The number of people displaced from their homes due to conflict and persecution last year exceeded 60 million for the first time in United Nations history, a tally greater than the population of the United Kingdom, or of Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined, says a new report released on 20 June 2016 on World Refugee Day.
In Yemen, internally displaced children stand outside their family tent after the family fled their home in Saada province and found refuge in Darwin camp, in the northern province of Amran. Photo: UNHCR/Yahya Arhab
The Global Trends 2015 compiled by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) notes that 65.3 million people were displaced at the end of 2015, an increase of more than 5 million from 59.5 million a year earlier.
The tally comprises 21.3 million refugees, 3.2 million asylum seekers, and 40.8 million people internally displaced within their own countries.
Measured against the world’s population of 7.4 billion people, one in every 113 people globally is now either a refugee, an asylum-seeker or internally displaced – putting them at a level of risk for which UNHCR knows no precedent.
On average, 24 people were forced to flee each minute in 2015, four times more than a decade earlier, when six people fled every 60 seconds.
Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia produce half the world’s refugees, at 4.9 million, 2.7 million and 1.1 million, respectively.
Colombia had the largest numbers of internally displaced people (IDPs), at 6.9 million, followed by Syria’s 6.6 million and Iraq’s 4.4 million.
While the spotlight last year was on Europe’s challenge to manage more than one million refugees and migrants who arrived via the Mediterranean, the report shows that the vast majority of the world’s refugees were in developing countries in the global south.
In all, 86 per cent of the refugees under UNHCR’s mandate in 2015 were in low- and middle-income countries close to situations of conflict.
Global Trends – Forced Displacements in 2015; Trends in a glance – 2015 in review
Worldwide, Turkey was the largest host country, with 2.5 million refugees. In terms of the refugee-to-population ratio, Lebanon has the highest proportion, with nearly one refugee for every five citizens. Distressingly, children made up an astonishing 51 per cent of the world’s refugees in 2015, with many separated from their parents or travelling alone, UNHCR said.
“Our responses to refugees must be grounded in our shared values of responsibility sharing, non-discrimination, and human rights and in international refugee law, including the principle of non-refoulement,” UN Secretary-General said in his message on the Day.
“World Refugee Day is a moment for taking stock of the devastating impact of war and persecution on the lives of those forced to flee, and honouring their courage and resilience,” he said, noting that it is also a moment for paying tribute to the communities and States that receive and host them, often in remote border regions affected by poverty, instability and underdevelopment, and beyond the gaze of international attention.
Last year, more than one million refugees and migrants arrived in Europe across the Mediterranean, in unseaworthy dinghies and flimsy boats. “Thousands did not make it – tragic testimony to our collective failure to properly address their plight,” Mr. Ban said.
With anti-refugee rhetoric so loud, it is sometimes difficult to hear the voices of welcome. But these do exist, all around the world
He stressed that meanwhile, divisive political rhetoric on asylum and migration issues, rising xenophobia, and restrictions on access to asylum have become increasingly visible in certain regions, and the spirit of shared responsibility has been replaced by a hate-filled narrative of intolerance.
“With anti-refugee rhetoric so loud, it is sometimes difficult to hear the voices of welcome. But these do exist, all around the world,” he said, acknowledging an extraordinary outpouring of compassion and solidarity shown by host communities.
The UN chief drew attention to the General Assembly’s High-Level Meeting on addressing large population movements on 19 September, which he said will offer an historic opportunity to agree a global compact, with a commitment towards collective action and greater shared responsibility for refugees at its core.
This year, hopeful signs are hard to find
UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, said that each year, UNHCR seeks to find a glimmer of hope in the global statistics, but “this year the hopeful signs are hard to find.”
He warned that instead of burden sharing, nations are closing their borders and that instead of political will, there is political paralysis. And humanitarian organizations like his are left to deal with the consequences, while at the same time struggling to save lives on limited budgets.
The colourful vouchers can be exchanged by Burundian refugees for food of their choice, in camp Lucenda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), at food fairs organized by WFP with local merchants. Yellow is for corn flour, red is for beans, blue is for salt. Photo: WFP/Leonora Baumann
Yet, there is cause for hope. Citing host communities, individuals, and families opening their homes, he said “these ordinary people see refugees not as beggars, competitors for jobs, or terrorists – but as people like you or me whose lives have been disrupted by war.”
“UNHCR sees 2016 as a watershed moment for the refugee cause,” he stressed. As wars spiral out of control, this must be a year to take collective responsibility and action to end the conflicts which force people to flee and also a year to help the millions of people whose lives have been destroyed by violence.
“World leaders can no longer watch passively as so many lives are needlessly lost,” he said, also noting that the upcoming General Assembly meeting on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants will put all to the test.
For its part, UNHCR launched last week the #WithRefugees initiative to generate momentum towards that meeting, he added.
Numbers do not capture hardship of displaced
Mogens Lykketoft, UN General Assembly President, said the numbers do little justice to the pain and trauma that this crisis is causing for individual women, men and children across our world.
“They fail to capture the hardship of those who flee and the fear of those who wait anxiously behind. They fail to capture the hopelessness of those held in detention centres or the final thoughts of those lost at sea without even a whisper,” he said.
The numbers do little justice to the pain and trauma that this crisis is causing for individual women, men and children across our world.
He highlighted several points, including that the international community must intensify its efforts to find political solutions to conflicts, as they are the main drivers of humanitarian need.
The UN and other institutions and agencies must be provided with sufficient and predictable resources needed to fulfil their mandates and respond to the incredible levels of need.
In 2014, children constituted 51 per cent of the refugee population, with half of these missing out on primary education, he said. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to leave no one behind has placed a new obligation on all to reach those in situations of conflict, disasters, vulnerability and risk.
Citing that almost nine out of every 10 refugees, 86 per cent, are in regions and countries considered economically less developed, he urged the international community to enhance its solidarity with refugee hosting countries.
Given the scale of the crisis, current levels of third-country resettlement need to be reviewed, he pointed out. In 2014, only 15 per cent of the global resettlement needs were met.
At least fifty thousand persons, including thousands of children died in the past two decades while seeking to cross international borders. Governments must create safe, orderly and regular pathways for refugees to move to other countries.
Violations of international humanitarian and human rights law are of grave concern. All must speak out in the face of serious violations of international law.
Xenophobic and racist rhetoric seems not only to be on the rise, but also to be becoming more socially and politically acceptable. This needs to change, he said.(Source: UN).
A young boy pushes a large cart full of vegetables up a street in Tamil Nadu, India. Mat McDermott/Flickr. (CC 2.0 by-nc-nd)
The 2016 Global Slavery Index finds that 40% of ‘modern slaves’ live in India. A new trafficking bill seeks to lower that number, but it will fail in its current form.
On 31 May 2016 the Walk Free Foundation released its 2016 Global Slavery Index. The foundation, headed by Andrew Forrest, an Australian mining magnate, grabbed headlines around the world when it claimed that there were 45.8 million ‘modern slaves’ around the world, of whom 18.3 million were to be found in India. Although Forrest’s preface to the 2016 Global Slavery Index was interspersed with kind and appreciative words for Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, there was no mistaking that the world balked at India’s shame.
Perhaps in anticipation of this indictment, the Indian Ministry of Women and Child Development recently proposed the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2016 (hereafter the trafficking bill), on which comments are solicited until the end of June 2016. I argue that the trafficking bill needs serious reconsideration to prevent it from becoming a missed opportunity. There is an urgent need for the Indian government to go back to the drawing board to formulate a comprehensive, effective anti-trafficking law.
Keeping up with the Joneses
In order to appreciate the trafficking bill, some understanding of the history of international and domestic anti-trafficking law is essential. Against this backdrop it will soon become clear that the proposed law will do little to alleviate India’s shame of harbouring the highest number of the world’s ‘modern slaves’. It also seems to be a shallow attempt to ape a highly carceral, western approach to a juridically constructed problem of ‘trafficking’ undertaken in perfect amnesia of a richer, more systemic, and indigenous legal approach to the exploitation that has long afflicted vulnerable sections of India’s work force. Herein lies the irony of poorly thought out laws meant to act as band-aids on the long festering problem of severely unequal wealth and resource distribution.
Now onto a brief overview of the international legal framework on trafficking. Although there has existed since the turn of the twentieth century an international legal regime around the ‘traffic’ of women and children into prostitution, the legal concept of ‘trafficking’ received its legal definition only relatively recently in the 2000 UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (hereafter the UN trafficking protocol) supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2000 (hereafter, the UN organised crime convention). According to Article 3(a) of the UN trafficking protocol:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs; (b): The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used.
The UN trafficking protocol is an instrument of transnational criminal law wherein countries negotiate a crime suppression treaty which does not take effect on its own; instead the crime that countries agree to supress has to be enacted into domestic criminal law. Herein lies the key to the ineffectiveness of the UN trafficking protocol more generally. Countries have symbolically adopted the definition of trafficking but how they define its core legal concepts of coercion and exploitation – both of which are irreducibly political ideas – varies widely.
Little wonder then that, despite the extraordinary speed at which the UN trafficking protocol was ratified and despite the magnificent estimates of the number of ‘modern slaves’ around the world today, the number of prosecutions against traffickers remains abysmally low. This is due, in no small part, to the fact that governments, activists, and scholars alike are struggling to demarcate the exact conceptual parameters of trafficking and cognate phenomena, including forced labour and modern slavery, all of which are used interchangeably by the global opinion-making elite.
Another layer of complexity comes from trafficking’s long history of association with prostitution. Historically, and more recently under the Bush-run US administration, trafficking was conflated with trafficking for sex work and, indeed, with sex work itself. When the US government then started ranking governments annually in the US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Reports in terms of their actions to prevent trafficking and prosecute traffickers, and then withholding “nonhumanitarian, non-trade-related” aid from the worst offenders, governments scrambled to amend their anti-sex work laws in order to be placed higher up in the TIP rankings. Regions of the world like south Asia, meanwhile, became playgrounds of sexual humanitarianism, as religious evangelicals and liberals alike sought to rescue third world sex workers and purchase their ‘freedom’.
Competing legal traditions and government inaction
It is in the context of these international developments that we need to assess the Indian trafficking bill. Like most countries around the world, India has a growing architecture of anti-trafficking law, put into place at different points in time to address varied manifestations of extreme labour exploitation. Several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), dealt with aspects of trafficking, such as: kidnapping or abduction (Sections 365, 367); procuring, buying and selling minors for prostitution (Sections 366A, 366B, 372, 373); slavery (Section 371); and unlawful compulsory labour (Section 374). In 2013, new offences of trafficking were added (Sections 370, 370A).
Yet the Indian Penal Code does not define the terms slavery, bondage, forced labour, or begary (where a person has been forced to work against his will and without payment). Many of the labour-related provisions in the IPC were a product of colonial rule, and thus they reflected the realities of that time. They also often furthered the colonial government’s interests in extracting compulsory labour from the natives (which would make it lawful and therefore not subject to Section 374).
Meanwhile, the Indian Constitution, as a self-styled radical legal document reflecting postcolonial aspirations for modern nationhood, is concerned with indigenous forms of servitude. Under Part III, which deals with fundamental rights, Article 23 prohibits the traffic in human beings, begary, and other similar forms of forced labour, making the contravention of this provision an offence punishable in accordance with law. However Article 23, much like the Indian Penal Code, does not define these terms.
The Indian government needs to pause and dig deep into its own long and complex legal history, as well as its unique vision of dealing with extreme forms of exploitation that today travel under the conceptual banner of ‘trafficking’.
All of these laws counter extreme forms of labour exploitation that are now commonly included under the term trafficking. Their intervention models are comprehensive, multi-pronged, community-based, and aimed at systemic reform – several notches above any simplistic attempts at rescue and rehabilitation. The BLSAA, for instance, not only prohibits and penalises existing and future bonded labour; all bonded labourers are set free and, by law, their obligation to repay the debt is extinguished.
The BLSAA has several elaborate provisions rendering existing and future legal action arising from the debt void. Creditors accepting any repayment for an extinguished debt can face imprisonment and fines. Local district magistrates have to ensure the act’s implementation, the eradication of bonded labour, and the rehabilitation of bonded labourers so as to prevent their becoming bonded again. Vigilance committees with representatives of the state, the affected community, social workers, rural development institutions, and credit institutions are to assist the executive in this, while also defending suits against freed bonded labourers. The CLRAA and ISMWA, meanwhile, address chronic exploitation by intermediaries and sub-contractors by imposing on them the obligations of the employer.
Women carrying soil during the construction of national highways in India. Asian Development Bank/Flickr. (CC 2.0 by-nc-nd)
In the 1980s, the Indian Supreme Court, faced with the lack of implementation of these laws by the state and indeed the state’s own reliance on these forms of labour in vast infrastructure projects through subcontracting arrangements, interpreted the concepts of force and exploitation quite broadly to restore the dignity of the Indian worker. For instance, the term force – for purposes of ‘forced labour’ – was interpreted to include the kind of economic coercion that required workers to accept a job under poor conditions over starvation. Similarly, any work where the remuneration was less than the minimum wage was considered exploitative. To combat the executive’s inaction in enforcing these regulations, the activist Indian courts relied on expert state bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission to push recalcitrant provincial governments to enforce these laws.
Still chasing sex workers
Meanwhile continuing on from twentieth century international laws against the traffic of women was the domestic anti-sex work criminal law, namely the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. Section 5 of this act criminalises procurement for sex work, with or without the consent of the person; inducing a person to become an inmate of a brothel; taking a person from one place to another or bringing them up to take up prostitution; or inducing a person to carry on prostitution. In 2005, in response to India’s low ranking in the US TIP reports – it was placed on the ‘tier two watch list’ – the Indian government came close to amending the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 in order to criminalise the customers of sex workers. It was due to the disagreements within the government itself, particularly between the home ministry and the health ministry, that the amendment did not pass muster.
After all, India had since the 1990s spent an enormous amount of money on preventing HIV amongst so-called ‘high risk groups’ including sex workers; any law that criminalised a core stakeholder in the sex industry such as the customer was bound to undo decades of public health work by pushing the industry underground.
India ratified the UN trafficking protocol in May 2011. In 2013 as part of sweeping rape law reforms, (prostitution) abolitionist anti-trafficking NGOs prevailed on the Verma Committee to introduce a separate offence for trafficking, proposing an offence that conflated voluntary sex work with trafficking. Sex workers’ groups successfully protested this conflation. The Indian Parliament then introduced a new section on trafficking into the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: Section 370 criminalises trafficking and Section 370A the use of the services of a trafficked person. Section 370 mirrors the UN trafficking protocol’s definition of trafficking, except that it dropped two key terms. The first was “an abuse of a position of vulnerability”, which could be interpreted very broadly to cover any economic or social coercion. The second was “forced labour”, which had already been interpreted expansively by the Indian Supreme Court.
A positive spin on these innocent omissions is that Indian law already included robust labour law provisions to counter forced labour, and thus Section 370 could omit this. A more plausible (and perhaps cynical) interpretation, in my view, is that the Indian Parliament was trying to curb the scope of the crime of trafficking given the broad interpretation of the term ‘force’ by the Indian Supreme Court.
The close association of trafficking with sex work was handy here; prioritising trafficking for sex work was a convenient way for the Indian government to look the other way from the hundreds of thousands of workers labouring in extremely exploitative conditions. To illustrate the point: in the lead up to the passage of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, the government initially proposed to criminalise anyone who engaged trafficked persons irrespective of the sector in which they worked. Ultimately, Section 370A only criminalised those who engaged trafficked persons or minors for sexual exploitation, but not the users of trafficked persons in domestic work, agriculture and the construction industry.
The 2016 trafficking bill
The 2016 trafficking bill is only the latest (proposed) addition to the existing patchwork of Indian laws against trafficking. Can the trafficking bill achieve what it sets out to do, namely, “to prevent trafficking of persons and to provide protection and rehabilitation to the victims of trafficking and to create a legal, economic, and social environment against trafficking of persons and for matters connected therewith”?
I claim that the bill in its current form will not be able to achieve its stated objectives. This is because there are at least three sets of laws that are applicable to the various manifestations of domestic trafficking in India today: the generally enforceable Indian Penal Code (IPC); the specialist criminal law; and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA), which is applicable to the sex sector as well as to a range of specialist labour legislations covering bonded labour, contract labour, and inter-state migrant work. As indicated, they all arise from different legal sources and harbour varied ideas about what constitutes ‘trafficking’ or extreme exploitation, which arise in turn from divergent political understandings of coercion and exploitation. Finally they envisage radically different regulatory mechanisms to go about addressing exploitation.
India needs a comprehensive anti-trafficking law that not only consolidates these varied streams of anti-trafficking laws, but also their very different political visions of what constitutes extreme exploitation and the best regulatory means of addressing them.
This difference of approach is visible in many respects. While the IPC and ITPA are embedded in a carceral approach, labour laws relating to bonded labour, contract labour, and inter-state migrant work envisage elaborate administrative and labour law mechanisms that operate at the local level. While the criminal laws are focused on targeting ‘bad men’ traffickers (rotten apples), the labour laws assume that exploitation is endemic in Indian labour sectors and use a combination of penal provisions and labour law doctrines to impose obligations for better working conditions on a whole range of intermediaries. While the older IPC provisions are rarely used (see NCRB data on statistics relating to prosecutions under Sections 371, 372 and 373; these amounted to less than 100 in 2014), and it is too soon to assess the effectiveness of the more recently legislated Sections 370 and 370A, the huge enforcement gap of the labour laws despite activist judges, the National Human Rights Commission and several dedicated officers from the Indian Administrative Service is a painful reminder of the callous indifference of sections of the executive and of Indian society to labour exploitation.
The government has considered changes to these different forms of anti-trafficking law several times in recent years, often in opposite directions. The Ministry for Women and Child Development has repeatedly considered amending the ITPA to criminalise customers of sex workers in accordance with the Swedish model. The National Advisory Council under the erstwhile United Progressive Alliance government headed by the Congress Party, meanwhile, commissioned reports on the reforms of laws relating to bonded labour.
On the face of it, the trafficking bill seeks to build out the infrastructure around Section 370, a provision that was hastily passed as part of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. However, India needs a comprehensive and effective anti-trafficking law that not only consolidates these varied streams of anti-trafficking laws, but also their very different political visions of what constitutes extreme exploitation and the best regulatory means of addressing them. Unfortunately, the trafficking bill is not the consolidated legislation that we need.
The key features of the trafficking bill
The trafficking bill envisages the creation of district and state level anti-trafficking committees. These will consist of government officers and NGO representatives in charge of mobilising efforts to prevent, rescue, protect, and rehabilitate victims of trafficking in addition to providing medical care, psychological assistance, and skills development.
Under its current layout, a victim after rescue is to be first brought to the district committee or a police station either by the investigating officer, public servant, social worker, or the victim herself. The bill envisages the creation of protection homes to provide for shelter, food and clothing, counselling, and medical care of rescued victims, while special homes provide long term institutional support. The government is required to formulate schemes and programmes for rehabilitation, support, after care, and reintegration services. The state governments are to form specialised schemes for women in prostitution or any other form of commercial sexual exploitation. There is then an underdeveloped provision on placement agencies requiring that they register. However no further protections are available to victims who may be duped by such placement agencies other than a fine payable by the placement agency itself. A Central Anti-Trafficking Advisory Board will advise the government on the implementation of the bill.
The trafficking bill creates certain new offences. It criminalises using a narcotic substance, alcohol, or psychotropic substance for the purpose of trafficking (Section 16); administering any chemical substance or hormone to a trafficked woman or child to enable early sexual maturity (Section 17); and revealing the identity of a victim or witness to a crime of trafficking. In cases where such information is published in the media, the offending media person and the owner of the media venture can both be punished. The bill also penalises the contravention of the registration requirements for protection homes, special homes, and placement agencies.
Offences relating to the administration of chemicals and hormones are cognizable and non-bailable (in the IPC ‘cognizable’ refers to situations where a complaint is not necessary in order for a police officer to arrest an offender). Various other provisions enable the confiscation, forfeiture, and attachment of property where anyone has committed offences under Section 16 and 17 of the proposed act or under or Sections 370-373 of the IPC. The latter deals with trafficking; engaging a trafficked minor or person for sexual exploitation; habitual dealing in slaves; selling or disposing of or hiring a minor for prostitution. The burden of proof as to guilt for these offences is also reversed, such that the commission of the crime is presumed unless proved otherwise.
Special courts are to be instituted for the prosecution of offences under Sections 370-373 of the IPC and offences under the act; experienced prosecutors are to be appointed as special public prosecutors. In addition to the prescribed penalties for committing an offence of trafficking, the bill provides for the payment of back wages, which is a welcome move. An ‘anti-trafficking fund’ is to be set up to fund the implementation of the act, but with no financial commitment from the government (unlike say the Nirbhaya fund for the safety, security and empowerment of women and girl children); the fund is somehow supposed to attract “voluntary donations, contributions or subscriptions as may be made by any individual or organisation”. Perhaps this is an invitation to philanthrocapitalists to bankroll the government’s anti-trafficking initiatives?
Good intentions perhaps, but likely ineffective
In effect, the trafficking bill proposes the creation of a separate criminal law infrastructure to deal with trafficking. The district trafficking committee is the first port of call where a range of social actors, governmental and otherwise, must report a victim of trafficking. It is not clear which agency undertakes the raid and rescue, but the victim is housed at the protection home, the police investigate the crime, and the special public prosecutor initiates prosecution in a special court. This classic raid-rescue-rehabilitation model is grounded in a robust criminal law system with stringent penalties, reversals of burden of proof, provisions for defanging traffickers by stripping them of their assets, and a parallel adjudication machinery consisting of special courts and special public prosecutors.
Protective homes under the ITPA have produced perverse consequences, such as state officials sexually abusing women and colluding with brothel-keepers and pimps.
The trafficking bill thus proposes to make the prosecution of trafficking under Section 370 meaningful and on paper it looks workable. However the bane of the Indian legal system historically, and particularly in relation to bonded labour, has been the inability of the executive to meaningfully translate law on the books into action. The raid-rescue-rehabilitation model built into the ITPA has similarly been a failure; protective homes under the ITPA have in fact produced perverse consequences, such as state officials sexually abusing women and colluding with brothel-keepers and pimps.
Compounding the proposed replication of the failed model of rescue and rehabilitation is the complete lack of clarity regarding how the infrastructure proposed by the bill interacts with the existing vigilance committees under the bonded labour laws and the protective homes set up under the ITPA. In the absence of any financial commitments from the government, one is left to conclude that the trafficking bill is an empty gesture meant to appease modern-day abolitionists and secure a better ranking in the Global Slavery Index and away from its current ‘hotspot’ status.
Worse still, India has had a strong history of sex work exceptionalism. In other words, Indian policy makers have often viewed trafficking purely through the lens of sex trafficking and sex work – whether it was the changes to the ITPA proposed in the wake of the release of the US TIP reports, or the bias in Section 370A towards users of sex trafficked victims. Several provisions of the trafficking bill highlight this continued emphasis on sex work, including the creation of offences under Sections 16 and 17 and the rehabilitative measures to facilitate women’s exit from sex work.
Labourers in an Indian brick field. UNDP/Flickr. (CC 2.0 by-nc-nd)
Recollect that Indian anti-trafficking NGOs are predominantly anti-sex work/abolitionist groups, whereas organisations working against bonded labour find little resonance in the trafficking label. The proposed law is thus perceived at being directed primarily at victims of commercial sexual exploitation, a convenient distraction for the government from the millions of men and children working under extremely exploitative conditions in brick kilns, stone quarries, construction sites, rice mills, carpet workshops and agri-business. Thus, where the trafficking bill could have consolidated existing statutes and enforcement machinery while also lending conceptual coherence to the term ‘trafficking’, what we have instead may be token legislation that makes a mockery of a serious drive to counter labour exploitation.
What could India do instead? To begin with India might acknowledge that many countries have a patchwork of legislation on trafficking and have worked to consolidate them (the UK Modern Slavery Act, 2015 is an example). So far I have discussed trafficking within Indian borders. But the Indian government also needs to revisit, as part of any comprehensive anti-trafficking law, the predicament of the hundreds of thousands of Indian migrant labourers who have for decades faced precarious working conditions in the Gulf.
It needs to consider further that situation of hundreds of thousands of workers toiling within the global supply chains of western corporations that manufacture in India through elaborate sub-contracting arrangements. Above all, the Indian government needs to pause and dig deep into its own long and complex legal history, as well as its unique vision of dealing with extreme forms of exploitation that today travel under the conceptual banner of ‘trafficking’. It then needs to work out the precise relationship between the varied streams of anti-trafficking law in India and consolidate them, conceptually (in terms of the relationship between forced labour, bonded labour, the legal status of the debt and/or advance, trafficking, procurement), definitionally and in regulatory terms while prioritising improved labour conditions and the redistribution of wealth and resources.
Indian lawyers, bureaucrats, judges, and activists have long debated every single conundrum that anti-trafficking advocates grapple with today, whether it is over the scope of the offence of trafficking; the nitty-gritty meanings of the various forms of exploitation that its umbrella definition covers; the futility of trying to demarcate the worst forms of labour exploitation from endemically exploitative practices in a given labour sector; the division of labour between private and public law responses to intractable and socially embedded labour practices; and the failure of rescue and rehabilitation in the face of executive inaction.
Last but not the least, the starting point for any responsible government in power should be what a labourer once told a young bureaucrat investigating bonded labour and the “immoral trafficking of women”, namely that efforts to deal with her predicament through nariniketans (women’s homes), widow pensions, checkposts, police raids etc., are all fun and games. She said: “buy freedom for our men, give them land and only land. It is this land, these green fields, which will protect their girls. Nothing else can”. It is this call to redistribution that the Indian government must heed.
(Prabha Kotiswaran lectures in Criminal Law at King’s College London. She is the author of Dangerous Sex, Invisible Labor: Sex Work and the Law in India, published by Princeton University Press (2011) and co-published by Oxford University Press, India (2011). She also blogs for the Interdisciplinary Project on Human Trafficking).
Far too many facts pertaining to the Orlando massacre by Omar Mateen raise serious questions about the ghastly killing of American citizens as a False Flag opertion of the FBI. The fact that the gory incident came within days days of the death of Mohammed Ali, whose passing away had re-awakened American and global interest in the Islam he lived also raises questions of whether the spectacular terror act was aimed at burying, along with him the idea of a principled and non-violent Islam. 14 Questions FBI Must Answer.
Two Faces: The late Mohammed Ali, 'The Greatest' (left) and Omar Mateen
If the FBI, America’s extremely powerful military-security-surveillance complex and the corporate media are to be believed, the Orlando massacre was the gruesome handiwork of Omar Mateen – a “gay-hating Muslim fanatic”, a “homegrown, radicalised lone-wolf” – who single-handedly slaughtered 50 people and injured as many in a killing spree at the Pulse bar on a night dedicated to the Gay Latino community. The massacre, we are told, lasted three hours before the Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) finally brought down the mass murderer.
However, eyewitness statements, several news reports and video clips of the gory incident raise serious questions that suggest yet another False Flag operation. Here below are facts which have surfaced in the aftermath of the massacre which the FBI must address:
Mateen himself was a gay. This discredits the narrative of the massacre as a homophobic hate-crime. Why is the FBI desperately trying to suppress this fact?
Mateen’s links to radical Islamists – Moner Abu Salha, the first American suicide bomber in Syria – are being downplayed by the FBI as “minimal.” Why?
Mateen had links with Islamist preachers Abu Taha Marcus Dwayne Robertson and the blind cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, both of whom have been terror operatives with proven links to the CIA? How could the FBI be unaware of this fact?
What about Mateen’s links to FBI handlers for a period of 10 months during 2013? The statement of Florida’s St. Lucie county’s Sheriff Ken Mascara alleges that the FBI had dispatched an informant to "lure Omar into some kind of act and Omar did not bite". Is this not a clear indictment of the FBI and it’s fatal policy of entrapment to commit acts of terror.
The all-powerful G4S security agency has named a psychiatrist who had conducted a psychological evaluation to certify Mateen’s fitness for a job with the agency. But the psychiatrist claims she never saw Mateen and that she was not even living in Florida at the time the test is claimed to have been conducted. Why is the G4S lying?
Why are the FBI’s version and the timeline of the terror attack on Pulse bar put out by the corporate media so incoherent and misleading? An off-duty cop along with other officers had confronted the heavily armed Mateen who started shooting outside the Pulse Bar before going inside? Why was he not followed into the bar by the armed cops? Why is there no mention of the Pulse bar’s own security? How is it that no CCTV cameras were operational?
The 3-hour delayed response of the SWAT Team needs to be explained by the authorities. Why did the police and the SWAT team fail to follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which states that they have to intervene and enter the premises if the shooting is underway?
Mateen purchased the guns from a gun store owned by Ed Henson, a former NYPD Officer. Another gun store owner Robert Apell affirms that he had alerted FBI to a 'suspicious' customer on a shopping spree weeks before the Orlando shooting. Why did the FBI not act on the information?
Eye-witnesses are on record saying that there were anywhere between 2-5 shooters, that Mateen was not the lone shooter. Who were the other shooters and where are they? Why is this key evidence being suppressed?
Why doesn’t the shooting math add up? FBI states that only 202 rounds were fired. Why are experts challenging the supposed facts?
James Wesley Howell, who himself was to attack a Gay Pride Rally in Santa Monica on that very day in a parallel operation told the local police that both Mateen and he were trained by the CIA in Virginia. Is it true that Mateen was part of a hit-squad team for Orlando and who was supposed to get away alive?
Is it true that Wackenhut – the world’s largest private security corporation, with whom Mateen was employed for a period – is a front for the CIA and has an extremely dubious track record
The FBI has a known record of creating terror, entrapment and manufacturing terrorists and masterminding false flag terror operations. Was the Orlando massacre part of this ugly past of the FBI?
Each of these questions are examined in detail below.
Omar Mateen in his NYPD T-Shirts (New York Police Department)
Mateen himself was a Gay
That Omar was himself gay was stated by his former wife Sitora Yusufiy who was married to Mateen in 2009 for three months. She made this disclosure on Brazilian television station SBT Brazil, as reported by the New York Post. Her fiancé, Marco Dias, speaking in Portuguese on her behalf, said Yusufiy believed that Mateen had “gay tendencies” and that his father had called him gay in front of her. Dias also claimed “the FBI asked her not to tell this to the American media.”
In a news report under the headline, ‘Ex-wife’s bomb shell claim: club shooter was gay’, the New York Post revealed:
The bombshell came as a male former classmate of Omar Mateen said he had been asked out romantically by the mass killer, who reportedly was a virtual regular at the Pulse nightclub, having visited it more than a dozen times over the years.
The former classmate said he would hang out with Mateen, hitting gay bars after attending class at Indian River Community College police academy in 2006 — and one time Mateen asked him out “romantically,” according to the Palm Beach Post.
“We went to a few gay bars with him, and I was not out at the time, so I declined his offer,” the former classmate told the paper.
The classmate’s claims came after reports emerged that Mateen frequented the club for years before Sunday’s massacre.
“It’s the same guy,” Chris Callen, a drag queen who performs under the name Kristina McLaughlin, told the Canadian press. “He’s been going to this bar for at least three years.”
Callen’s husband, Ty Smith, recalled seeing a drunk Mateen being escorted from the club. “Sometimes he . . . would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent,” he told the Orlando Sentinel.
At least four Pulse clubgoers remembered seeing Mateen at least a dozen times in the past. But authorities said they had no further information when asked about the sightings on Monday.
Callen and Smith shot down claims that Mateen had snapped after seeing two men kissing each other in public. “That’s bullcrap, right there. No offense. That’s straight-up crap. He’s been around us,” Smith said. “Some of those people did a little more than (kiss) outside the bar … He was partying with the people who supposedly drove him to do this?”
Kevin West, another regular at Pulse, told the Los Angeles Times that Mateen used gay dating apps on a regular basis and even messaged him on a gay dating app, Jack’d. He even saw Mateen an hour before the shooting, which is again a remarkable fact, not being reported by the MSM.
Mateen’s ties with a terrorist
Moner Abu Salha, the first US suicide-bomber in Syria with whom Omar Mateen is recorded to have contacts.
Omar’s links to radical Islamists have been downplayed by both the FBI as “minimal”, as well as by his employer G4S-Wackenhut, the world’s largest private security firm, linked closely to the CIA.
In the aftermath of the attack, authorities are trying to ascertain how it’s possible that Mateen cleared four background checks, two with the company and two with the FBI, without raising sufficient alarm.
Former superior court judge from New Jersey, Napolitano stated that Mateen qualified for the highest level of weaponry that one can qualify for in Florida, calling this an "extraordinary breakdown" within the G4S security system, in the background checks required for someone in his position.
The FBI in 2014 investigated a potential connection between Mateen and Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha – the first American suicide-bomber in Syria who blew himself up killing government soldiers in 2014 –, according to an NBC report.
Omar and Salha were also reported to have met up at parties according to a former classmate who wishes to remain anonymous. This further proves that the interaction between the two was a red flag which should have been heeded, which again the FBI seems to have missed out.Or then did they? Were the FBI just allowing another one of their terror entrapment programmes to play out to its logical conclusion?
Mateen’s links to Salha were well-known, yet the FBI brushed this connection off as being “minimal.”
The common link between the radicalisation of both Salha and Mateen is Anwar al-Awlaki. Both are said to have heard the cleric’s fiery sermons, which finally led them to commit the acts of terror.
In his article, ‘I Reported Omar Mateen To The FBI; Trump Is Wrong That Muslims Don’t Do Our Part’, Muhammad A Malik, also reaffirms the point that both Moner and Mateen were radicalised by the Awlaki tapes.
Anwar al-Awlaki – the radical spiritual leader linked to several 9/11 attackers, the Fort Hood shooting, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner – was a guest at the Pentagon in the months after 9/11, a Pentagon official confirmed to CBS News.
Awlaki was invited as "…part of an informal outreach program" in which officials sought contact "…with leading members of the Muslim community," the official said. At that time, Awlaki was widely viewed as a "moderate" imam at a mosque in Northern Virginia.
In this important video, Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer a retired US army reserve lieutenant colonel who gained fame for his claims about mishandled intelligence before the September 11 attacks and for the censoring of his book, Operation Dark Heart, goes on to reveal that Anwar al-Awlaki was an FBI asset.
Mateen’s radical Islamist preachers
Cleric Abu-Taha Robertson & Blind Cleric Omar Abdel-Rehman, both linked to the FBI-CIA and the World Trade Centre Bombing of 1993
Mateen was a follower of cleric Abu-Taha (Marcus Dwayne Robertson), a former US Marine who acted as a bodyguard for the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman. Robertson was the imam of the Orlando-based ‘Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary’, where Mateen had enrolled online.
In addition to working with the CIA, Robertson was an FBI informant for 15 years. He is linked to the blind cleric Sheikh Abdel Omar Rahman, al-Qaeda and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. One of the main operatives the CIA had utilized in its war against the Soviets was Sheikh Abdel Omar Rahman. The CIA utilized Rahman because of his influence over the Mujahadeen then brought him into the US on a CIA-sponsored visa.
To the CIA, which pumped more than $2 billion into the fourteen-year Afghani resistance effort, Sheikh Omar was what intelligence officials call "a valuable asset”.
According to the UC website, www.constitution.org:
The use of former enemy soldiers, criminals, and terrorists for their dirty work is also a time-honored tradition among intelligence agencies, who stand to gain the "plausible deniability" so coveted in the world of covert operations.
One of the main operatives the CIA had utilized in its war against the Soviets was Omar Rahman. The CIA utilized Rahman because of his influence over the Mujahadeen, then brought him into the US on a CIA-sponsored visa. While the Sheikh was eventually convicted for conspiracy to bomb targets in the US, prosecutors encountered resistance in pursuing him and other World Trade Center bombing suspects because of their ties to the Mujahadeen, and their ties to US intelligence.
During a conversation between a 20-year veteran FBI agent and one of his top undercover operatives, the operative asked:
"Why aren't we going after the Sheikh Adbel Rahman?" demanded the undercover man."It's hands off," answered the agent."Why?" asked the operative."It was no accident that the Sheikh got a visa and that he's still in the country," replied the agent, visibly upset. "He's here under the banner of national security, the State Department, the NSA, and the CIA." The agent pointed out that the Sheikh had been granted a tourist visa, and later a green card, despite the fact that he was on a State Department terrorist watch-list that should have barred him from the country. He's an untouchable, concluded the agent.
Following the Orlando massacre Abu-Taha Robertson and several associates have been rounded up for questioning, according to law enforcement sources. Robertson’s school may not have been the only source of Mateen’s spiritual guidance. Mateen was at the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce with Imam ShafiqRahman two days before the nightclub attack, according to The Washington Post. That mosque was frequented by American-born Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda of Syria) suicide-bomber Salha who blew himself up in Syria in 2014 and the two knew each other, according to officials. Mateen’s association with Salha led the FBI to interview him in 2014. Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Mike McCaul told Fox News law enforcement determined at the time their contact “was minimal.”
In his brilliant and path-breaking book, Visas for Al Qaeda – CIA Handouts that Rocked the World – An Insider’s View, J Michael Springmann documents the role of the CIA in the creation of the Arab-Afghan Legion, that later transmogrified from the Mujahedeen into the Al Qaeda and from there to the ISIS of our present times.
Conclusion: Omar Mateen was no Lone-Wolf. It is clear that he was in contact and thus in all probability been influenced by radical Islamists, closely associated with the FBI and the CIA and thus set up as the patsy, the fall-guy who finally takes the blame, all in connivance with the G4S.
Mateen and his FBI handlers:
In their path-breaking article, ‘Before Omar Mateen Committed Mass Murder, The FBI Tried To 'Lure' Him Into A Terror Plot” – New revelations raise questions about the FBI’s role in shaping Mateen’s lethal mindset’, Max Blumenthal and Sarah Lazare have come out with astounding revelations that prove beyond doubt that the FBI was trying to lure Mateen into committing an act of terror under the influence of his handlers as stated on record by Sheriff Ken Mascara.
While self-styled terror experts and former counter-terror officials have criticized the FBI for failing to stop Mateen before he committed a massacre, the new revelation raises the question of whether the FBI played a role in shifting his mindset toward an act of violence. All that is known at present is that an FBI informant attempted to push Mateen into agreeing to stage a terror attack in hopes that he would fall into the law enforcement dragnet.
Trevor Aaronson, a journalist and author of, Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terror, revealed that nearly half of terror cases between 9/11 (2001) and 2010 involved informants – many of whom were themselves criminals raking in as much as $100,000 from the FBI. “Is it possible that the FBI is creating the very enemy we fear?” Aaronson wondered.
The revelations of FBI manipulation cast Mateen’s case in a uniquely troubling light. Though he refused to “bite” when an FBI asset attempted to push him into a manufactured plot, he wound up carrying out a real act of spectacular brutality, and allegedly swore loyalty to ISIS in the midst of it.
Now the question is whether the FBI was right to pursue Mateen before he could kill, or whether it played an influencing role in shaping his attitude towards politically-motivated violence.
While the full extent of Mateen’s contact with the FBI is unknown, it is clear that it extended into the realm of planning a bogus terror attack. The question now is whether manipulation by a FBI informant had any impact on Mateen’s deadly decision.
“The FBI should scrutinize the operating procedure where they use undercovers and informants and pitch people to become informants,” said Rowley a former FBI agent. “They must recognize that, in this case [with Mateen], it had horrible consequences if it did, in fact, backfire.”
It is now confirmed that in addition to two investigations and two interviews, Florida terror suspect Omar Mateen was also approached by "informants" working for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over a period of 10 months.
This further connects the missing links in Mateen’s radicalization and the seemingly invisible hands that likely guided him to carry out his act of terror.
Mateen first appeared on authorities’ radar in 2013 after the security guard’s colleagues alerted the FBI to inflammatory statements he made to colleagues claiming “family connections to Al Qaeda,” according to Comey.
Nevertheless, FBI investigators investigated Mateen, who was born in New York, for 10 months. They introduced him to confidential informants, spied on his communications and followed him.They also interviewed him twice.
Here’s more from Cartalucci:
The significance of this cannot be understated. “Informants” in this context, according to FBI affidavits regarding similar counterterrorism investigations, refers to individuals posing as members of terrorist organizations who approach suspects; coerce them into planning and preparing for terrorist attacks, before finally aiding the FBI in the suspect’s arrest before the attack is finally carried out. The article also refers to the other cases of entrapment whereinJames Medina, a homeless man with mental problems, and 23-year-old Cuban-American Harlem Suarez both believed that they were working for the ISIS in a make believe world created by the FBI.
In the case of Rezwan Ferdaus, whose mental wellness had deteriorated so much that he was wearing adult diapers at the time of his arrest on terrorism charges, he was led to believe that he was working for the Al Qaeda!
Rezwan Ferdaus, like Medina, was provided assistance by the FBI every step of the way, including being provided 24 lbs of C4 explosives, 6 fully automatic AK47 rifles, and 3 grenades – the FBI’s own affidavit reveals (.pdf). He was brought deep into a fictional world where he believed he was working directly with Al Qaeda for nearly a year – told that “detonation devices” he constructed and passed on to FBI informants were “used” in Iraq to “kill” American soldiers.
Mateen’s connections to the FBI are further affirmed by Steven D Kelley, a former CIA/NSA Contractor.
“This event was clearly just one more false flag event. The individual that’s being named as the shooter clearly is very closely connected to the US government all the way up to his family, and there’s a long history of involvement with government agencies on either side of different issues”.
Why is the G4S lying?
Omar Mateen’s Wackenhut ID-Card
The G4S claims that Mateen had cleared all the medical and psych-evaluation tests conducted before being hired. But in an another intriguing development, Dr. Carol Nudelman who is said to have certified Mateen claims that the tests were not conducted by her, she has never met Mateen and was not even in Florida during that period. The psych certification clears the employee concerned to bear arms and thus this report is crucial to the mounting evidence against the G4S and its history of dubious dealings.
Following the denial by Dr Nudelman, G4S has retracted its statement, claiming a “clerical error” and that another psychiatrist had conducted the psych-evaluation. The name of the “other psychiatrist” has still not been made public.
Seven months into a job as a prison guard in 2007, Mateen was fired for threatening to bring a gun to class. He settled on a career as a low level security guard for G4S Security Solutions, a global security firm that employed him for nine years. Though Mateen’s applications to two police departments were rejected, he was able to pass a G4S background check and receive several guard assignments. (The world’s third largest private employer, G4S has accumulated a staggering record of human rights abuses, including accusations of child torture.)
Despite all these rather worrying indications, the G4S/Wackenhut, the world’s leading private security corporation, never fired him.
Why the conflicting versions from FBI, corporate media?
The Pulse Bar, the Entrance on the left as a narrow door & passage, the Dance Floor in the middle, the Patio in the front and the Rest Rooms at the back.
The timeline as offered by the New York Times is very sketchy at best and is certainly misleading.
The timeline which mentions Mateen’s entry into the Pulse at 2.02 am has very little information about the 3 crucial hours leading to the final assault by the SWAT Team at 5.00 am.
The official narrative states that Mateen was apprehended by Adam Gruler, an off-duty security officer (with a dubious past of police violence against civilians), a gun-fight broke out, soon supported by “additional officers”, Mateen entered the Pulse and then started shooting killing 50 and injuring as many.
Adam Gruler, the off-duty cop who was supposedly on scene looking for a patron with a fake ID and is being promoted as a hero, was exposed by Copwatch 2011 as a violent policeman.
This weak narrative of the off-duty cop and the other officers who apprehended Mateen must be challenged for the following reasons:
It fails to describe the battle with an off-duty police officer and the other officers who on hearing the gunshots came to the aid of Gruler, even as Mateen entered the bar and began to shoot away as per the official version.
According to CNN, an off-duty police officer who was at the Pulse nightclub “engaged the shooter as he entered the club”.
Engaged? As he entered the club? A gunfight, where none were injured or killed? What precisely transpired?
Why didn’t Gruler and the other cops follow Mateen and enter Pulse even as they supposedly were shooting at Mateen?
Not a single mention about the private security guards and bouncers that all bars have at their entrance and inside to deal with unruly violent customers – where were/are they? Where were the CCTV cameras?
One report stated that the CCTV cameras were under maintenance and thus non-functional. In fact all of the mainstream media reports have refrained from even mentioning the CCTV cameras. It is for this reason that we have no footage at all from within the Pulse, or from its external area in the car-park. How very convenient!
3-hour delayed response of SWAT Team
The arrival of the SWAT Team three hours after the terror attack has been criticized by many security experts and begs a logical explanation. The key element is that as part of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP),
"Police are trained that if there's an active shooter in progress, you go in and confront the shooter at any risk. When an active shooter is shooting, you go in and shoot the shooter," says Chris Grollnek an expert on active-shooter tactics and a retired police officer and a SWAT team member.
"This was a catastrophic failure on police SWAT tactics," charged Chris Grollnek, who served on a SWAT team in McKinney, Tx., for seven years and now runs a company training civilians and law enforcement to prevent and respond to active shooter incidents.
Grollnek heaped criticism on the Orlando SWAT team commander for waiting to breach the Pulse nightclub after gunman Omar Mateen stormed in at about around 2 a.m. Sunday, slaughtering 49 people and wounding 53 others — the deadliest mass shooting in the nation's history and the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11.
Cops were on the scene in less than two minutes but it wasn't until 5 am that 11 SWAT members entered the club and fatally shot Mateen, said police chief John Mina and Grollnek, who spoke with law enforcement officers familiar with the investigation.
Asked if he had any doubt the delay between arrival at the scene and breaching the club cost lives, Grollnek responded tersely, "None."
Grollnek also “reserved his anger for the police commanders in Florida who didn’t allow the SWAT team members to enter until several hours after the shooter began the attack”.
Worse, when the SWAT did finally break-through from the rear end in the Rest Rooms, they reportedly killed many of the terrified desperate people seeking to escape from the opening provided.
Conclusion: The standard operating procedure for the police and the SWAT team should have been to intervene when the firing was on and the people were being massacred, but they chose to wait for three hours before launching their attack. The picture is far too murky and the official timeline fails to address the glaring anomalies.
FBI was alerted about 'suspicious' customer?
Mateen purchased his guns prior from a Gun Shop St. Lucie Shooting Center owned by a retired NYPD Officer Ed Henson, prior to the terror attack on the Pulse Bar. The shop has been closed till further notice.
Ed Henson, a retired NYPD detective is known to be very Islamophobic. Henson is reported to supply weapons to the police department. Was Ed Henson a “Patsy-Minder”, providing services for the FBI in lieu of lucrative offers?
TheNew York Daily Newsreported that the store’s owner, Ed Henson, an ex-NYPD officer, had posted on Facebook in December a meme that said, “F— Islam, F— Allah. F— Muhammad.F— the Koran. F— people who support terrorism,” as well as a comment in November calling for Obama to be “handcuffed, removed from Office and charged with Treason and then publicly executed!” “How can the American People and military stand by and do nothing while this piece of sh– puts everyone of us in danger.”
Ed Henson does not appear to be a person who would be very happy selling guns to Muslims… But would he not if it was meant to lead to a false flag and thus further his political agenda?
Apparently, Robert Abell the owner of Lotus Gunworks had a greater sense of responsibility than former NYPD detective Ed Henson. Mateen wanted to purchase body armour that raised suspicion. Abell refused after which Mateen inquired about bulk purchase of ammunition, on which again he was cross-questioned. Omar made a call, spoke in a foreign language and left, after which Abell contacted the FBI and reported the matter. But the FBI took no serious notice of the incident and never visited the store or investigated further.
Clearly the FBI is far more efficient in the Hollywood TV serials!
Ed Henson’s role in the supply of weapons to terror patsies and criminals linked to the FBI should be investigated.
Eye-witnesses claimed there were 2-5 shooters
Why is this fact going unreported in the media? The following videos and eyewitness reports clearly support this overwhelming evidence.
A victim of Sunday’s early morning terror attack at the Pulse nightclub gave a bombshell interview to an ABC reporter after being released from a local hospital.
During the interview the eyewitness, who played dead for several hours during the attack as a strategy to stay alive, said that he had overheard a phone conversation that the shooter was engaged in. The eyewitness said that the shooter made mention that he was the “fourth shooter” and that there were “three others,” “snipers,” along with a ‘female suicide bomber’ that was playing dead.
Additionally the witness said that the terrorist on the phone also mentioned “to stop bombing ISIS.”
This is an absolute bombshell info that is being suppressed by the mainstream press! This information should be the focus on every mainline channel!
Janiel Gonzalez, 26 an eye witness told the palmbeachpost.com he heard another gun from a different direction, so he wonders if there were two gunmen.
“Everybody dropped to the floor. We were trying to look for an exit. But the main exit was right next to the entrance where the shooter was shooting,’’ he said.
“In a moment of desperation we were all crawling on the floor trying to find a place to exit. I looked to my right and I could see people going through some curtains. We were digging through the curtains and found a door.’’
But he said the door was blocked by a man. He wasn’t sure if it was a club security person or an accomplice to the gunmen.
“Fifty people were trying to jump over each other trying to exit the place. There was a guy holding the door and not letting us exit. He’s like ‘Stay inside, stay inside.’ As he is saying that, the shooter keeps getting closer and closer and the sound of the bullets is getting closer. Everyone starts to panic. People are getting trampled. Let us out, let us out!’’’
Gonzalez’ first thought was that it was a hate crime. “This guy is trying to prevent us from leaving. Maybe they’re working together,’’ he said.
Javer Antonetti, 53, told the Orlando Sentinel newspaper that he was near the back of the dance club when he heard the gunfire. "There were so many (shots), at least 40," he said. "I saw two guys and it was constant, like 'pow, pow, pow,'.
“I saw the report first hand on CNN about 2 or 3 hours after it broke the news so probably 5 am Florida time and it never played again and I haven't been able to find it. It was an older Hispanic lady in her late 40s or early 50s that didn't speak English to well. She was telling reporters that she was on the phone with a club patron that was with her son at club. He told the Hispanic lady that he saw TWO SHOOTERS standing next to each other that opened fire on the crowd before the mother’s son was wounded by three gunshot wounds. The footage only played once and I have not been able to find it online. I knew I should've recorded it.”
Cody Agnew: Narrating an eyewitness’ account from woman who was shot with 12 bullets as 2 other men were in the club firing at people.
An audio clip of the Orlando terror attack reveals two or more guns firing simultaneously.Additionally witnesses said that "they" are shooting
Yet another eyewitness to the attack, who was inside the nightclub when it happened, was giving his testimony on the attack, after being trapped inside the club, live on-air, to a mainstream news source when he was abruptly cut off after providing a crucial detail. The eyewitness said that during the attack “there was a guy there that was trying to […] hold the door closed so that we couldn’t exit,” as pointed out by an investigative reporter on YouTube.
In yet another clip we see ‘crisis actors’ carrying an “injured person” then let him stand as they get past the cameras and then talk to each other after a job well done. Astounding!
Conclusion: Evidently there are multiple eye-witness reports stating that there were two or more shooters. Clearly this was not the job of a single shooter. The fact that both the FBI and the corporate media are suppressing these obvious facts further points to the Orlando incident being a false flag terror attack, where Mateen was the fall-guy, while there were other far more professional shooters, who were allowed to slip away in the general mayhem and confusion once the job was done.
As per the official narrative Mateen was shooting away with his AR-15 Assault Rifle, even as he found time to change magazines plus make telephone calls to 911 and certain news outlets ostensibly to reveal his identity and his links to the ISIS. Says, Robert David Steele (former FBI/CIA Contractor), “The tape pledging allegiance to ISIS is patsy perfect.”
Conclusion: Thus this time it was not about a terrorist(s) leaving behind an ID-card or a passport but about phone calls made, to ensure that an identity is created, which can be then played upon by the investigating agencies and the corporate media. This sounds like a slight tweak on the part of the FBI False Flag section, as they have been laughed at and scorned in the recent past where passports were supposedly found on the person of dead suicide-bombers blown to smithereens.
How the shooting math add up
“There is a 0% chance that only 202 rounds were fired in Pulse,” says Mike Cernovich – a popular non-fiction writer and a licensed attorney whose legal writing has been cited in federal court opinions and academic journals – as he deconstructs the shooting episode and posits certain key facts and questions. He affirms that the shooting and the murderous mayhem that followed cannot be explained on the basis of one shooter and asserts that there were more.
He also challenges the police statement that 202 rounds were fired.
“Let’s play with that 202 number. Therefore 202 rounds – 12 (shot before entering Pulse) – 30 (shot into ceiling). That leaves 160 rounds in total. Remember that 160 rounds includes shots fired by police. There were 102 dead and wounded. That’s a bullet-to-casualty ratio of 1.6 to 1. In other words, there were 1 dead or wounded for every 1.6 rounds fired. Has this ever happened in the history of mankind? Is there anyone in the Special Operations community who has witnessed a ratio of 1.6 to 1? Again, that math includes rounds shot by police. How many rounds did the shooter fire himself?”
“Again, do the math. The media is saying that 202 rounds were fired in total. This includes all shots fired. We know the shooter fired rounds before going into Pulse and also fired rounds into the ceiling. There has never been a mass shooting where only 1.5 rounds took out one person.”
A parallel second terror operation planned for the same day?
The writer Danny Quest essentially states that there were two terror operations underway on that very day. One was to hit the Pulse bar in Orlando, Florida and the other a Gay Pride parade in Santa Monica, California.
The second terror operation was being led by James Wesley Howell. When he learnt that Mateen and his accomplice Brandy had been killed, Howell panicked and contacted the Santa Monica police department. Howell realised that he had been setup by the CIA and he too was going to be killed.
Howell stated that he had been recruited by the CIA through the online fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary course where he got to know Mateen. Both were then trained in Virginia by the CIA to shoot and make bombs and carry out simultaneous operations in Orlando and Santa Monica.
Two differing and contradictory versions have emerged from within the Santa Monica police department (SMDT). The first version as per the LA Times, quoting Santa Monica police chief Jacqueline Seabrooks was that Howell had been caught and arrested with explosives and that his interrogation revealed he was to harm the Gay Pride parade.
But after the FBI tookover the case, the SMDT version soon changed to say that they were unaware of the suspects intentions.
The following are excerpts of a the article by Danny Quest on June 15, which provide details of two-CIA trained hit-squads and the subsequent cover-up underway.
The real truth of the story was released to a former Los Angeles County prosecutor who works for “Get Off the BS” by two Santa Monica police officers that have been issued gag orders under threat of Federal prosecution for talking further talking about the incident.
According to two department sources, Howell called the Santa Monica police on Sunday morning claiming that he needed protection from the CIA. Howell further elaborated to the dispatcher stating that he “had been set up by the CIA – they are going to kill me.”
According to Howell, he was in LA to meet with another person in a collaborated attack on the gay communities in both Florida and Los Angeles.
Howell additionally stated that, “everything has gone south. Dan was gone when I got here. They killed the leader of the Florida attack this morning. They are going to kill me. I need protection.”
According to sources within the police department’s investigation Howell indicated to officers who first made contact with him that Howell claimed he was one of five people involved in a planned Sunday attack on both the east and west coasts.
Howell stated that he was supposed to “hook up” late Saturday night with his contact in LA who was supposed to have more weapons and chemicals to mix with the Tannerite he was in possession of.
When I got here, Dan was gone. I went to his apartment and he had cleared out… I tried calling him but he never answered me,” said Howell.
When questioned about the other four people involved in the plot, Howell was only familiar with the first names of three of the alleged suspects, naming his contact in LA – Dan and two of the three contacts in Florida,Omarand Brandy.
Speaking of the suspect killed in the Pulse Bar massacre in Florida, Howell stated, “Omar was not supposed to be killed. They lied to us – Omar and Brandy were supposed to get away.”
When Howell was questioned about how he and his conspirators knew each other, he said that, “We were all familiar with each other through an online fundamental Islamic knowledge seminary course[1]– we were recruited through the course and trained together at a camp in Virginia – we were taught how to shoot and make bombs – everyone knew their part – something went wrong….”
Before the officers could further question Howell, agents working for the Los Angeles office of the FBI quickly swept in and took over the case. Santa Monica detectives were never allowed to talk with Howell.
In summary, it appears that Howell was on his way to “hook up” with another conspirator (Dan) to set off explosives and shoot people at the gay pride parade in Hollywood California on Sunday.
Finding his contact missing when he got to LA and having heard thatOmar Matteen had been killedby an FBI SWAT team in Orlando, Howell determined he had been double crossed by the CIA and feared for his own life
Howell was taken in to custody by the FBI before Santa Monica police officers could further question him about the motives behind killing gay people on both coasts of the US on Sunday.
However, in absence of further information and or anyone who will officially go on record, there is no doubt that the American public is not being told the truth about the Orlando, Florida shooting and the arrest of Howell on Sunday.
It is a shame that the Fed’s got to the Santa Monica police chief on Sunday before she was silenced, however we are very thankful that at least two officers have risked their jobs and freedom to reveal what she would of most likely Tweeted had the Fed’s not got to her.
Would you like to make odds that it was just a “coincidence”, as the mainstream media reports, that Howell armed to the teeth with assault rifles and explosives, was on his way to a gay pride parade the same day as the massacre in Florida?
Wackenhut's dubious track record
Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was said to have rebuffed Wackenhut’s effort in the 1980’s to purchase a weapons propellant manufacturer in Quebec with the remark "We just got rid of the CIA, we don’t want them back."
"It is known throughout the industry," said retired FBI special agent William Hinshaw, "that if you want a dirty job done, call Wackenhut." Phillip Agee, the left-wing former CIA agent who wrote an expose’ of the agency in 1975, said, "I don’t have the slightest doubt that the CIA and Wackenhut overlap."
The Wackenhut board of directors includes powerful men from the American military and intelligence establishment, as well as political leaders who walk the corridors of power in the White House, reveals William Corbett.
William Corbett, a terrorism expert who spent 18 years as a CIA analyst and is now an ABC News consultant based in Europe, confirmed the relationship between Wackenhut and the agency.
"For years Wackenhut has been involved with the CIA and other intelligence organizations, including the DEA," he told SPY. "Wackenhut would allow the CIA to occupy positions within the company in order to carry out clandestine operations."
Wackenhut maintains an especially close relationship with the US federal government in other ways as well. While early boards of directors included such prominent personalities of the political right as captain Eddie Rickenbacker; general Mark Clark and Ralph E. Davis, a John Birch Society leader, current and recent members of the board have included much of the country’s recent national-security directorate: former FBI director Clarence Kelley, former CIA deputy director Frank Carlucci, former defense intelligence agency director general Joseph Carroll, former US Secret Service director James J. Rowley, former marine commandant PX Kelley, acting chairman of President Bush’s foreign-intelligence advisory board and former CIA deputy director admiral Bobby Ray Inman. Before his appointment as Reagan’s CIA director, the late William Casey was Wackenhut’s outside legal counsel.
Conclusion: Can there be any doubt that Wackenhut operates as a front of the CIA?
The company has 30,000 armed employees on its payroll. Source Watch wanted to know more about this special relationship; but the government was not forthcoming. Repeated requests to the Department of Energy for an explanation of how one company got the security contracts for nearly all of America’s most strategic installations have gone unanswered.
Here is a detailed report on various human rights violations, corruption and management failures documented by the Jewish Voice for Peace.
G4S is a British multinational corporation that has grown to be the largest security company in the world. The company operates in120 counties, and employs more than 50,000 employees in the U.S. It provides a broad array of security services to government, corporate, and industrial clients. G4S has been plagued by scandals and negative media coverage linked to violations of human rights, ripping off taxpayers, and gross mismanagement. As a result, the company has come under sharp criticism from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Examples of high profile G4S problems include:
G4S Involvement Israeli Prisons and Check Points
Critical Failures in Employee Screening, very relevant in the case of Omar Mateen
Gross Mismanagement of Florida Youth Detention Centers
G4S Contracts in Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories. Who Profits, a research project of the Coalition of Women for Peace, has done extensive research on G4S and its role in supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. (WeDivest.org website)
Palestinian legislators and human rights activists held in G4S equipped prisons. Many Palestinians have been jailed in G4S equipped prisons for engaging in non-violent protests.
Damning reports of the private prisons and juvenile homes in the US being managed by G4S, with detailed reports of sexual abuse to torture.
Another worry is that Wackenhut-G4S procured Securicor and as part of the deal Argenbright Security, which was managing the Dulles Airport during the 9/11 Terror attacks.
Conclusion:Wackenhut today is the third largest employer in the world after Walmart (USA) and Foxconn (Taiwan) employing more than 650,000 people across the globe. It provides services ranging from security guards at housing complexes, embassies, airports and nuclear plants. Wackenhutis clearly aligned with the global-military-industrial-security-surveillance-complex. In the age of the privatization of security and surveillance, Wackenhut has gained enormous profits and power, is all pervasive and has grown into a gargantuan lethal Frankenstein.
FBI’s dubious record in masterminding false flag terror operations
The evidence is so overwhelming that it is barely an issue of debate, as the facts have been well documented, recorded and present in the public domain.
In an excellent article, Glenn Greenwald – who along with Edward Snowden has single-handedly exposed the global surveillance programme run by the American NSA, CIA and the FBI – says that the dearth of genuine terrorists in America is so acute that the FBI actually has to go out of its way to find and create terrorists.
The strategy of the FBI is as follows. It sends in its vast network of informants, criminals and/or agents into the communities looking for individuals that they can prey on and radicalize. Once they zero on the prey, they begin the process of ideological radicalization, supply of money, training in arms and weapons and finally set them up to carry out a terror attack. This entire programme could carry on for over a year if required. Then at the very last moment the patsy is apprehended with dud weapons supplied by the FBI, which essentially takes the credit for preventing a terror attack and defending the homeland from terrorists.
The FBI setting up a patsy, providing him with a suicide-bombing vest
Judge Napolitano is a former New Jersey superior court judge, a senior judicial analyst, a syndicated columnist and a distinguished professor at the Brooklyn Law School. He has written nine books on constitutional, legal, and political subjects. He has also been waging a struggle to expose the FBI and the policy of entrapment of innocent citizens.
In this popular video, “The FBI Creates, Then ‘Foils’ Terror Plots – False Flags Exposed”, Judge Napolitano goes on to expose the FBI and its false flag terror operations.
In his brilliant article in the New York Times published in April 2012, David Shipler makes a strong case to expose the strategy whereby the FBI are manufacturing terror plots and entrapping ordinary citizens:
“The United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts. But all these dramas were facilitated by the FBI, whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.”
Thomas Fuentes, the former FBI assistant director goes on to explain the economics that perpetuates the cycle of national security budgets and the strategy of false flag terror operations.
The answer is simple. In thewordsof former FBI assistant director, Thomas Fuentes: “If you’re submitting budget proposals for a law enforcement agency, for an intelligence agency, you’re not going to submit the proposal that ‘We won the war on terror and everything’s great,’ cuz the first thing that’s gonna happen is your budget’s gonna be cut in half.”
In their path-breaking study, John Mueller and Mark Stewart analyse the politics of terrorism and the sheer futility of the current strategy to combat terror, merely “chasing ghosts”, a problem that they say is highly overblown and exaggerated. This leads to increasing drain on national resources and more worryingly a crackdown on civil liberties and the increasing reach of an opaque security state. The odds that an American will be killed by a domestic terrorist any given year is about one in 4 million.
In “Chasing Ghosts: The Politics of Terrorism”, Mershon affiliates John Mueller and Mark Stewart show that the effort has not, statistically speaking, been efficient or successful. Only one alarm in 10,000 has proven to be a legitimate threat – the rest are what Mueller and Stewart call “Chasing Ghosts.” The ghosts are enormous drains on resources and contribute to a countrywide paranoia and has resulted in widespread support for (and minimal critical questioning of) massive expenditures and infringement on civil liberties, including regular invasions of privacy and legally questionable imprisonments.
Mueller and Stewart contend that the “ghost chase” occupying American law and enforcement agencies and fuelling federal spending persists because the public has been led to believe that the terrorism threat is significant. As they show, it is not as significant threat – certainly not large enough to justify the vast security state apparatus that has emerged to combat it.
The chance that an American will be killed by a terrorist domestically any given year is about one in 4 million. Yet despite the statistically low risk and the extraordinary amount of resources put towards combating threats, Americans still worry and the government still spends billions.
Until the true threat of terror is understood, Mueller and Stewart argue that the country cannot begin to confront whether our pursuit of ghosts is worth the cost.
(John Mueller is a senior research scientist and Wood Hayes Chair Emeritus at the Ohio University. He is the author of 18 books, including “Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We Believe Them (Free Press, 2006). Mark Stewart is director of the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia. He has more than 25 years of experience in probabilistic and vulnerability assessment of infrastructure and security systems.)
In conclusion
Just a few days prior to the Orlando False Flag, for the first time in years, American Muslims held their heads high, even as their nation and all of the world, discussed the greatness of Muhammad Ali, the legendary boxer and truly the greatest of all times. Muhammad Ali’s life was discussed, his views on politics, which very few successful sportsmen truly have the courage or the vision to speak-out, thus very significant for the times that we live in. His stand against the Vietnam War, his support for Palestine, his outspokenness and contribution to the movement for racial equality were all widely appreciated with adulation. His views on liberal Islam were also widely discussed and he stood for the co-existence of people of various religions, cultures and ethnicities, he believed in the celebration of our diversities.
Muhammad Ali was once again the hero of a new generation of Muslims and secular liberals across the world. All this made it possible for American Muslims to stand up with a degree of pride and self-respect, in being both good Muslims and Americans – with Muhammad Ali being the role model!
All of a sudden it was chic and cool to be an American Muslim!
But the Orlando False Flag terror attack has ensured that the gains of the last few days have once again been sadly reversed, with the possibilities of dire consequences which cannot be understated.
Thus it is being widely discussed that one of the key reasons for the Orlando False Flag was to counter the gains that the American Muslim community made due to the positive discussions that emerged around the passing away of the Great Muhammad Ali. There are many vested interests both within America and the global level who wish to see the state of affairs carry along the path of divisions, intolerance, hatreds, of more violence, wars and suffering.
In the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack, leading American Muslims had issued a statement on June 13. Excerpt:
On behalf of the American Muslim community, we, the undersigned, want to extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the barbaric assault that occurred early yesterday morning at Pulse, an LGBTQ nightclub in Orlando, Florida. We unequivocally say that such an act of hate-fueled violence has no place in any faith, including Islam. As people of faith, we believe that all human beings have the right to safety and security and that each and every human life is inviolable.
Three days ago, Americans honored the memory of one of the greatest and most beloved men in American history: Muhammad Ali, who was a devout Muslim. The Islam Muhammad Ali followed is one of love, tolerance, and respect for all. American Muslims everywhere felt that he ended, once and for all, the vacuous claim that one cannot be both Muslim and American.
We, as American Muslims, follow the openhearted and inclusive Islam of Muhammad Ali and completely reject the hatred, provincialism, and intolerance of those who trample upon the rights of others, besmirching and defiling the name of Islam. The criminal who took the lives of dozens of patrons of the Orlando nightclub and injured many others was an aggressor, plain and simple.
The Orlando terror attack once again lays bare the imperial neo-conservative strategy of “controlled chaos”, leading to a perpetual state of fear, confusion, visceral hatreds and divisions, whereby the masses are more pliant to control under the “unchallengeable” slogan of “national security”. The increasing tentacles of the surveillance system, the crackdown on civil liberties, the promotion of more interventionist wars abroad, the muzzling of dissent and the increasing control of the corporate media and its hegemonic narrative, create an atmosphere whereby democratic and constitutional principles and institutions are being ceaselessly weakened.
The politics of false flag terrorism, whereby the national security agencies, in close coordination with private security corporations, justify their ever-expanding budgets by planning and orchestrating terror attacks has now been well documented and proven beyond doubt. There have been many whistleblowers from within the security system that have courageously stepped forward to expose the rot and the corruption that lies within the corridors of power. They have exposed the evil designs of the ruling elite who play with the ordinary lives of billions of people across the world.
In the course of the last two decades, the slogan ‘War against Terror’ has only led to a cycle of even more wars and more terror, with suffering caused to millions of dead and even millions more who are seeking refuge to escape their war-torn nations. The world has not witnessed a tragedy on this scale since the dark days of WWII, unfolding before our very eyes.
Even as the world hurtles towards a precipice, more people across the world than ever before are aware of the nefarious plots of the globalist cabal and the challenges that confront us. But how do we resist and expose this gargantuan monster is the question.
The answer lies in reaching out to each other as human beings, across religions and cultures, across nations, sharing information and insights, speaking out with courage, asking questions, seeking answers – where there are none. Yet, stating the truth with a belief in our individual conscience, in the ‘still small voice’ that Mahatma Gandhi referred to in times of great distress, a belief in our collective humanity and the common destiny that awaits us all.
When politics decides your future, decide what your politics should be !
Shehla Rashid (AISA), Vice President JNUSU, speaks at a student protest, during the ‘Occupy UGC’ Movement
The recent government constituted panel‘s (headed by former cabinet secretary T.S.R. Subramaniam) report on student politics is unconstitutional, highly regressive and politically motivated, and signals the upcoming onslaught of total commercialisation of education and imposition of Hindutva ideology in universities. The TSR Subramaniam Panel’s report is the logical follow up to the Birla Ambani report (which was submitted in 2000), following which student unions across the country were banned. The Birla Ambani report had lamented that student unions are not allowing commercialisation of education: we accept the charge and take pride in it! We believe that education should be a right of everyone, not a privilege of a handful of people.
After the report, tremendous restrictions were put on student union elections in the form of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations (2006), but students resolved not to give up, but to intensify the fight against imposition of austerity on education. Student groups over the past several years have resisted the commercialization and saffronisation of education and that is why the present government is fighting a proxy war against students. Students across the country are being targeted for democratically raising their voices. Interestingly, the only students organization which does not face any action is the perpetually violent ABVP, the student wing of the regressive RSS, whose members are well known for their rogue and abusive behaviour!
We warn the government not to engage in any measures to restrict political activity by students, as these will be in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Student activism has made academic practices better and richer. JNU, HCU and FTII, for example, are some of the finest institutions of learning in the country. That is not “despite” student politics, but “because of” the progressive student politics of these campuses. Modiji has the luxury to tell us to leave studies and do politics. What does he have to say to those who will never be able to enter these educational institutions, due to the policies of UPA & NDA governments? It is for those that we fight, and will continue to.
The TSR Subramaniam panel asks for restrictions to be placed on student groups organized along identitarian lines. In the garb of banning student groups based ‘on caste and religion’, the government (if it acts on these recommendations) will end up terrorising student groups of minority and Dalit, communities and not upper-caste Hindu supremacist organisations such as ABVP which openly engage in anti-women, anti-Dalit and anti-minority propaganda. It is shocking that the government is mulling interference at such deep level in campuses. It appears that the people on the panel do not have knowledge of the Indian Constitution which empowers all citizen groups to form unions and associations. Students are no different, and have the right to form associations and unions. The fact that students do not like Modi and Modi doesn’t like students can’t be used to curb our voices.
It is ridiculous to ask students to leave studies to do politics. (Meaning, as the minister Venkaiah Naidu said recently, ‘If students want to do politics, they should stop studying, quit universities, and then join politics’: Kafila).
When the BJP comes to seek votes of students, does it ask us to leave studies? Then why does it get threatened when we intervene in politics? What comes next? Will they ask farmers to leave agriculture and then come to politics? Why don’t they ask the Yogis, Sadhus and Sadhvis in their party to leave religion and then come to politics? Why don’t they ask lawyers in their party to leave advocacy and then come to politics? Most of all, why don’t they ask Gajendra Chauhan to leave BJP and then run the FTII? It is ironic that a government which has flooded educational institutions with mediocre saffron puppets has the audacity to lecture students on political neutrality! The govt should stop making a joke of itself and stop interfering in campuses. The ruling party representatives are there in the campuses and are active in student politics, and should be enough to carry the ruling party ideology. The increasing isolation of ABVP on campuses is causing the govt so much anxiety that they are desperate to politically intervene in one way or the other, to save the sinking ship of the ABVP.
This report goes on to imagine ghosts and makes ridiculous statements to the effect that, students stay in hostels for several years for political motives! On the contrary, it’s when students don’t get hostels and can’t pay the shockingly high rents outside campuses, that they join the fight against budget cuts in education. Why shouldn’t a student get a hostel for the entire duration of the study? What is ABVP’s response on this shameful denial of hostel facilities? Weren’t they screaming in student Union elections that they will ask their govt to build more hostels? Why is their government targeting students who are lucky enough to get hostels?
In addition to all this semi-literate chatter, the committee suddenly says that Yoga must be encouraged in campuses. While we have no problem with Yoga, why is the government politicising Yoga? The only time in the history of mankind when Yoga got negative publicity is when Narendra Modi tried to forcibly impose it on people and politicise it. What does Yoga have to do with a report on student politics? Why make it sound as if students need a rehab? There are many tribal practices which are very good for health. Why doesn’t the govt include those too in this trashy report?
This report is a deliberate provocation to instigate the next phase of unrest on campuses. This will be followed by further fee hike and commercialisation of education, reduction of scholarships, aggressive Hindutva activities and, by declaring students as violent, it already lays out the justification for the use of institutional violence on them in case they protest, just like in the case of Rohith Vemula, and now JNU, BHU, AMU, MANUU, Guwahati University, etc.
The Modi government must stop attacking the opposition and start working now. It has been two years of total failure of the government. They can’t silence people who protest against the government’s failures. We are also elected representatives, and in addition to fighting state repression, we are also working for students. If Modi needs some lessons in progressive politics, he can come to JNU. JNU Students’ Union can be a model for him. We deliver and struggle for most things that we declare on our election manifesto. We don’t go around attacking the opposition, beating them up, abusing them on social media, etc. We work. We invite all BJP persons for lessons in progressive politics from student representatives.
Shehla Rashid is a student at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (JNU) and the Vice President of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU). She is an activist with the All India Students Association (AISA).
This text is a version of what was first posted as a status update on Shehla Rashid’s Facebook Page.
It was during my posting as a staff reporter with TheTribune in Ferozepore, Punjab in 2001 when a school book came into my hand that asked the Class VIII students – which Sikh Guru had sent armies to Ayodhya to liberate the Ram temple? The answer given in this knowledge book was Guru Gobind Singh.
Both the query and the answer, in the guise of information had left me baffled. It was in reference to the tenth master of the Sikhs who had laid the foundation of the Khalsa, a militant force of the Sikhs to fight against repression. The army was raised from among the oppressed communities who were treated as untouchables by the caste Hindus to fight back against both caste system and the aggression of an Islamist government.
The problem with the question and the answer was that the information had no real or historical basis. The Sikh scholars and historians rejected it right away saying that it is a distortion of history.
This was the time when Akali Dal, a regional party of the Sikhs in Punjab was in power in the state and running the show with the support of Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Incidentally, the two parties are again in power in Punjab.
Under this government, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), an ultra Hindu supremacist body had intensified its activities in the state. The BJP is a political arm of the RSS that wants to turn India into a Hindu state. They had started organising camps in villages in Punjab around that time. I still remember that the Sikh participants in these drills were referred to as Keshdharis (the bearers of long hair) by the RSS men.
The book with a controversial question and a controversial answer was prescribed in schools run by the RSS which has always claimed that Babar, a Muslim Emperor had demolished the temple that once stood on the birthplace of Lord Ram, a revered Hindu god in Ayodhya and instead built a mosque to humiliate Hindus. Both the RSS and the BJP have always wanted to build a Ram temple at the disputed site. They have already demolished the mosque in 1992 and are now waiting for an opportune time to build a temple.
The information about Guru Gobind Singh having sent his armies to Ayodhya for the liberation of Ram Temple is part of this continued propaganda to create mass appeal for the completion of this unfinished agenda. The idea was to attract Sikh support in Punjab where they are in majority. Since the Sikh historians challenged the story, the trick had backfired. One of the towering Sikh priests, professor Manjit Singh has categorically asserted to me, that there was no historical evidence to establish this.
But the story did not end there. The RSS has continuously been trying to rope in the support of Sikhs. Thanks to the Akali Dal, a staunch BJP ally there efforts have paid some dividends. The RSS has been able to make inroads in the minority Sikh community that hardly makes up two percent of the Indian population. The RSS run schools were getting funds from those in power, I gathered first hand from my own independent research during those years. Apart from the support of the Akali Dal-BJP government, the RSS Sikh agenda itself has confused many in the Sikh community for numerous reasons.
The main reason behind some Sikhs getting influenced by the RSS is purely ideological. The RSS has always treated Sikhs as part of the Hindu mainstream unlike Muslims and Christians. Their propaganda material reveals that they consider Hindus and Sikhs as part of their dream Hindu nation while Islam and Christianity are foreign religions, and their followers, interlopers. Their ideologue M.S. Golwalkar in his writings described the Sikhs as defenders of Hinduism.
The RSS literature explicitly claims that the Sikh Gurus had stood for the protection of Hindu nation, which is simply not true. They actually resisted against atrocities from both the Islamist rulers and the orthodox Hindu priests on the poor and marginalised.
The RSS has also formed a Sikh wing called Rashtriya Sikh Sangat that has been distorting history and playing on the fears of gullible section of Sikhs who mistrust Muslims due to lack of understanding of the history. Though Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism was born in a Hindu family, he rejected both the caste based oppression in Hinduism and excesses of the Islamist rulers.
Yet, the RSS through its Sikh wing has been propagating how Nanak had stood against the persecution of Hindus by Babar. They continue to emphasize that Nanak’s main fight was against Islamists who had invaded the Hindu nation, even as he had laid the foundation of a distinct religion that was different from Hinduism.
The RSS literature explicitly claims that the Sikh Gurus had stood for the protection of Hindu nation, which is simply not true. They actually resisted against atrocities from both the Islamist rulers and the orthodox Hindu priests on the poor and marginalised.
Some articles published in SangatSansar, the publication of Rashtriya Sikh Sangat suggest that Sikh faith was born to protect Hindus from Muslim invaders and conveniently overlook the Gurus’ opposition of caste based oppression.
Even if there is a mention of Sikhism’s opposition to casteism, it is negligible. One article reads that Guru Gobind Singh performed the duty of a Kshatriya, a warrior caste which is second to the Brahmins who are top in the caste hierarchy. Indeed, Guru Gobind Singh was born in a Kshatriya caste, but after the formation of the Khalsa he gave up his caste identity.
While the villainy of the Islamist rulers who fought with the Gurus is repeatedly highlighted in these articles, the treachery of some Hindus that led to the persecution of Gurus has been underplayed.
It is important to know that in their fight for social justice, the Gurus had many Muslims on their side, while some Hindus sided with the Muslim emperors which only displays that this was a fight between an oppressive state by radical thinkers and revolutionaries and wasn’t a Sikh versus Muslim conflict as is being projected by the RSS.
Their prejudice towards the Muslims is so blatant that they are even critical of Akbar, a secularist Muslim emperor who was not a tyrant as some others were. In their writings they accuse him of pursuing Islam through soft methods. I recall an argument I had with an RSS leader in Ferozepore over Tipu Sultan, another tolerant Muslim king who had contributed to the freedom movement. He had fought against the British occupation of Southern India. But that leader was not willing to accept it. He continued to malign him as “barbaric”.
With an aim to convince Sikhs for their support for the cause of Ram Temple, these articles and editorials draw verses from Sikh literature mainly DasamGranth that refers to Lord Ram.
In fact, parts of the text in the book suggest that Sikh Gurus were born in families which have roots in the clans of the descendants of Lord Ram’s sons. DasamGranth is believed to have been written by Guru Gobind Singh, but many scholars disagree and insist that not the entire text is written by the Guru and contradicts the values of Sikh philosophy.
They point out that Guru Gobind Singh had ordered the Sikhs that after him only Guru Granth Sahib, the holy scripture of the Sikhs be followed as a guiding light. They therefore reject any attempt to promote a parallel scripture whose authenticity is also under question. They think that since Guru Gobind Singh’s retinue had many poets some passages in DasamGranth cannot be attributed to the Guru as it is possible that they might have actually been written by the poets under him.
Clearly by invoking the fight of Babar with Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh’s connection with Lord Ram, the RSS wants the Sikhs to support them in their anti Muslim campaign. Significantly, one of the resolutions passed by Rashtriya Sikh Sangat calls for the construction of a “magnificent” Ram temple in Ayodhya.
Giani Puran Singh, the former head of the Akal Takhat, the highest temporal seat of the Sikhs attended a Rashtriya Sikh Sangat camp in 1997. Puran Singh had stirred the controversy by describing Gurus as the descendants of the sons of Lord Ram.
Interestingly, the editorials in SangatSansar also talk about the message of universal brotherhood preached by Guru Granth Sahib that includes hymns of the Hindu and Muslim saints, including those denounced as untouchables by the caste Hindus, still they repeatedly demonize Muslims and Christians.
In one of the editorials, questions have been raised over celebrating Christmas on a day that coincides with the martyrdoms of the two sons of Guru Gobind Singh. The two were executed by the Islamist rulers and were handed over to them by a Hindu informer. There is no mention of the controversial role played by the Hindu informer in getting the young boys arrested. Another editorial tried to raise alarm over Christian missionaries spreading their base in Punjab and converting Sikhs.
The double speak of the RSS on the issue of religious minorities can also be gauged from a plain fact that it recognizes the anti Sikh massacre of 1984 as genocide, but remains indifferent towards the massacre of Muslims in 2002 and anti Christian violence of 2008.
Thousands of Sikhs were murdered across India in 1984 following the assassination of the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. She was murdered for sending troops to the Golden Temple Complex, the holiest shrine of the Sikhs in Amritsar in June that year to flush out handful of armed militants who had fortified the place of worship.
The army operation had left many people dead and the buildings inside the complex heavily damaged. Indira Gandhi’s Congress party that claims to be secular was complicit in the mass murders of Sikhs.
If this is not enough, the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat calls upon the Indian government to return the artifacts allegedly taken away by the Indian army during the military invasion on the Golden Temple complex.
In 2002, a similar pogrom was engineered against Muslims by the BJP government in Gujarat after a train bringing Hindu pilgrims from the disputed site of Ayodhya was burnt killing more than 50 passengers.
The BJP government had blamed the Muslim fundamentalists for burning the train. It is pertinent to mention that there is no mention of the anti Muslim massacre on the website of the Muslim wing of the RSS.
If this is not enough, the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat calls upon the Indian government to return the artifacts allegedly taken away by the Indian army during the military invasion on the Golden Temple complex.
It has also been pleading for clemency to Devinderpal Singh Bhullar, a Sikh militant on the death row for his involvement in a bomb blast. Besides, it has been asking for amnesty to former Sikh militants settled abroad so that they could come back home without fear. They have been lobbying for waving the blacklist that bars these Sikhs outside India from visiting their home country.
I had a chance to attend a public meeting that was organized by the BJP supporters in Vancouver in 2003 where the former Sikh separatist leaders were also in attendance. The picture of Bhullar whose wife is a Canadian was also at display. The meeting was held to announce the scrapping of the blacklist.
The BJP led coalition government was in power at that time and had removed the names of many Sikhs in Canada from the so called blacklist maintained by Indian consulates.
So much so, the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat has been advocating against racial profiling of Sikhs when Sikh militancy was at its peak between mid 1980s to mid 1990s. But such passion has never been displayed for Muslims by the RSS.
On the contrary, they have not only been demonising Muslims, but have been aggressively asking for the execution of men like Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon the two former militants, who were hung at different times to death in spite of campaigning to save their lives by human rights activists.
In one of the articles published by SangatSansar, there is a story about a Sikh human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra who was abducted by the Punjab police and murdered for investigating the cases of forced disappearances during Punjab militancy.
The article tries to draw a parallel between the police repression and the repression of Sikhs under Islamist rule. In contrast, the RSS recently accorded a heroic welcome to a senior police officer from Gujarat who had been responsible for the murders of alleged Muslim militants in staged shootouts. In 2008, the Hindu extremists had killed over 50 Christians in Orissa following the murder of a Hindu preacher. This was despite the fact that the Maoists had claimed the responsibility of the killing. A SangatSansar editorial blames the violence on Christian missionaries and creates fears about their activities in Punjab.
The politics behind the Sikh agenda of RSS can be interpreted in different ways. One interpretation is that it benefits the BJP in Punjab if it remains soft on Sikh issues to ensure long term Akali Dal support. Akali Dal and its followers see BJP as a trusted ally as against Congress which is seen by them as “enemy of the Sikhs”.
The other interpretation could be that it helps in improving the image of BJP abroad, where the Sikhs dominate the political landscape both outside and within the South Asian Diaspora. And if the Sikhs are on their side, it becomes easier for the BJP to challenge the world leaders who continue to criticize the current BJP government under Narendra Modi for growing religious intolerance and attacks on minorities in India.
Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat when anti Muslim massacre broke out in the state. Human rights activists and survivours continue to allege his complicity in the violence.
For the record, the Sikhs and non Sikhs who are not familiar with the history suffice is to know that the RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar had cast aspersions on the patriotism of Sikhs who were asking for the reorganization of Punjabi speaking state during 1960s. In his book, Bunch of Thoughts, he accused them of playing into the hands of Pakistan by asking for a separate sectarian state under the garb of a linguistic Punjabi speaking province.
Another RSS leader Nanaji Deshmukh had glorified Indira Gandhi and justified the anti Sikh pogrom in his article Moments of Soul Searching and squarely blamed the Sikh leadership for the massacre.
The former BJP minister Arun Shourie had written an article tilted, Lessons from thePunjab that was highly critical of the Akali Dal that was only seeking extra rights for Punjab. In this piece, he justified the army invasion of the Golden Temple complex and blamed the devastation entirely on the Sikh leadership.
It is widely accepted that the BJP supporters had also participated in the anti Sikh massacre and celebrated the invasion of the Golden Temple. A controversial Sikh leader Prahlad Singh Chandok attended one of the conferences organized by the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat in 1998. Chandok had presented a robe of honour to Jagdish Tytler, a minister in the Congress government. Tytler was involved in the 1984 anti Sikh violence and had to resign after being indicted by a commission of enquiry.
In 1991, ten Sikh pilgrims were murdered by the police in Uttar Pradesh that was under the BJP rule after being branded as terrorists. All these actions contradict a SangatSansar article that says that the Sikhs had contributed more to the freedom struggle of India and a passage posted on Rashtriya Sikh Sangat website that blames the Congress government for promoting anti Sikh bias.
It’s laughable to read that the famous Sikh joke about their going crazy at 12 o’clock has been attributed to the Congress rule on the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat website, whereas the Prime Minister Narendra Modi once came under criticism for cracking a similar joke about the former Sikh Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The Sikhs whose daily prayer ends with plea to the god for well being of the entire mankind in particular must be cautious of the bigotry of the RSS and the BJP towards all religious minorities. As the RSS is expected to grow under the current government a grassroots level fight against such force becomes necessary.
The Akali Dal leaders would like everyone to forget this, but the Sikh settlers from Punjab also came under attack in Gujarat when Modi was the Chief Minister of the state and was running for the office of Prime Minister in 2014. The violence was an outcome of the resistance of Sikh settlers against the attempts to acquire their lands.
One can figure out that the RSS Sikh agenda is based on deception and distorted history, and above all aimed at dividing minorities in India for which not only the Sikhs, but everyone needs to be vigilant.
The Sikhs whose daily prayer ends with plea to the god for well being of the entire mankind in particular must be cautious of the bigotry of the RSS and the BJP towards all religious minorities. As the RSS is expected to grow under the current government a grassroots level fight against such force becomes necessary.
It must be borne in mind that the BJP government in the past and at present has not given up its agenda to rewrite history being taught in public schools. A distorted history written from an ultra Hindu supremacist lens can impair young minds studying at public educational institutions. And that’s why it becomes important to challenge any attempt to take over public spaces by the RSS with a patronage of the state.
Make no mistakes. The RSS is not a friend of the Sikhs. It only needs one minority group on its side for political reasons. If the Congress according to them has been appeasing the Muslim minority all these years, how do they explain their stance on Sikh issues? If it suits them they would not shy attacking the Sikhs as aggressively as they have been attacking other minorities.
Their attitude towards Sikhs when they were in conflict with the Indian state during mid 1980s is well documented. Their growing penetration in the Sikh community both in India and Canada needs to be checked.
They claim to be respectful towards the message of universal brotherhood of Guru Granth Sahib, but hate Muslims and the Christians to the core. For them Guru Granth Sahib represents AkhandBharat, a unified India and Khalsa is the army of BharatMata or Mother India.
This kind of framing should alarm those who are concerned over the recent attacks on any voice of dissent by the RSS supporters in India. These voices are being frequently muzzled as “anti national.” It has become important for all the minorities, the oppressed communities and the real secularists to come together and join hands against the RSS.
Often they disguise themselves as supporters of Hindu Sikh unity, but the question to ask them is why they don’t promote the unity of all communities in India if they really care for a strong Indian union? The basis of their whole philosophy of dividing people is actually much more seditious, but since they are running the current government with remote control nobody is questioning them. The most illustrative example of how the communities, including minorities are being pitted against each other by the RSS is my interview with a Delhi-based Akali Dal leader Avtar Singh Hit, who had participated in the Ram Temple campaign.
On being confronted about this, he replied that some Muslim supporters of Congress also participated in the anti Sikh pogrom of 1984.
This is exactly the challenge before us that how theocratic forces play on our fears for “others” and how we need to fail them in achieving their ulterior motives through such nefarious designs.
How does it matter if some Muslims were part of the mobs used to kill Sikhs? It was not a Hindu-Sikh or for that matter Muslim-Sikh violence, it was a state sponsored carnage where Sikhs were victims and some good non Sikhs tried to help them.
As part of his defence, Tytler – who was involved in the massacre claims that he was born in a Sikh family. Does this mean anything? Whether it was 1984 or 2002, the state needs to be blamed for mass murders of the members of the minority communities.
At least learn from the Sikh gurus who never violated the rights of the Muslims in their fight against Islamist Empire and rather stood for the rights of the Hindus even as they were opposed to Hindu rituals and religious practices. The bottom line is that to save humanity we need to fight against divisive forces that are inimical to people’s unity.
Report by Kahnu Nanda; Jagatsinghpur: Hundreds of Posco affected people including betel vein growers, anti project outfits, land losers from proposed project site villages from Erasama block on Wednesday observed black day commemorating 11th years of Posco Mou with Odisha government.
The protestors staged demonstration, protest meeting in front of collector office here, wore black batch and hoisted black flag and reiterated their sufferings and pains during Posco drive had been on its way in their regions.
The agitators termed Odisha government had made the MoU with South Korean steel major on 22 June 2005 without considering the ground realities of the proposed project site as result received stiff resistance of local residents so project remained non-starter after it had thrown to cold storage last year.
The losses sustained by local people following Posco bid would not be compensated either by Odisha government or by steel barren Posco, the agitators rued.
The anti Posco leaders claimed to fulfill their six charter of demands as compensation for betel vein losers, to with draw cases against project opponents, to give land to the land losers under Forest Rights Act , to retrieve betel veins demolished during land acquisition , to stop the boundary wall construction at project site and cancelled the Posco MoU forever. The agitators submitted a memorandum before collector then the agitation was called off.
In, what is famously known as, the ‘divine’ city of Dharamsala in Himachal, toddlers, infants and school going children of a 30-year-old slum settlement in have been rendered homeless and living on the roads since the past 3 days facing the rains without a shelter, due to the callousness of the local district administration and Municipal authorities.
The Dharamsala Municipal Corporation and administration on June 17, demolished the slum at Charaan khad, in the city, evicting 300 families, mostly migrant workers. The families, belonging mostly to the Scheduled Castes from Rajasthan and Maharashtra had been residing in this settlement for over 30 years. Working mostly as daily wage labourers on construction sites, as rag pickers and street side vendors, these people now have nowhere to go.
While the MCD has sited that the administration was “following High Court orders”, no such order has been made public yet. The residents at the settlement have not been provided any rehabilitation and were evicted with a 10 day written notice. The process of planning the demolition started three months ago and the MCD had shown them alternate sites at villages Gamru, Passu and Sarra. “The corporation just showed us the sites with absolutely nothing there – no housing, sanitation, water facility. When we went to these villages, we were kicked out by the local people. They made it very clear that we would not be spared if we set up our homes there”, said Raju bai, one of the displaced residents. Raju came to Dharamsala when she was 16 years old. She got married to another migrant worker. She brought up her children here, all of whom went to school and now work in the city. She is almost 50 today and cannot believe that she has lost her only home.
Surprisingly despite knowing that the resettlement near the proposed sites would face local opposition the Municipal corporation did not attempt any sort of mediation, nor was any effort made to look for alternate sites. Despite the advent of the monsoon, hundreds of families were thrown on the streets to fend for themselves. Close to 115 children from the slum were studying at the government schools and many others in local community schools run in the slum itself which are now demolished. It is appalling that the district authorities have unleashed police power on the evacuees. The police is intimidating not just the displaced community but any independent person attempting to talk to them or provide support. “While we tried to talk to the local people the police harassed us and threatened to detain us if we tried to talk to the people. We were asked to leave the site without any explanation”, said local activists based in Palampur who visited the demolished site today on 20th June.
It is unclear as to why the administration is now interested in clearing out the slum, which has existed for so many years. Dharamsala, which has provided refuge to many a people has suddenly turned its back on its poorest residents who have put their blood and sweat to build the city, its roads and homes. Dharamsala, was recently short listed as a ‘Smart City’ after much lobbying from various quarters in the political establishment. In its bid to become a smart city, it appears that Dharamsala may have to lose some of its soul and humanity.
For more information Manshi Asher and Sumit Mahar, Himdhara Collective 8988275737
हाल ही में टाइम्स ऑफ इंडिया में खबर छपी थी कि मोदी शासन 1966 के उस कानून को निरस्त करने जा रही है जिसके तहत सरकारी नौकरी में अपनी नियुक्ति के वक्त उम्मीदवार को यह घोषणा करनी पड़ती है कि वे राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ (आरएसएस) या जमात-ए-इस्लामी से किसी भी तरह से जुड़े नहीं हैं। यह मॉडल गुजरात, छत्तीसगढ़ और मध्यप्रदेश जैसे भाजपा-शासित राज्यों में पहले ही लागू कर दिया गया है जो जमीनी स्तर पर शासन को पूरी तरह विकृत कर चुका है और नागरिक सेवाओं की तटस्थता को बाधित कर रहा है।
आरएसएस संचालित सिविल सर्विस एक सेक्युलर संविधान के तहत काम नहीं कर सकता है। लेकिन 'संविधान की शक्ल को बिना बदले सिर्फ प्रशासन के ढांचे में बदलाव कर, परस्पर विरोधी बना कर और संविधान की आत्मा की मुखालफत कर इसे विकृत कर देना संभव है।'
जबकि संसदीय व्यवस्था एक पेशेवर और राजनीतिक रूप से तटस्थ सिविल सर्विस की बुनियाद पर टिकी होती है। आरएसएस ने अब मौजूदा संवैधानिक नियमों को ताक पर रख दिया है।
इस अभियान की जरूरत टाइम्स ऑफ इंडिया की रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक डिपार्टमेंट ऑफ पर्सनल ऐंड ट्रेनिंग अब गृह मंत्रालय से इस बारे में सलाह ले रहा है कि कैसे इस 'अनुचित और बेतुके' नियम को खत्म करने की जरूरत है। इसी संदर्भ में एक वरिष्ठ सरकारी अधिकारी ने यह बताया कि आरएसएस हमेशा से 'एक सांस्कृतिक और गैर-राजनीतिक संगठन' रहा है। दरअसल, यह कानूनों को ताक पर रख देने की सरकारी कवायद का हिस्सा है। इस मसले पर राज्यमंत्री जीतेंद्र सिंह ने कहा कि 'मौजूदा सरकार ने सरकारी नौकरियों में आरएसएस के सदस्यों पर रोक लगाने वाले इस सर्कुलर को जारी नहीं किया है। यह किसी से इस बात की अपेक्षा नहीं करता कि सरकारी सेवा में नियुक्ति के वक्त वह बताए कि वह आरएसएस का सदस्य है या नहीं!'
गौरतलब है कि 1966 में प्रधानमंत्री बनने के बाद इंदिरा गांधी ने यह आदेश जारी किया था, जिसे 1975 और 1980 में दोहराया गया था। तब आरएसएस पर प्रतिबंध आयद था। मौजूदा कवायद इस खबर के बाद सामने आई है कि गोवा में केंद्र सरकार के एक महकमे को अदालत में यह बताने के लिए कहा गया है कि नई नियुक्त वाले आरएसएस से नहीं जुड़े हैं। 1966 के आदेश के मुताबिक आरएसएस या जमात-ए-इस्लामी का सदस्य रहते हुए कोई भी व्यक्ति केंद्र सरकार की किसी नौकरी के लिए योग्य नहीं होगा। हालांकि गोवा में ताजा प्रकरण के सामने आने के बाद साफ हुआ कि इस आदेश पर सख्ती से अमल नहीं हुआ है। हालांकि प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी, गृहमंत्री राजनाथ सिंह और दूसरे कई केंद्रीय मंत्री हमेशा इस पर गर्व महसूस करते रहे हैं कि उनकी पहली वफादारी आरएसएस के लिए है।
कोई इस बात को सुन कर राहत महसूस कर सकता है कि पहले एक आरएसएस प्रचारक, फिर प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी ने हाल ही में संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के अपने बहु-प्रचारित भाषण में कहा कि भारतीय संविधान एक पवित्र किताब है। हालांकि फिलहाल वे एक संवैधानिक पद हैं, लेकिन उनका निर्माण राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ के साए में हुआ है जो भारतीय संविधान को नफरत की नजर से देखता है।
एमएस गोलवलकर की लिखी एक किताब 'बंच ऑफ थॉट' संघ का एक अहम दस्तावेज है। इसमें भारतीय संविधान में दर्ज भारत की आधुनिक बुनियाद को खारिज किया गया है। गोलवलकर का कहना है, 'वे भूल गए हैं कि यहां पहले से ही हिंदुओं और कई दूसरे समुदायों का एक सशक्त प्राचीन राष्ट्र था, जहां मेहमान के तौर पर यहूदी और पारसी या फिर आक्रमणकारी के रूप में मुसलिम और ईसाई रह रहे थे। उन्होंने कभी इस तरह के सवाल का सामना नहीं किया कि ये तमाम अलग-अलग समुदाय सिर्फ इसलिए कैसे इस धरती के संतान कहे जा सकते थे कि उनका दुश्मन एक था और उसके शासन के तहत वे एक भूभाग में रहते थे।'
सवैधानिक जनादेश के उलट आरएसएस अपने मकसद को लेकर भी बेशर्म है। “…हमें अब तक यह उपदेश देकर बेवकूफ बनाया जाता रहा है कि हम हिंदू स्वभाव से उदार और सहिष्णु हैं, इसलिए हमें हिंदू राष्ट्रवाद और ऐसे सभी 'सांप्रदायिक', 'मध्ययुगीन' और 'प्रतिगामी' विचारों की बात करके खुद को संकीर्ण नहीं बनाना चाहिए! हमें हर हाल में यह समझना है कि एक स्थापित तथ्य के तौर पर हमारा राष्ट्रवाद एक सच है और हिंदू भारत का राष्ट्रीय समुदाय है। हमारे श्रद्धेय संस्थापक ने इसीलिए हमारे संगठन के लिए 'राष्ट्रीय' शब्द रखना तय किया। हमें एक बार फिर अपनी वास्तविक और पूरे कद के साथ खड़े होना है और पूरी ताकत के साथ यह बताना है कि हम महिमा और सम्मान के शिखर पर पहुंचने के लिए भारत में हिदू ऱाष्ट्रीय जीवन को फिर से वहीं ऊंचाई देंगे जो शुरुआती सुनहरे और धवल दिनों से लेकर अब तक इसका जन्मसिद्ध अधिकार रहा है। (पेज 127, बंच ऑफ थॉट, एमएस गोलवलकर.)
अहम बात यह है कि भारत के पहले गृहमंत्री वल्लभ भाई पटेल ने 27 अप्रैल, 1948 को प्रधानमंत्री जवाहरलाल नेहरू को लिखे एक पत्र में कहा था- “शायद ही इस बात पर जोर देकर कहने की जरूरत है कि एक लोकतांत्रिक शासन और इससे भी ज्यादा एक तानाशाही राज में भी एक कुशल, अनुशासित और आपस में जुड़ी हुई सेवाएं एक अनिवार्य शर्त हैं। ये सेवाएं हर हाल में पार्टी से ऊपर होनी चाहिए और हमें यह सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए कि राजनीतिक विचार को अगर पूरी तरह खत्म नहीं करते हैं तो घटा कर न्यूनतम कर दिया जाए, चाहें वे भर्तियों में हों या फिर अनुशासित और नियंत्रित हों।”
आरएसएस के हाथों संचालित नागरिक सेवाएं एक सेक्युलर संविधान के साथ काम नहीं कर सकतीं। उनकी निगाह में- "यह बिल्कुल संभव है कि संविधान के स्वरूप में कोई बदलाव लाए बिना, लेकिन संविधान की आत्मा के खिलाफ प्रशासन के स्वरूप में बदलाव लाकर और लागू कर संविधान को विकृत कर दिया जाए।
सिविल सेवाओं की तटस्थता पर गंभीर असर डालने वाली इस कवायद के मद्देनजर संवैधानिक अधिकारों को बनाए रखने के लिए एक मंच की शुरुआत की गई है। हम इस अभियान में शामिल होने के लिए आप सबको न्योता देते हैं।
जन-जागरूकता के लिए अंग्रेजी और हिंदी में तैयार सूचना पत्र की शृंखला की यह पहली कड़ी है। अगर आप इसे दूसरी भाषाओं में अनुवाद करना चाहते हैं तो कृपया इस पते पर संपर्क करें- platform.constirights@gmail.com, sabrangind@gmail.com
सूचना पत्र नंबर- 1 आरएसएस-मुक्त भारत का निर्माण बिहार के मुख्यमंत्री नीतीश कुमार ने आरएसएस-मुक्त भारत का बिल्कुल सही आह्वान किया है। इसे केवल एक नारा और उम्मीद तक सीमित नहीं रहना चाहिए। शृंखला के इस पहले सूचना-पत्र में यह विचार पेश है कि संघ-मुक्त भारत के निर्माण के लिए गैर-भाजपा शासित राज्यों को सरकारी नीतियों के स्तर पर क्या करना चाहिए। इसके बाद यह बात आगे बढ़ेगी कि एक नागरिक के स्तर पर आप क्या कर सकते हैं।
आरएसएस-मुक्त भारत के लिए अभियान 1947 से लेकर आज तक माओवादियों और कुछ मुसलिम राजनीतिक संगठनों के अपवाद के अलावा यहां कोई और राजनीतिक धारा नहीं रही है जिसने प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रूप से कुछ बिंदुओं पर आरएसएस के साथ संवाद नहीं किया। यह कहने की जरूरत है कि राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ की मदद करने के मामले में बहुत कम ऐसे रहे, जिनके हाथ साफ रहे और जाने-अनजाने इसके सामने दिखने वाले संगठनों का जाल फैलता रहा। और अब यह छिपा हुआ शैतान परदे के पीछे से भारत को चला रहा है। वे भारत को हिंदुत्ववादी तानाशाही देश बनाने की ओर ले जा रहे हैं। अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर इसका सबसे अच्छा उदाहरण एक गुप्त रह कर काम करने वाला श्वेत नस्लवादी संगठन अफ्रीकानेर-ब्रॉयडरबॉन्ड है जो अफ्रीका में 1918 से ही श्वेत नस्लवादी राजनीतिक गतिविधियां चला रहा है।
एक सामान्य हिंदू को यह बताने की जरूरत है कि हिंदू होने और उस हिंदुत्व में क्या फर्क है जो आरएसएस परोसना और छल से उसका घालमेल करना चाहता है। लोकतांत्रिक मूल्यों के खिलाफ उनके विरोध का जाल ठीक वैसा ही है जैसे वाइमार गणतंत्र और संविधान के प्रति एडोल्फ हिटलर का था।
यह एक संगठन के झूठ के इतिहास को सामने रखने की कोई कोशिश नहीं है, जो महात्मा गांधी की हत्या के बाद से ही सारी दुनिया जानती रही है। ये सूचना-पत्र उन लोगों की ओर से एक ठोस लड़ाई की शुरुआत करने के लिए रोड-मैप मुहैया कराने की कोशिश है जो 1950 में लागू हुए भारत के संविधान में भरोसा रखते हैं और इसे बचाने के लिए कुछ भी करने को तैयार हैं।
केंद्र, राज्य सरकारों और उनके महकमों को क्या करना चाहिए? गैर-भारतीय जनता पार्टी शासित सभी राज्य सरकारों को केंद्रीय सिविल सेवाएं (आचरण) नियमावली यानी द सेंट्रल सिविल सर्विस (कंडक्ट) रूल्स, 1964 को सख्ती से लागू करना चाहिए। इस नियम साफ कहा गया है-
“(12) आरएसएस और जमात-ए-इस्लामी संगठनों की गतिविधियों में सरकारी कर्मचारियों का भाग लेनाः वित्त मंत्रालय आदि का ध्यान केंद्रीय सिविल सेवाएं (आचरण) नियमावली, 1964 के नियम 5 के उपनियम (1) के उपबंधों की ओर आकर्षित किया जाता है, जिसके अनुसार कोई भी सरकारी कर्मचारी किसी भी राजनीतिक दल या राजनीति में भाग लेने वाले किसी राजनीतिक संगठन का सदस्य नहीं बन सकता। या उससे अन्यथा संबंध नहीं रख सकता या वह किसी राजनीतिक आंदोलन या गतिविधि में भाग नहीं ले सकता या उसकी सहातार्थ चंदा नहीं दे सकता या अन्य किसी भी प्रकार से उसकी सहायता नहीं कर सकता। 2. सरकारी कर्मचारियों के राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ और जमात-ए-इस्लामी का सदस्य बनने और इनकी गतिविधियों में भाग लेने के संबंध में कुछ संदेह व्यक्त किए गए हैं। इसलिए यहां स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि सरकार ने इन दोनों ही संगठनों की गतिविधियों को हमेशा ही एक-सा माना है कि यदि सरकारी कर्मचारी इनमें भाग लेंगे तो उन पर केंद्रीय सिविल सेवाएं (आचरण) नियमावली, 1964 के नियम 5 के उपनियम (1) के उपबंध लागू होंगे। इसलिए कोई भी सरकारी कर्मचारी यदि उक्त संगठनों का सदस्य बनेगा या अन्यथा उसकी गतिविधियों से संबंध रखेगा तो उसके खिलाफ अनुशासनिक कार्रवाई की जा सकेगी। (गृह मंत्रालय का तारीख 30.11.1966 का का. ज्ञा. संख्या 3/10/(एस)/66-स्थापना (क) )
(12 क) उपरोक्त निर्णय (12) के संदर्भ में, अनुरोध है कि: (क) इसके उपबंधों के संबंध में सभी सरकारी कर्मचारियों को दोबारा सूचना दी जाए, तथा (ख) यदि किसी सरकारी कर्मचारी के बारे में मालूम हो कि उसने उपर्युक्त अनुदेशों का उल्लंघन किया है तो उसके विरुद्ध अवश्य कार्रवाई की जानी चाहिए। (गृह मंत्रालय का तारीख 25 जुलाई, 1970 का का.ज्ञा. संख्या 7/4/70-स्थापना (ख) )
(12 ख) विभिन्न मंत्रालयों का ध्यान इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 30 नवम्बर, 1966 के कार्यालय ज्ञापन संख्या 3/10 (एस)/66- स्थापना (ख) की ओर भी आकर्षित किया जाता है, जिसमें यह स्पष्ट कर दिया गया था कि सरकार ने सदा ही राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ और जमात-ए-इस्लामी दोनों ही की गतिविधियों को ऐसे स्वरूप का माना है जिनमें सरकारी कर्मचारियों द्वारा भाग लिए जाने पर केंद्रीय सिविल सेवाएं (आचरण) नियमावली, 1964 के नियम 5 के उपनियम (1) के उपबंध लागू होंगे और ऐसा कोई भी सरकारी कर्मचारी, जो उपर्युक्त संगठनों का सदस्य है अथवा उनकी गतिविधियों में किसी दूसरे तरीके से संबद्ध है, अनुशासनिक कार्रवाई का भागी होगा। 2. देश में विद्यमान स्थिति के प्रसंग में, सरकारी कर्मचारियों के लिए धर्मनिरपेक्ष दृष्टिकोण को दृढ़ करने की आवश्यकता सर्वाधिक महत्वपूर्ण कार्य है। इस बात पर अधिक बल दिए जाने की आवश्यकता है कि सांप्रदायिक भावनाओं और सांप्रदायिक पूर्वाग्रहों का मूलोच्छेदन किया जाना चाहिए। 3. सरकार और इसके अधिकारियों, स्थानीय निकायों, राज्य सहायता प्राप्त संस्थाओं द्वारा सांप्रदायिक आधार वाली याचिकाओं या अभ्यावेदनों पर कोई ध्यान नहीं दिया जाना चाहिए और किसी भी सांप्रदायिक संगठन को किसी तरह का संरक्षण नहीं दिया जाना चाहिए। 4. अतः वित्त मंत्रालय आदि से अनुरोध है कि वह इस विषय पर पैरा-1 में उपर्युक्त उपबंधों को अपने अधीन कार्यरत सभी सरकारी कर्मचारियों के ध्यान में एक बार विशेष रूप से फिर ला दें। इस बात पर जोर दिया जाता है कि इन अनुदेशों की किसी अवहेलना को गंभीर अनुशासनहीनता से भरा कार्य समझा जाए और दोषी कर्मचारियों के विरुद्ध उपयुक्त कार्रवाई शुरू की जाए। (कार्मिक और प्रशासनिक सुधार विभाग का तारीख 28 अक्तूबर, 1980 का कार्यालय ज्ञापन संख्या 15014/3/एस/80-स्थापना (ख))
केंद्र सरकार के स्तर पर, भारत सरकार के सभी सचिव अपने संवैधानिक शपथ के मुताबिक केंद्रीय सिविल सेवा (आचरण) नियमावली को लागू करने के लिए बाध्य हैं। लेकिन छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार ने अपने हिंदुत्व के एजेंडे को आगे बढ़ाने के मकसद से पहले ही यह अधिसूचना जारी कर अपने कर्मचारियों को आरएसएस का सदस्य बनने और इसकी शाखाओं में शामिल होने की इजाजत दे दी है। यह आदेश 23 फरवरी, 2015 को जारी हुआ था। अधिसूचना में कहा गया है कि जहां तक छत्तीसगढ़ सिविल सेवा (आचरण) नियमावली, 1965 के उपबंध 5 (1) का सवाल है, इसमें उल्लिखित प्रतिबंध आरएसएस के संबंध में लागू नहीं होंगे। सन 2002 में केंद्र में एनडीए सरकार के दौरान गुजरात के तत्कालीन मुख्यमंत्री केशुभाई पटेल ने सरकारी कर्मचारियों को राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ की गतिविधियों में भाग लेने पर लगे प्रतिबंध को उठा लिया। हिमाचल प्रदेश और मध्यप्रदेश की राज्य सरकारों ने इसी आशय की अधिसूचना क्रमशः सन 2004 और 2006 में जारी की। अब कांग्रेस पार्टी को यह सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए कि शिमला में उनकी पार्टी की वर्तमान सरकार पूर्ववर्ती भाजपा सरकार के उपर्युक्त आदेश को हर हाल में रद्द करे। भाजपा द्वारा संघ को एक गैरराजनीतिक और सांस्कृतिक संगठन के तौर पर पेश करने की कोशिश हास्यास्पद है। संघ चुनावी प्रक्रियाओं में सीधे तौर पर भाग लेता है। वह संगठनात्मक कार्यों के लिए अपने प्रचारकों को भाजपा में भेजता है। ये प्रचारक संघ के साथ अपने रिश्ते बरकरार रखते हैं और संघ और भाजपा के बीच एक कड़ी का काम करते हैं। नरेंद्र मोदी, नितिन गडकरी और राजनाथ समेत कई अन्य संघ के प्रचारक ही रहे हैं। भाजपा के मामले में, खासकर पार्टी के पदाधिकारियों और चुनाव में उम्मीदवार तय करने में संघ की इच्छा अंतिम मानी जाती है। संघ के नेता चुनाव सभाओं में सीधे तौर पर भाग नहीं लेते हैं, लेकिन परदे के पीछे मौजूद जरूर रहते हैं। संघ के प्रचारक भाजपा के चुनावी प्रचार तंत्र में होते हैं। यही नहीं, संघ के नेतागण राजनीतिक मुद्दों पर नियमित रूप से अपने विचार जाहिर करते रहते हैं। केंद्रीय सिविल सेवा (आचरण) नियमावली में दर्ज प्रतिबंधों का मकसद प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों को राजनीतिक संगठनों और कार्यों में संलग्न होने से रोकना था। बेशक प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों को मतदान में भाग लेने, राजनीतिक दलों द्वारा आयोजित जनसभाओं में जाने और राजनीतिकों का भाषण सुनने की खुली छूट है। मगर सन 1969 में केंद्र सरकार ने स्पष्ट किया था कि केंद्रीय सिविल सेवा (आचरण) नियमावली यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए जरूरी है कि सरकारी सेवक राजनीतिक रूप से न सिर्फ तटस्थ रहें, बल्कि ऐसा करते हुए दिखें भी। यह भी सुनिश्चित हो कि वे ऐसे किसी भी संगठन से न जुड़ें और उसकी किसी भी वैसी गतिविधियों में भाग न लें, जिसके जरा-सा भी राजनीतिक होने की संभावना हो।
सन 1980 में केंद्र सरकार ने प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों को आरएसएस और जमात-ए-इस्लामी की गतिविधियों में भाग न लेने देने के अपने निर्णय को दोहराया। सरकार ने कहा कि 'देश के वर्तमान हालात के मद्देनजर प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों के धर्मनिरपेक्ष चरित्र को सुनिश्चित करना सबसे ज्यादा जरूरी है। सांप्रदायिक भावनाओं और पूर्वाग्रहों के उन्मूलन की जरूरत को अनदेखा नहीं किया जा सकता।' 27 अप्रैल, 1948 को जवाहरलाल नेहरू को भेजे गए एक पत्र में वल्लभ भाई पटेल ने लिखा- 'मुझे एक योग्य, अनुशासित और संतुष्ट सेवा की जरूरत के बारे में ज्यादा कहने की जरूरत नहीं है, क्योंकि इसका महत्त्व एक निरंकुश शासन के मुकाबले एक लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था में ज्यादा है। इस किस्म की सेवा दलीय निष्ठा से हर हाल में परे हो।' और हमें यह सुनिश्चत करना चाहिए कि इसकी नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया, इसके अनुशासन और नियंत्रण के मामले में राजनीतिक आकांक्षाएं अगर पूरी तरह खत्म न की जा सकें, तो कम से कम हों।'
आरएसएस संचालित सिविल सेवा एक सेक्युलर संविधान के तहत काम नहीं कर सकती है। लेकिन 'संविधान की शक्ल को बिना बदले सिर्फ प्रशासन के ढांचे में बदलाव कर, परस्पर विरोधी बना कर और संविधान की आत्मा की मुखालफत कर इसे विकृत कर देना संभव है।' लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था एक पेशेवर और राजनीतिक तौर पर तटस्थ सिविल सेवा पर आधारित है। जबकि संघ वर्तमान संवैधानिक व्यवस्था को कमजोर करने के अभियान में लगा हुआ है।
सन 2000 में उत्तर प्रदेश के पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री कल्याण सिंह ने कहा था- 'मैंने अपने जीवन का एक बड़ा हिस्सा (संघ में) बिताया है। और मैं बता सकता हूं कि भाजपा में टिकट बांटने से लेकर कैबिनेट मंत्री चुने जाने तक, सब कुछ संघ तय करता है। इसके अलावा, राजनीतिक गतिविधि और क्या होती है..!'
तो अब क्या किया जाए? सभी गैर-भाजपा सरकारें यह सुनिश्चत करें कि सभी विभागों के सभी कर्मचारी अपने कार्यस्थल पर एक आमसभा में सार्वजनिक रूप से यह शपथ लें कि उनकी निष्ठा सिर्फ भारत के वर्तमान संविधान के प्रति है। ऐसा हर एक कर्मचारी से लिखित शपथ पर हस्ताक्षर करवा भी किया जा सकता है। अनुरोध करने पर ऐसी प्रतिज्ञा का प्रारूप उपलब्ध है।
सभी राज्य सरकारों के सभी महकमे राज्य के मुख्यमंत्री के सामने इस आशय की रिपोर्ट जरूर पेश करें कि राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ से जुड़े विभिन्न संगठनों को राजकीय कोषागार से कितनी सब्सिडी या अनुदान मिलता है। इन सूचनाओं को सार्वजनिक वेबसाइटों पर उपलब्ध कराया जाना चाहिए और इस किस्म की वित्तीय सहायता को रोकने के लिए तत्काल कदम उठाने चाहिए। मुख्यमंत्री सचिवालय में एक नोडल अधिकारी की नियुक्ति की जाए जो किसी सरकारी अधिकारी के संघ की शाखाओं में जाने या संघ के अन्य संगठनों की गतिविधियों में भाग लेने की जन-शिकायतों पर गौर करे। इस किस्म के सरकारी अधिकारियों तत्काल निलंबित करते हुए उसके खिलाफ केंद्रीय सेवा नियमावली के अनुरूप कड़ी कार्रवाई की जाए। राज्यों में शिक्षा विभाग प्रसिद्ध शिक्षाविदों की एक समिति का गठन करे जो सरकारी स्कूलों और सरकारी सहायता प्राप्त स्कूलों के पाठ्य-पुस्तकों और अन्य पाठ्य सामग्रियों की समीक्षा करे और उनमें सांप्रदायिक और अलगाव की भावना पैदा करने वाली सामग्रियों को हटाए। पेशेवर कानूनी जानकारों का एक पैनल बने जो भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 153 (ए) के अनुरूप इस किस्म के उल्लंघनों की सूचना मिलने के नब्बे दिनों के भीतर आरोप-पत्र दाखिल करे। हर राज्य में इस तरह के मामलों की सुनवाई के लिए विशेष न्यायालयों का गठन किया जाए। सुनवाई दैनिक आधार पर हो और किसी भी सूरत में कोई स्थगनादेश न दिया जाए। सभी राज्य सरकारें शस्त्र अधिनियम, 1959 की धारा (2) की उप-धारा (सी) को सख्ती से लागू करें और संघ और बजरंग दल जैसे उनके अन्य संगठनों द्वारा लाठी, चाकू, तलवार का सार्वजनिक प्रदर्शन और हर साल विजयादशमी पर शस्त्रों के इस तरह सरेआम पूजन को प्रतिबंधित करें। जिलाधिकारियों को भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा (141) और धारा (148) का सहारा लेना चाहिए। ——————
हम इस पर अन्य सुझावों का स्वागत करते हैं। Ravi Nair, Tapan Bose, platform.constirights@gmail.com Teesta Setalvad, teestateesta@gmail.com Dr Sunilam, samajwadisunilam@gmail.com
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(1).jpg)