About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 2520

Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee the Hindutva Icon was a Collaborator, with the Muslim League as much as the British

By
-
0

Two sides of the same coin as the votaries of a Hindu nation and an Islamic state have always been, archival documents point to a sleazy collaboration between Mookerjee–whose death anniversary is being currently celebrated by the Modi regime –the Muslim League and the British  

Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee (1901-1953) is a prominent Hindutva icon for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janayata Party (BJP) combine. It was he who, on the advice of M.S. Golwalkar, the second chief of RSS and its most prominent ideologue, founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), the political precursor of present BJP, in 1951 and became the first president of the political arm of the RSS. He died in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, on June 23, 1953, when he was under arrest. His death is mourned every year as 'End Article 370 Day' and 'Save Kashmir Day' by the proponents of a Hindu Rashtra (nation).
 
This year, 2016, too, the ruling Hindutva brigade is mourning his death by holding a meeting in Delhi on June 29, 2016 under the theme 'Syama Prasad Mookerjee: A Selfless Patriot'. Amit Shah, president of BJP will be the chief guest and Professor Tathagatha Roy, Governor of Tripura will deliver the 'special lecture' at the Nehru Memorial Museum & Library which was established as an archive of the glorious anti-colonial Indian freedom struggle.
 
Interestingly –mindful of their political alliance in the state — this year, the BJP/RSS have discarded much touted slogans 'End Article 370 Day' and 'Save Kashmir Day'. This move is governed by political expediency: their political alignment with the traditionally pro-separatist PDP led by Mehbooba Mufti.
 
The Hindutva brigade is fond of touting Dr. Mookerjee as great ‘nationalist’ and patriot who laid down his life for the unity of the nation. Modi described him as "a statesman, thinker and a patriot who devoted his life towards strengthening national integration."
 
This rhetoric around Dr. Mookerjee’s patriotism needs to stand the test of historical scrutiny through the contemporary documents available in the archives of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS). A keen perusal of these documents clearly shows that the claim that Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee was a 'selfless patriot' and a great patriot right from his birth is a white lie.
 
Dr Mookerjee, like most in the RSS, never-never participated in the anti-colonial freedom struggle. If patriotism means being part of the freedom struggle and making sacrifices, Dr Mookerjee not only kept aloof from the national movement for freedom from British yoke but in fact, also betrayed it by collaborating with both the British rulers and the Muslim League in order to crush and also communally polarise the anti-British liberation movement.
 
In pre-Independence times he was a prominent leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, which was led by V.D. Savarkar. When, in 1942, the Congress gave a call to the British rulers to leave India by launching Quit India Movement, the colonial rulers responded to this mass movement by unleashing a reign of terror.

If patriotism means being part of the freedom struggle and making sacrifices, Dr Mookerjee not only kept aloof from the national movement for freedom from British yoke but in fact, also betrayed it by collaborating with both the British rulers and the Muslim League in order to crush and also communally polarise the anti-British liberation movement.
 
The Congress was banned, its provincial governments were dismissed, whole India was turned into a mass jail and thousands died in the repression unleashed by both the armed forces of the British and native rulers.
 
The only crime committed by many of those who were killed was to have carried the Indian Tricolour (Tiranga). An unholy alliance between Hindu and Muslim communal organizations collaborated against the mass movement and sided with the British.
 
Hindu supremacist (read ‘nationalist’) organisations namely, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS sided with the Muslim ‘nationalist’ organisation, the Muslim League and not only boycotted Quit India Movement but also decided to support the British government in its repressive campaign.
 
The Hindu Mahasabha president 'Veer' Savarkar chronicled this ganging up of Hindu Mahasabha with the Muslim League in his presidential speech to the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Kanpur in 1942 in the following words:
 
“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and sociable as soon as they came in contact with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities.”[i]
 
Later this coalition arrangement was extended to North Wesdt Frontier Province (NWFP) also.
 
Following the Hindu Mahasabha directive to co-operate with the British, it was the present day icon of Hindutva, Dr. Mookerjee who assured British masters of his full support, through a letter dated July 26, 1942. Shockingly, this is what it said:

“Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being” [ii]
His letter to Bengal governor that the Fazlul Haq led Bengal Government, along with its alliance partner Hindu Mahasabha  (Mookerjee being Deputy CM in this ministry) made concrete suggestions for crushing the Quit India Movement (QIM). He wrote:

“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people. In some spheres it might be limited during the emergency. Indian have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defense and freedom of the province itself. You, as Governor, will function as the constitutional head of the province and will be guided entirely on the advice of your Minister.[iii]

A prominent historian R.C. Majumdar who is also regarded as a 'Hindu' historian by the Hindutva brigade commenting on this letter wrote:
"Shyam Prasad ended the letter with a discussion of the mass movement organised by the Congress. He expressed the apprehension that the movement would create internal disorder and will endanger internal security during the war by exciting popular feeling and he opined that any government in power has to suppress it, but that according to him could not be done only by persecution…. In that letter he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation…"[iv]

The Hindu Mahasabha decision to betray the Quit India Movement resonated with the RSS also. MS Golwalkar, the then chief of RSS admitted:
"In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organization of inactive persons, their talks are useless, not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers did talk like this. They were greatly disgusted too."[v]

Hindu supremacist (read ‘nationalist’) organisations namely, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS sided with the Muslim ‘nationalist’ organisation, the Muslim League and not only boycotted Quit India Movement but also decided to support the British government in its repressive campaign. 

Nowhere in pre-Partition RSS literature can there be found references to any work that the RSS might have done 'indirectly' for Quit India Movement.
As shocking was the decision of the Hindu Mahasabha, through Dr Mookerjee to help the British rulers in World War II. It was the time when Subhash Chandra Bose, known as Netaji, was organising the INA (Azad Hind Fauj) in a military campaign to force the British out. The extent to which the Hindu Mahasabha was willing to help the British masters is clear from the following directive issued by Savarkar as President of the Mahasabha:
 
“So far as India's defence is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation, with the war effort of the Indian government in so far as it is consistent with the Hindu interests, by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number as possible and by securing an entry into all ordnance, ammunition and war craft factories…. Again it must be noted that Japan's entry into the war has exposed us directly and immediately to the attack by Britain’s enemies. Consequently, whether we like it or not, we shall have to defend our own hearth and home against the ravages of the war and this can only be done by intensifying the government's war effort to defend India. Hindu Mahasabhaites must, therefore, rouse Hindus especially in the provinces of Bengal and Assam as effectively as possible to enter the military forces of all arms without losing a single minute.” [vi]
 
Despite all these shocking facts being available in the Hindutva archives, the Hindutva brigade continues on its journey to claim the nationalist mantle by falsifying history.
 
The Hindutva juggernaut has been relentless in demolishing the great, heroic and selfless sacrifices of thousands of Indian who laid down their lives for the freedom of India against the colonial masters and their stooges like Indian Princes and the Muslim League.
 
This project of manipulating our history is driven by a sinister motive: of trying to replace the braves and heroes of anti-colonial history with those who were stooges and collaborators. The ruling BJP/RSS regime does not have a single person whom they can present as a freedom fighter. Yet, the protests at this appropriation and manipulation of the glorious anti-colonial liberation movement is not being adequately protest; especially where the votaries of a Hindu nation (Hindutva) denigrates our real martyrs and freedom fighters even as they attempt to re-instate the collaborators as patriots. 

(For some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu & Gujarati see the following link: http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam)
Facebook: shams Shamsul; Twitter: @shamsforjustice)

 

[i] VD Savarkar, Samagar Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), Hindu Mahasabha,  Poona, 1963, p. 479-480
[ii]Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad, Leaves from a Dairy. Oxford University Press. p. 179.
[iii]Cited in A G. Noorani, The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour. LeftWord Books. pp. 56–57.
[iv] RC Majumdar, History of Modern Bengal. vol. 2, G. Bharadwaj & Co, Calcutta,  p. 350.
[v]Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan  (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), volume IV, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p 40. 
[vi]V.D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p. 460.
 

What it’s like to be gay and a Muslim

By
-
0

Belief in the negativity of homosexuality from the perspective of one’s faith could cause some gay Muslims to develop internalised homophobia and, in some cases, to doubt the authenticity of their Muslim identity.


Image: shutterstock. Nando Machado/Shutterstock.com

The Orlando shooting was a hate crime against gay people – even if, once it emerged that the attacked had been a Muslim, many people claimed this as a terrorist attack rather than a hate crime. And, in an important sense, this was also a terror attack, since its aim was to spread fear in the LGBT community.

Since the massacre there has been a lot of speculation about Islam and homosexuality and there are fears that one man’s despicable act of terrorism could fan the flames of Islamophobia and other forms of social exclusion, leading to discord and unrest in an era of elevated Islamophobia.

It is difficult to define the “Islamic position” on homosexuality, as a monolithic phenomenon, simply because Islam is a very diverse faith group with some 1.6 billion followers on six continents. In most Muslim countries, homosexuality is illegal and in some countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is punishable by death. But in others, such as Jordan and Turkey, homosexuality is not considered a crime.

Most Islamic scholars are in agreement that homosexuality is incompatible with Islamic theology. They tend to draw on the story of Lot in the Koran (also in the Old Testament) which recounts the destruction of the tribe of Lot allegedly due to their engagement in homosexual acts as “evidence” for God’s condemnation of homosexuality. Many scholars also cite the Ahadith (statements attributed to the Prophet Muhammed) that are condemnatory of homosexuality. Theological and legal condemnations of homosexuality can engender perceptions at a social level that homosexuality is wrong and that it should not be permitted.

Muslims on homosexuality

In 2009, a Gallup survey revealed negative attitudes towards homosexuality among European Muslims. In France, 35% of Muslims viewed homosexuality as “morally acceptable” (versus 78% of the general public). In Germany, 19% of Muslims viewed it as morally acceptable (versus 68% of the general public). In the UK, none of the Muslim respondents viewed homosexuality as morally acceptable (versus 58% of the general public who did).

Earlier this year, a survey commissioned by Channel 4 was conducted among a random sample of 1,081 individuals who self-identified as Muslim. The results found that 18% of the British Muslim respondents agreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain while the majority (52%) disagreed. Conversely, only 5% of the general public thought homosexuality should be illegal. Furthermore, 47% of the British Muslim respondents indicated that they did not believe that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher. These data suggest that there are low levels of acceptance of homosexuality in Muslim communities in the UK.
However, qualitative interview data can provide more nuanced understandings of what Muslims think and why they might hold these views.

In my research into attitudes concerning homosexuality among samples of first and second-generation British Muslims of Pakistani descent, I found that attitudes tend to be largely negative. Although research into attitudes towards homosexuality in the general population points to demographic variables, such as age and level of education, as key determinants of the nature of attitudes, this has not been the case in my own work with British Muslims. Muslims of various ages, education levels and socio-economic backgrounds have participated in my studies and generally perceive homosexuality in negative terms. In substantiating these attitudes people often draw on holy scripture. As one 54-year-old woman said:

It says it in the Koran that it’s wrong and sorry I’m not the one who made it. It’s what the God revealed to the Prophet so it’s the truth and that’s my belief system.

Many interviewees draw upon holy scripture as the basis of their views regarding homosexuality. There appears to be a desire not to “re-interpret” holy scripture – to accommodate homosexuality – because of the divinity of its origin. Moreover, there was a fundamental rejection of essentialist arguments concerning the origins of sexual orientation – that people are born gay and that they do not “choose” to be gay – and interviewees often argued that people had “chosen” to be gay. One 28-year-old man said:

God doesn’t create gay people. It’s a path they’ve chosen and that’s an incorrect path according to our faith.

Indeed, previous research has shown that believing the essentialist argument regarding homosexuality is correlated with less discrimination and greater acceptance.


What does the Koran say about homosexuality? Lord Harris/BritishMuseum, CC BY

First-hand relationships

Although many British Muslims may disapprove of the concept of homosexuality, several individuals reported positive first-hand experiences of contact with LGBT people. A 45-year-old man said:

Homosexuality is wrong, I believe … I have a gay neighbour and he lives with his partner. He’s a very nice guy – both of them [are]. They are very respectful. We consider them friends.

Some people spoke fondly of their LGBT friends, neighbours and acquaintances, suggesting that first-hand contact may challenge homophobia which exists at an abstract, conceptual level. It is also vital to stress that the Muslim interviewees overwhelmingly rejected violence against LGBT people. As one woman put it:

Violence and hate crimes are un-Islamic. We are not supposed to kill or hurt others, as Muslims. No, they can’t have it both ways so they won’t be accepted in our community but it’s for God to punish, not us.

It was difficult for British Muslim interviewees to accept homosexuality given the overwhelming “evidence” of its prohibition in Islam. Individuals simply had no positive theological frame of reference given the absence of LGBT affirmative voices at an institutional level. This led some individuals to view endorsement of homosexuality as a violation of their religious faith and its norms:

Being gay is un-Islamic and so is encouraging it.

Put simply, the acceptance or endorsement of homosexuality was perceived as contravening key tenets of Islam.

Gay Muslims speak out

Clearly, the stigma attached to homosexuality in Islamic communities can have profound effects for those Muslims who also self-identify as gay. For almost a decade, I have been researching the social psychological aspects of being Muslim and gay. In view of the generally negative attitudes towards homosexuality in Muslim communities and the silence that can surround discussions of sexuality, most of my Muslim gay interviewees have manifested a poor self-image and low psychological well-being. Many view their sexual orientation as “wrong” and, thus, express a hope to change it in the future. One young gay Muslim man said:

It’s [being gay] wrong, really, isn’t it? … In the mosque we’re told that Shaitan [Satan] tries to tempt Muslims because he is evil and he makes us do evil things. I know that doing gay things is evil but I hope I’ll change my ways and take the right path soon … It’s all about temptation, really. Life is a big test.

Those gay Muslims who conceptualise their sexuality as immoral and wrong can understandably struggle to derive self-esteem, which is key to well-being. They may come to view their sexual orientation as “evil” and resist it. Some attempt to change their sexual orientation, sometimes by entering into marriages of convenience. This conceptualisation of homosexuality stems from their understanding of the Islamic stance on it. Said by a 28-year-old man:

What the Prophet said was right and that’s always going to stand, yeah. Men having sex with other men was wrong in his eyes. He hated it.

It is easy to see how belief in the negativity of homosexuality from the perspective of one’s faith (which, in countless studies has emerged as an important identity among British Asian Muslims) could cause some gay Muslims to develop internalised homophobia and, in some cases, to doubt the authenticity of their Muslim identity.


Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, received death threats after voting in favour of same-sex marriage. Daniel Leal-Olivas / PA Wire/Press Association Images

Gay Muslims may cope with this internal conflict in a number of ways. While some hope to change their sexual orientation and to “become” straight, others may deny that they are actually gay:

Maybe I’m not bisexual because I’ve never been with a woman but I can’t call myself gay either … I refuse to do that because I just don’t feel gay.

Crucially, in making sense of the “causes” underlying their sexual orientation, some gay Muslims were of the view that they had “become” gay as a result of their social environment and consequently blamed British society:

I’m gay because I was brought up here [in Britain] but I reckon if I’d been brought up in Pakistan then I would have turned out straight because this doesn’t happen that much there. Like I haven’t heard of any gays in our village. Here there are clubs and that and so I just kind of fell into the gay culture.

We tend to attribute aspects of our identity that we see as undesirable to external factors. This is a means of protecting one’s sense of self from threats. Some of the gay Muslim interviewees in my studies have identified British (or Western) culture as the reason for their sexual orientation.

Reconciling homosexuality and Islam

Many individuals of religious faith struggle to accept homosexuality given the centrality of heterosexuality to faith life, according to most faith groups. Muslims are no exception. Individuals use all sorts of strategies for protecting their sense of identity and some of these strategies can actually have poor social and psychological outcomes. Social psychologists have long argued that intergroup contact is a good starting-point for improving relations between different social groups.

Universities are obvious contexts in which different groups can come together – LGBT and Islamic student societies on university campuses could collaborate with the aim of increasing inter-group contact between Muslims and LGBT people (and indeed those who identify with both categories).

Of course, inter-group contact needs to be characterised by positive images of the outgroup. So there needs to be much more discussion of homosexuality in Muslim communities – which will admittedly be difficult given the cultural taboo around sexuality. Faith and community leaders should broach the topic. My view is that people need to be exposed to LGBT affirmative images. This has already happen to some extent.

As I’ve written elsewhere, the Eastenders storyline concerning Syed Mehmood, a gay Muslim character who struggles to come out to his parents, generated some discussion in the British Muslim community and led some individuals to acknowledge the existence of homosexuality within their community.


Coming out: Syed from Eastenders on Twitter. Twitter

This is a positive step forward and one that can be built on. Similarly, there needs to be more acknowledgement and acceptance of faith groups in LGBT contexts which tend to be secular. In my research, I’ve also found that gay Muslims can face Islamophobia on the gay scene, which can hinder their sense of belonging in these spaces.

In addition to improving relations between groups, it is likely that this exercise will have positive outcomes for well-being among those individuals who self-identify as Muslim and gay. Growing up in an environment in which you are led to believe that your sexual orientation is wrong, sinful or symptomatic of mental illness can lead to profound social and psychological challenges, including internalised homophobia, low self-esteem, depression and, in some cases, suicidal thoughts.

The reasons underlying the horrendous attacks perpetrated by Omar Mateen in Orlando may never be fully understood. But if it is true that he was a closeted homosexual – it was reported that he had used gay dating applications and frequented gay bars, including the one that he attacked – he clearly had a very difficult relationship with this aspect of his identity. There is already some empirical evidence that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal, which suggests that homophobia might be a means of distancing homosexuality from one’s sense of self.

Could it be that his actions were in part a result of his internalised homophobia? Did he attack the LGBT community in an attempt to distance his own sexuality from his sense of self?

In any case, we as a society have a responsibility to acknowledge diversity and to allow people the space and opportunity to self-identify in ways in which they choose. We have a responsibility to challenge prejudice (of all kinds) when it shows its ugly face. We have a responsibility to support and protect minorities who are vulnerable to marginalisation and exclusion. Sometimes this will be challenging particularly when it means that we have engage with sensitive issues such as religious norms and customs but we must persevere – for the sake of freedom, peace and well-being for all of society.

(The writer is Professor of Psychology & Sexual Health, De Montfort University).

(This article was first published on The Conversation).

समझौता काण्ड : हिंदुत्व का नया विधिशास्त्र

By
-
0


 
​कानून / न्याय की सामान्य रूटीन में लगी पुलिस को लेकर आतंकवादियों और हिन्दुत्ववादियों की सोच में बहुत फर्क नहीं मिलेगा | एक आतंकी, उसका रास्ता काटने वाले पुलिसकर्मी को भौतिक रूप से निशाना बनाएगा, जबकि हिन्दुत्ववादी उसकी प्रतिष्ठा को राजनीतिक रूप से कलंकित करेगा | दोनों के लिए अपना मकसद हल करने की सनक में यह एक अनिवार्य रणनीति जैसा है | देश में, 2006-07 में मुस्लिम ठिकानों को लक्ष्य कर हुए आतंकी हमलों में संघ व अन्य हिन्दू संगठनों से जुड़े आरोपियों को लेकर यही रणनीति उजागर हो रही है | उन्हें अदालतों से बरी कराने के फेर में मोदी सरकार ने जांच एजेंसियों और जाँचकर्ताओं को शक के घेरे में लाने की मुहिम छेड़ रखी है | इस क्रम में वर्तमान एनआइए प्रमुख शरद कुमार को ‘अनुकूल’ सेवा देते रहने के लिए एक वर्ष का सेवा विस्तार दिया गया है |   

पानीपत के निकट फरवरी 2007 में समझौता ट्रेन को निशाना बनाकर हुए आतंकी काण्ड में दो डब्बे पूरी तरह जल गए थे और पाकिस्तान जा रहे यात्रियों में से अड़सठ की जानें चली गयी थीं | कुछ ही दिनों में पाकिस्तान के विदेश मंत्री कसूरी द्विपक्षीय वार्ता के लिए दिल्ली आने वाले थे और ऐसे में आशंका स्वाभाविक थी कि कोई न कोई जिहादी आतंकी गिरोह बातचीत को पटरी से उतारना चाहता है |

पाकिस्तान की कुख्यात आइएसआइ की अपनी सरकार से स्वतंत्र दखलंदाजी, लश्करे तैयबा जैसे संसाधन वाले आतंकी संगठन की भारत में घुसपैठ और बदनाम सिमी की देश में व्यापक गतिविधियों के दौर के चलते, शक की सुई उनकी ओर ही घूमनी थी | ऐसे में यह जांचकर्ताओं के लिए अविश्वसनीय जैसा रहा जब अनुसन्धान में इस कायराना हमले के तार असीमानंद के नेतृत्व में हिन्दुत्ववादियों से जुड़ते चले गए |

काण्ड की रात, कुछ घंटों में ही मैं दीवाना रेलवे स्टेशन के पास घटना स्थल पर पहुँच गया था | जल्द ही अनुसन्धान के लिए मेरे नेतृत्व में एक एसआइटी गठित की गयी | मोटे तौर पर कह सकते हैं कि एसआइटी ने 2007 और 2008 तक स्वतंत्र रूप से सक्रिय अनुसन्धान कार्य किया | इसके बाद, इस जघन्य अपराध के अंतर्राज्यीय विस्तार के चलते, सीबीआइ ने अन्य आतंकी मामलों के साथ इसकी भी मॉनिटरिंग शुरू की | जुलाई 2010 में केस आतंकी मामलों की जांच के लिए बनी विशेष केन्द्रीय एजेंसी एनआइए को सुपुर्द हो गया | एनआइए ने 2012 तक कई हिन्दुत्ववादी आतंकियों को गिरफ्तार कर लिया था और बाद में उनके विरुद्ध आरोपपत्र दाखिल करने का सिलसिला शुरू हुआ |

इस घटनाक्रम के प्रकाश में आज एनआइए की भाव-भंगिमा से लगता है जैसे हिंदुत्व के दबाव में देश में एक नया विधिशास्त्र लिखा जा रहा है ! मास्टर माइंड असीमानंद को बचाने को लेकर राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ का दबाव केन्द्रीय सरकार और जांच एजेंसी पर साफ नजर आता है | गवाहों को अदालत में पलटाया जा रहा है, अभियोजकों पर दबाव बनाया जा रहा है कि अभियोजन को कमजोर करें और सबसे बढकर स्वयं एनआइए की मिलीभगत से अदालत को भ्रमित करने वाले तथाकथित ‘दस्तावेज’ आतंकियों के बचाव में उद्धृत किये जाने लगे हैं | यूएन और अमेरिका के सन्दर्भ से ऐसे-ऐसे कागजों का हवाला दिया जा रहा है जो असीमानंद गिरोह की संलिप्तता को ख़ारिज करते हैं | यह सब सरकार और एनआइए स्तर की मिलीभगत के बिना संभव नहीं |

अनुसन्धान की अब तक की धारा के उलट भाजपा / आरएसएस का मानना है कि कोई हिन्दू, आतंकवादी गतिविधियों में शामिल हो ही नहीं सकता | हाल में एक टी वी शो पर भाजपा प्रवक्ता के मुंह से मुझे उनकी नयी पार्टी लाइन सुनने को मिली कि हिन्दू आतंकी गिरोह की बात कहने की जुर्रत करने वाले पुलिस अधिकारी, दाऊद इब्राहीम के पे रोल पर होते हैं | इस तर्क को आगे बढ़ाएं तो इन पार्टी प्रवक्ताओं से पूछना पड़ेगा कि भारत में कानून का शासन है या दाऊद का ? क्या, मेरे जैसे समझौता काण्ड के अनुसन्धानकर्ता की पेंशन दाऊद के रहमो करम पर चल रही है और मुम्बई आतंकी हमलों में शहीद हुए पुलिस अधिकारी हेमंत करकरे, जिन्होंने 2008 के मालेगांव धमाकों से हिन्दू गिरोह के तार जोड़े, को भी वेतन दाऊद की कृपा से ही मिलता रहा ?

शो में उपस्थित आरएसएस प्रवक्ता ने भी एक अन्य टी वी चैनल का समर्थन किया, जिसने हाल में समझौता अनुसन्धान के निष्कर्षों पर मुझसे लिए साक्षात्कार के एकदम विपरीत सिमी का हाथ होने की मनगढ़ंत कहानी प्रसारित की | उस चैनल की स्क्रिप्ट का सार था – हरियाणा एसआइटी ने समझौता मामले में सही दिशा में अनुसन्धान कर सिमी को गुनहगार ठहराया था लेकिन तत्कालीन यूपीए सरकार ने अनुसन्धान कार्य एनआइए के हवाले कर हिन्दुओं को झूठा फंसा दिया | चैनल की यह फरेबी कहानी मेरे साक्षात्कार से धराशायी हो जाती, लिहाजा उसे शो में शामिल ही नहीं किया गया | एंकर ने कुछ समय तक अनुसन्धान से जुड़ी रही एक एसआइटी सदस्य के मुंह से तीन अलग-अलग सवालों के जवाब में निकले ‘सिमी और अन्य ग्रुप’, ‘इंदौर’, ‘सही रास्ते पर थे’ को जोड़ कर अपना मनमाना निष्कर्ष सुना दिया कि हरियाणा एसआइटी ने इंदौर में सक्रिय सिमी को समझौता काण्ड के लिए जिम्मेदार ठहराया था |

आइये उन चरणों को देखें जिनसे गुजरकर अनुसन्धान के दौरान समझौता काण्ड में हिन्दुत्ववादियों की भूमिका तय हो सकी | ये चरण क्रमशः हरियाणा एसआइटी, महाराष्ट्र एटीएस, सीबीआई और एनआइए ने 2007 से 2012 के बीच तय किये | हरियाणा एसआइटी को यह श्रेय जाता है कि उन्होंने मामले के इंदौर सम्बन्ध को उजागर किया और इस झांसे में नहीं पड़े कि जेल में बैठे प्रमुख सिमी कैडर को आनन-फानन में गिरफ्तार कर वाहवाही लूटें | उसी वर्ष हैदराबाद के मक्का मस्जिद विस्फोट के तुरंत बाद स्थानीय पुलिस ने अंधाधुंध मुस्लिम युवकों की गिरफ्तारी कर अपनी जम कर किरकिरी कराई | जबकि समझौता मामले में धैर्य पूर्ण जांच के फलस्वरूप पहली बार शक की सुई हिन्दुत्ववादी आतंकी तत्वों की ओर घूमी और अंततः यह प्रक्रिया असीमानंद के नेतृत्व के पर्दाफाश तक पहुँची |

दरअसल, हमारी किस्मत अच्छी थी और अच्छी नहीं भी थी | दिल्ली स्टेशन पर, जहाँ से ट्रेन चली, सीसीटीवी कैमरे जाने कब से खराब पड़े थे जो हमारे किसी काम नहीं आये | लेकिन घटना स्थल से मिले दो साबुत अटैची बम डिवाइस, जो टाइम मिसमैच के कारण फटे नहीं, अनुसंधानकर्ताओं को इंदौर तक पहुँचाने में सहायक बने | ये मुख्यतः अग्निकांड डिवाइस थे न कि विस्फोटक आरडीएक्स वाले जैसे उन दिनों आतंकी वारदातों में आम प्रयुक्त होते थे | अग्निकांड डिवाइस के इस्तेमाल के पीछे सोच रही होगी कि भागती ट्रेन में आग ज्यादा कहर ढायेगी न कि विस्फोट | ये असीमानंद के घृणा बम भी थे – गोधरा ट्रेन अग्निकांड के आलावा, गुजरात के अक्षरधाम, जम्मू के रघुनाथ और वाराणसी के संकट मोचन मंदिरों पर आतंकी हमलों से पैदा नफरत इनके पीछे काम कर रही थी |

आरएसएस पृष्ठभूमि के सुनील जोशी की दिसम्बर 2007 में उसके दो साथियों कुलसान्ग्रे और डांगे ने हत्या कर दी और तब ये तीनों नाम समझौता काण्ड में प्रमुखता से आने लगे | बिजली के जानकार कुलसान्ग्रे और डांगे दोनों की बम बनाने में प्रमुख भूमिका थी और वे आज तक भी फरार चल रहे हैं | 2008 में महाराष्ट्र एटीएस ने मालेगांव बम काण्ड में प्रज्ञा सिंह ठाकुर की मोटर साइकिल बरामद की और तब हिन्दुत्ववादी गिरोह के तमाम अन्य नाम भी सामने आये | इनमें असीमानंद और कर्नल पुरोहित प्रमुख मास्टर माइंड थे | पता चला कि कमल चौहान, अमित चौहान, लोकेश शर्मा और राजेन्द्र पहलवान ने समझौता ट्रेन पर चार बम रखे थे | महाराष्ट्र एटीएस के मुखिया हेमंत करकरे उसी वर्ष नवम्बर में मुम्बई आतंकी हमलों में आतंकियों के हाथों शहीद हो गए थे | उनकी शहादत से करीब दस दिन पूर्व मेरी उनसे विस्तार से बात हुयी थी और उन्होंने भी असीमानंद के नेतृत्व में हिन्दुत्ववादियों की भूमिका की पुष्टि की थी |

2009 से सीबीआइ के समन्वय में उपरोक्त आतंकवादी गिरोह को पकड़ने के लिए सम्बंधित राज्यों की पुलिस द्वारा छापेमारी चलती रही | इस बीच मुंबई हमलों की पृष्ठभूमि में एनआइए के रूप में एक केंद्रीकृत जांच एजेंसी बन चुकी थी और एक एक कर तमाम आतंकी मामले, जिनमें समझौता भी शामिल था, इस एजेंसी को जांच के लिए दे दिए गए | इस तरह एनआइए समेत चार एजेंसियों की जांच के आधार पर असीमानंद व अन्य हिन्दुत्ववादियों की आतंकी कारगुजारियों के आयामों को अदालतों में दायर विभिन्न चार्ज शीट के रूप में देखा जा सकता है | लिहाजा, इन अनुसंधानों को लेकर संघी राजनीति को खुल कर खेलने के क्रम में, आतंकवाद के विरुद्ध कानूनी प्रक्रियाओं को निहित दलगत स्वार्थ के लिए भाजपा सरकार में कमजोर किया जाना बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है |    

Click here for Bail Order 

References:
1. SIT received No Support from the Madhya Pradesh police, June 2016

(The author was the head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that had led to the first breakthrough in the 2007 train blast case. Vikash Narain Rai has also served in many important posts in the government, including as director of the National Police Academy, Hyderabad, from where he retired three years ago)
 
 
 

 

 

A Forest Policy that Wasn’t, But which still snatches Forest Rights away

By
-
0

Coming from a government and party that claims sole proprietorship over ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’, the Modi regime is determined to snatch the legal safeguards and rights over Indian forests and peoples who live on them, hard earned after struggles that lasted over a century. That this exercise seeks to sneakily bypass Parliament makes it even more dangerous


Photo: Anisha Sheth / The Hindu

Last week, the Ministry of Environment and Forests uploaded a "draft National Forest Policy" and invited comments within a fortnight (two weeks). Then, faced with questions, inexplicably, the government declared that it was not a draft at all, but just a "study". This is odd, considering that the document is titled "National Forest Policy (Draft)."

A detailed note sent out by the Campaign for Survival and Dignity has analysed these developments.

This analysis states that the ‘policy document’ of the Modi government, that is and is not a policy (!) directly incites State Forest Departments to violate the single most important forest law passed since independence – the Forest Rights Act of 2006 – by supporting their disastrous Joint Forest Management policies and rechristening it "community forest management." 

This move is particularly problematic, says the Campaign given the fact that, as per international studies, almost half the forest land in the country actually belongs to communities, as per law. Nowhere in the Modi government policy are the words "forest rights" contained and there is not one reference even to a path breaking legislation that made statutory obligations on the government towards forest land.

The track record of Ministry, of Environment and Forests over the past two years has been abysmal. Consider this:

The single most consistent theme behind this policy is – the grant of executive immunity to the Environment Ministry and forest officials, bypassing parliament; ignore local communities, and treat them as if they are persons with no legal rights.

This dangerous tendency to empower bureaucrats with sweeping, illegal powers –that contravene the law as it exists on statute books –is not just dangerous but is an authoritarian way of bypassing Indian parliament.

The final irony?
A self proclaimed "nationalist" ruling party obsessed with accusing others of being "anti-national" has been systematically involved in seeking to restore the colonial system of forest management and the colonial law on land acquisition denying Adivasis and other people who have rights over forest and farm land. The Environment Ministry of the Modi government leads in this reversal of basic human rights campaign.
 
References

1. The Signs On This Week’s Calendar
2. Has India betrayed its indigenous peoples, the Adivasis?
3. Blow to Adivasi Rights, this time from the Modi Regime itself
4. Is Shutting Your Eyes to Coca Cola's Misconduct in the "national interest", Mr PM?
5. Jairam's CAMPA bill change is unnecessary. We aren't diluting forest rights: Javadekar

Army Petitions Supreme Court to Close Kunan Poshpora Rape Case

By
-
0

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Six Victims of the Kunan Poshpora mass rape and torture case of 1991 have died

  

A quarter of a century — 25 years– after the alleged mass rape and torture at Kunan Poshpora on 23/24 February 1991, the Indian Army, through the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, has petitioned the Indian Supreme Court challenging orders of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on investigations and compensation.
 
In December 2014, Government of Jammu and Kashmir had challenged the same High Court orders before the Supreme Court on the issue of compensation, and got a stay on the orders. The central government chose not to respond to this petition despite being given time and opportunity to do so and wasted one year of both the courts and survivors time.
 
The Supreme Court heard afresh, another petition on behalf of the Indian army on May 13, 2016, issued notice and tagged both petitions to be now heard before the court together. Besides the above two petitions in the Supreme Court, there are three petitions pending before the Jammu Kashmir High Court: one by the survivors seeking investigations and prosecution, and two by the army, against the implementation of the State Human Rights Commission recommendations in this case, and, against the police investigations ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, Kupwara on June 18, 2013.
 
Now, the Indian army has contended before the Supreme Court that the allegations of rape and torture are “a hoax orchestrated by militant groups”, “part of cleverly contrived strategy of psychological warfare”, to “discredit the security forces by indulging in false propaganda”, “with a view to jeopardize the conduct of counter insurgency operations…in the valley”, and that the numbers of men and women alleged to have been tortured and raped are against “natural human conduct”.
 
On March 3, 2016, Sabrangindia had published an account by journalist Dilnaz Boga written on the 25 year mark of the tragic events. She recalled her journey to report the incident around 2006, a decade earlier.

In this, the journalist, Boga, quotes a PRO of the Ministry of Defence in Delhi telling her around 2006 when she was exploring the story, who says “Puraney zakhm kyu khured rahey ho? (why are you bringing up old wounds?)” Shereplied that justice had not been done and the guilty were not booked. Dilnaz boga further writes, “Pushing my luck, I asked to see the files of the incident and he told me that the files were destroyed, as it had been 17 years. In the end, I explained that I was doing my job and that he should do his and hung up as his tone changed.” Finally the editor of the publication she was working for never carried the story saying it was anti-national and pro-Pakistan. The happenings in the valley, from Handwara to others, to date reveal how any effort to bring about rational discourse on the issue of human rights abuses by the Indian armed forces in Kashmit or the north east, risk being labelled as anti-national.

According to a press release issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), the army petition before the Supreme Court is the latest attempt by the State to delay proceedings and frustrate every attempt of the survivors for justice. To date, six victims of the brutal rape and torture have died.
 
In their continuing struggle for justice, the survivors of Kunan Poshpora will now submit their response before the Supreme Court and seek for investigations and prosecution of the accused army personnel.

Why Bad News for One Muslim American is Bad News for All Muslims

By
-
0

Image: Joe Skipper/Reuters

On the morning of June 12, as details emerged from a shooting at an Orlando nightclub, Muslim Americans across the country likely reacted with horror, while secretly hoping that the shooter wouldn’t turn out to be one of them. Many had gone through the same roller coaster of emotions after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and the San Bernardino shootings.

Muslim Americans have become accustomed to this pattern whenever there’s an attack with a Muslim perpetrator. Media outlets will debate whether or not Islam justifies violence, while sounding alarm bells about the extent of homegrown radicalism. At the same time, politicians and pundits trumpet policies restricting the civil liberties of Muslim immigrants and citizens.

As a media psychology researcher, I’ve studied how media representations of Muslims fuel anti-Muslim hostility and policies in America. Because so few Americans personally know Muslims, media depictions of them as terrorists are especially potent, leading many to believe that all Muslims are terrorists.

The power of media

Even in coverage unrelated to terrorist attacks, Muslims get a bad rap.

Content analyses of Muslim representations in cable news, television and movies, and newspapers reveal that Muslims in American media are overwhelmingly represented as violent, terrorists, barbaric and intolerant.

At the same time, there are almost no positive portrayals of Muslims in American media.

According to social psychologists, contact with “outgroups” – social groups that we don’t identify with – can reduce prejudices. But when direct, positive contact is limited or nonexistent, studies have shown media representations of outgroups have an even greater influence on our attitudes toward members of those groups.

Since Muslims make up only one percent of the U.S. population, most Americans don’t interact with them on a daily basis. This means that what they see on the news will largely influence how they perceive Muslim Americans.

A few bad apples speak for the group

In a recent set of studies, we discovered just how influential negative news depictions of Muslims can be.

For example, we conducted an experimental study in which participants were randomly assigned to watch a negative, neutral, or positive depictions of Muslims in the news.

Next, participants completed questions assessing their perceptions of all Muslims and support for policies harming Muslims.


The front page of the New York Post on December 3, 2015, a day after the San Bernardino terrorist attack. New York Post

Participants in the negative condition were exposed to a news story discussing the 2007 attempted terror attack on Fort Dix, which was perpetuated by six Muslim men. Compared to those in the other video conditions, these participants were significantly more likely to perceive all Muslims as aggressive and violent.

In addition, we were surprised to discover how easily they were willing to impose civil restrictions on Muslim Americans, whether it was making them go through separate security lines at airports, restricting their voting rights, or allowing the government to track them.

These participants were also more likely to support military action against Muslim countries – even if civilians would be put at risk – while they also sought to reduce the influence of Islam.

It’s important to note that many of the policies supported by participants in our study bear a strong resemblance to those proposed by American presidential candidates during the 2016 election cycle.

Indeed, many political candidates have called for increased surveillance of the Muslim American community, potentially closing down mosques, requiring Muslim Americans to register within a database or carry special identification identifying their faith, and banning immigrants from Muslim countries.

The fact that many of these proposals are unconstitutional does not alleviate the anxieties and fears of Muslim Americans. Many are aware that similar actions were once taken against Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Reversing the trend

On an optimistic note, my research has also shown that media representations of Muslims in a positive light – in addition to direct contact with Muslims – can produce the opposite effect.

In the same study mentioned earlier, Americans who were exposed to a news clip portraying Muslim Americans volunteering at a food shelter during the holiday season were less likely to report anti-Muslim attitudes. They were also less likely to support policies that harm Muslims domestically and internationally.

In another study (still in press), we divided American college students into two groups: those who said they had direct contact with Muslims, and those who used the media to find out information about Muslims. Students who reported having direct contact with Muslims were less likely to have anti-Muslim attitudes or support anti-Muslim policies than those who relied on media alone for their information.

These findings highlight the power of face-to-face contact with outgroups, along with more balanced media coverage.

It’s important to recognize that this research does not in any way suggest that media should not report on attacks by Muslims. Instead, this work highlights the importance of fair media representations of the Muslim-American community.

After all, there’s plenty of positive news events involving Muslim Americans to report on.

There’s the Respond With Love campaign, a project initiated by a Muslim nonprofit to support the victims of the Emanuel AME Church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. Ibtihaj Muhammad qualified for the Olympics as the first U.S athlete to compete wearing a hijab. (She also trained while fasting during Ramadan.) During the Clean Water for Flint campaign, Muslim Americans delivered water bottles to residents of the Michigan city. And at the first ever Muslim Funny Fest, Muslim comedians used humor to tackle issues like Islamophobia.

These stories, unfortunately, don’t get nearly the same amount of coverage as a terrorist attack. Until they do, media coverage of terrorist attacks perpetuated by Muslims will continue to fuel anti-Muslim attitudes and support for policies harming Muslims.

This story was first published on The Conversation.

यूपी विधानसभा जांच समिति के समक्ष अपने किए स्टिंग का ही प्रमाण नहीं दे पाए दीपक शर्मा

By
-
0


​
मुजफ्फरनगर दंगों के स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के संबंध में उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा द्वारा गठित जांच समिति के समक्ष टीवी टुडे चैनल समूह के संपादकीय व प्रबंधकीय अधिकारियों ने जो साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किए हैंं, उससे टी वी चैनलों के न्यूज रूम के भीतर के कामकाज की संस्कृति जाहिर होती है। दिनांक 17 सितम्बर 2013 को "आज तक" एवं "हेड लाइन्स टुडे" चैनलों पर मुजफ्फरनगर दंगों के विषय में प्रसारित किये गये स्टिंग ऑपरेशन में सदन के एक वरिष्ठ सदस्य/मंत्री मोहम्मद आजम खां के विरुद्ध लगाये गये आरोपों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में यह जांच समिति गठित की गई थी। जन मीडिया के सौजन्‍य से मीडियाविजिल जांच समिति के प्रतिवेदन के उस संपादित अंश को प्रस्तुत कर रहा है जिसमें न्यूज रूम के भीतर के कामकाज की संस्कृति उजागर होती है। पहली किस्‍त में स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के पीछे की राजनीति पर पोस्‍ट के बाद अब पढ़ें कि स्टिंग ऑपरेशन से जुड़े चैनल के अधिकारियों और पत्रकारों ने जांच समिति के समक्ष क्‍या बयान दिए हैं।

​दीपक शर्मा
समिति के समक्ष आए साक्ष्य एवं टी.वी. टुडे नेटवर्क के विभिन्न पदाधिकारियों द्वारा किये गये अभिकथन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि इस पूरे स्टिंग ऑपरेशन में दीपक शर्मा, एडिटर, स्पेशल इंवेस्टीगेशन टीम, टी.वी. टुडे, नेटवर्क की भूमिका अत्यन्त महत्वपूर्ण थी। दीपक शर्मा ने समिति को बताया कि वह स्पेशल इंवेस्टीगेशन टीम के हेड थे तथा हेड होने के नाते उनका पूर्ण उत्तरदायित्व था। उन्होंने यह भी बताया कि स्टिंग ऑपरेशन में कैमरामैन नहीं होते हैं, वरन् इंवेस्टीगेटर रिपोर्टर ही होते हैं। यह स्टिंग ऑपरेशन स्पाई कैमरा से शूट किया गया था।

उनके अनुसार जब किसी विषय पर स्टिंग ऑपरेशन किए जाने के सम्बन्ध में रिपोर्टर सुझाव देते हैं अथवा किसी विषय पर यदि स्टिंग ऑपरेशन किए जाने के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय लिया जाता है तो उस हेतु सम्बन्धित पदाधिकारियों से सहमति ली जाती है।

उससे यह स्पष्ट होता है कि किसी स्टिंग ऑपरेशन को करने से पहले सम्बन्धित चैनल के हेड, उसके मैनेजिंग एडिटर तथा प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में स्पेशल इंवेस्टीगेशन टीम के एडिटर द्वारा निर्णय लिया जाता है। इसके साथ ही चैनल के इनपुट हेड एवं आउटपुट हेड की भी स्टिंग ऑपरेशन सम्पादित करने तथा उसको प्रसारित करने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका होती है। सक्षम स्तर से अनुमोदन के पश्चात स्टिंग ऑपरेशन की टीम इसे सम्पादित करती है।

"आज तक" तथा "हेडलाइऩ्स टुडे" चैनल पर मुख्य रूप से इस प्रकार का प्रसारण किया गया कि मुजफ्फरनगर दंगों में जो मुख्य अभियुक्त गिरफ्तार किये गये थे उनको राजनैतिक दबाव, विशेष रूप से मोहम्मद आजम खां के निर्देश पर रिहा कर दिया गया। इन चैनलों पर स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के आधार पर यह भी प्रसारित किया गया कि मो. आजम खां के स्तर से सीधे थानाध्यक्ष को फोन करके यह कहा गया कि जो हो रहा है उसको होने दिया जाए एवं यह कि एक विशेष सम्प्रदाय के व्यक्तियों को गिरफ्तार न किया जाए।
​
स्टिंग ऑपरेशन की जो सी.डी. प्रसारित की गयी है उसके अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि किसी भी अधिकारी ने स्वयं मो. आजम खां का नाम नहीं लिया था। प्रकरण की इन परिस्थितियों एवं तथ्यों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में दीपक शर्मा से जब यह पूछा गया कि फुगाना के सेकेण्ड ऑफिसर से स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के दौरान रिपोर्टर द्वारा यह कहा गया कि उनके ख्याल से मो. आजम खां के दबाव में अभियुक्तों को छोड़ा गया होगा, क्या इस प्रकार का सुझाव दिया जाना उपयुक्त एवं विधिक है तो दीपक शर्मा की ओर से कोई संतोषजनक उत्तर नहीं दिया जा सका। उन्होंने मात्र यह कहा कि यह प्रश्न हरीश शर्मा द्वारा पूछा गया था। उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि इस पूरे स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के दौरान उन्होंने स्वयं मो. आजम खां का नाम नहीं लिया। यह पूछने पर कि क्या ऐसा करना उचित है एवं क्या उनको हरीश शर्मा को ऐसा प्रश्न करने से नहीं रोकना चाहिए था तो उन्होंने उत्तर दिया कि चूंकि मो. आजम खां के नाम की चर्चा हो रही थी अतः ऐसा प्रश्न पूछा गया। दीपक शर्मा इस बात का भी कोई संतोषजनक उत्तर नहीं दे पाए कि यदि मो. आजम खां के विषय में अऩ्यत्र ऐसी चर्चा की जा रही थी कि उन्होंने अभियुक्तों को रिहा कराया था तो उसके विषय में किसी समर्थित साक्ष्य का प्रसारण क्यों नहीं किया गया? दीपक शर्मा इस सम्बन्ध में भी कोई उत्तर नहीं दे पाए कि यदि मो. आजम खां के विषय में प्रसारण किया जाना था तो उनका पक्ष क्यों नहीं लिया गया? 

दीपक शर्मा के साक्ष्य में उनसे यह पूछे जाने पर क्या किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा नाम लिया जाना संवैधानिक था तो उन्होंने उसको सही ठहराया परन्तु यह पूछे जाने पर कि क्या उनकी इसमें सहमति थी, उन्होंने नकारात्मक उत्तर दिया। दीपक शर्मा द्वारा अन्यत्र पूछे जाने पर यह कहा गया कि  वह रिपोर्टर के सवाल से सहमत थे। उन्होंने इस बात से इंकार किया कि स्टिंग ऑपरेशन पूर्व निर्धारित उद्देश्यों से किया गया था। दीपक शर्मा  द्वारा अपने साक्ष्य में यह स्वीकार किया गया है कि मो. आजम खां का वर्जन न लेने से लापरवाही हुई है।

मुजफ्फरनगर दंगों के विषय में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट को स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के प्रसारण में दूषित (फर्जी) बताया गया। जब श्री दीपक शर्मा से इस विषय में पूछा गया तो उनकी और से कोई संतोषजनक उत्तर नहीं दिया गया कि किस आधार पर प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट को राजनैतिक दबाव में संशोधित करने की बात की गयी। स्टिंग ऑपरेशन में यह दर्शाया गया है कि कतिपय अभियुक्तों को राजनैतिक दबाव में रिहा कर दिया गया। दीपक शर्मा ने बताया कि इसमें राजनैतिक शब्द का प्रयोग गलत किया गया है। दीपक शर्मा अपने साक्ष्य में यह भी प्रमाणित नहीं कर पाये कि किसी वरिष्ठ व्यक्ति द्वारा फोन किये जाने के संबंध में उनके पास कोई ठोस एवं प्रामाणिक साक्ष्य है या नहीं। उन्होंने यह स्वीकार किया कि इस संबंध में अन्य कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है। दीपक शर्मा से जब यह पूछा गया कि उनके रिपोर्टर ने मात्र मो. आजम खां का नाम क्यों लिया तथा किसी अन्य सम्प्रदाय या अन्य राजनैतिक व्यक्ति का नाम क्यों नहीं लिया तो वह इस संबंध में कोई संतोषजनक उत्तर नहीं दे पाए।
​
दीपक शर्मा ने यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि प्रारम्भ में जो सी.डी. जांच समिति को रॉ फुटेज के रूप में उपलब्ध कराई गई थी वह रॉ फुटेज नहीं था तथा उसके पश्चात जांच समिति के निर्देशों पर जब पुनः इस आशय का निर्देश दिया गया तब रॉ फुटेज की दूसरी सी.डी. (सामग्री) टी.वी. टुडे नेटवर्क द्वारा उपलब्ध कराई गई थी। दीपक शर्मा द्वारा इस संबंध में टी.वी. टुडे नेटवर्क की ओर से की गयी त्रुटि को स्वीकार किया गया।

रिपोर्टर हरीश शर्मा
स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के एक अन्य रिपोर्टर हरीश शर्मा ने यह बताया कि मुजफ्फरनगर के दंगों के स्टिंग ऑपरेशन की टीम में तीन रिपोर्टर थे, जिसमें कि दीपक शर्मा हेड थे एवं अन्य सदस्यों में अरूण सिंह थे। हरीश ने यह भी बताया स्टिंग ऑपरेशन उन्होंने और अरूण सिंह ने दो कैमरों से शूट किया था। शर्मा वर्तमान में "आज तक" चैनल में कार्यरत नहीं हैं तथा वह "इंडिया टी.वी." में कार्य कर रहे हैं। शर्मा ने यह स्वीकार किया है कि मोहम्म्द आजम खां के विषय में उन्होंने प्रश्न पूछा था, परन्तु इसके साथ उन्होंने यह भी बल देकर कहा कि इस प्रश्न को पूछने में टीम के तीनों सदस्यों की सहमति थी तथा इसके बारे में पूर्व में विचार कर लिया गया था। अतः शर्मा के साक्ष्य से यह स्पष्ट है कि यद्यपि प्रश्न उन्होंने पूछा था, परन्तु इसमें दीपक शर्मा की सहमति भी थी। हरीश शर्मा ने यह कहा है कि उन्होंने मोहम्मद आजम खां का नाम इस कारण पूछा था क्योंकि ऐसी चर्चा थी। इसके अतिरिक्त शर्मा अन्य कोई प्रमाण अथवा आधार नहीं दे सके कि उन्होंने ऐसा प्रश्न क्यों पूछा। शर्मा यह भी स्पष्ट नहीं कर पाये कि मोहम्मद आजम खां की चर्चा कहां थी तथा किस अधिकारी अथवा व्यक्ति द्वारा उनका नाम इस सन्दर्भ में लिया गया था। 

हरीश शर्मा ने यह भी बताया कि स्टिंग ऑपरेशऩ में वह विभिन्न तथ्यों को एकत्र करते हैं, परन्तु उनको प्रसारित करने का दायित्व उनका नहीं है और न ही इसके प्रसारण में उनकी कोई भूमिका है। हरीश शर्मा द्वारा अपने मौखिक साक्ष्य में यह स्वीकार किया गया है कि उन्होंने दीपक शर्मा से यह कहा था कि मुजफ्फरनगर दंगों में राजनैतिक दबाव अथवा किसी विशिष्ट राजनैतिक दल के विषय में प्रसारण नहीं किया जाना चाहिए, जब तक कि इस विषय में गहराई से छानबीन न कर ली जाये। शर्मा द्वारा यह भी अभिकथित किया गया कि उन्होंने दीपक शर्मा को यह भी बताया था कि मोहम्मद आजम खां के विषय में अन्य साक्ष्य भी एकत्र करने चाहिए क्योंकि स्टिंग ऑपरेशन का मुख्य उद्देश्य प्रशासनिक शिथिलता थी न कि किसी राजनैतिक व्यक्ति के विषय में। हरीश शर्मा द्वारा यह स्वीकार किया गया है कि मोहम्मद आजम खां के विरुद्ध आरोप के विषय को प्रसारण में नहीं दिखाना चाहिए था तथा पर्याप्त साक्ष्य जुटाने के बाद ही उसका प्रसारण करना चाहिए था।

रिपोर्टर अरुण सिंह
स्टिंग ऑपरेशन के तीसरे रिपोर्टर अरुण सिंह द्वारा अपने मौखिक साक्ष्य में यह कहा गया है कि उन्होंने और हरीश जी ने स्टिंग ऑपरेशन को शूट किया था। अरुण सिंह द्वारा यह भी कहा गया कि प्रसारण का निर्णय एडिटोरियल का है तथा उसमें उनकी कोई भूमिका नहीं थी। सिंह ने यह स्वीकार किया कि शूटेड मैटेरियल/रॉ फुटेज में से कौन से अंश निकाले गये हैं, यह वह नहीं बता सकते, परन्तु उन्होंने कहा कि उसमें से जरूर कुछ अंश निकाले जाते हैं। अरूण सिंह द्वारा भी इस पर बल दिया गया है कि मोहम्मद आजम खां के विषय में प्रश्न पूछने के संबंध में तीनों लोगों की सहमति थी। अरूण सिंह द्वारा बल देकर अपने साक्ष्य में यह कहा गया है कि मोहम्मद आजम खां के विषय में जो आरोप लगाया गया था, वह खुलकर सामने नहीं आया था, इसलिए उन्होंने यह सुझाव दिया था कि इसको हटा दिया जाये, परन्तु वह नहीं बता सकते कि इसको क्यों नहीं हटाया गया।

Courtesy: mediavigil.com
 

Lessons Not Learned from Gujarat 2002

By
-
0

“With a purified heart, and with proper thinking, go on resolving to do honest work. The only objective of human life is to give up bad deeds and to develop good qualities.”

– Atharvaveda, 5/3/41 

“Oh men! you should not be satisfied with your present situation.
You have to move forward and have to exert with body and soul’s
strength.”                                                                                            

– Atharvaveda, 8/1/42

“Law is King of Kings;
Nothing is superior to law;
The law aided by the power of the King
Enables the weak to prevail over the strong.”

– Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 14-4-2-23

 

“Even adversity does not prompt men of unswerving purity to do mean things.”                                                                                                                             

– Tirukkural by Thiruvalluvar, 6543

 

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.”

– Holy Bible, St Matthew, 6/25

 

“Oh, ye who believe! be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity and let not hatred of any people seductive that ye deal not justly.
Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah.
Lo! Allah is informed of what ye do.”                                                            

– Holy Quran, Surah-v-84

 

“Oh my people! Give full measure and full weight in justice, and wrong not people in respect of their goods. And do not evil in the earth, causing corruption.”                 

 – Holy Quran, Surah-xi-855

 

 “Lo! Allah enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving to kins folk and forbideth lewdness and abomination and wickedness.”

– Holy Quran, Surah-xvi-906

 
 
Strife in society is the outcome of inadequate amity and mutual trust among people and the resultant dispute coupled with denial of justice to individuals or groups by the elite wielding power at social, economic, political, religious, cultural and administrative realms. A healthy society is always successful in localising, containing and solving disputes germinated over private or public issues. Modern Nation States have evolved institutions, human resources, tools and procedures for smooth maintenance of the rule of law, prompt delivery of justice to the aggrieved and sound relief, reconciliation, rehabilitation and resettlement of victims of natural or man-made calamities. Segments of any vibrant society like NGOs, local residential groups, professional fraternal associations (including caste-centric groups in India), media, welfare organizations, trade, religious, commercial, political, and cultural bodies and so on, propelled by the consensus of public opinion, do effectively respond to any major threat or danger to social harmony and public order. Simultaneously, structurally organized components of the State – the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, instantly initiate interventionist purposeful action through enabling authority for realization of tasks assigned.
 
Mainstream Gujarati society and wings of the State (Legislature and Executive) did not rise to the level of expectation of citizens, during and after the prolonged communal disturbances, thanks to the impact of majoritarian communal campaigns and government’s covert connivance with inflicters of savagery on their targets.
 
History of communal clashes in Gujarat, particularly in Ahmedabad city had started from AD 1714 and major riots took place in 1969 (600 deaths), 1985, and in 1992 but the prolonged riots in 2002 with the unprecedented highest casualty of nearly 1500 killings (including missing persons), were notorious for the criminal collaborative role of the State functionaries (Neros according to the Supreme Court) in the anti-minority pogrom with pronounced ingredients of a genocide as defined in United Nations Covenant on Genocide 1948. To illustrate, large scale killing of a specific group (761 in riots – 177 Hindus and 584 Muslims; 200 in police firing, 83 Hindus and 117 Muslims and physical destruction of socio-cultural and religious symbols of a targeted group – 302 Dargahs, 209 Mosques, 113 Madrasas, 30 temples and 3 churches; total property lost to Muslims comes to 244 crore and 31 crore to Hindus[1]).
 
The societal movement against riots in general was lukewarm, nominal and that too limited to cities and regional pockets and thus ineffective and directionless, though, some aid has come for organizing relief camps for the displaced, but action to reactivate the subverted Criminal Justice System (CJS), manipulating available channels of grievance redressal to the disadvantage of the riot victims, was grossly inadequate.
 
Except a few NGOs like Citizen for Justice and Peace (CJP), led by Teesta Setalvad and a few others like reputed artist Mallika Sarabhai, no well focused moves to depute advocates to take up major carnage cases were visible. Effective microlevel monitoring of investigation and prosecution of major carnage cases by CJP could get 120 rioters[2] – including a former state minister – (direct perpetrators of violence) convicted with life imprisonment – an unprecedented achievement for human rights activists, in history of anti-minority riots in India since 1947.
 
Most gruesome manslaughters took place in Godhra railway station (59 deaths), and places like Naroda Patiya (96) 190 and Gulbarg Society (69) – both in Ahmedabad city, Sardarpura (33) and Deepada Darwaja (11) – both in Mehsana district, Best bakery in Baroda city (14), Ode village (27) in Anand district and Kidiad (23) in Sabarkantha district. Thousands of internally displaced housed in relief camps were brutally driven out by the State administration in June/July 2002, to project a false picture of normalcy before the Central Election Commission, under pressure from Modi government to hold early assembly election, ostensibly to cash on the anti-minority impulse and communal consolidation of Hindus for Sangh Parivar, allegedly the main architect of genocide.
 
Limited protests by socio-religious, cultural and commercial organizations did not create any discernable impact, so Vajpayee government after condemnation of riots initially through public statements, had endorsed the Sangh Parivar’s stand on riots as genuine and legitimate expression of anger by majority community on the community responsible for ‘conspiring and killing Ram Bhaktas’ at Godhra railway station on 27th February 2002. The octogenarian Sanskrit scholar KK Shastri had even eulogized tormentors of Muslims, by calling them Tigers – “waghri wagh thai gai” (Waghiri – Backward community – became tigers). Gandhians also did not resort to Mahatma’s methodology of Satyagraha or fasting to generate
nationwide moral pressure on Central Government to make a leadership change in Gujarat and to correct malady in the State administration.
 
Pertinently most of the religious leaders of the Muslims were paralysed by fear complex and Modiphobia. Deplorably, many of the Hindu religious congregations had exhibited a mind set of deeming the anti-Muslim blood-bath as a spontaneous, uncontrollable upsurge against the community responsible for killing Ram Bhaktas at Godhra Railway Station. Corporate units owned by Muslims also did not come with any decisive, well-directed and consistent measures for ensuring effective justice delivery and substantial relief, reconciliation, rehabilitation and resettlement schemes for the riot victim survivors.
 
A major silver lining is the role of media, both Print and Electronic, particularly the National English Press and channels, who had graphically brought out practically all nuances of the genesis, course and aftermath of the communal holocaust. Another redeeming feature was the initiative by numerous Hindus who offered shelter, security, relief and rehabilitation to Muslims targeted by marauding Hindu brigands, even risking their lives.
 
Most of them are averse to any recognition or publicity for their philanthropic services lest they would incur the wrath of radical Hindus and Sangh Parivar. Society for Promoting Rationality (SPRAT) led by Hassan M Johar, risked his life and moved through rioting areas and distributed food and relief materials. Activists like Jesuit Father Cedric Prakash, Shabanam Hashmi, Harsh Mander, Jagen Sethi, have also been doing a lot of ameliorative service to the riot affected.
 
Some miscreants, brain-washed to nurture deep-rooted hatred against Muslims, through prolonged indoctrination had acted like programmed robots butchering and plundering their ‘enemy community’. Extremists among Muslims have also been equally devilish. This was possible due to long inertia of the secular civil population whose socio-religious, political and cultural bodies remained sluggish and unresponsive to the trends of de-spiritualisation and politicisation of Hindu- Muslim religious institutions.
 
This gave fillip to the process of saffronisation and exclusivism of Hindus, Jihadism and Arabisation of Muslims. Through well-designed deliberate actions, areas of cooperation and collective joint activities between Hindus and Muslims were increasingly brought down by radical sectarian activists in both communities. Alienation of Muslims from local culture, conventions, customs and costumes, etc, in the name of assertion of Islamic identity to counter alleged danger to Islamic way of life, has adverse impact on social amity and fraternity between communities. Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Advani’s Rath Yatra, mass migration of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley (5 lakh – largest migration from ones native place since Partition), demolition of Babri Masjid and subsequent riots, rise of terrorizing Muslim underworld under the political and police patronage in Gujarat cities like Abdul Latif in Ahmedabad city, etc, have pushed sizable number of traditional secularists to the camp of Hindu majoritarianism.
 
Renaming places with Hindu names, installation of images of Hindu deities in government premises, identification of Muslim trade and commercial establishments for targeted attack during communal riots (exemplified by the destruction of showrooms of Bata, Pantloons, Metro Shoes, hotels bearing Hindu names but owned by Muslims in 2002 riots), government servants participating in Sangh Parivar sponsored programmes for their ‘career advancement’ and so on, became quite prominent since late 1990s. Why did secular sections not take any pro-active, counter active or remedial measures at suitable time and place against the divisive trends in the society? No demonstrative action by secular groups – sociopolitical and cultural – and even Hindu bodies like Ramkrishna Mission with its clear image of equal respect to all religions – Sarva Dharma Samabhavna, took any substantial action against communal movements. Gradually most facets of community life came under the grip of dominant sectarian groups in both communities. Should we learn anything from this suicidal indifference of civil society during the long gestation period in the pre-riot era, duration of riots and post riot days in Gujarat?
 
The secular political elite at national level also did not launch convincing campaigns exposing the Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s grave omissions like,
 
1. Not disassociating his government from VHP sponsored bandh in Gujarat on 28/2/2002,
2. Not warning of strict actions against all bandh enthusiasts,
3. Tasking ruling party leaders (MLA, MP) to initiate action at grass root level to maintain public order and normalcy by touring in their areas of influence,
4. Discouraging bureaucrats and police from implementing government regulations for achieving normalcy, and
5. Slackness to plan and implement meaningful schemes for relief, rehabilitation, reconciliation and resettlement of riot victims in the pre-riots ambience.
 
Significantly, local political leaders who refused to actively support the anti-Muslim agenda of CM like Suresh Mehta of Kutch, Kashiram Rana of Surat, Vallabh Kataria of Rajkot and Haren Pandya of Ahmedabad city (who was later killed in suspicious circumstances), were ill-treated, cold shouldered and all had gradually disappeared into political wilderness.
 
Of the three wings of the State, the Legislature and the Executive had failed to become an effective fortress for the targeted citizens, for saving them from the rioters. No legislator had mobilized their supporters in the party in favour of the Muslims. The Executive component consisting of the police, the executive magistracy and many in statutorily empowered government departments to maintain public order, take ameliorative measures after any disaster, etc, had unabashedly betrayed criminal negligence culpable under Sections 166, 186 and 187 IPC, by not implementing architecture of SOP designed by Central and State Governments. As narrated earlier, most of the facilitators of targeted violence were rewarded and intrinsic law enforcers were punished.
 
Higher judiciary had shown clear indications about their displeasure on Modi administration through many observations and orders.
 
The solution lies in implementation of police reforms in the recommendations of Padmanabhaiah and Ribeiro committees and the Supreme Court orders in Prakash Singh’s case. Creation of bodies suggested by the court could have resulted in their effective intervention to prevent officers from becoming collaborators to rioters, through acts of omission and commission. This would have prevented the democratically elected State Government from carrying out its covert illegal anti-minority agenda through mobocracy. Concept of command responsibility of senior officers up to the Chief Secretary has to be enshrined in the administrative jurisprudence urgently.
 
The area of discretion to the field officers in implementing statutory directives on prevention, control and containment of riots should be reduced to the minimum. The exact operational role of each police officer and the Executive Magistrate at different rungs of hierarchy, viz DGP to
Constable and Home Secretary to Mamlatdar, in handling disturbances, have to be standardized and compiled on the pattern of the much admired ‘Blue Book’ on VIP security. This should contain unambiguous Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for each officer and specific drill manuals, with situation wise directives. Intentional non-implementation and serious acts of omission and commission vis-a-vis SOP be made punishable acts of crime as in the case of Civil rights Act and Prevention of Atrocity on SC/ST Act.
 
India is yet to establish sacrosanct conventions of ethical norms like political executive demitting office whenever serious allegations are made against him, as in matured western democracies. The danger of crookish Indian elite at the helm of affairs devising ingenious contrivances to bypass any well-designed legal and administrative structures cannot be discounted.
 
Strangely, many in the State administration, since 1990s have deviated from their constitutional obligations and acted as part of the collateral wing of the Sangh Parivar to get favours from the government and for career advancement. Thus during 2002 riots in areas of genocidal mass violence, government officers did not adequately respond to distress calls from the minorities under brutal assault by armed Hindu communal gangs.
 
Finally, the civil society has to plan and implement area-specific and issue based schemes to arrest the debilitating trends of de-spiritualisation and politicisation of religious bodies, and the communalisation of all facets of public life. Any act of government functionary going against the
requirements of the rule of law, democracy and secularism, from the highest to the grass root level, be checked and corrected through legal channels and collective public action. All available fora – administrative, legal, political, social and cultural – be moved to make persons in authority, accountable, perform and deliver, as per the concept of command responsibility. Indian civilization, having a heritage of 5,000 years, has vitality, inner strength to withstand any crisis. Many would be unobtrusively endeavouring for achieving the ideals in the inspiring last hymn from the Rigveda,7 burning high with flame of a unified and collective aspiration.
 
“Come together, all of you, speak in one voice, know with one mind, even like the Gods, who, of yore, knew with one mind and together had their share of enjoyment.
 
 “Together may they utter the mantra, may they unite together, may their mind be one, their consciousness mingle. I utter the same mantra with you all, with you all equally I make the offering:.
 
“May your yearning be one, may your hearts be one, may your mind be one, so that your union may be perfect.”
 
Lessons of Gujarat riots are quite loud and clear. Will we go down in history as people endowed with knowledge but bereft of wisdom and will power to correct our course of action?
Panchatantra, the ancient compendium of aphorisms exhorted thus –
 
“Wisdom shows herself in actions;
A Minister’s in forging friendships;
A physician’s in heeling life threatening illness.
Who is not wise when everything goes right.”
– Panchatantra, Chapter 1, 968
 
Rigveda (1500 BC) is the most enlighteningly ennobling component of earliest Indian heritage. Let us hope that God Almighty will respond to the following Rigvedic Prayer:
 
“Resplendent God, let the deceitful and tyrannous people be defeated by honest people through their clever strategy. May they (virtuous and honest) be rewarded by you with abundant wealth and food.” – Rigveda, 1-11-79
 
 
(This appears as CHAPTER 12, Lessons of 2002 Gujarat Riots, Gujarat, Behind the Curtain https://sabrangindia.in/readings/gujarat-behind-curtain)
 
 
Notes
1. Vedamurti Taponishtha Pandit Sreeram Sharma Acharya, Divine Message of Vedas, published by Yug Nirman Yojna (Mathura), p 270.
2. Ibid, p 72.
3. VR Ramachandra Dikshitar (Eng trans), Tirukkural by Thiruvalluvar, Adayar Library, Chennai, p 135.
4. Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall (trans), The Holy Quran, Madhur Sandesh Sangam, p 97.
5. Ibid, p 171.
6. Ibid, p 201.
7. Sampat and Vijay (eds), The Wonder that is Sanskrit, Mapin Publishing, Ahmedabad, p 118.
8. Chandra Rajan (trans), Panchatantra, Penguin Books, p 37.
9. Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati and Satyam Vidyalankra (Eng trans), Rigveda Samhita, Veda Pratishthana, New Delhi, p 31.
 

 

[1] These figures are only the official ones collated in 2002; they have been since revised
[2] A total of 137 convictions to life imprisonment has been assured in the cases where CJP has helped with legal assistance to the survivors
1...2,5192,5202,521...2,697Page 2,520 of 2,697

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved