THEY were rebels with a cause. Agitated over the brutal killing of their comrade Safdar Hashmi by 'Congress-backed goons' in December 1988, they decided to mobilise artists, writers and theatre personalities to fight against the system. And so founded the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (Sahmat) with the blessings of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). From Devi Lal to Jyoti Basu, Sahmat attracted a wide spectrum of supporters who pronounced it as the symbol of the fight against the Establishment.
But somewhere along the line came the realisation that money had to be mobilised if the fight was to continue. After all, it was a noble cause. And so began the auctioning of paintings by artist friends of the organisation. The sale of picture post-cards and T-shirts with the message Halla Bol emblazoned across, also brought in a few lakhs.
But the cause continued to demand more funds. Gradually corporate houses and Central ministers chipped in. While conservative comrades disapproved, Sahmat accepted it on the ground that it was after all the "tax-payers' money". But the clincher came when the progressive organisation with espoused 'Left leanings' helped the Delhi Police in its image-building exercise and organised for it a mushaira (poetry session) on communal harmony on February 23, 1996.
That provoked a round of protests—both within Sahmat and in the CPI(M). Expressing "reservations" about Sahmat associating with the police, Safdar's widow, Moloyashree Hashmi, resigned as managing trustee of Sahmat. She was followed by G.P. Deshpande, another trustee and a senior columnist in the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) magazine. A series of articles written by sympathisers generated a debate on the issue of radicalism versus elitism within Sahmat. Says Deshpande, reiterating that he was not party to the decision to organise the mushaira: "There has to be a limit to collaboration with government agencies and Sahmat had crossed the limit. Association with the Delhi Police was unacceptable to me. That's why I resigned."
The CPI(M) found itself in an awkward position since Shabnam Hashmi, secretary of Sahmat, and Suhail Hashmi—both Safdar's siblings—were party members. When asked to justify the organisation of the mushaira for the Delhi Police, both opted to resign from the basic membership of the party instead of offering an explanation.
Their action brought to the fore the differences and contradictions between the party and Sahmat. According to sources, the Delhi state unit of the CPI(M) has written to the Central leadership about the "anti-party" activities being conducted by Sahmat from 8, Vitthalbhai Patel House,the office space provided by the party.
"Bluntly put, they have been co-opted (by the state)," pointed out a secretariat member of the Delhi unit of the CPI(M). Sahmat, on its part, accuses the party of trying to control its functioning. Senior members say that there is trouble every time an organisation tries to break free from the party's hold. "The party tried to control us in 1990 and formed a cor
The controversy would never have crossed the confines of Vitthalbhai Patel House but for a highly critical article written by CPI(M) member and Jana Natya Manch activist, Sudhanva Deshpande, in the June 1996 issue of the EPW. Sudhanva Deshpande underlined the fact that the radical and anti-Establishment elements in Sahmat were being fast replaced by elitists. He also pointed out how the organisation had strayed from the ideals Safdar had stood for. "Why should any secular/democratic organisation do a PR exercise for the police? It doesn't make any sense to me," he said. He also objected to Sahmat's sources for funds saying that it had abandoned the concept of class and now had no qualms (about accepting money) from the same classes which fund the Shiv Sena in Mumbai.
Moloyashree Hashmi, however, is not as forthcoming as Sudhanva Deshpande. According to her, she hasn't had enough time to go to Sahmat for the last four to five years. But she does express her reservations against Sahmat organising a mush -aira for the Delhi Police. Says she: "As far as organising programmes for the police is concerned, I have my own reservations." Moloyashree Hashmi's resignation is significant since she was one of the most committed members of the organisation.
The issue of elitism first came up in April 1989 when a festival of street plays was organised to commemorate Safdar's birth anniversary. Leading lights, including Shabana Azmi, participated in the show. But the "champions of the downtrodden" forgot factory labourer Ram Bahadur, who had also met his end with Safdar. Sahmat came under heavy fire, but all criticism was dismissed as petty, cynical outbursts by vested interests trying to find fault with the organisation.
But this time around, insiders too have joined the issue. The entire debate on the direction and orientation of Sahmat has been published in the pro-CPI(M) literary magazine, Udbhavna. A hard-hitting article by noted Hindi critic Sudhish Pachauri has termed Sahmat as a bunch of self-seekers alienated from the deprived. Pachauri says that after his death, Safdar was made into some sort of a demi-god, to attract chadhava (offerings) for Sahmat. According to him, the organisation always wanted to be near the centre of power and that's why it pressurised the CPI(M) into convincing Jyoti Basu to accept the prime ministerial post after the general elections.
Udbhavna editor Ajeya Kumar lashed out at Sahmat in his editorial saying that "by creating the bogey of communalism, Sahmat is joining hands with people of all shades and hues. It acted like a cultural contractor to polish the image of the Delhi Police". Sudhanva Deshpande takes the opportunity to remind the organisation that it was the Delhi Police which let 2,000 Sikhs be massacred at the hands of frenzied mobs in November 1984. Equally scathing is poet Mangalesh Dabaral: "Sahmat is out to undo everything that Safdar did. It is becoming another Bharat Bhawan. A Left-democratic cultural movement receives a setback by activities like organising mushairas for the police."
The controversy which Sahmat finds itself entangled in is a source of embarrassment for the CPI(M) which has all along supported it. While a section of Sahmat activists have been dismissive of the latest round of criticism, others feel that serious thought needs to be given to the functioning of the organisation. The last word came from Bhishm Sahni, chairman of the board of trustees of the organisation: "The matter is serious enough and needs to be discussed. I will be talking to the editor of Udbhavna and others."
