हरयाणा नंबर वन कोन्या फोर लेन और मॉल म्हारा चेहरा खूब चमकाया रै लिंग अनुपात अनीमिया नै महारै कालस लगायारै दो छोर म्हारे हरयाने के नहीं मेरी समझ मैं आवैं एक कान्ही सबते बढ़िया कार हरियानावासी बनावैं महिला भ्रूण हत्या करकै सबतैं तेज कार चलावैं गर्भ वती महिला खून कमी जापे के माह मरजयावैं सोच सोच कै इन बातां नै दिमाग मेरा चकराया रै| आर्थिक विकास घना सामाजिक विकास थोडा बताते विकास मॉडल मै मोजूद कमी नहीं खोल कै दिखाते सचाई नै आंकडों बीच कई बुद्धिजीवी बी छिपाते म्हारे नेता बी सचाई तै बहोत घना आज घबराते पांचो घी मैं जिसकी सैं हरियाणा नंबर वन भाया रै| आर्थिक विकास की माया देखो पैसा छाया चारो और नंबर वन हरियाणा का मचाया चारो कान्ही शोर धरती बिकती जा म्हारी औरों के बिक़े डांगर ढोर शाह नै मात देवैं ये समाज सेवी बनकै ठग चोर चोर दवारा साह खुले के मैं जाता रोजाना धमकाया रै| कई बार सोचूँ लोट खाट मैं आज हुआ किसा विकास यो दिमाग भन्नाया सै मेरा सोचै कदे होरया हो विनास यो ठेकेदारी का बोलबाला सै करता म्हारा उपहास यो विकास हुआ या विनास हिल गया मेरा विश्वास यो रणबीर बरोने वाला ना इनकी बहका मैं आया रै |।
भाग.1 उच्च जातियों के हिन्दुओं और हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी संगठनों का गाय के प्रति . एक पशु बतौर व हिन्दू राष्ट्र के प्रतीक बतौर . ढुलमुल रवैया रहा है। कभी वे गाय के प्रति बहुत श्रद्धावान हो जाते हैं तो कभी उनकी श्रद्धा अचानक अदृश्य हो जाती है। हाल के कुछ वर्षों में, हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादियों ने गाय को एक पवित्र प्रतीक के रूप में प्रस्तुत करना शुरू कर दिया है। और यह इसलिए नहीं कि सनातन धर्म की चमत्कृत कर देने वाली विविधता से परिपूर्ण धार्मिक.दार्शनिक ग्रंथ ऐसा कहते हैं, बल्कि इसलिए क्योंकि गाय, हिन्दुओं को लामबंद करने और मुसलमानों को खलनायक के रूप में प्रस्तुत करने के लिए अत्यंत उपयोगी है। ऐसा क्यों ? क्योंकि मुसलमानों के गौमांस भक्षण पर कोई धार्मिक प्रतिबंध नहीं है और इस धर्म के मानने वालों का एक तबका मांस व मवेशियों के व्यापार में रत है। मुस्लिम शासकों और धार्मिक नेताओं का भी गाय के प्रति ढुलमुल रवैया रहा है। कभी उन्होंने हिन्दुओं के साथ शांतिपूर्ण सहअस्तित्व की खातिर गौवध को प्रतिबंधित किया तो कभी अपने सांस्कृतिक अधिकारों और अपनी अलग पहचान पर जोर दिया। दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के इतिहास के प्रोफेसर डीएन झा की पुस्तक 'द मिथ ऑफ होली काऊ' ;पवित्र गाय का मिथक कहती है कि प्राचीन भारत में न केवल गौमांस भक्षण आम था वरन् गाय की बलि भी दी जाती थी और कई अनुष्ठानों में गाय की बलि देना आवश्यक माना जाता था। कई ग्रंथों में इन्द्र भगवान द्वारा बलि दी गई गायों का मांस खाने की चर्चा है। चूंकि उस समय समाज, घुमंतु से कृषि.आधारित बन रहा था इसलिए मवेशियों का महत्व बढ़ता जा रहा थाए विशेषकर बैलों और गायों का। मवेशी, संपत्ति के रूप में देखे जाने लगे थे जैसा कि 'गोधन'शब्द से जाहिर है। शायद इसलिएए गाय की बलि पर प्रतिबंध लगाया गया और उस प्रतिबंध को प्रभावी बनाने के लिए उसे धार्मिक चोला पहना दिया गया। सातवीं से पांचवी सदी ईसा पूर्व के बीच लिखे गए ब्राह्मण ग्रंथों, जो कि वेदों पर टीकाएं हैं, में पहली बार गाय को पूज्यनीय बताया गया है। इसके बाद, भारत में बौद्ध और जैन धर्मों का उदय हुआ और सम्राट अशोक ने सभी पशुओं के प्रति दयाभाव को अपने राज्य की नीति का अंग बनाया। यहां तक कि उन्होंने जानवरों की चिकित्सा का प्रबंध तक किया और उनकी बलि पर प्रतिबंध लगा दिया, यद्यपि यह प्रतिबंध मवेशियों पर लागू नहीं था। कौटिल्य के 'अर्थशास्त्र' में मवेशियों के वध को आम बताया गया है। इंडोनेशिया के बाली द्वीपसमूह के हिन्दू आज भी गौमांस खाते हैं। कुछ आदिवासी समुदायों में आज भी उत्सवों पर गाय की बलि चढ़ाई जाती है। कुछ दलित समुदायों को भी गौमांस से परहेज नहीं है। हिन्दुओं के गौमांस भक्षण पर पूर्ण प्रतिबंध, आठवीं सदी ईस्वी में लगाया गया,जब आदि शंकराचार्य के अद्वैत वेदांत दर्शन का समाज में प्रभाव बढ़ा। बौद्ध धर्म.विरोधी प्रचार भी आठवीं सदी में अपने चरम पर पहुंचाए जब शंकर ने अपने मठों का ढांचा, बौद्ध संघों की तर्ज पर बनाया। ग्यारहवीं सदी तक उत्तर भारत में हिन्दू धर्म एक बार फिर छा गया, जैसा कि उस काल में रचित संस्कृत नाटक 'प्रबोधचन्द्रोदय' से स्पष्ट है। इस नाटक में बौद्ध और जैन धर्म की हार का रूपक और विष्णु की आराधना है। तब तक उत्तर भारत के अधिकांश रहवासी शैव, वैष्णव या शक्त बन गए थे। 12वीं सदी के आते.आते, बौद्ध धर्मावलंबी केवल बौद्ध मठों तक सीमित रह गए और आगे चलकरए यद्यपि बौद्ध धर्म ने भारत के कृषक वर्ग के एक तबके को अपने प्रभाव में लिया, तथापि, तब तक बौद्ध धर्म एक विशिष्ट धार्मिक समुदाय के रूप में अपनी पहचान खो चुका था। वैष्णव, पशुबलि के विरोधी और शाकाहारी थे। मुसलमानों का ढुलमुल रवैया मुस्लिम शासक और धार्मिक नेता, वर्चस्वशाली उच्च जाति के हिन्दुओं की भावनाओं का आदर करने और अपने सांस्कृतिक अधिकारों पर जोर देने के बीच झूलते रहे। मुगल बादशाह बाबर ने गौवध पर प्रतिबंध लगाया था और अपनी वसीयत में अपने पुत्र हुमांयू से भी इस प्रतिबंध को जारी रखने को कहा था। कम से कम तीन अन्य मुगल बादशाहों.अकबर, जहांगीर और अहमद शाह.ने भी गौवध प्रतिबंधित किया था। मैसूर के नवाब हैदरअली के राज्य में गौवध करने वाले के हाथ काट दिए जाते थे। असहयोग और खिलाफत आंदोलनों के दौरान गौवध लगभग बंद हो गया था क्योंकि कई मुस्लिम धार्मिक नेताओं ने इस आशय के फतवे जारी किए थे और अली बंधुओं ने गौमांस भक्षण के विरूद्ध अभियान चलाया था। महात्मा गांधी ने हिन्दुओं से खिलाफत आंदोलन का समर्थन करने की जो अपील की थी, उसके पीछे एक कारण यह भी था कि इसके बदले मुसलमान नेता गौमांस भक्षण के विरूद्ध प्रचार करेंगे। मुस्लिम धार्मिक नेताओं ने इस अहसान का बदला चुकाया और गौवध के खिलाफ अभियान शुरू किया। इससे देश में अभूतपूर्व हिन्दू.मुस्लिम एकता स्थापित हुई और पूरे देश ने एक होकर अहिंसक रास्ते से ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य के खिलाफ मोर्चा संभाला। हाल में कई राज्यो द्वारा गौवध पर प्रतिबंध लगाने संबंधी कानून बनाए गए हैं। इनका विरोध गौमांस व्यापारी व मांस उद्योग के श्रमिक कर रहे हैं। इनमें मुख्यतः कुरैशी मुसलमान हैं परंतु हिन्दू खटीक व अन्य गैर.मुसलमान भी यह व्यवसाय करते हैं। वे इस प्रतिबंध का विरोध मुख्यतः इसलिए कर रहे हैं क्योंकि इससे उनके व्यावसायिक हितों को नुकसान पहुंचेगा। फिक्की और सीआईआई यह चाहते हैं कि उद्योगों और व्यवसायों पर सरकार का नियंत्रण कम से कम हो। अगर ये छोटे व्यवसायी भी ऐसा ही चाहते हैं तो इसमें गलत क्या है ? और यहां इस तथ्य को नहीं भुलाया जाना चाहिए कि मांस के व्यवसायियों में हिन्दू और मुसलमान दोनों शामिल हैं परंतु मीडिया केवल मुसलमानों के विरोध को महत्व दे रहा है और गैर.मुसलमानों द्वारा किए जा रहे विरोध का अपेक्षित प्रचार नहीं हो रहा है। गौवध पर प्रतिबंध और गौमांस के व्यवसाय के विनियमन को कई आधारों पर चुनौती दी जाती रही है, जिनमें से एक है संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19;1 द्वारा हर नागरिक को प्रदत्त 'कोई भी वृत्ति, उपजीविका, व्यापार या कारोबार' करने का मौलिक अधिकार। इसके अतिरिक्तए अनुच्छेद 25, जो कि सभी नागरिकों को किसी भी धर्म को मानने और उसका आचरण करने की स्वतंत्रता देता है,के आधार पर भी इस प्रतिबंध को अनुचित बताया जाता रहा है। उच्चतम न्यायालय ने इस प्रतिबंध को इस आधार पर उचित ठहराया है कि यह जनहित ;दुधारू व भारवाही पशुओं और पशुधन का संरक्षण,में है और यह व्यवसाय करने की स्वतंत्रता पर अनुचित प्रतिबंध नहीं है। धार्मिक स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार के उल्लंघन के आधार पर चुनौती को यह कहकर खारिज कर दिया गया कि यद्यपि इस्लाम में गौमांस भक्षण की इजाजत है तथापि मुसलमानों के लिए गौमांस भक्षण अनिवार्य नहीं है। गौवध संबंधी पुराने कानूनों का चरित्र मुख्यतः नियामक था और उनमें गौवध पर पूर्ण प्रतिबंध नहीं लगाया था। इन कानूनों में गायों और दोनों लिंगों के बछड़ों के वध को प्रतिबंधित किया गया था परंतु राज्य सरकार द्वारा नियुक्त प्राधिकृत अधिकारी की इजाजत से, एक निश्चित आयु से ज्यादा के पशुओं का वध किया जा सकता था। इन कानूनों को शाकाहार.समर्थक नागरिकों ने इस आधार पर चुनौती दी थी कि वे राज्य के नीति निदेशक तत्वों में से एक, जिसमें'गायों,बछड़ों व अन्य दुधारू व भारवाही पशुओं के वध पर प्रतिबंध' लगाए जाने की बात कही गई है, का उल्लंघन हैं। उच्चतम न्यायालय ने मोहम्मद हमीद कुरैशी विरूद्ध बिहार राज्य प्रकरण में इस तर्क को इस आधार पर खारिज कर दिया कि एक निश्चित आयु के बाद, गौवंश की भारवाही पशु के रूप में उपयोगिता समाप्त हो जाती है और वे सीमित मात्रा में उपलब्ध चारे पर बोझ बन जाते हैं। अगर ये अनुपयोगी जानवर न रहें तो वह चारा दुधारू व भारवाही पशुओं को उपलब्ध हो सकता है। राज्यों ने अनुपयोगी हो चुके गौवंश के संरक्षण के लिए जो गौसदन बनाए थे, वे घोर अपर्याप्त थे। इस संबंध में दस्तावेजी सुबूतों के आधार पर न्यायालय ने कहा कि गौवध पर पूर्ण प्रतिबंध उचित नहीं ठहराया जा सकता और वह जनहित में नहीं है। परंतु दूसरे दौर के गौवध.निषेध कानूनों में गौवध पर प्रतिबंध तो लगाया ही गया साथ ही,गौमांस खरीदने व उसका भक्षण करने वालों के लिए भी सजा का प्रावधान कर दिया गया। इस संबंध में मध्यप्रदेश सरकार द्वारा बनाया गया कानून तो यहां तक कहता है कि गौमांस भंडारण करने व उसे पकाने के लिए इस्तेमाल किए जाने वाले सामान, जिनमें फ्रिज और बर्तन तक शामिल हैं, को भी जब्त किया जा सकता है। अर्थात अब पुलिसवाला हमारे रसोईघर में घुस सकता है और अगर वहां गौमांस पाया गया या उसके भंडारण या पकाने का इंतजाम मिला,तो हमें जेल की सलाखों के पीछे सात साल काटने पड़ सकते हैं। गौवध व हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी संगठन गौवध के संबंध में जिस तरह का ढुलमुल रवैया हिन्दू व मुस्लिम धार्मिक व राजनैतिक नेताओं का था,कुछ वैसा ही हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी संगठनों का भी रहा है। हिन्दुत्व चिंतक वी. डी. सावरकर ने गाय को श्रद्धा का पात्र बनाने का विरोध किया था। उनका कहना था कि गाय एक पशु है, हमें उसके प्रति मानवीय दृष्टिकोण अपनाना चाहिए और हिन्दुओं को करूणा व दयावश उसकी रक्षा करनी चाहिए। परंतु उनके लिए गाय किसी भी अन्य पशु के समान थी.न कम न ज्यादा। वे लिखते हैं 'गाय और भैंस जैसे पशु और पीपल व बरगद जैसे वृक्ष, मानव के लिए उपयोगी हैं इसलिए हम उन्हें पसंद करते हैं और यहां तक कि हम उन्हें पूजा करने के काबिल मानते हैं और उनकी रक्षा करना हमारा कर्तव्य है परंतु केवल इसी अर्थ में। क्या इसका यह अर्थ नहीं है कि अगर किन्हीं परिस्थितियों मेंए वह जानवर या वृक्ष मानवता के लिए समस्या का स्त्रोत बन जाए तब वह संरक्षण के काबिल नहीं रहेगा और उसे नष्ट करना,मानव व राष्ट्र हित में होगा और तब वह मानवीय व राष्ट्र धर्म बन जाएगा';समाज चित्र, समग्र सावरकर वांग्मय, खण्ड 2, पृष्ठ 678। सावरकर आगे लिखते हैं 'कोई भी खाद्य पदार्थ इसलिए खाने योग्य होता है क्योंकि वह हमारे लिए लाभदायक होता है परंतु किसी खाद्य पदार्थ को धर्म से जोड़ना, उसे ईश्वरीय दर्जा देना है। इस तरह की अंधविश्वासी मानसिकता से देश की बौद्धिकता नष्ट होती है' ;1935, सावरकरांच्या गोष्ठी, समग्र सावरकर वांग्मय, खण्ड 2, पृष्ठ 559 द्। 'जब गाय से मानवीय हितों की पूर्ति न होती हो या उससे मानवता शर्मसार होती हो,तब अतिवादी गौसंरक्षण को खारिज कर दिया जाना चाहिए' ;समग्र सावरकर वांग्मय,खण्ड 3, पृष्ठ 341,।'मैंने गाय की पूजा से जुड़े झूठे विचारों की निंदा इसलिए की ताकि गेंहू को भूंसे से अलग किया जा सके और गाय का संरक्षण बेहतर ढंग से हो सके';1938,स्वातंत्रय वीर सावरकर, हिन्दू महासभा पर्व,पृष्ठ 143। खिलाफत आंदोलन के दौरान, जब मुसलमानों ने गौमांस भक्षण बंद कर दिया और गौवध का विरोध करने लगे तब सावरकर और हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादियों के लिए गाय वह मुद्दा न रही जिसका इस्तेमाल हिन्दुओं को एक करने और मुसलमानों को 'दूसरा' या 'अलग' बताने के लिए किया जा सके। परंतु सावरकर हिन्दुओं द्वारा गाय की पूजा करने का विरोध एक अन्य कारण से भी कर रहे थे। सावरकर लिखते हैंए 'जिस वस्तु की हम पूजा करें, वह हमसे बेहतर व महान होनी चाहिए। उसी तरहए राष्ट्र का प्रतीक, राष्ट्र की वीरता, मेधा और महत्वाकांक्षा को जागृत करने वाला होना चाहिए और उसमें देश के निवासियों को महामानव बनाने की क्षमता होनी चाहिए। परंतु गाय, जिसका मनमाना शोषण होता है और जिसे लोग जब चाहे मारकर खा लेते हैं, वह तो हमारी वर्तमान कमजोर स्थिति का एकदम उपयुक्त प्रतीक है। पर कम से कम कल के हिन्दू राष्ट्र के निवासियों का तो ऐसा शर्मनाक प्रतीक नहीं होना चाहिए' ;1936, क्ष.किरण, समग्र सावरकर वांग्मय, खण्ड 3ए पृष्ठ 237। 'हिन्दुत्व का प्रतीक गाय नहीं बल्कि नृसिंह है। ईश्वर के गुण उसके आराधक में आ जाते हैं। गाय को ईश्वरीय मानकर उसकी पूजा करने से संपूर्ण हिन्दू राष्ट्र गाय जैसा दब्बू बन जाएगाए वह घास खाने लगेगा। अगर हमें अपने राष्ट्र से किसी पशु को जोड़ना ही है तो वह पशु सिंह होना चाहिए। एक लंबी छलांग लगाकर सिंह अपने पैने पंजों से जंगली हाथियों के सिर को चीर डालता है। हमें ऐसे नृसिंह की पूजा करनी चाहिए। नृसिंह के पैने पंजे न कि गाय के खुर, हिन्दुत्व की निशानी हैं, ;1935, क्ष.किरण, समग्र सावरकर वांग्मयए खण्ड 3,पृष्ठ 167। सावरकर की मान्यता थी कि हिन्दुओं द्वारा गाय की पूजा करने से वे जरूरत से ज्यादा विनम्र, दयालु व सभी प्राणियों को समान मानने वाले बन जाएंगे। जबकि सावरकर तो राष्ट्रवाद का हिन्दूकरण और हिन्दुओं का सैन्यीकरण करना चाहते थे। -इरफान इंजीनियर
क्या समाज के किसी वर्ग की खानपान की आदतों को राजनीति का विषय बनाया जा सकता है ? क्या कोई पशु, जिसे समाज का एक तबका, माता की तरह पूजता हो, राजनीति की बिसात का मोहरा बन सकता है? यद्यपि यह अकल्पनीय लगता है परंतु यह सच है कि गाय, भारतीय राजनैतिक परिदृश्य में एक महत्वपूर्ण कारक बनी हुई है। महाराष्ट्र विधानसभा द्वारा पारित ';महाराष्ट्र पशु संरक्षण ;संशोधन विधेयक 1995'; को हाल में राष्ट्रपति की स्वीकृति मिल गई। इस नए कानून के अंतर्गत, गाय के अलावा बैलों का वध भी प्रतिबंधित कर दिया गया है। इस कानून का उल्लंघन करने वालों को पांच साल तक की कैद और 10 हजार रूपये तक के जुर्माने से दंडित किया जा सकेगा। जब मैंने विधेयक के शीर्षक में शामिल';पशु संरक्षण'; शब्दों को पढ़ा तो मुझे लगा कि यह उन सभी पशुओं के बारे में होगा, जिनका भक्षण मानव करते हैं और या फिर यह समाज द्वारा जानवरों के विभिन्न गतिविधियों में इस्तेमाल से संबंधित होगा। परंतु आगे पढ़ने पर मुझे यह ज्ञात हुआ कि यह कानून केवल गौवंश पर लागू होगा। लगभग एक दशक पहले, मुझे यह पढ़कर बहुत धक्का लगा था कि प्राचीन भारतीय इतिहास के अनन्य अध्येता प्रोफेसर द्विजेन्द्र नाथ झा को फोन पर कई लोगों ने यह धमकी दी कि अगर उन्होंने उनकी पुस्तक ';होली काउ बीफ इन इंडियन डायटरी ट्रेडिशन'; ;भारतीय खानपान परंपरा में पवित्र गाय का मांस को प्रकाशित किया तो उन्हें इसके गंभीर परिणाम भुगतने होंगे। यह विद्वतापूर्ण पुस्तक,भारतीय खानपान में गौमांस भक्षण की सदियों पुरानी परंपरा पर केन्द्रित है। जाहिर है कि नए कानून का उद्धेश्य गौमांस भक्षण और गौवध के बहाने अल्पसंख्यकों को निशाना बनाना है। सन् 2014 के आम चुनाव के प्रचार के दौरान जो कई नारे उछाले गए थे उनमें से दो थे, ';मोदी को मतदान, गाय को जीवनदान'; और';बीजेपी का संदेश, बचेगी गायए बचेगा देश';। ये नारे भाजपा के ';गौ विकास प्रकोष्ठ'; द्वारा गढ़े गए थे। धर्म के नाम पर की जाने वाली राजनीति में इस तरह के भावनात्मक व पहचान से जुड़े मुद्दों का इस्तेमाल आम है। हम सब जानते हैं कि किस प्रकार भाजपा ने पहचान से जुड़े एक अन्य मुद्दे.राममंदिर.का इस्तेमाल कर अपनी राजनैतिक ताकत बढ़ाई थी। गाय,लंबे समय से संघ.भाजपा की राजनीति का हिस्सा रही है। गौवध के मुद्दे पर सैकड़ों दंगे भड़काए गए हैं। सन् 1964 में आरएसएस द्वारा विश्व हिन्दू परिषद के गठन के बाद से, योजनाबद्ध तरीके से गाय का मुद्दा समय.समय पर उठाया जाता रहा है। गाय और गौमांस भक्षण के संबंध में कई गलत धारणाएं प्रचारित की जाती रही हैं। गौमांस भक्षण को मुस्लिम समुदाय से जोड़ना, इनमें से एक है। मुसलमानों के एक वर्ग ';कसाईयों'; को घृणा का पात्र बना दिया गया है। इस तरह की बातें कही जाती रही हैं जिनसे यह भ्रम होता है कि गौमांस भक्षण, मुसलमानों के लिए अनिवार्य है। समाज के एक बड़े वर्ग में यह धारणा पैठ कर गई है कि चूंकि गाय हिन्दुओं के लिए पवित्र है इसलिए मुसलमान उसका वध करते हैं। यह भी कहा जाता है कि गौमांस भक्षण की परंपरा भारत में मुस्लिम आक्रांताओं ने स्थापित की। ये सभी धारणाएं तथ्यों के विपरीत हैं परंतु फिर भी समाज का एक बड़ा हिस्सा इन्हें सही मान बैठा है। इन मिथकों का निर्माण शनैः.शनैः किया गया। गौमांस से जुड़े मुद्दों को लेकर गायों के व्यापारियों और दलितों के खिलाफ साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा की खबरें आती रहती हैं। गाय का इस्तेमाल समाज को साम्प्रदायिक आधार पर ध्रुवीकृत करने के लिए किया जाता रहा है। गायों की खाल का व्यापार करने वाले दलितों की हरियाणा के गोहाना सहित कई स्थानों पर हत्या की घटनाएं हुई हैं और विहिप के नेताओं ने इन हत्याओं को औचित्यपूर्ण ठहराया है। सच यह है कि गौमांस भक्षण और गायों की बलि देने की परंपरा भारत में वैदिक काल से थी। कई धर्मग्रंथों में यज्ञों के दौरान गाय की बलि देने का जिक्र है। अनेक पुस्तकों में गौमांस भक्षण का जिक्र भी है। तेत्रैय ब्राह्मण का एक श्लोक कहता है ';अथो अन्नम विया गऊ'; ;गाय सच्चा भोजन है । अलग.अलग देवताओं को अलग.अलग किस्म का गौमांस पसंद था। प्रोफेसर डीएन झा ने अपनी उत्कृष्ट कृति में इस तरह के कई उदाहरणों को उद्वत किया है। भारत में अहिंसा की अवधारणा कृषि आधारित समाज के विकास के साथ आई। जैन धर्म हर प्रकार की हिंसा के खिलाफ था। बौद्ध धर्म भी अहिंसा का पैरोकार व पशु बलि का विरोधी था। इन धर्मों द्वारा प्रतिपादित अहिंसा के सिद्धांत की प्रतिक्रिया स्वरूप व उसके प्रतिउत्तर में, काफी बाद में, ब्राह्मणवाद ने गाय को अपने प्रतीक के रूप में अंगीकार किया। चूंकि ब्राह्मणवाद स्वयं को हिन्दू धर्म के पर्याय के रूप में प्रचारित करना चाहता था इसलिए उसने यह प्रचार करना शुरू कर दिया कि गाय सभी हिन्दुओं के लिए पवित्र और पूजनीय है। सच यह है कि समाज के कई वर्ग, विशेषकर दलित और आदिवासी, लंबे समय से गौमांस भक्षण करते आए हैं। यह अलग बात है कि हिन्दुत्व के बढ़ते प्रभाव के चलते कई समुदायों, जिनके लिए गौमांस प्रोटीन का समृद्ध व सस्ता स्त्रोत था, को इसे छोड़ने या छोड़ने पर विचार करने के लिए बाध्य किया जा रहा है। भाजपा और उसके संगी.साथियों के दावों के विपरीतए स्वामी विवेकानंद ने अमेरिका में एक बड़ी सभा में भाषण देते हुए कहा थाए ';आपको यह जानकर आश्चर्य होगा कि प्राचीनकाल में विशेष समारोहों में जो गौमांस नहीं खाता था उसे अच्छा हिंदू नहीं माना जाता था। कई मौकों पर उसके लिए यह आवश्यक था कि वह बैल की बलि चढ़ाए और उसे खाए'; ';शेक्सपियर क्लब, पेसेडीना, कैलीर्फोनिया में 2 फरवरी 1900 को';बौद्ध भारत'; विषय पर बोलते हुए ';द कम्पलीट वर्क्स ऑफ स्वामी विवेकानंद';, खण्ड 3, अद्वैत आश्रम, कलकत्ता, 1997 पृष्ठ 536 स्वामी विवेकानंद द्वारा स्थापित रामकृष्ण मिशन द्वारा प्रायोजित कई अन्य अनुसंधान परियोजनाओं ने भी इस तथ्य की पुष्टि की है। इनमें से एक में कहा गया है ';ब्राह्मणों सहित सभी वैदिक आर्य, मछली, मांस और यहां तक कि गौमांस भी खाते थे। विशिष्ट अतिथियों को सम्मान देने के लिए भोजन में गौमांस परोसा जाता था। यद्यपि वैदिक आर्य गौमांस खाते थे तथापि दूध देने वाली गायों का वध नहीं किया जाता था। गाय को ';अघन्य'; ;जिसे मारा नहीं जाएगा कहा जाता था परंतु अतिथि के लिए जो शब्द प्रयुक्त होता था वह था ';गोघ्न'; ;जिसके लिए गाय को मारा जाता है । केवल बैलों, दूध न देने वाली गायों और बछड़ों को मारा जाता था। ';सुनीति कुमार चटर्जी व अन्य द्वारा संपादित ';द कल्चरल हेरीटेज ऑफ इंडिया';खण्ड.1m प्रकाशक रामकृष्ण मिशन, कलकत्ता में सी कुन्हन राजा का आलेख';वैदिक कल्चर';, पृष्ठ 217 महाराष्ट्र सरकार के विधेयक को राष्ट्रपति की स्वीकृति मिलने के पश्चात्, मुंबई के देवनार बूचड़खाने के हजारों श्रमिकों, जो इसके कारण अपना रोजगार खो बैठेंगे, ने 11 मार्च को इसके खिलाफ जोरदार प्रदर्शन किया। अलग.अलग धर्मों के कई व्यवसायी महाराष्ट्र सरकार के इस साम्प्रदायिक कदम का विरोध करने के लिए मुंबई के आजाद मैदान में एकत्रित हुए। नए कानून के खिलाफ बंबई उच्च न्यायालय में एक जनहित याचिका दायर की गई है जिसमें यह कहा गया है कि गौमांस पर प्रतिबंध, नागरिकों के अपना भोजन चुनने के मौलिक अधिकार का उल्लंघन है। हमें आशा है कि समाज, राजनैतिक लक्ष्य पाने के लिए किए पहचान से जुड़े इस तरह के मुद्दों के दुरूपयोग को रोकने के लिए आगे आएगा। लोगों को क्या खाना चाहिए और क्या नहीं, यह उनपर छोड़ दिया जाना चाहिए और मांस के व्यवसाय से जुड़े श्रमिकों और व्यवसायियों से उनकी रोजी.रोटी नहीं छीनी जानी चाहिए। -राम पुनियानी
When I mentioned it to him, a well-meaning political friend urged me not to touch the subject or write about it. “Beef is a sensitive issue,” he said, “it has religious connotations. And you are a Christian…”
I thought about it but decided to go ahead anyway. The manner in which the BJP-led government in Maharashtra has banned the cutting, eating and very possession of beef is disturbing. And to me, it is not a religious issue but a broader social and economic one – linked to the liberalism that is the bedrock of our Constitution.
Beef is a cheap meat. It is often called the “poor man’s protein”. In Maharashtra it is eaten by Muslims and Christians, and by some Dalit communities that do not belong to religious minorities. As a magnet for economic migrants from across India, the Mumbai-Pune region is also home to many from the Northeast who consume beef.
By banning beef in such a draconian and absolutist fashion, the state government will only drive up prices of other meats. This will have an inflationary impact and will raise household food bills. It will affect livelihoods of traders and butchers who deal with bovine meat.
The decision is impulsive and political and has not considered the impact on agriculture and on the Maharashtra farmer. There are long-standing agrarian problems in the state. One of these is a whopping 61 per cent shortage in fodder, if one compares fodder required for livestock, largely cows and buffaloes, against what is available. With the ban, this fodder shortage will worsen. It will push up input costs for farmers.
Lastly, there is my concern about perceptions and inclusiveness. India is a ‘live and let live’ society. Beef is forbidden among most Hindus and the cow is held sacred. I respect that and am certainly not asking for beef to be served at state banquets or in the Parliament canteen. But to ban its use and consumption even in the privacy of a citizen’s home and kitchen?
It strikes me as odd that I can walk into a supermarket in Dubai – which is not a democracy and not a model for Indian society – enter a sub-section of the meats area and buy pork, which is forbidden in Islam. I have seen simple signs outside such demarcated areas that say: “Pork and pork products: For non-Muslims only”.
Can we not imagine something similar for beef in India? Do bans like this serve any purpose other than simply putting off some people – and contravening the spirit of the Constitution, as the BJP-led government in Mumbai is doing, even without amending it? The pursuit of an agenda of religious divisiveness does not start with grand pronouncements. It starts with relatively small events like these.
That is why I decided to write this piece. I plan to iterate its contents this week in th Rajya Sabha. I hope the Chairman gives me permission.
Derek O’Brien Member of Parliament Leader in the Rajya Sabha and National Spokesperson, All India Trinamool Congress
What About India’s Daughters In The Conflict Zones?
By Devika Mittal
08 March, 2015 Countercurrents.org
With the Government’s ban on “India’s documentary”, made around the 16 December gang rape case known as the Nirbhaya case, the case is once again in the public sphere. The BBC documentary was scheduled for release on the International Women’s day. The documentary led to a controversy pertaining to the statement of one of the rapists who still blamed the victim. Another controversy attached with it has been the permission issue, the Government denies having given the permission to interview the rapists. In the light of these controversies, the Government decided to ban it. However, the people have resisted the ban. Since its release online, the documentary claims a viewership of about a million.
The documentary has also been a point of talk because of the controversial statements. Since its release, people have shared their views, debated on the statement, on how the statement may not be an unusual mentality. The mentality is embedded in the patriarchal society. It is recognized that this mentality is also shared by people’s ‘representatives’, the politicians and those who are supposed to defend us or impart justice. People have also been suggesting that the system needs to be improved, needs to be empowered to curb these incidents. While this is true, what is still required to recognize and highlight is that not just the mentality to justify rape, the inefficiency of the system but how the very system has also used rape as a weapon to control dissent or voice against the oppression of the State.
This is to point at the cases of rape and sexual violence in the conflict zones of India – the North-East states (except Sikkim), Jammu & Kashmir and Naxalite zones. To tackle the challenges in the conflict zones, the Indian State has adopted draconian laws which in the garb of restoring law and order have led to gross violation of human rights’. One such law is the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Enforced in the North-East states (except Sikkim) and the state of Jammu & Kashmir, AFSPA gives the right to the armed forces to shoot at sight, torture, raid houses, arrest without warrant AFSPA also protects the army persons with legal impunity. These extra-ordinary and unrestrained powers to the armed forces have led to extra-judicial killings, fake encounters, extra-judicial disappearances, tortures and rapes.
This has been corroborated by the reports of the national and international human-rights’ commissions and organisations, Government’s own appointed committees and the Judiciary. The Justice J.S. Verma Committee that was set up to suggest amendments to laws relating to crimes against women, has recommended review of the continuance of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in the context of extending legal protection to women in conflict areas. It also recommended that the security forces should not be able to take cover under the AFSPA in cases of rape and sexual assault and that cases of sexual violence against women by members of the armed forces or uniformed personnel should be brought under the purview of ordinary criminal law.
Similarly, the laws used to control naxalism have also led to the violation of human rights. Innocent tribals are falsely implicated in cases, tortured, raped and killed. While there are thousands of cases of sexual violence, known and unknown, reported and unreported, here are some of the known cases that still await justice:
Thangjam Manorama from AFSPA-affected Manipur – On 10 July 2004, Thangjam Manorama, a Manipuri woman, was picked up from her home by the Indian paramilitary unit, 17th Assam Rifles on allegations of being associated with a militant group. The next morning, her bullet-ridden corpse was found in a field. There were bullet marks even in her private parts. An autopsy revealed semen marks on her skirt suggesting rape and murder. It has been 10 years now but justice is yet to be done.
Rape and Killing of Asiya and Nilofar Jan - On 29th May 2009, in Shopian (J&K), two women named Asiya (age 17) and Neelofar (age 22) went missing. Their dead bodies were found next morning. The people alleged it to be a case of rape and murder by security forces who were camped nearby.
Initially, no FIR was lodged and police told that postmortem report cleared injuries over private parts. However, the people believed that police report about postmortem is fake and so they continued protests and forced J&K Government to form a judicial panel. Under judicial inquiry, the Forensic lab report established that they had been gang-raped. Apart from few suspension and transfers from police department, nothing has happened in this case.
Victims of the mass-rape of Kunan Posphora Village - During the intervening night of February 23 and 24 in 1991, the twin villages of Kunan and Poshpora in north Kashmir’s Kupwara district witnessed mass rape of over 40 women by the soldiers of the Army’s 4 Rajputana Rifles of 68 Brigade. The victims included young female children, pregnant women and even aged women. This incident has been acknowledged even by the Former Union External Minister, Salman Khurshid’s who said, “I am ashamed that it happened in my country. I am apologetic and appalled that it has happened in my country.” However, justice continues to evade them.
Sexual Harrasment of Soni Sori, an Adivasi Civil Rights’ Activist - Soni Sori, a 35-year-old Adivasi school teacher in Chhattisgarh, was alleged to be a Naxalite. While evidence shows that she was against them, she was framed by the Chhattisgarh police. She was sexually harassed by the police and was also given electric shocks. In the medical examination, small stones were found in her vagina and rectum. The main person who had supervised the torture was Ankit Garg, the Superintendent of Police. What did the state do? He was honored with the President's Award on Republic Day.
As stated previously, sexual violence in the conflict zones are not an aberration. They are widespread. Yet, they do not evoke the same outrage that this particular incident in a non-conflict zone has received. The Government, the judiciary and even those people who are aware of this reality remain silent. Aren’t these the daughters of India too? Aren’t they women as well? This hypocrisy needs to be addressed. Respect and rights cannot be exclusive or the entitlement of only a particular section of women.
Devika Mittal, M.Phil student of Sociology at Delhi School of Economics; Core member of Mission Bhartiyam; Convenor(India) of Aaghaz-e-Dosti Blog: www.devikamittal.wordpress.com | Twitter: @devikasmittal
Whatever the primordial wild instinct, explained in novels of Conrad and Golding, that the hysteric mob of Dimapur in Nagaland, a northeastern state in India, manifested while dragging out an under trial rape accused from the Central Jail and his lynching on 5th March, our eyes have been wide opened trying to absorb the shock and getting some answers to that horrific act. As the blood and dust settles on the streets of this commercial hub of Nagalad, different twists and turns are now emerging from the incident which was initially considered to be a rape case.
So far the narrative is that the victim, Sayed Sharifuddin Khan, a thirty-five years old trader in Dimapur was accused of rape by a Naga girl. Accordingly Khan was arrested by the police and lodged inside the Central Jail in Dimapur for judicial proceedings. After that the local public and women bodies took out protest marches demanding the authorities to hand over the accused to them. The crowd was led by Naga Students Federation. As the authorities refused to oblige, the swelling crowd moved towards the jail, broke its gate and dragged out the accused, stripped naked and paraded a long stretch of seven kilometres to the city’s centre point while hitting and hacking with sharp weapons. As the victim fell down, he was tied behind a motor cycle and dragged several kilometres in which he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, as the Taliban did to President Dr. Nazibullah in Kabul in 1996, the corpse of the accused was hanged on a tower. This modern day lynching was photographed by mobile wielding youth as souvenirs. The entire act was committed in broad day light where the police and the civil administration choose to remain nonchalant. The punch line of the narrative was that the “rapist”, who was also an “illegal Bangladeshi immigrant”, got his punishment in a country where the justice delivery system is very slow.
When the medical examination report of the rape victim came out, it gave a negative answer. There was no trace of rape on her body. Further, the CCTV footage of the hotel where the incident had allegedly happened also send a clear picture—both the girl and the accused were seen in normal stature. Nor Sayed Sharifuddin Khan was an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant, his father was a retired IAF personnel from Karimganj, Assam while two of his brothers are still serving in the Indian Army and he was married to a local Naga woman. Then what made the people of Dimapur so impatient to create a kangaroo court and do the lynching ?
The answer is politics—dirty, heinous politics and the long process of collaboration of militants, criminals and anti-social elements with an ethnic tinge that culminated in together to create this savagery. Ever since the all-powerful Chief Minister Neiphu Rio was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2014, there has been a power struggle in Kohima. Rio’s successor, T.R. Zelliang has been facing pressure from his fellow NPF party members and had a no-confidence motion in January this year. The politics of clan and ethnicity for dominance is a key element for this dissidence. The dissident group is headed by a leader who is an ethnic Sema. In Dimapur, the only commercial town of Nagaland, the Semas are in the majority. It is learnt that this Sema leader, along with militants, anti-socials and criminals incited the crowd to go wild in order to create a law and order breakdown in the state to bring down Zelliang’s government.
In the ethnically defined Nagaland society, the Semas (now called Sumi) upward social mobility is very poor , though once it had a very good leader Hokishe Sema, four times Chief Minister and Governor of Himachal Pradesh. The Semas were responsible for grabbing thousands of acres of reserved forest land on the non-demarcated Assam-Nagaland border from the 1980s. As they were hill dwellers with no tradition of doing agriculture of the plains, the Semas brought and settled thousands of flood and erosion affected peasants from Morigaon district of Assam, who were Muslims of east-Bengali descent. These hardworking peasants cleared the forests and transformed Nagaland’s agriculture landscape with all types of seasonal products along with animal husbandry. In the course of time there were many matrimonial relationships between these Muslims and Semas and their new generation came to be known as Sumiyan (Sumi+Miyan).
Secondly the big business of Dimapur has been operated by Hindi speaking north Indians and there was no retailers and small vendors from the local tribes. To fill the void, these Muslims and people from Barak Valley of Assam came in large numbers as small traders. From the 1990s the state government erected many commercial complexes and sheds in Dimapur and most of them were leased by the local beneficiaries to these traders from Assam. As Dimapur is the only business centre of Nagalad, there always has been tussle among various militant groups over its control. Many splinter groups and renegade leaders of militant outfits have made things worse for outside traders in the town for quite a long time. The ‘illegal Bnagladeshi immigrant’ tag is one such outlet to maintain that bullying and threatening order in favour of the Sema interests. The bid for supremacy by Semas, in form of militancy, criminal and anti-social thugs and their bonhomie with politicians have led to a situation which has been waiting for a chance and since the ‘rape victim’ was a Sema it got a perfect launch pad. Ironically, the wife of Sayed Sharifuddin Ahmed was a Sema and the ‘rape victim’ was from her same village and lived next door to their rented house in Dimapur in a close family like relation. It was learnt that the Sema girl had a business partnership with Khan and a dispute over some monetary matters led to the framing of the latter as a rapist.
Now Delhi is watching. In the national capital, North Eastern people, including Nagas face a lot of trouble attributed to racism. But what sort of a society does the Dimapur lynching reflect. I think the Naga civil society will give an answer. The insurgency-hit state, which has not witnessed a single exchange of bullets between the NSCN (IM) and the security forces since the 1997 ceasefire, should retrospect and come to terms with the reality. The Church in Nagaland is the unifying factor for all the conflicts. It has been largely responsible for the reduced number of violence among the people in that state. Now the Church can play an important role to reign in the frenzied masses so that lynchings like Dimapur do not get repeated.
(The writer is a freelance writer based in Assam, India. E-mail:sazzad.hussain2@gmail.com)
English physicist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton, most famous for his law of gravitation, was instrumental in the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
Isaac Newton - Modern Science(TV-PG; 01:58)A look at how Isaac Newton's research influences the way we look at the world today.
Synopsis
Born on January 4, 1643, in Woolsthorpe, England, Isaac Newton was an established physicist and mathematician, and is credited as one of the great minds of the 17th century Scientific Revolution. With discoveries in optics, motion and mathematics, Newton developed the principles of modern physics. In 1687, he published his most acclaimed work, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), which has been called the single most influential book on physics. Newton died in London on March 31, 1727.
Early Life
On January 4, 1643, Isaac Newton was born in the hamlet of Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, England. He was the only son of a prosperous local farmer, also named Isaac Newton, who died three months before he was born. A premature baby born tiny and weak, Newton was not expected to survive. When he was 3 years old, his mother, Hannah Ayscough Newton, remarried a well-to-do minister, Barnabas Smith, and went to live with him, leaving young Newton with his maternal grandmother. The experience left an indelible imprint on Newton, later manifesting itself as an acute sense of insecurity. He anxiously obsessed over his published work, defending its merits with irrational behavior.
At age 12, Newton was reunited with his mother after her second husband died. She brought along her three small children from her second marriage. Newton had been enrolled at the King's School in Grantham, a town in Lincolnshire, where he lodged with a local apothecary and was introduced to the fascinating world of chemistry. His mother pulled him out of school, for her plan was to make him a farmer and have him tend the farm. Newton failed miserably, as he found farming monotonous.
He soon was sent back to King's School to finish his basic education. Perhaps sensing the young man's innate intellectual abilities, his uncle, a graduate of the University of Cambridge's Trinity College, persuaded Newton's mother to have him enter the university. Newton enrolled in a program similar to a work-study in 1661, and subsequently waited on tables and took care of wealthier students' rooms.
When Newton arrived at Cambridge, the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century was already in full force. The heliocentric view of the universe—theorized by astronomers Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler, and later refined by Galileo—was well known in most European academic circles. Philosopher René Descartes had begun to formulate a new concept of nature as an intricate, impersonal and inert machine. Yet, like most universities in Europe, Cambridge was steeped in Aristotelian philosophy and a view of nature resting on a geocentric view of the universe, dealing with nature in qualitative rather than quantitative terms.
During his first three years at Cambridge, Newton was taught the standard curriculum but was fascinated with the more advanced science. All his spare time was spent reading from the modern philosophers. The result was a less-than-stellar performance, but one that is understandable, given his dual course of study. It was during this time that Newton kept a second set of notes, entitled "Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae" ("Certain Philosophical Questions"). The "Quaestiones" reveal that Newton had discovered the new concept of nature that provided the framework for the Scientific Revolution.
Though Newton graduated with no honors or distinctions, his efforts won him the title of scholar and four years of financial support for future education. Unfortunately, in 1665, the Great Plague that was ravaging Europe had come to Cambridge, forcing the university to close. Newton returned home to pursue his private study. It was during this 18-month hiatus that he conceived the method of infinitesimal calculus, set foundations for his theory of light and color, and gained significant insight into the laws of planetary motion—insights that eventually led to the publication of his Principia in 1687. Legend has it that, at this time, Newton experienced his famous inspiration of gravity with the falling apple.
When the threat of plague subsided in 1667, Newton returned to Cambridge and was elected a minor fellow at Trinity College, as he was still not considered a standout scholar. However, in the ensuing years, his fortune improved. Newton received his Master of Arts degree in 1669, before he was 27. During this time, he came across Nicholas Mercator's published book on methods for dealing with infinite series. Newton quickly wrote a treatise, De Analysi, expounding his own wider-ranging results. He shared this with friend and mentor Isaac Barrow, but didn't include his name as author.
In June 1669, Barrow shared the unaccredited manuscript with British mathematician John Collins. In August 1669, Barrow identified its author to Collins as "Mr. Newton ... very young ... but of an extraordinary genius and proficiency in these things." Newton's work was brought to the attention of the mathematics community for the first time. Shortly afterward, Barrow resigned his Lucasian professorship at Cambridge, and Newton assumed the chair.
Advertisement — Continue reading below
Professional Life
As a professor, Newton was exempted from tutoring but required to deliver an annual course of lectures. He chose to deliver his work on optics as his initial topic. Part of Newton's study of optics was aided with the use of a reflecting telescope that he designed and constructed in 1668—his first major public scientific achievement. This invention helped prove his theory of light and color. The Royal Society asked for a demonstration of his reflecting telescope in 1671, and the organization's interest encouraged Newton to publish his notes on light, optics and color in 1672; these notes were later published as part of Newton's Opticks: Or, A treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light.
However, not everyone at the Royal Academy was enthusiastic about Newton's discoveries in optics. Among the dissenters was Robert Hooke, one of the original members of the Royal Academy and a scientist who was accomplished in a number of areas, including mechanics and optics. In his paper, Newton theorized that white light was a composite of all colors of the spectrum, and that light was composed of particles. Hooke believed that light was composed of waves. Hooke quickly condemned Newton's paper in condescending terms, and attacked Newton's methodology and conclusions.
Hooke was not the only one to question Newton's work in optics. Renowned Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens and a number of French Jesuits also raised objections. But because of Hooke's association with the Royal Society and his own work in optics, his criticism stung Newton the worst. Unable to handle the critique, he went into a rage—a reaction to criticism that was to continue throughout his life.
Newton denied Hooke's charge that his theories had any shortcomings, and argued the importance of his discoveries to all of science. In the ensuing months, the exchange between the two men grew more acrimonious, and soon Newton threatened to quit the society altogether. He remained only when several other members assured him that the Fellows held him in high esteem.
However, the rivalry between Newton and Hooke would continue for several years thereafter. Then, in 1678, Newton suffered a complete nervous breakdown and the correspondence abruptly ended. The death of his mother the following year caused him to become even more isolated, and for six years he withdrew from intellectual exchange except when others initiated correspondence, which he always kept short.
During his hiatus from public life, Newton returned to his study of gravitation and its effects on the orbits of planets. Ironically, the impetus that put Newton on the right direction in this study came from Robert Hooke. In a 1679 letter of general correspondence to Royal Society members for contributions, Hooke wrote to Newton and brought up the question of planetary motion, suggesting that a formula involving the inverse squares might explain the attraction between planets and the shape of their orbits.
Subsequent exchanges transpired before Newton quickly broke off the correspondence once again. But Hooke's idea was soon incorporated into Newton's work on planetary motion, and from his notes it appears he had quickly drawn his own conclusions by 1680, though he kept his discoveries to himself.
In early 1684, in a conversation with fellow Royal Society members Christopher Wren and Edmond Halley, Hooke made his case on the proof for planetary motion. Both Wren and Halley thought he was on to something, but pointed out that a mathematical demonstration was needed. In August 1684, Halley traveled to Cambridge to visit with Newton, who was coming out of his seclusion. Halley idly asked him what shape the orbit of a planet would take if its attraction to the sun followed the inverse square of the distance between them (Hooke's theory).
Newton knew the answer, due to his concentrated work for the past six years, and replied, "An ellipse." Newton claimed to have solved the problem some 18 years prior, during his hiatus from Cambridge and the plague, but he was unable to find his notes. Halley persuaded him to work out the problem mathematically and offered to pay all costs so that the ideas might be published.
Publishing 'Principia'
In 1687, after 18 months of intense and effectively nonstop work, Newton published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). Said to be the single most influential book on physics and possibly all of science, it is most often known as Principia and contains information on nearly all of the essential concepts of physics, except energy.
The work offers an exact quantitative description of bodies in motion in three basic laws: 1) A stationary body will stay stationary unless an external force is applied to it; 2) Force is equal to mass times acceleration, and a change in motion is proportional to the force applied; and 3) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. These three laws helped explain not only elliptical planetary orbits but nearly every other motion in the universe: how the planets are kept in orbit by the pull of the sun’s gravity; how the moon revolves around Earth and the moons of Jupiter revolve around it; and how comets revolve in elliptical orbits around the sun.
The laws also allowed Newton to calculate the mass of each planet, calculate the flattening of the Earth at the poles and the bulge at the equator, and how the gravitational pull of the sun and moon create the Earth’s tides. In Newton's account, gravity kept the universe balanced, made it work, and brought heaven and earth together in one great equation.
Upon the publication of the first edition of Principia, Robert Hooke immediately accused Newton of plagiarism, claiming that he had discovered the theory of inverse squares and that Newton had stolen his work. The charge was unfounded, as most scientists knew, for Hooke had only theorized on the idea and had never brought it to any level of proof. However, Newton was furious and strongly defended his discoveries.
He withdrew all references to Hooke in his notes and threatened to withdraw from publishing the subsequent edition of Principia altogether. Halley, who had invested much of himself in Newton's work, tried to make peace between the two men. While Newton begrudgingly agreed to insert a joint acknowledgement of Hooke's work (shared with Wren and Halley) in his discussion of the law of inverse squares, it did nothing to placate Hooke.
As the years went on, Hooke's life began to unravel. His beloved niece and companion died the same year that Principia was published, in 1687. As Newton's reputation and fame grew, Hooke's declined, causing him to become even more bitter and loathsome toward his rival. To the bitter end, Hooke took every opportunity he could to offend Newton. Knowing that his rival would soon be elected president of the Royal Society, Hooke refused to retire until the year of his death, in 1703.
International Prominence
Principia immediately raised Newton to international prominence, and he thereafter became more involved in public affairs. Consciously or unconsciously, he was ready for a new direction in life. He no longer found contentment in his position at Cambridge and he was becoming more involved in other issues. He helped lead the resistance to King James II's attempts to reinstitute Catholic teaching at Cambridge, and in 1689 he was elected to represent Cambridge in Parliament.
While in London, Newton acquainted himself with a broader group of intellectuals and became acquainted with political philosopher John Locke. Though many of the scientists on the continent continued to teach the mechanical world according to Aristotle, a young generation of British scientists became captivated with Newton's new view of the physical world and recognized him as their leader. One of these admirers was Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss mathematician whom Newton befriended while in London.
However, within a few years, Newton fell into another nervous breakdown in 1693. The cause is open to speculation: his disappointment over not being appointed to a higher position by England's new monarchs, William III and Mary II, or the subsequent loss of his friendship with Duillier; exhaustion from being overworked; or perhaps chronic mercury poisoning after decades of alchemical research. It's difficult to know the exact cause, but evidence suggests that letters written by Newton to several of his London acquaintances and friends, including Duillier, seemed deranged and paranoiac, and accused them of betrayal and conspiracy.
Oddly enough, Newton recovered quickly, wrote letters of apology to friends, and was back to work within a few months. He emerged with all his intellectual facilities intact, but seemed to have lost interest in scientific problems and now favored pursuing prophecy and scripture and the study of alchemy. While some might see this as work beneath the man who had revolutionized science, it might be more properly attributed to Newton responding to the issues of the time in turbulent 17th century Britain. Many intellectuals were grappling with the meaning of many different subjects, not least of which were religion, politics and the very purpose of life. Modern science was still so new that no one knew for sure how it measured up against older philosophies.
In 1696, Newton was able to attain the governmental position he had long sought: warden of the Mint; after acquiring this new title, he permanently moved to London and lived with his niece, Catherine Barton. She was the mistress of Lord Halifax, a high-ranking government official who was instrumental in having Newton promoted, in 1699, to master of the Mint—a position that he would hold until his death. Not wanting it to be considered a mere honorary position, Newton approached the job in earnest, reforming the currency and severely punishing counterfeiters. As master of the Mint, Newton moved the British currency, the pound sterling, from the silver to the gold standard.
In 1703, Newton was elected president of the Royal Society upon Robert Hooke's death. In 1705, he was knighted by Queen Anne of England. By this point in his life, Newton's career in science and discovery had given way to a career of political power and influence.
Newton never seemed to understand the notion of science as a cooperative venture, and his ambition and fierce defense of his own discoveries continued to lead him from one conflict to another with other scientists. By most accounts, Newton's tenure at the society was tyrannical and autocratic; he was able to control the lives and careers of younger scientists with absolute power.
In 1705, in a controversy that had been brewing for several years, German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz publicly accused Newton of plagiarizing his research, claiming he had discovered infinitesimal calculus several years before the publication of Principia. In 1712, the Royal Society appointed a committee to investigate the matter. Of course, since Newton was president of the society, he was able to appoint the committee's members and oversee its investigation. Not surprisingly, the committee concluded Newton's priority over the discovery.
That same year, in another of Newton's more flagrant episodes of tyranny, he published without permission the notes of astronomer John Flamsteed. It seems the astronomer had collected a massive body of data from his years at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, England. Newton had requested a large volume of Flamsteed's notes for his revisions to Principia. Annoyed when Flamsteed wouldn't provide him with more information as quickly as he wanted it, Newton used his influence as president of the Royal Society to be named the chairman of the body of "visitors" responsible for the Royal Observatory.
He then tried to force the immediate publication of Flamsteed's catalogue of the stars, as well as all of Flamsteed's notes, edited and unedited. To add insult to injury, Newton arranged for Flamsteed's mortal enemy, Edmund Halley, to prepare the notes for press. Flamsteed was finally able to get a court order forcing Newton to cease his plans for publication and return the notes—one of the few times that Newton was bested by one of his rivals.
Final Years
Toward the end of this life, Newton lived at Cranbury Park, near Winchester, England, with his niece, Catherine (Bancroft) Conduitt, and her husband, John Conduitt. By this time, Newton had become one of the most famous men in Europe. His scientific discoveries were unchallenged. He also had become wealthy, investing his sizable income wisely and bestowing sizable gifts to charity. Despite his fame, Newton's life was far from perfect: He never married or made many friends, and in his later years, a combination of pride, insecurity and side trips on peculiar scientific inquiries led even some of his few friends to worry about his mental stability.
By the time he reached 80 years of age, Newton was experiencing digestion problems, and had to drastically change his diet and mobility. Then, in March 1727, Newton experienced severe pain in his abdomen and blacked out, never to regain consciousness. He died the next day, on March 31, 1727, at the age of 85.
Isaac Newton's fame grew even more after his death, as many of his contemporaries proclaimed him the greatest genius who ever lived. Maybe a slight exaggeration, but his discoveries had a large impact on Western thought, leading to comparisons to the likes of Plato, Aristotle and Galileo.
Although his discoveries were among many made during the Scientific Revolution, Isaac Newton's universal principles of gravity found no parallels in science at the time. Of course, Newton was proven wrong on some of his key assumptions. In the 20th century, Albert Einstein would overturn Newton's concept of the universe, stating that space, distance and motion were not absolute but relative, and that the universe was more fantastic than Newton had ever conceived.
Newton might not have been surprised: In his later life, when asked for an assessment of his achievements, he replied, "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself now and then in finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
