Historically, for Dalits to be on crossroads is a new phenomenon. They have, with their own labour and sweat, gradually progressed through a most difficult journey, unique in the world, from being treated and sanctioned as ‘untouchable’ to being equal citizens. And yet, the fact is, their enemies have been more powerful than the ten-headed imaginary demons.
They fought discriminatory laws during the colonial rule, the society at large which segregated them in all fields of life, and the religion, including its scriptures. Amidst all their weapons, including education, reservation and rejection of the enslaving faith, the most powerful of them has been the legal tools emerging from the Constitutional guarantees, post-Independence. The legal protection has been the latest crossroad in the epic journey.
A year ago, more than a dozen Dalits lost their lives when they descended on the streets to protest the Supreme Court directions on implementation of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. The Apex Court’s concluding observation was that the Act has been misused in the absence of any credible research or data.
Dalits had not expected this from the Apex Court, especially when, following Dr BR Ambedkar, they had adhered to non-violent and constitutional approach to fight the menace of the caste system. A year later though, the Supreme Court did not agree with its own order and removed the earlier directions.
However, Dalits and Adivasis did not celebrate this important milestone as victory. Perhaps the scar on their minds caused by the earlier Apex Court action has been too deep to retain their faith in the judiciary as neutral-judicious organ.
The second crossroad has been the political situation. The Dalits, who adored Dr Ambedkar almost as God, chose however to be part of the mainstream political parties rather than putting their stake in political party such as the Republican Party of India. They preferred not to be isolated and confine themselves into a party perceived as ‘Dalit-specific party’. Their strategy of political integration has been the reason for grave concern now.
The fact remains that even when the NDA won maximum Dalit and Adivasi reserved seats in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, which gave them the edge majority, government data confirms that the incidents of atrocities on Dalits and Adivasis have increased between 2014-2018 (Ref: Bhedbharat, 2019, ed: Martin Macwan).
Karnataka BJP Dalit MP Narayanaswamy
Death of manual scavengers in sewer lines, ironically, is not considered an ‘atrocity’. What is equally troubling is complete absence of state action and political will to control caste violence with a firm hand. The situation signifies that Dalits are losing the value of their ‘vote’, which has never been ‘untouchable’ to any political party, and their negotiating ability to better their situation.
For India, the largest democracy thriving to be a major economy in the world, the presence of untouchability has been deeply embarrassing. The present government, following the footsteps of their predecessors, has been far from willing to accept the fact that, amidst tall claims of development, we as a society have failed to abolish untouchability, a root cause of atrocities.
This situation raises a serious question on the definition of development itself. Post-Independence, India did not see a spirited social movement against untouchability, which was undertaken pre-Independence.
Today, the voluntary organizations which address the issues of untouchability, manual scavenging abolition and violence against Dalits and Adivasis as a ‘Constitutional call’ are intimidated by the government. Little doubt, these factors contribute in weakening the fight against the menace of the caste system and strengthening the caste system.
It was disturbing to see how the tricolour-wrapped body of a martyr of militant attack in Pampore (Jammu and Kashmir) was not allowed to be cremated in the common cremation ground in Uttar Pradesh because, although a martyr, he was an untouchable (June 2016). Caste violence on the families of Dalit security forces in their own villages, though not highlighted, is not new.
It was expected that there would be a national uproar over the incident in Karnataka last month where a BJP SC member of Parliament (MP), A Narayanaswamy, was not allowed to enter a village of his own constituency.
The villagers did not want their action seen as insulting, hence they sent a chair for the MP to sit upon outside the village. At the same time, the villagers took pride in the fact that even their own representative was not being allowed to enter their village.
This happened in the presence of the police. Not to be surprised, the government maintained complete silence over the incident. However, it was even more surprising that 88 Dalit MPs maintained studied silence over such a grave incident, in which the entire Constitution of India was insulted, which was worse than mere abrogation of Article 370.
Martin Macwan at a Dalit gathering
The lawmaker in his reaction for being treated as powerless untouchable MP advocated for change of conscience of people as a remedy to the problem of untouchability. The underbelly of the reaction was perhaps a painful admission of the fact that the tools for social justice, the law, the political reservations for Dalits and the vote value of Dalits at 16.5%, have lost its cutting edge.
Gandhi too had advocated the ‘change of hearts’ as the ultimate remedy to defeat untouchability. Dr Ambedkar had negated the Gandhian appeal and firmly advocated ‘rule of law’ to annihilate caste.
Worrisome has been the fact that this act of humiliating the Dalit MP has been committed by a community belonging to the other backward classes (OBCs).
OBCs have been poorer in many pockets and less educated than Dalits.
Political parties have been completely silent on the rising incidents of violence on Dalits committed by OBCs. One wonders whether this phenomenon of consciously promoting enmity between Dalits and OBCs as against the earlier long-term efforts to unite them as a force against economic marginalization of both has been the political conspiracy.
Gujarat has seen similar phenomenon where Dalits and Muslims were pitted against one another in many pockets during communal riots. Communal and social harmony amongst the marginalized population seems to be the biggest enemy of the rich in the war over unequal distribution of the nation’s wealth between the rich and the poor in India. So, the writing on the wall perhaps is getting clearer for Dalits: They need to ‘re-strategize’ their struggle for equality. The situation is also due to the fact that Dalits have miserably failed to abolish caste distinctions among themselves. A Navsarjan study, first of its kind, ‘Understanding Untouchability’, confirms the fact that the same forms of caste-based discrimination, present in the relationship between Dalits and non-Dalits, are present within Dalits sub-castes.
Dalits have missed Dr Ambedkar’s call on the annihilation of caste by not being the ambassadors and crusaders of the movement for the annihilation of caste. While petty politicians have bred antagonism in the younger Dalits minds against Gandhi owing to bitter confrontation between Gandhi and Ambedkar during the Poona Pact, the fact remains that Gandhi and Ambedkar, both great minds, had a common conviction: The moral power is far more powerful than the legal or the positional power.
It’s a shame of the nation today that, while we have enormous money to spend for war planes, which will help nobody to win, we have no money and effective programmes to tackle malnutrition among mothers and children, especially among the Adivasis.
We tend to emphasize the illusion that solution to the problems of discrimination and justice lies with our political institutions. It’s time to re-think and understand the value of a stronger civil society, especially when the rich have followed the Ambedkar call to ‘organize’ themselves, but Dalits, Adivasis and other poor have ignored the call.
—
*Well-known Dalit rights activist, founder of Dalit rights organization, Navsarjan Trust; winner of Robert F Kennedy Human Rights Award, 2000, declared one of the five outstanding human rights defenders for 2000 by Human Rights Watch. An edited version of this article has appeared in India Today
Readers may remember reading my despatch from September 2019 in which I had explained how Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) did a volte face under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) about supplying information relating to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Trail Units (VVPATs) deployed during the 2019 General Elections to the Lok Sabha.
After demanding copying charges of Rs. 1,434, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) returned the money claiming that BEL did not hold some of the information and that disclosing names of Engineers deputed to provide technical support for these machines at the constituency-level, would endanger their lives. The CPIO also refused access to operational manuals relating to these machines. The CPIO of Electronics Corporation Ltd. (ECIL) which also supplied EVMs and VVPATs for use during the same elections had also denied information sought in an identical RTI application.
Now in a welcome turnaround, ECIL’s First Appellate Authority (FAA) has upheld my first appeal and directed its CPIO to provide access all information which he had denied earlier.
Meanwhile BEL’s FAA directed the CPIO to transfer the queries relating to the number of EVMs and VVPATs deployed during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections to the Election Commission of India (ECI) but upheld his decision to reject information about Engineers and operational manuals used.
After being rejected by BEL and ECIL, I had submitted an identical RTI application to ECI’s CPIO. He did not bother to send a reply for more than 40 days. Now I have filed a first appeal and am waiting for the FAA’s decision in this case. ECI’s CPIO is also required to reply to similar queries transferred to him by BEL’s CPIO.
A tale of three RTI Interventions
After closely scrutinising some of the election-related information and statistics that ECI published, on 17th June, 2019, I decided to file two identical RTI applications seeking the following information from BEL and ECIL which neither they nor the ECI have placed in the public domain:
“I would like to obtain the following information pertaining to the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) and Symbol Loading Units (SLUs) supplied by your company for use during the recently concluded General Elections to the Lok Sabha, under the RTI Act:
1) The maximum number of votes recordable on each EVM supplied for use in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
2) The maximum number of votes printable on each VVPAT Machine supplied for use in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
3) The district-wise number of Control Units of EVMs transported across India for use in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
4) The district-wise number of Ballot Units of EVMs transported across India for use in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
5) The district-wise number of VVPATs transported across India for use in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
6) The district-wise number of thermal paper rolls used in VVPATs transported across India for use in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
7) A clear photocopy of the List of Engineers with name and designation, deputed for carrying out tasks relating to the preparation of EVMs and VVPATs that was sent to every District Election Officer in India for the purpose of the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
8) A clear photocopy of the List of Senior Level Engineers with name and designation, deputed for supervision and coordination during the preparation of EVMs and VVPATs that was sent to every District Election Officer in India for the purpose of the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
9) The total number of SLUs used by your Team(s) of Engineers during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections,
10) A clear photocopy of the official document handed over to every District Election Officer during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections containing details of every SLU allocated to your team(s) of Engineers,
11) A clear photocopy of the User Manual prepared by your company, pertaining to the VVPAT machines used during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, if any,
12) A clear photocopy of the User Manual prepared by your company, pertaining to the SLUs used during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, if any,
13) A clear photocopy of the application filed with the Office of the Patent Controller for securing a patent on VVPAT, if any, along with the postal address of such office, and
14) A clear photocopy of the application filed with the Office of the Patent Controller for securing a patent on SLU, if any, along with the postal address of such office.”
Electronic moving machines in ECIL unit, Hyderabad
ECIL CPIO’s RTI reply:
ECIL’s CPIO did not bother to send me a signed reply. Instead he uploaded some text on the RTI Online Facility without a signature replying as follows:
1) RTI Queries 3, 4, 5 & 6: ECIL’s CPIO claimed that information about EVMs and VVPATs despatched to the Lok Sabha constituencies and the number of thermal paper rolls used for printing the ballots is not readily available and they will be sent as soon as they are received.
2) RTI Queries 7 & 8: The CPIO denied access to the list of Engineers who were stationed in the constituencies to do prepare the EVMs and VVPATs for polling and their superiors who supervised the whole exercise claiming that it was personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3) RTI Queries 10 & 12: The CPIO rejected access to the User Manual of the Symbol Loading Units and the official document related to them, handed over to the district administration after the candidate information is loaded on the EVMs and VVPATs. The CPIO says that it is classified information and attracts Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(a) exempts information which will prejudicially affect security and strategic interests of the State. Click HERE for the ECIL-related RTI application and reply.
First appeal sent to ECIL and the FAA’s order
Aggrieved by the ECIL CPIO’s unsigned reply, I submitted a first appeal with the FAA in September, 2019 arguing as follows:
1) ECIL’s CPIO had committed an procedural error by not sending a signed reply;
2) As more than three months had passed since the completion of the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, information relating to RTI Queries 3-6, that is, constituency-wise deployment of EVMs, VVPATs and thermal paper rolls used in VVPATs should now be available for disclosure;
3) The List of Engineers deployed by ECIL at the constituency-level cannot be treated as personal information whose disclosure would violate their privacy because they were performing public duties;
4) The VVPAT and Symbol Loading Unit User Manuals and VVPAT patent application are also information that must be in the public domain and that the CPIO had not issued a speaking order justifying how the exemptions were attracted.
ECIL’s FAA examined the issues raised in the appeal and directed the CPIO to collect all the information and supply it under the RTI Act. However, the FAA has not specified a time limit for compliance. Click HERE for the 1st appeal and ECIL FAA’s order (1st attachment).
First appeal sent to BEL and the FAA’s order
Aggrieved by the BEL CPIO’s decision to reject access to the information sought in a similar RTI application, despite demanding additional fees initially, I had submitted a first appeal with the FAA in September, 2019 arguing as follows:
1) It is difficult to understand as to why the CPIO who initially charged additional fees calculating the exact number of page for every RTI query, later on claimed that he did not hold the information about the constituency-wise deployment of the EVMs and VVPATs;
2) It is not clear as to how the disclosure of details of Engineers deputed would endanger their lives; and
3) The CPIOs’ revised reply denying access to most of the information which he was prepared to disclose initially indicated that he was under pressure from some internal or external agency to change his stance.
BEL’s FAA upheld the CPIO’s refusal to supply information relating to the Engineers deployed, the operating manuals relating to VVPATs and SLUs and the application submitted for claiming a patent on the VVPATs. However, she directed the CPIO to transfer the first part of the RTI application to the ECI to answer queries relating to the constituency-wise details of deployment of EVMs, VVPATs and thermal paper rolls used in VVPATs.
Click HERE for the 1st appeal and BEL FAA’s order (2nd attachment).
ECI’s treatment of the RTI application for similar information
As both BEL and ECIL had initially rejected my request for information about EVMs and VVPATs deployed during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections and the list of Engineers deputed to render technical support, I submitted an RTI application with the ECI seeking similar information. ECI’s CPIO did not bother to send a reply for more than 40 days. So I have filed a first appeal. Now ECI has to make a decision not only on this first appeal but also make a decision on the RTI application transferred to it by BEL, in accordance with the FAA’s orders.
Click HERE for the RTI application and the first appeal submitted to ECI (3rd attachment).
Lack of uniformity of treatment of similar RTIs
Even after 15 years, the implementation of the RTI Act in many public authorities is not predictable. Identical RTI applications yield diverse responses. This is a clear indicator of the failure of the system to make the transformation from secrecy to transparency as envisaged in the preamble of the RTI Act. The political leadership which only pays lip sympathy to the democratic values of transparency and accountability, the lack of seriousness and commitment from the bureaucracy to making this transformation and the clearly demonstrable weaknesses of the oversight mechanisms such as the FAAs and Information Commissions are to blame for this state of affairs.
However, the ECIL FAA’s order provides the proverbial silver lining to the dark clouds of poor implementation. The FAA appears to have recognised the imperative of transparency in all matters relating to elections (except voters’ choices) and directed the CPIO to disclose all information. As there is no time limit in his order, I will wait for a month before I explore the need for approaching the Central Information Commission (CIC). As for the BEL, I will challenge the FAA’s order upholding rejection of a part of the RTI application, before the CIC. Meanwhile, the wait for ECI’s response to my first appeal and the RTI application transferred from BEL continues.
—
*Programme Head, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi
Mumbai: India ranked 82nd among 128 countries for generosity over the last 10 years, as per the 10th World Giving Index (WGI).
Up to a third of Indians helped a stranger, one in four donated money, and one in five gave their time volunteering, the report said, attributing India’s low ranking to its strong culture of unorganised and informal giving to family, community and religion. It recommended more formal mechanisms of donating to charity.
The report, published online in October 2019, was based on surveys of 1.3 million people in 128 countries over the last 9 years (2009-2018). It asked interviewees if they had helped a stranger, donated money to charity or volunteered their time in the past month. The surveys used Gallup World Poll data and were commissioned by Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), a UK charity that provides services and assistance to international charities and their donors.
India’s rank on the Index has yo-yoed vastly, the lowest being 134th in 2010 and the highest being 81st last year. This year’s report aggregated data for each country for the last 10 years. India’s overall WGI score this year was 26%.
Of the top 10 countries, seven are among the wealthiest in the world. Yet, global generosity is on the decline, stated the report, highlighting that individual giving is now lower in countries with long histories of philanthropy such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
“The top ranking countries will usually have a strong culture of giving, or are more developed,” said Meenakshi Batra, who leads CAF India, a non-profit organisation that works to enable effective giving. “Individuals have more resources to give and there is infrastructure for them to give to formal organisations.”
India’s 26% WGI score was less than half of 58% scored by the United States in the top spot. China, with a score of 16%, was at the fag end of the index. The Asian giant also had the lowest score for all three measures considered–helping a stranger, donating money and volunteering.
New Zealand, on the other hand, was the only country to appear in the top 10 on all three counts.
India fails to match Asia’s pace
Five of the 10 countries to have improved their rankings the most on the giving index were in Asia. Indonesia, the country that improved its ranking the most, moved into the top 10 for donating money and volunteering. Sri Lanka achieved the highest score for volunteering in the world; at 46%, its volunteering score was more than double of India’s 19%.
The report attributed this rise in rankings to cultural factors. For example, a majority of people in Myanmar are practising Buddhists, 99% of whom are followers of the Theravada branch that mandates giving. Sri Lanka too has a high population of Theravada Buddhists.
Similarly, in Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world, giving is closely tied to the religious obligation of giving, zakaat.
The improved rankings are also an outcome of countries’ economic development. “It is not a surprise that these Asian countries have been increasing [their ranking] due to their rising economic prosperity,” said Ingrid Srinath of the Centre for Social Impact and Philanthropy at Ashoka University in Sonipat, Haryana.
India was the least generous of the seven South Asian countries in the Index, behind neighbours Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. India’s economic growth in recent decades has been felt by fewer and fewer people, which may explain why its philanthropy is not increasing at a rate similar to that of its Asian counterparts, Srinath said.
Lower-income families are less likely to have donated or sponsored in the last 12 months (69%), than those with a household income of more than Rs 1.7 lakh (~$2,400) per month (82%), the report stated. “The study does not account for the degree of giving from an individual, only whether they are giving or not,” said Batra of CAF India.
“India also has more cleavages than other countries around it in terms of religion, class and caste,” said Srinath. “It is possible that these divides make people less inclined to commit to national philanthropic efforts.”
Under-reported giving
“In India, there is a strong culture of regularly helping and assisting each other,” said Batra. More Indians (64%) said they give money directly to people and families in need or to a church or religious organisation (64%) than to a non-profit or charitable organisation (58%), as per the India Giving Report, a country-specific report by the CAF Global Alliance, a network of organisations working in philanthropy and civil society.
Besides, India has over over 500 forms of traditional religious giving, such as Hindu daan and utsarg, Islamic zakaat, kums and sadaqa. “This form of giving may not show up on the Index because Indians consider this a family or a religious obligation,” said Batra. “For instance, it is commonplace for Indians to feed poor people outside places of worship, or serve a meal to pious and holy men. Those responding to the survey would not have counted this as giving, because they consider this to be their duty.”
Incidentally, upto 38% Indians said they would donate more if they knew how their money would be spent, and 32% would donate more if there was more transparency. “There is potential for organised non-profit organisations to provide more formal options of giving,” said Ben Russel of CAF.
Billionaires show little giving spirit
In 2017, the wealth held by India’s wealthiest 1% increased by Rs 20,913 billion ($303 billion). This was equivalent to the central government’s total budget that year, as per this report by Oxfam India.
The contribution of India’s richest to philanthropic activities has grown at a slower pace than the increase in their wealth, as reported by IndiaSpend earlier this year. Large contributions (more than Rs 10 crore) by ultra-high net worth individuals (individuals who have a net worth of more than Rs 25 crore) have decreased 4% since 2014.
India’s lowest WGI score in the last six years (22% in 2018) coincided with its reporting a record number of 121 billionaires–the third highest number of ultra-rich individuals in any country, behind China and the United States.
(Habershon, agraduate from the University of Manchester,is an intern with IndiaSpend.)
After two weeks of protests, thousands of students took to the streets on Monday against the massive fee hike in Jawaharlal Nehru University. The students allege that the new hostel manual approved by the administration proposes 400% hike and recommends curfew timings. The students say that the move will be catastrophic and will cause mass dropouts in the campus. Here’s their story
The UP Police booked four people, including one student of the Aligarh Muslim University, for their Facebook posts following the Ayodhya Verdict. On November 11, the UP Police booked Aaquib Khan, Asif Idress, Mudabbir Ali Chaudhary and Mohamed Abdulla under Section 153 A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion) of IPC and section 67 IT Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form).
The four, who are yet to get a copy of the First Information Report, had taken to Facebook to express their opinion on the Ayodhya Verdict. The ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya was given to Hindus while Muslims were allotted an alternate land in a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court on November 9.
The unanimous decision by the five-judge SC Bench said it was clear that Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and that there was a structure beneath, but it could not be said for sure that it was a specified temple.
However, the UP Police, which had issued statements to maintain peace and refrain from making comments that could inflame communal tensions, has acted against these four individuals for their Facebook posts.
Speaking with TwoCircles.net, Mudabbir Ali Choudhary, one of the persons booked, said he was extremely surprised at the action of the UP Police. Choudhary is an ex-student of AMU and currently resides outside UP. “I merely asked for a judicial review on the matter in my post, something that has been said by several people,” he said. “It was just one post. Around midnight, the SSP office messaged me saying that this post could impact communal harmony and asked me to delete the same. Following this, I deleted it immediately. But yet they took action against me which I do not understand,” he added. “What did I say which was different compared to other people?” he asked.
The post for which Mudabbir Ali Chaudhary was booked by the UP Police.
Asif Idrees, another person booked, also said he had received a similar message from the UP Police. “I said that the verdict was a threat to the secular democratic fabric of the country. However, someone reported my post on Facebook and even before I received the message from the police, it had been taken down by Facebook. What did I say which has not been said by other eminent people? From academicians to legal experts, many people have questioned the same, then why take action against the students?” asked Idrees.
The message from the SSP, following which Chaudhary deleted his post immediately.
Idrees and Chaudhary said they will wait for the FIR before seeking legal action. Dr Arvind Kumar, SP (Crime) Aligarh told TwoCircles.net, “Merely saying that we have removed the post does not absolve them of their actions. We will take action as per the law.”
Following the Ayodhya verdict, some people had been left puzzled by the decision. Faizan Mustafa, a law professor and Vice-Chancellor of Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad, said in a Huffington Post article that the Supreme Court seems to have weighed religious belief over the rule of law. Similarly, retired Supreme Court judge AK Ganguly expressed his discontent with the Apex court’s decision of giving the land to the Centre for the construction of Ram temple and said that the minorities have been “wronged”. Markandey Katju, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, said in an article in the Wire, “In substance, the court has said that might is right, and has laid down a dangerous precedent sanctifying aggression.”
In two days since the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute, the Uttar Pradesh police has arrested more than 80 people from all over the state for allegedly trying to disturb communal harmony through venom spewing social media posts.
After the apex court’s verdict on the issue, the police registered 34 cases in the matter. Action has been taken against 8,275 posts put on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube including 4,563 posts on Sunday. Twitter took the cake for objectionable posts with 2869, while Facebook followed close behind with 1355 posts. 98 videos on YouTube were reported.
News 18 reported that several users were asked to remove inflammatory content and the accounts which failed to comply with police orders were suspended.
The state police, administration officials and religious leaders had made several appeals to the public to refrain from posting sensitive content that could be communally disruptive. The DGP of Uttar Pradesh, OP Singh, had earlier stated that those found posting objectionable posts on social media platforms will be dealt strictly and that National Security Act (NSA) could also be slapped on the culprits, if needed.
In Madhya Pradesh, eight people were arrested in Seoni and two in Gwalior for posting objectionable messages on social media and bursting crackers. The state police had imposed a ban on such post-verdict activities by imposing section 144 on UP, Rajasthan and Maharashtra among others.
Two others were arrested from GautamBuddh Nagar in Noida on Sunday under Section 295A of the IPC ((deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 506 (criminal intimidation) for posting malicious content that could have caused communal discord. They have also been booked under the Technology Act and their mobile phones have been seized.
“In the first case, the accused had shared a post on Facebook which could have caused communal discord and hence he was arrested and a case filed against him,” a police officer said.
“In the second case, the accused was held around 3.45 pm for a post he shared on Facebook earlier this (Sunday) morning. His post could have triggered religious disharmony and he had had twice shared such posts in October,” the official said.
Some hate messages that did the rounds
Followed by PM Modi
Let’s convert a few mosques into mental asylums to provide help to folks like you#IndiaWantsRamMandir
The time is very near when hindus will build ram temple at ayodhya the verdict will come in favour of Hindus becz islam is not exist in our country Islam is forcefully spread in name of jihad during islamic rule
— ??Abhishek Pandey? #IamAgniveer (@abhishek9192007) November 11, 2019
Most of the posts published on social media have been coming in from the right-win trolls who seem relieved to get claim to their land. While everyone – right from the administration to the police and even parties involved in the suit called for peace and calm, the Hindutva brigade would not give it a rest.
The long-awaited verdict on the contentious issue of the disputed land in Ayodhya was finally delivered by the Supreme Court on 9 November 2019. The judgement has come after a 70-year old conflict filled with acrimony, divisiveness, hate and violence between sections of the Hindus and Muslims of the country. At the core of the issue was the Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid dispute: was there a temple on the place where the Masjid was built? To whom should the land be given to?
For the five-member Constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S. A. Bobde, D.Y.Chandrachud , Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer delivering the verdict was not an easy task- given the fact that the dispute has been one of the longest in the country’s history and secondly, it has always been a very emotional issue between the country’s majority community: the Hindus and the largest minority community : the Muslims. The verdict was a unanimous one, relying on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
Some of the key points of the 1054pages landmark judgement include that:
the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of a Ram Mandir
the Central Government has been directed to formulate a scheme in this regard within three months. A Board of Trustees must be set up for construction of temple
the findings of ASI report cannot be brushed aside as conjecture
ASI reports indicate that the Babri Masjid was not built on a vacant land. The underlying structure was not of Islamic origin. The faith of Hindus that the place is birth place of Lord Ram is undisputed.
an alternate suitable plot land of 5 acres in the town must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of a mosque
the destruction of Babri Masjid in 1992 was a blatant violation of law
the rights of Ram Lalla to the disputed property is subject to maintenance of law and order and communal harmony
the suit by Nirmohi Akhara was time barred
the Ram Janmabhoomi has no juristic personality. But Ram Lalla, the deity has juristic personality
the Suit by Sunni Waqf Board is maintainable and not barred by limitation
the Sunni Waqf Board has not been able to prove adverse possession. There is evidence to show that the Hindus had been visiting the premises prior to 1857
there is evidence to show that Hindus worshiped in the outer courtyard of the disputed site. As regards the inner court yard, there is no evidence in the suit by Sunni Board to show exclusive possession prior to 1857
In order to understand this judgement, which is bound to have far- reaching implications, one needs to briefly go through the way the dispute has evolved over the years. The Babri Masjid was apparently built in Ayodhya in 1528. Some Hindu groups claim it was built after a temple was demolished; though the ASI has found some remains of and from a previously built structure, there is no conclusive evidence that it was in fact a temple. The first recorded communal clashes over the site took place in 1853.Some years later in 1859, the British administration put a fence around the site marking separate areas of worship for Hindus and Muslims; this lasted for almost ninety years. In 1949, for the very first time, the dispute on the property went to court, after idols of Lord Ram were found placed inside the mosque.
Some Hindu groups formed a committee, in 1984, to begin the construction of a Ram temple. Three years later, a district court ordered the gates of the mosque to be opened after almost five decades and allowed Hindus to worship inside the “disputed structure.” A Babri Mosque Action Committee was formed by Muslim groups. In 1989, the foundations of a temple were laid on land adjacent to the “disputed structure”.
A watershed year was 1990, when the then BJP president LK Advani took out a cross-country rath yatra to garner support to build a Ram temple at the site. This yatra polarised a good section of the Hindu community. An immediate result was that some volunteers of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) stormed the disputed area and partially damaged the Babri masjid. December 6, 1992 will certainly go down in the history of the country as one of its blackest days! On that infamous day members of right-wing Hindu groups, took law and order in their own hands and demolished the mosque! Communal violence followed all over the country, in which hundreds of people lost their lives and widespread destruction.
The then Congress Government at the Centre immediately set up the Liberhan Commission was set to probe the demolition of the mosque. Strangely, only seventeen years later in June 2009, the Commission submitted the report of its inquiry, naming LK Advani, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and other BJP leaders as those responsible for the demolition. Earlier, in September 2003, a court ruled that seven Hindu leaders, including some prominent BJP leaders, should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque. But no charges were brought against Mr Advani who was then the Deputy Prime Minister of the country under Vajpayee. A year later, an Uttar Pradesh court ruled that the order which exonerated him should be reviewed. The case against the BJP leaders, including Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti as well, is being heard by a trial court in Lucknow. In July this year, the Supreme Court extended the tenure of the judge hearing the case and set a nine-month deadline for the verdict.
Writing in ‘The Wire’ (9 November 2019), well-known writer and political analyst Siddharth Varadarajan says, “The court acknowledged the manner in which Ram idols were planted in the mosque was illegal and that the mosque’s demolition in 1992 was “an egregious violation of the rule of law”. Yet, the forces responsible for the demolition now find themselves in legal possession of the land. The site will be managed by a trust that the government will now set up. And the government and ruling party have in their ranks individuals who have actually been charge sheeted for conspiring to demolish the mosque”. Whether the cause of justice, on this matter, will ultimately be served, is at this moment, anybody’s guess!
In April 2002, a three-judge Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court began hearings on determining who owned the site. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court pronounced the verdict. The verdict said the site of the Babri Masjid is to be divided into three parts, each going to Nirmohi Akhara, Ram Lalla and the Sunni Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh; in no time, both Hindu groups and Muslim groups moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court verdict. The Supreme Court, in 2010, stayed the Allahabad High Court order; earlier, the top court had said the Allahabad High Court verdict was “strange and surprising”. The Supreme Court in an attempt to resolve the issue appointed a three- member commission to work towards a mediation; however, this group too failed to arrive at an amicable solution, despite being given extensions to do so.
Finally, a five -judge Constitution bench began daily hearings from various stake-holders on 6 August this year; the hearings went on for forty days till 16 October After mediation proceedings by a Supreme Court-appointed three-member team failed to find an amicable solution to the dispute earlier this year, a five-judge constitution bench began day-to-day hearings on August 6. The daily hearings at the Supreme Court came to an end after 40 days on October 16. The verdict was reserved and set to be declared before November 17 (the day on which Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who is due to retire). Finally, the verdict was delivered today 9 November 2019.
The verdict has obviously drawn mixed reactions: a good percentage of the country will breathe a sigh of ‘relief’ that after years there is some kind of ‘end’ to an age -problem. There were enough indications since the last few days, that many if not some, seemed to had an inkling or guessed what the ‘final order’ would be like. The posturing and utterances of several key leaders from the BJP/VHP/RSS combine, that “there should be no celebrations” is indicative enough of this. True, there have been no big ‘celebrations’; but in keeping with their DNA some right-wing leaders have been making unnecessary statements and were even distributing sweets. At the time of writing this, there are no reported cases of violence. However, in some areas of Ahmedabad, where a sizeable section of Muslims lives, like Naroda Patiya – these areas had a deserted look; people had locked their houses and gone away. They are afraid that they witness a repeat of the Gujarat Carnage of 2002!
Most Muslim groups on the other hand, are not happy with the verdict; some of them have gone on record, to say that they may consider a review petition. Finally, we do have a verdict on a vexatious issue…but, one wonders if we, the people of India are confident that there is a closure too!!!
*(Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ is a human rights & peace activist/writer. Contact: cedricprakash@gmail.com)
A massive protest broke out today at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) as hundreds of students blocked roads near the campus and raised slogans against the fee hike ordered by the administration. The protests took an ugly turn today after Vice Chancellor MamidalaJagadesh Kumar who had refused to meet them earlier to discuss the fee hike, appeared for the convocation.
In dramatic visuals, students were seen carrying banners, raising slogans like‘No Convocation without Affordable Education’and trying to cross police barricades as cops used baton charge and water cannons to stop them.
Many students were injured in the attack and some were detained in the matter.
Though the students were addressed by Union Human Resource Development Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal ‘Nishank’ who said their concerns would be met, they refused to leave the campus until they met the Vice Chancellor.
Baton charge and water cannons notwithstanding, they submitted their memorandum of demands to the HRD Minister who said he would convene a meeting with the administration to sort out the differences.
The students’ body had earlier called for a boycott of the convocation, demanding rollback of the hostel draft manual and fee hike proposed by the Inter-Hall Administration.The manual also includes several other measures, like the imposition of dress codes and curfew timings. The administration had earlier deployed the CRPF to handle matters in the campus.
A press release by the Central Executive Committee of the SFI strongly condemned the brutal attack on the protesting students of the JNU. It also called upon all its units to organise protest rallies and programs in solidarity with the protesting students of JNU and against the commercialisation of education in the country.
JNU has always been looked up to for quality and affordable education and has always been in the news for progressive campus politics. It is JNU’s affordable fee that lets the poorest of the poor avail the best education without worrying of a financial burden. The current administration, who are acting as a mere agents who carry the political agenda of NDA government, have unleashed different projects to overturn this structure. Introducing self-financing courses was one of the initial such steps. And now with making hostel a place where students of economically deprived sections cannot afford to be residence will further intensify the exclusionary model.
The far-right government in India led Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been spearheading a rapid neoliberal economic campaign in India, which threatens the idea of education for all, as high fees will make universities accessible only for the rich.
