକ୍ରାନ୍ତ ହେଲେ । ମୂଖ୍ୟ ଚିକିତ୍ସକ ହକିମ ଅଲିଙ୍କର ବିଳମ୍ବିତ ଚିକିତ୍ସା ବିଶେଷ କିଛି ଲାଭ ଦେଲା ନାହିଁ । ଏଥିର ଅନେକ କାରଣ ଭିତରୁ ମୂଖ୍ୟ ଥିଲା ସାହେବଜାଦା ସଲିମ (ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ସମ୍ରାଟ ଜାହାଙ୍ଗୀର) ଓ ସଲିମଙ୍କର ପୁତ୍ର (ଅର୍ଥାତ ଆକବରଙ୍କର ନାତି) ଖୁସ୍ରୋଙ୍କର ଅନୁଚରମାନଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଗୋଟିଏ ହସ୍ତୀଯୁଦ୍ଧ ସମୟରେ ସଙ୍ଗଠିତ ଗଣ୍ଡଗୋଳ । ଖୁସ୍ରୋ ଥିଲେ ଆକବରଙ୍କର ପ୍ରିୟ ଓ ତାଙ୍କ ପରେ ସମ୍ରାଟ ବନିବା ପାଇଁ ଅଭିପ୍ରେତ । ହସ୍ତୀଯୁଦ୍ଧଟି ହେଉଥିଲା ଖୁସ୍ରୋଙ୍କର ହାତୀ ଚଞ୍ଚଲ୍ ଓ ସଲିମଙ୍କର ହାତୀ ଗୀରନବାର୍ ମଧ୍ୟରେ । ବାପା ପୁଅ ନିଜ ଅନୁଚରମାନଙ୍କ ମାଧ୍ୟମ ଦେଇ ଇତର ଜନୋଚିତ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବାରୁ ଏହା ସମ୍ରାଟଙ୍କର କ୍ରୋଧ ବଢ଼ାଇଲା । ଏହା ଛଡ଼ା ତାଙ୍କର ପ୍ରିୟ ହାତୀ ଚଞ୍ଚଲ୍ ହାରି ଯିବାରୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ତାଙ୍କର ମନ ଖରାପ ହୋଇଥିବ । ଏହି ସବୁର ମିଶ୍ରିତ ଫଳ ସ୍ୱରୂପ ତାଙ୍କର ବ୍ୟାଧି ଅଧିକ ଗୁରୁତର ହେଲା ଓ ସେ କେଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ସ୍ୱର୍ଗ ଲୋକ ଆରୋହଣ କଲେ ।
ସେତେବେଳକୁ ପରାଜିତ ହସ୍ତୀ ଚଞ୍ଚଳ ସମ୍ରାଟ ଆକବରଙ୍କ ସହ ମାତ୍ର ଦୁଇ ବର୍ଷ କଟାଇଥାଏ । ସେ ଆସିଥିଲା ଦକ୍ଷିଣରୁ, ବିଜାପୁରରୁ, ଗୋଟିଏ ଉପହାର ଭାବରେ । ଅପବର୍ଗଟି ଦେଇଥିଲେ ବିଜାପୁରର ଆଦିଲସାହି ବଂଶର ସୁଲତାନ ଇବ୍ରାହିମ ଆଦିଲ ଶାହ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ । ନିଜ ଜୀବନର ଅନେକ ବର୍ଷ ଆଞ୍ଚଲ୍ ବିଜାପୁରର ଆଉ ଗୋଟିଏ ହାତୀ ଆତଶ୍ ଖାନ୍ ସହ ବିତାଇଥାଏ । ସୁଲତାନଙ୍କର ପ୍ରିୟ ହସ୍ତୀ ଆତଶ୍ ଖାନ୍ ହିଁ ଉପହାର ଭାବରେ ଯିବାର ଥିଲା । ହେଲେ ଆକବର ଆତଶ୍ ଖାନ୍ ପାଇଁ ୧୬୦୩ ମସିହାରେ ଦୂତ ପଠାଇଲା ବେଳକୁ ବିଚରା ପରଲୋକ ଗମନ କରିସାରିଥାଏ । ଏଣୁ ଯିବାକୁ ପଡ଼େ ଚଞ୍ଚଲ୍ କୁ । ବିଜାପୁର ଛାଡ଼ି ମୋଗଲ ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟର ହୃଦୟକୁ । ନିଜର ଦୁଃଖ ମେଣ୍ଟାଇବା ପାଇଁ କୁଆଡ଼େ ହାତୀଟି ଆଖ୍ୟାନ ଅନୁସାରେ ରାସ୍ତା ସାରା ପିଏ ଗ୍ୟାଲନ ଗ୍ୟାଲନ ପର୍ତ୍ତୁଗୀଜ ସୁରା ।
ସେତେବେଳେ ବିଜାପୁରରେ ସୁବର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଯୁଗ । ଇବ୍ରାହିମ ଆଦିଲ ଶାହ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟଙ୍କ ପୂର୍ବପୁରୁଷମାନେ ମରାଠି ଭାଷାରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ହିସାବ ପତ୍ର ରଖିବାକୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିସାରିଥାଆନ୍ତି । ସୁଲତାନ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ ଇବ୍ରାହିମ ନିଜେ ଥିଲେ ଉଦାର । ସେ କଳା ଓ ସଂସ୍କୃତିର ଜଣେ ବଡ଼ ପୃଷ୍ଠପୋଷକ ଥିଲେ । ନିଜେ ଥିଲେ ଜଣେ ବଡ଼ ସଙ୍ଗୀତଜ୍ଞ । ନିଜର ଉଦାରତାର ପ୍ରମାଣ ସ୍ୱରୂପ ସେ ହିନ୍ଦୁ ଦେବାଦେବୀଙ୍କ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଗୀତ ପ୍ରବନ୍ଧ କରିଯାଇଛନ୍ତି । ପ୍ରବାସୀ ସମ୍ଭ୍ରାନ୍ତ ଶିଆ ମୁସଲମାନମାନଙ୍କର ପକ୍ଷଛେଦ କରି, ନିଜର ପୂର୍ବପୁରୁଷମାନଙ୍କ ପରି ସେ ମରାଠା ଓ ହବସି (ବା ସିଦ୍ଦି) ମାନଙ୍କୁ ପ୍ରଶାସନରେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପଦପଦବୀରେ ରଖିଲେ । ଏହି ଯୋଗୁଁ ମରାଠି ଭାଷୀ ହିନ୍ଦୁମାନେ ଅତି ଶୀଘ୍ର ଗୋଟିଏ ଗୁରୁତ୍ତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ରାଜନୈତିକ ଶକ୍ତି ଭାବରେ ମୁଣ୍ଡ ଟେକିଲେ । କେବଳ ଆଦିଲଶାହି ବଂଶର ସୁଲତାନମାନେ ଯେ ଏପରି ଅଣ-ବିଦ୍ୱେଷମୂଳକ ନୀତି ଆପଣେଇଥିଲେ ତାହା ନୁହେଁ ।
 |
| ବିଜାପୁରର ସୁଲତାନ ଇବ୍ରାହିମ ଆଦିଲ ଶାହ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ ଫଟୋ କ୍ରେଡ଼ିଟ୍ - ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍ |
ଏଠାରେ ସବୁଠାରୁ ଭଲ ଉଦାହରଣ ବୋଧେହୁଏ ହେବ ଅହମଦନଗର ରାଜ୍ୟରେ ମରାଠା ସର୍ଦ୍ଦାର ମାଲୋଜି ଭୋଁସଲେଙ୍କର କର୍ମଜୀବନର ଇତିବୃତ୍ତ । ୧୫୫୨ ମସିହାରେ ଜନ୍ମିତ ମାଲୋଜି ଭୋଁସଲେ ପ୍ରଥମେ ଅନେକ ହିନ୍ଦୁ ଜମିଦାରଙ୍କର ସେନାରେ କାମ କଲା ପରେ, ୧୫୭୭ ମସିହାରେ ଅହମଦନଗର ରାଜ୍ୟର ସୁଲତାନଙ୍କର ସେନାରେ ଯୋଗ ଦେଲେ । ସେତେବେଳେ ଅହମଦନଗର ରାଜ୍ୟର ଶାସକ ଥାଆନ୍ତି ମୁର୍ତାଜା ନିଜାମ ଶାହ ପ୍ରଥମ । ମାଲୋଜି ସେ ସମୟରେ ସୁଲତାନଙ୍କର ଜଣେ ବିଶ୍ୱସ୍ତ ଦରବାରୀ, ମଲିକ ଅମ୍ବର(୧୫୪୮-୧୬୨୬), ଙ୍କର ପାଖ ଲୋକ ବନିଗଲେ । ଯେହେତୁ ଅମ୍ବର ପରେ ସେହି ରାଜ୍ୟର ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ମଧ୍ୟ ବନିଲେ, ତାଙ୍କର ଉନ୍ନତି ସହିତ ତାଳ ଦେଇ ମାଲୋଜିଙ୍କର ପ୍ରଗତି ମଧ୍ୟ ଘଟିବାକୁ ଲାଗିଲା ।
ମାଲୋଜି ଭୋଁସଲେ ମଲ୍ଲିକ ଅମ୍ବରଙ୍କ ସହିତ ମିଳି ଅହମଦନଗର ରାଜ୍ୟ ମୋଗଲ ସେନା ଓ ଦକ୍ଷିଣର ଅନ୍ୟ ମୁସଲମାନ ଶାସକମାନଙ୍କର ରାଜ୍ୟ ସହିତ ଲଢ଼େଇଗୁଡ଼ିକରେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭୂମିକା ତୁଲାଇବାକୁ ଲାଗିଲେ । ମଲିକ ଅମ୍ବର ଭାରତ ଇତିହାସର ରୋଚକ ଚରିତ୍ରମାନଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ଜଣେ । ଜନ୍ମ ଇଥିଓପିଆର ଅଲହୁରା ଠାରେ । କେହିକେହି କହନ୍ତି ତାଙ୍କର ଜନ୍ମସ୍ଥାନ ସେହି ଦେଶର ହରାର ଠାରେ । ସେ ଜଣେ ଆଫ୍ରିକୀୟ କୃଷ୍ଣକାୟ ଲୋକ । ଭାରତରେ ପ୍ରବେଶ କରନ୍ତି ଜଣେ କ୍ରୀତଦାସ ଭାବରେ । ସେ ଅତି ଶୀଘ୍ର ନିଜର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ଆହରଣ କରି ଗୋଟିଏ ଘରୋଇ ସେନାର ଗଠନ କରନ୍ତି । ଏହି ଦୁର୍ଦ୍ଦଶ ସେନାକୁ ଡେକାନର ରାଜା ଓ ସୁଲତାନମାନେ ଭଡ଼ାରେ ଯୁଦ୍ଧ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ଆମନ୍ତ୍ରଣ କରନ୍ତି ।
ପରେ ଅହମଦନଗର ରାଜ୍ୟର ଶାସନରେ ଅମ୍ବରଙ୍କୁ ଗୁରୁତ୍ତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭୂମିକା ମିଳେ । ମୋଗଲ ସେନା ବିରୁଦ୍ଧରେ ସେ ଭାରତରେ ପ୍ରଥମ ରକେଟ, ୧୬୧୨ ମସିହାରେ, ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବାର ଉଲ୍ଲେଖ ରହିଛି । ଏହାଛଡ଼ା ଦାକ୍ଷିଣାତ୍ୟର ଜମିଜମା ବନ୍ଦୋବସ୍ତ କରିବାରେ ତାଙ୍କର ଭୂମିକା ଉଲ୍ଲେଖଯୋଗ୍ୟ । ମୋଗଲ ସେନା ଓ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ମୁସଲିମ ଶାସକମାନଙ୍କ ବିରୁଦ୍ଧରେ ଗରିଲା ଛାପାମାର ଯୁଦ୍ଧ କୌଶଳକୁ ଆପଣେଇ ସେ ଏହି ସମରରୀତିର ଉତ୍କର୍ଷ ସାଧନ କରିଥିଲେ । ମାଲୋଜି ଭୋଁସଲେ ଏହି ଗରିଲା ଯୁଦ୍ଧ ଆଦିରେ ଥିଲେ ତାଙ୍କର ଏକ ପ୍ରମୁଖ ସହଯୋଗୀ ।
ପରେ ମାଲୋଜିଙ୍କର ପୁତ୍ର ଶାହାଜୀ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅହମଦ ନଗରର ସେନାରେ ଯୋଗ ଦିଅନ୍ତି । ଅବଶ୍ୟ ଏହାପରେ ସେ ଅନେକ ଥର ପକ୍ଷ ବଦଳାଇ ପ୍ରଥମେ ମୋଗଲ ଓ ପରେ ବିଜାପୁର ରାଇଜର ସେନାରେ ଯୋଗ ଦିଅନ୍ତି ଓ ପୁନା ଓ ସୁପେ ର ଜାଗିରଦାର ବନନ୍ତି । ଏହି ଶାହାଜୀଙ୍କର ପୁତ୍ର ହେଲେ ପ୍ରସିଦ୍ଧ ଶିବାଜୀ ଯେ କି ଗରିଲା ଯୁଦ୍ଧର ସଫଳ ପ୍ରୟୋଗ କରି ପରେ କ୍ଷୟିଷ୍ଣୁ ମୋଗଲ ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟର ମୂଳଦୁଆ ଦୋହଲାଇଦେବେ । ଅର୍ଥାତ ଯେଉଁମାନେ ମରାଠା ରାଜତ୍ୱକୁ ହିନ୍ଦୁ ପୁନରୁତ୍ଥାନ ଭାବରେ ଚିତ୍ରିତ କରନ୍ତି, ସେମାନେ ଦାକ୍ଷିଣାତ୍ୟର ଜଟିଳ ଓ ଛନ୍ଦାହୋଇଥିବା ଇତିହାସକୁ ଅତି ସୁବିଧାବାଦୀ ଭାବରେ ଭୁଲିଯାଆନ୍ତି । ସେମାନଙ୍କର ପାସୋର ଯାଏ ଯେ, ଶିବାଜୀଙ୍କର ଓ ମରାଠାମାନଙ୍କର ଗରିଲା ଯୁଦ୍ଧର ମୁଳଦୁଆ ପକାଇଥିଲେ ଜଣେ ଆଫ୍ରିକୀୟ, କୃଷ୍ଣକାୟ ମୁସଲମାନ, ଦାସ-ମୂଳର ଲୋକ – ଅମ୍ବର ମଲ୍ଲିକ ।
ଅମ୍ବର ମଲ୍ଲିକ ପୂର୍ବ କଥିତ ସିଦ୍ଦି ମାନଙ୍କର ଉପାସ୍ୟ ଓ ସେମାନଙ୍କର ଜାତୀୟ ଜୀବନରେ ତାଙ୍କର ସ୍ମୃତି ଏ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଜାଜୁଲ୍ୟମାନ । ଏହି ସିଦ୍ଦିମାନେ କିଏ ? ସିଦ୍ଦି ବା ହବସିମାନେ ଭାରତରେ ଓ ପାକିସ୍ତାନରେ ବସବାସ କରୁଥିବା ଆଫ୍ରିକୀୟ ମୂଳର ଏକ ଜନଜାତି । ଭାରତରେ ଏମାନଙ୍କର ସଂଖ୍ୟା ପାଖାପାଖି କୋଡ଼ିଏ ହଜାର ଓ ଆମ ଦେଶରେ ଏମାନେ କର୍ଣ୍ଣାଟକ, ଗୁଜୁରାଟ ଓ ହାଇଦ୍ରାବାଦରେ ବସବାସ କରନ୍ତି । ପାକିସ୍ତାନରେ ଏମାନଙ୍କର ସଂଖ୍ୟା ତିରିଶରୁ ଚାଳିଶ ହଜାର ଭିତରେ । ସେଠି ସେମାନେ ରହନ୍ତି ମକ୍ରାନ ଓ କରାଚୀରେ । ଏମାନେ ଦକ୍ଷିଣ-ପୂର୍ବ ଆଫ୍ରିକାର ବାଣ୍ଟୁ ଜନଜାତିର ଲୋକ ଓ ଧର୍ମ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିରୁ ସୁଫି ମୁସଲମାନ । କୃଷ୍ଣକାୟ ହୋଇଥିବାରୁ ଏବେ ଭାରତରେ ସେମାନେ ବର୍ଣ୍ଣ ବିଦ୍ୱେଷରେ ଶୀକାର ମଧ୍ୟ ହେଉଛନ୍ତି । ଦ୍ୱାଦଶ ଶତାବ୍ଦୀ ସୁଦ୍ଧା ସିଦ୍ଦିମାନେ ଭାରତର ପଶ୍ଚିମ ଉପକୂଳରେ ସ୍ଥିତ ଜଞ୍ଜିରା ଦ୍ୱୀପରେ ଜଞ୍ଜିରା ରାଜ୍ୟ ଓ କାଥିଆୱାଡ଼ରେ ଜାଫରାବାଦ ଆଦି ଛୋଟ ରାଜ୍ୟଟିମାନ ସ୍ଥାପିତ କରିସାରିଥିଲେ । ହେଲେ ଏବେ ସେମାନଙ୍କର ଅବସ୍ଥା ବହୁତ ଖରାପ । ଏମାନେ ବେପାରୀ, ନାବିକ, କିଣା ଚାକର, ଭଡ଼ାଟିଆ ସୈନିକ ବା ଦାସ ଭାବରେ ଅବିଭକ୍ତ ଭାରତକୁ ଆସିଥିଲେ । ଯେପରି ଆସିଥିଲେ ମଲ୍ଲିକ ଅମ୍ବର, ଜଣେ କ୍ରୀତଦାସ ଭାବରେ ନିଜର ପିତାମାତାଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ବିକ୍ରୀ ହୋଇସାରିଲା ପରେ ।
 |
| ମଲ୍ଲିକ ଅମ୍ବର (ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍) |
ଏହି ମଲ୍ଲିକ ଅମ୍ବର, ବିଜାପୁରର ସୁଲତାନ ଇବ୍ରାହିମ ଆଦିଲ ଶାହ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ, ଶହନଶାହ ଆକବରଙ୍କୁ ୧୬୦୩ ମସିହାରେ ଉପହାରରେ ପଠାଇଥିବା ଚଞ୍ଚଲ୍ କୁ ଆଗ୍ରାରେ ନ ପହଞ୍ଚାଇ ଦେବାର ପଣ କରିଥାଆନ୍ତି । ହେଲେ ଏହି ଧମକ କେବେ ସତ୍ୟରେ ପରିଣତ ହୁଏ ନାହିଁ । କିଛି ସପ୍ତାହ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଚଞ୍ଚଲ୍ ପହଞ୍ଚେ ଅହମଦନଗର ଦୁର୍ଗରେ । ଓ ତାହା ପରେ କିଛି ମାସର ଯାତ୍ରା ଉତ୍ତାରୁ ଆକବରଙ୍କ ପାଖରେ, ଆଗ୍ରାରେ, ଆମର ପରିଚିତ ହସ୍ତୀନୀଟି ପହଞ୍ଚିଯାଏ । ଖୁବ ଶୀଘ୍ର ସେ ସମ୍ରାଟ ଆକବରଙ୍କର ପ୍ରିୟ ବନେ ଓ ଦୁଇ ବର୍ଷ ପରେ ମୋଗଲ ଇତିହାସର ଏକ ବହୁକଥିତ ଗଣ୍ଡଗୋଳରେ ଭାଗ ନିଏ ।
ଏହି ଉପହାରର ହାତୀଟି ଓ ତାହାର ଚାରିପାଖର ରାଜନୀତି ଓ ସମାଜକୁ ନୀରିକ୍ଷଣ ଆମକୁ ଅନେକ ବିଷୟରେ ସଚେତନ କରାଏ । ଭାରତକୁ ମୁସଲମାନମାନେ କେବଳ ଆକ୍ରମଣକାରୀ ହୋଇ ନୁହେଁ, ଦାସ ହୋଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଆସୁଥିଲେ । ଆଉ ଜଣେ ମୁସଲମାନ କ୍ରୀତଦାସର ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ପଦ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଚଢ଼ିବାର ସମ୍ଭାବନା ଷୋଡ଼ଶ ଓ ସପ୍ତଦଶ ଶତାବ୍ଦୀର ଭାରତରେ ଥିଲା । ଏହି ଦିଗରେ ଗତ ତିନି ଶହ ବର୍ଷ ଭିତରେ ଆମେ ଆଗକୁ ଯାଇଛୁ କି ପଛକୁ, ସେକଥା ବିଚାରଯୋଗ୍ୟ । ଆମେ ଏହା ମଧ୍ୟ ଦେଖୁ ଯେ, ସତର ଶତାବ୍ଦୀର ହିନ୍ଦୁ ଓ ମୁସଲମାନମାନେ ଯେ ପରସ୍ପର ଭିତରେ ଲଢ଼ୁଥିଲେ ତାହା ନୁହେଁ - ହିନ୍ଦୁ ଓ ମୁସଲମାନମାନେ ହିଆରେ ହିଆ ମିଶାଇ ଲଢ଼ୁଥିଲେ । ଯେମିତି ମାଲୋଜି ଭୋଁସଲେ ତଥା ମଲ୍ଲିକ ଅମ୍ବର । ସେବେ ଲୋକେ ନିଜକୁ କି ଅନ୍ୟମାନଙ୍କୁ ସବୁବେଳେ ବୋଧହୁଏ ହିନ୍ଦୁ କି ମୁସଲମାନ ଭଳି ସାମ୍ପ୍ରଦାୟିକ ଖୋପ ଦେଇ ଦେଖୁନଥିଲେ ।
ଆଉ ଏହି ଲେଖାଟିରେ ଆମେ ଯେଉଁ ମିନିଏଚର ଚିତ୍ରଗୁଡ଼ିକର ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିଛୁ, ସେଗୁଡ଼ିକୁ ବୋଧେହୁଏ କଳା ସମୀକ୍ଷକମାନେ ବାରି କରି ଚିହ୍ନଟ କରିପାରିବେ କି କେଉଁଟି ମୋଗଲ କଳା, କେଉଁଟି ଦାକ୍ଷିଣାତ୍ୟର ବିଜାପୁରୀ ବା ଆଉ କେଉଁଟି ରାଜସ୍ଥାନୀ । ହେଲେ କଳା ଇତିହାସ ସହିତ ଅପରିଚିତ ଜଣେ ସାଧାରଣ ଭାରତୀୟ ବା କଳା-ସାକ୍ଷର ଜଣେ ବିଦେଶୀ ପାଇଁ ଏ ସବୁ ନିର୍ଘାତ ଭାରତୀୟ । ଠିକ ମରାଠା ହିନ୍ଦୁ ଜାଗୀରଦାର ମାଲୋଜୀ ଭୋଁସଲେ, ଆଫ୍ରିକୀୟ କୃଷ୍ଣକାୟ ଦାସ ମଲ୍ଲିକ ଅମ୍ବର, ହସ୍ତୀନୀ ଚଞ୍ଚଲ୍ ଓ ଶିଆରୁ ସୁନ୍ନି ବନିଥିବା ସୁଲତାନ ଇବ୍ରାହିମ ଆଦିଲ ଶାହ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟଙ୍କ ପରି । ଏମାନଙ୍କ ଭିତରେ ଭିନ୍ନତା ଯେ ନାହିଁ ତାହା ନୁହେଁ । ହେଲେ ଏ ଭିନ୍ନତା ବିଭିନ୍ନ ପ୍ରକାରର ଭାରତୀୟ ମିନିଏଚର ଚିତ୍ର ଅଙ୍କନର ଭିତରେ ଥିବା ଫରକଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଭଳି । ହେଲେ ସେ ବିଷୟରେ ଅନ୍ୟ କେବେ ।
ବି.ଦ୍ର. - ଏହି ଲେଖାଟି ପ୍ରଥମେ ମାସିକ ପତ୍ରିକା 'ପୌରୁଷ'ରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ହୋଇଥିଲା । ଆଲେଖ୍ୟଟି ଲେଖିବା ପାଇଁ ମାସିକ ଇଂରାଜୀ ପତ୍ରିକା “କାରାଭାନ”ର ଫେବ୍ରୁଆରୀ ୨୦୧୭ ସଂଖ୍ୟାରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ନନ୍ଦିନୀ ରାମଚନ୍ଦ୍ରନଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଲିଖିତ ପ୍ରବନ୍ଧ ‘କ୍ରସିଙ୍ଗ ପାଥସ୍’ ତଥା ପାଷିଙ୍ଗଟନ୍ ଓବେଙ୍ଗ୍, “ଆଫ୍ରିକାନ୍ ଆଣ୍ଡ୍ ଏସିଆନ୍ ଷ୍ଟଡ଼ିଜ୍” ପତ୍ରିକାର ଜୁଲାଇ ୨୦୦୭ ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ ‘ସର୍ଭିସ୍ ଟୁ ଗଡ଼୍, ସର୍ଭିସ୍ ଟୁ ମାଷ୍ଟର କ୍ଲାଏଣ୍ଟ୍: ଆଫ୍ରିକାନ୍ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆନ୍ ମିଲିଟାରୀ କଣ୍ଟ୍ରିବ୍ୟୁଶନ୍ ଇନ୍ କର୍ଣ୍ଣାଟକ’ ଶୀର୍ଷକରେ ଲେଖିଥିବା ପ୍ରବନ୍ଧ ଦୁଇଟିର ସାହାଯ୍ୟ ନିଆଯାଇଛି ।
 |
| ଶହନଶାହ ଜଲାଲୁଦ୍ଦିନ ଆକବର (ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍) |
 |
| A View of Tungabhadra River (Wikimedia Commons) |
Over the last three decades, water has become as much a focus of environmental debates as forests. This is true across quite a few disciplines like environmental sociology, environmental history and institutional economics. The shift has come about with a growing concern over water scarcity, its implications for livelihoods and human survival in the future. There is a widespread agreement that the world in the twenty first century will face major health, security or economic crises due to increasing water scarcity. The solution generally preferred by technocrats is to prescribe the treatment of water as economic goods. But what kind of economic goods is water? Water is not one goods but many. These goods differ along the dimensions of physical and biological characteristics and in the varied ways that human societies construct and evaluate them.
The framework of tragedy of commons initially governed the study of natural resources, including water. It was generally observed that the management of the natural resources in the commons leads to the degradation of the resource over a period of time due to the problem of free riding (Hardin, 1968). Therefore, establishing private property rights or rights of the state over the resource was seen as key to optimal resource utilization.
Quite a lot of subsequent scholarship of the analysis surrounding natural resource management draws from Common Property Resource (CPR) theories. These theories, by demonstrating theoretically, and in some cases empirically, the potential for collective action in natural resource management have provided a foundation for a whole wave of experimentation in community-based management of common property resources.
CPR analysts often take their theoretical groundings from game theory and show how rules can be purposively crafted to produce collective action. Institutions are seen as ‘rules of game’ and collective action is seen as a rational option that produces results beneficial to all, whereas self-interested action would produce sub-optimal results for the collective. This model has been at the center of a clutch of policy prescriptions. These prescriptions include investments in establishing formal legal systems, fixing property regimes, and formalizing informal institutional arrangements. The discourse of ‘design principles’ comes from such an approach (Ostrom, 1990).
As opposed to these ‘mainstream’ views that focus on local areas, bounded communities and rule-based management, emerging views in the study of natural resources look at multiple levels (global to local) and diversity (in terms of livelihoods and perceptions) and see institutions as part of the constant process of negotiation that involves power and conflicting interests within communities, and between their members and other actors. Emerging views try to break down the distinctions between local/global and between formal/informal institutions in order to understand better the complexities and uncertainties that face the governance of natural resources like water today (Cleaver, 2001).
The books under review can be seen as attempts to rethink the issues surrounding the water sector in India along the lines discussed above and to take the emerging concerns forward. One of the most important changes has been the shift from looking at water only as a natural resource that needs to be managed, to seeing it as an important factor in the process of social differentiation. One of the central themes of Peter Mollinga’s study, titled On the Waterfront: Water Distribution, Technology and Agrarian Change in a South Indian Canal Irrigation System, is social differentiation in the context of a canal irrigation-based economy. The canal in question is the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal. In the study of this system Mollinga tries to locate the linkages between the introduction of protective, localised irrigation in the command areas of the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal, to particular patterns of agrarian change in the region.
One of the important features of the Left Bank Canal case is the role of migrant farmers in the process of social differentiation and its spatial characteristics. In fact, migration seems to be an important result of almost all medium to large irrigation schemes in peninsular India. The settler farmers in the Left Bank Canal mainly came from the coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh and were mostly small and medium sized farmers in their home region. The combination of smallholdings and a high land price difference between coastal Andhra Pradesh and Raichur, Karnataka was the major reason for farmers to migrate. Canal irrigation induced a dynamic process of agricultural intensification and commoditisation. Because of the protective nature of the canal system’s design, this intensification process resulted in unequal water distribution. There seems to be some correlation between availability of water and the concentration of land holdings. Thus, particular patterns of agrarian differentiation seem contingent upon particular types of irrigation technology.
In contrast to this view from the present, David Mosse in his book titled ‘The Rule of Water: Statecraft, Ecology and Collective Action in South India’ brings us a much more historically rooted analysis about social differentiation, water management and political change. Mosse bases his study in the tank irrigation systems of the old Ramanathpuram district in south-eastern Tamilnadu. According to Mosse “In the region under study tank-based agriculture developed after 1300 during a period of major transformations in the human geography of south India when people moved out of the core irrigated zones, and the older medieval order of the Pandyas was disturbed by the military adventurers and agricultural settlements of south India’s largest empire, the Vijaynagar empire”.
In this region Ramnad was a kingdom that was ruled by its dominant social group, the martial caste of Marvars. They rose to prominence with the militarisation of the plains of south India under the Vijaynagar Empire in the mid-14th century. The growth of military power depended upon the expansion of agriculture in hitherto marginal areas. This involved growing investments in tank-irrigation systems that could sustain wetland paddy cultivation. Thus, militarisation encouraged the expansion of agriculture. This expansion was made possible by massive population displacements that brought in new settlers. Emerging local needs and local political power drove this process of cumulative, interdependent building of tanks.
This historical picture tells us that the patterns of resource extraction that made irrigation and agriculture possible in the Ramnad district were products of particular processes of social differentiation and caste-based domination. These patterns of resource extraction and utilisation (either directly or as idealisations) have subsequently formed the basis of legitimising the power of particular social groups and political institutions. Mosse points at the fact that warfare and tank building were two elements in the same mode of statecraft in the pre-colonial era. The political logic of this mode of statecraft mostly favoured investments in new irrigation works rather than maintaining or repairing them after damage.
The pre-colonial institutions of water management that were transformed by colonialism were neither stable nor ecologically adapted institutions of autonomous communities. And these forms bore all the signs of ecological vulnerability and economic uncertainty. Even after the colonial encounter tank systems remained political institutions incorporated into strategies of rule. But after 1800, the Zamindars had little real political power to disperse. The willingness and the ability of Zamindars to invest in tanks, even in their own estate villages, were generally undermined by tenurial insecurity. It was this state of tank irrigation and the lack of investment that lay at the roots of peasant resistance to the Zamindari state during the colonial era. Thus, the centrality of water as a ‘political’ resource remained constant (although varied in its significance) across the colonial divide in the tank irrigated territories of coastal Tamilnadu.
Mollinga makes an important contribution to our understanding of water as a political resource as well. In his study of the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal, he found that in all three pipe-outlet command areas that were studied, sets of rules existed for internal distribution of water in the outlet. All rules were the product of local rule making by water users themselves. But the local M.L.A.s (Members of the local Legislature in the Karnataka State) seem to be important mediators between the farmers and the irrigation department in this context. In all the three cases, rule sets functioned as resources, mobilised when necessary.
Thus, water management, as it has evolved over the last few decades in the command area of the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal, draws upon broader political processes for its survival. Water management is also the site at which the polity interacts with local actors. Mollinga contrasts this political mediation in resource allocation and use, to the supposed relative insulation of the planning and designing process of the irrigation system from socio-political mediation. What Mollinga fails to do is to consider in detail the structural and historical factors that led to the insulation of the designing phase of the project from ‘political interventions.’ The choice of particular technologies in the irrigation sector is a socio-politically mediated choice. So, what is important is not merely to say that a particular choice of technology was insulated from ‘political’ pressures and processes, but to unearth the particular brand of politics that led to such insulation in the first place.
Ramaswamy Iyer in his book Water: Perspectives, Issues, Concerns also deals with water as a political resource, but at a much more macro level. As a part of his extensive survey of the water sector in India, Iyer looks at the thesis that links political conflicts with resource scarcities and makes some incisive comments. According to him the linkages between political conflicts and resource scarcities are not necessarily unidirectional. Iyer shows that the thesis that conflicts over water bodies lead to (or can lead to) broader political conflicts is a slim one. More often than not, conflicts over both international and national waters get prolonged and difficult to resolve because of the fact that they are enmeshed within broader political conflicts between nations and other local administrative units like the states in India.
Iyer seems to be making a case for water as a site for inter-national politics and therefore the use of water as a political resource. For example, the way Bangladesh’s political relationship with India has shaped over the years, seems to have had a significant impact on the ways the river waters have been shared between the two countries. This might be somewhat obvious to state, but considering the growing discourse about political conflicts arising out of resource scarcities, this point definitely needs re-emphasising.
Iyer quite comprehensibly brings another set of conflicts related to water to the fore. Quite a significant part of the book is devoted to the conflicts surrounding big water resource development projects in India. Using his experience as a former bureaucrat, he tries to give us a nuanced view of the debates surrounding big dams in India. In an important chapter of the book (chapter 16) he tells us about his changing views and how he has come to see dams as choices of the last resort to respond to the perceived water scarcity in India. In this context, he quite masterfully analyses the October 2000 judgment of the Supreme Court of India on the Narmada (Sardar Sarovar) case. He brings into the light the miscarriage of justice in the judgment and analyses the verdict and the process leading to the verdict in detail, so as to expose the other side of judicial ‘activism’ in India.
These broader issues of the polity and society get concretised in the field by various plans and programmes. One of the more fashionable policy prescriptions in the water sector in recent times has been that of Participatory Irrigation Management. Iyer succinctly sums up current debates surrounding the participation of farmers in irrigation management and shows how participation only invited in service delivery and not in project development. It is when the government is unable to manage and provide the planned services that it tries out transfers of responsibilities to users. The other two books also problematise the idea of users’ participation in the irrigation sector.
According to Mosse, the recent discourse on the commons has been profoundly affected by the new international policy consensus. The devolution of rights and responsibilities in resource management to local user groups is one of the significant aspects of this consensus. A variety of programmes for natural resource management now aim to redefine the relationship between farmers and the state. He studies the experience in Nallaneri, a village in Tamilnadu, to look at these programmes in action. According to him the experience of Nallaneri shows that Irrigation Management Transfer “does not imply stabilising village groups around rules of resource use, crafted by communities of appropriators, bound together by the individual economic benefits of co-operative management of shared resources. Moreover, WUAs (Water User Associations) are themselves a resource over which there is competition”.
In Mollinga’s study, the occurrence of water scarcity and the resultant social conflicts, induced changes in the organisation of water distribution in the Tungabhadra Left Bank main canal between 1980 and 1992. Other people than the formally responsible Irrigation Department officials started to get involved in it. Part of the bargaining on water distribution has been institutionalised in the Irrigation Consultative Committee at the project level, in which officials and non-officials (MLAs) have seats. Participation has remained at the level of consultation. A new policy for main canal management emerged in the social process of the negotiation of water distribution by the different actors concerned. But this involvement of farmers has not been institutionalised at the level of local institutions for water management.
A broad consensus seems to be emerging that water is essentially a political and social resource. As Mosses’s study shows, water has always been central to statecraft and politics in India. Systems for managing ‘local’ resources have rarely, if ever, grown in isolation. Groups have always used ‘local’ resources like water as a site for political action. In fact, as Mosse’s study seems to be suggesting water is as much a symbolic resource, as it is a physical resource. This is especially true in India, where water is central to the ideas of purity and pollution that underlie caste.
The principal use of water in India has been for irrigation. More than four-fifth of water used in India is consumed by agriculture. Therefore, particular irrigation technologies have a significant impact not only on irrigation, but also on other aspects of water use. This makes water use an intensely contested political activity. It also shapes, and is dynamically shaped by, particular patterns of agrarian change and social differentiation. As Mollinga’s study indicates, particular kinds of irrigation technology can induce specific kinds of migration and cropping patterns. But these patterns of resource use and social differentiation don’t happen only on the ‘social’ terrain. These processes are linked to broader patterns of political change, as Mosses’s study so effectively illustrates.
This makes one wary of the currently fashionable rhetoric of participatory irrigation management (PIM). Any programme or plan of action that unquestioningly privileges the local can easily hide inequities. The study of water has ceased to be (to a large extent) a matter of engineering. But it is rapidly threatening to become a matter of ‘management’ under PIM. All the three books under review warn us about this quite unequivocally. The study of water needs both large sectoral overviews and ethnographies that trace patterns of resource use within the broad matrix of social change. The three volumes under study fulfill one or the other part of this mandate and are a welcome addition to the existing body of literature.
Books Under Review
David Mosse, The Rule of Water: Statecraft, Ecology and Collective Action in South India. New Delhi: Oxford University Pres, 2003. 337 pp. Glossary, bibliography, index.
Peter Mollinga, On the Waterfront: Water Distribution, Technology and Agrarian Change in a South Indian Canal Irrigation System. New Delhi: Orient Longman Private Limited, 2003. 441 pp. References.
Ramaswamy, R. Iyer, Water: Perspectives, Issues, Concerns. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, 2003. 369 pp. Appendices, references and bibliography, names index, subject index.
Note: This
review essay was first published in a slightly different form in 2006 in the periodical
Indian Journal of Social Work 67(4). The books under consideration were
all published in the year 2003. All the three books dealt with water, broke new
ground in the study of water as a theme in India and have since become minor classics
in academic studies of this resource.
References
 |
| ୨୦୧୭ ମସିହାରେ ଉତ୍ତୋଳିତ ଘୁମୁସର ରେଞ୍ଜ୍ର ବନବିହାରସ୍ଥ ଭଞ୍ଜନଗର ବନ୍ଧର ଦୃଶ୍ୟ |
 |
| A 17th century manuscript depicting Krishna and Akrura Photo Credit - Wikimedia Commons |
 |
| ୨୦୧୪ ମସିହାରେ କଟକଠାରେ ମହାନଦୀରେ ବନ୍ୟାର ଦୃଶ୍ୟ ଫଟୋ କ୍ରେଡ଼ିଟ୍ - ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍ |
 |
| A double-decker bus from London seen in Kathmandu, Nepal Photo Taken in 1977 (Photo Credit - Wikimedia Commons) |
 |
| Photo Credit - Wikimedia Commons |
 |
| କାଠମାଣ୍ଡୁର ଏକ କୋଠାରେ କାଠକାମ ଫଟୋ କ୍ରେଡ଼ିଟ୍ - ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍ |
 |
| କ୍ରୋଏସିଆ ଦେଶରେ ସ୍ଥିତ ପୁଲା କ୍ୟାଥିଡ୍ରାଲ୍ ଫଟୋ କ୍ରେଡିଟ୍ - ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍ |
The world Ramakanta Samantaray Translated by Sailen Routray Photo credit: A. R. Vasavi I have cut you into tiny pieces with the sharp sword ...
.jpg)
