About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 2572

Research Scholars of India Are Under Threat: Appeal by the UGC Fellowships Forum

By
-
0

 
UGC Fellowships Forum

Since the Narendra Modi Government has taken its charge, many students of this country are in great trouble. It’s not just because of the widely discussed issues like suicide of Rohith Vemula at UoH and incarceration of Kanhaiya Kumar and his friends at JNU. Apart from these well publicised instances of regime backed atrocities – there are several other issues like fund cuts in education and attempts at saffronisation of higher education by appointing people with RSS backgrounds in important positions are some significant matters which many are bothered about.

Further, one of the serious matters which directly affecting the researchers is fellowship. The debates regarding UGC Non Net Fellowship and UGC’s messing up with it is well known. After several protests throughout the country, the HRD Ministry did set up a committee. The report of the committee was supposed to come in December but researchers are still waiting for the same. The ‘unqualified’ humbug minister seems to be underperformer too. Further, many ongoing fellowship schemes are also in great danger since many of them are being mismanaged in the last two years. The late disbursement system and several months without any fellowships are plaguing the students.

Fellowship schemes like MANF, RGNF and so on are dysfunctional for a long time. Last year some students did visit to UGC and other concerned ministries and were promised that the schemes will run as per law thenceforth, but unfortunately it did not happen. As of now thousand scholars of the country have not received their fellowship for many months. For example the scholars under the Maulana Azad National Fellowship (MANF) scheme for minority students are without fellowship from last October – November. Other schemes like RGNF SC, RGNF ST, RGNF OBC and so on are also running late.
Most unfortunately fellowship for disabled students has not been released since last July. In these circumstances these research scholars are in great distress.

This repeated late disbursement of fellowships affect thousands of research scholars of the country. Most of the scholars solely depend on fellowship for their needs. Thus, if the fellowship amount is not credited on time, it becomes very difficult to sustain. Researchers literally witness times when they do not have money to support ourselves. Students feel really dejected that they have been pushed down to the level of beggars who have to petition every month for what rightfully deserve as legal entitlements as research scholars. Energy and time are lost much in this process which can otherwise be utilized for fruitful research. Researchers are not even able to concentrate on research, as are constantly worried about the lack of money for basic needs.

Now, whom to blame for all this? Is the assigned Canara Bank and the system or the bureaucracy of UGC responsible? Are the ministries responsible or the entire Govt. itself? Students call and beg to Canara Bank, UGC and Ministries almost every day for the pending money they deserve and when the power leaves them baffled with a mutual blame game, they do not know what to do to get the problem resolved. Researchers wait almost endlessly every month but the hostel authorities will not wait for the mess fees to be remitted; the university authorities will not wait for the tuition fees to be paid; the labs cannot wait for the essential chemicals, tools and instruments to be used from time to time.

This might sound little emotional but it’s the ground reality of the researchers in India. Sometime many wonder and regret of the choice of research over other promising career which would have at least not left them in a situation like this. Please imagine when the employees don’t get salary during the first week of the month. Students appeal not punish them more for choosing to face the challenges of a career in research to contribute to the academic development of the country. Here, it is to be noted that one of the significant reasons mentioned by Rohith Vemula in the tract going around as his ‘suicide note’ for his fatal decision was monetary problems. His pending fellowship was finally disbursed after his death. We would like to ask whether the Ministries, the UGC and the other powers that be whether they want mass suicides to occur across educational campuses of the country.

Thus, we request the concerned authorities at UGC, at various ministries, and power holders at the Govt. to look into the pathetic situation and do the needful at the earliest to resolve the late disbursement of our fellowships. Please act immediately to solve our problem; please give us our monthly fellowship at least within the first week of every month; please let us do our work peacefully and properly.

Victory for now, but the Resistance Continues: Hyderabad Central University (HCU)

By
-
0

Jail ke Taale Toote Hai

Humaare Saathi Choote Hai

Over 50 members of the faculty of the Hyderabad Central University (HCU), belonging to the SC/ST Association went on a mass, one day casual leave yesterday, March 29 protesting against the police action on campus and the return of vice-chancellor P Appa Rao.

A day after 25 people were granted bail and released from jail for the violent protests held on campus last Tuesday, teachers, including those from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, applied for the leave in protest, an assistant professor said.

The university campus was thrown out of gear on March 22 when Rao resumed office after a two-month leave following the suicide of Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula. Students alleged Rao was responsible for Vemula’s suicide, and demanded his immediate arrest. Appa Rao’s return was viewed as an unprecedented move with the specific backing of the Modi government at the Centre since an MHRD inquiry against him is still on. The university registrar had suspended classes till March 28 due to the ensuing violence. Appa Rao belongs to the powerful Kamma caste, which is speculated to be one of the reasons behind the support he has found from the powers that be in Delhi.

The Joint Action Committee (JAC) for Social Justice that is pursuing Vemula’s case, however, asked students to resume their academic schedule while protesting as the semester was ending and this is a crucial time for them. “We appeal to the students to use blue ribbons as a means of protest, declaration and reminder of the fact that our fight is still on while going about their classes, labs and other activities.” There have been serious concerns about the blockade link atmosphere within the HCU/UOH.

Yesterday evening as the time came close to the release of 25 students and two professors, KY Ratnam and Tathagata Senguptam the air was electric with anticipation and messages on social emdia were eager and excited in solidarity As the university campus was still blocked out from the entry of 'outsiders', the JAC streamed the return of the jailed students and faculty and the long march live.

Last evening Updates regarding the release of the detainees of Uoh:

The lawyers have reached the jail and the process of release in underway. Our friends are expected to reach by 9pm!

Jail ke taale toote hai
Humaare saathi chhoote hai!

Udaya Kumara Jai Bhim Inquilab Zindabad

Demands of the Joint Action Committee (JAC)

1. Dropping of all charges against students, faculty and media persons in UoH and all other places in the country.
2. We demand the university administration to withdraw all the cases filed upon the students and faculty.
3. Immediate removal and arrest of Appa Rao under Prevention Of Atrocities Act
4. Demilitarisation of the campus
5. End University of Hyderabad blockade and students’ imprisonment and allow free mobility of lawyers, journalists, and family members.
6. Action against the police and those that they are answerable to for the unnecessary and targeted violence, false detention, misinformation about the detained people, and physical and sexual assault of women students and faculty.
7. Constitute a non-MHRD judicial commission to look in the cases of social discrimination and harassment of Dalits, Adivasis, OBCs, religious minorities and women students across campuses in the country.
 

Testimonies of the One week in jail

Professor Anjali Gupta on Facebook

When I met my students Munsif and Deepak at the Cherlapally Jail

“As the horde of visitors – students, family members and me – entered the space meant for meeting inmates at the Cherlapally Jail, an immediate and eager cacophony ensued. Two layers of meshed grills about half a meter apart meant you had to shout. We cupped our faces and our eyes scanned keenly for faces we'd come to cherish a bit more in these five days. All members of UoH community – some on that side of the grills, some on this.

I asked, "Where is Munsif?" Someone pointed at the other end, and shouted above the mixture of sounds, "Munsif, come here!" He came hobbling, his steps quick, his grin wide. He had a thicker mop of hair, and his beard had grown since I last saw him.

"Thank you so much Ma'am for coming here and meeting us," said Munsif, my student who's in judicial custody for merely asking the police to not beat up a fellow student.

Another student of Department of Communication Deepak Sudevan, whom I haven't taught yet, came forward. Dishevelled hair, shiny eyes! "Ma'am, I am Deepak. Thanks so much for coming."

Everyone on that side of the mesh was agog to tell what had been done to them. It was as if they were saying: Please tell the world what they did to us.

Policemen had hit Munsif's legs severely with lathis on the campus itself the evening of March 22, 2016, and then abruptly pushed him into an ambulance. "They hauled us in an ambulance so no one outside would know they were taking us away. It was a kidnapping."

At Narsingi Police Station, a constable gave his cell phone on the quiet so the students could make one call. He got caught by his seniors. "He was a good man," said Munsif. So characteristic of this student of mine to spot goodness in a human even at a time of crisis! "The Circle Inspector mercilessly beat up that poor constable. We could hear the screams in another room." Within minutes they were shifted to another station.

"When we said we'd like to exercise our right to make calls to our family, or a lawyer, they said – For 24 hours your human rights have collapsed." Student leader D Prashanth who was standing next to Munsif spoke, "It is worth remembering that they said our human rights have collapsed.”“They also said you are guilty till you are proven innocent,” he added.

In another bus, 17 students, including Deepak, a filmamaker Moses Tulasi and Political Science Professor KY Ratnam were being taken to Miyapur Police Station the same evening of 22 March. While the bus was moving the policemen hit the students hard with their fists and elbows. Some were slapped. When Prof. Ratnam intervened, they punched him, when others in the bus said please don't hit our professor, the policemen turned and rained some more blows on the young students.

“You organize Kiss of Love, and beef festivals, and you grow a beard – they kept saying this while hitting us," said Deepak.

Recollecting a cardinal principle I had taught in class for the Feature writing course, Munsif said he is writing everything down. I said: Yes, do write! Don’t rely on memory. Write everything down.

Soon it was time to say bye. Outside at another enclave people were depositing packets and packets of food, and clothes for their loved ones inside. I had taken six bars of Cadbury Silk for I remember how excited Munsif was about them when I’d brought chocolates for my students on a field visit last month.

I was struck with how happy the students were to see their friends and well-wishers. None of the despair that you associate with prisons.

A political science student who’d come to meet his friend Mathew and his teacher, Professor Ratnam, later said, “Ma’am my friend Mathew said that right now their spirits are up, because all of us were there to meet them, but by night their mood fluctuates.”

I have been thinking about how a society decides what is criminal. Yes, we must condemn ransacking, pelting stones, trespassing, destroying property and striking fear in the hearts of people who have gathered for a meeting.

But what is the constitutional response to these acts? Surely, it isn’t the extrajudicial manner in which the police picked up students and faculty. Surely, it isn’t punching and kicking and slapping and raining blows and threatening students with rape. Surely, it isn’t suspending human rights. Our rulebook, our Constitution doesn’t allow that. If we justify police excesses because a certain kind of wrongdoing has happened we shift the definition of what constitutes a crime from the Constitution to those who wield lathis and guns. India is a police state for many Indians. Let’s not endorse that even as we may agree that vandalism is condemnable.”

 
Antinationals have no human rights : Police told Dontha Prashanth and friends

Prasheel Anand Banpur

Location: Cherlapally Mulaqat Enclosure

Date and Time: 4.15 pm to 4.40 pm (appr.) on March 24, 2016

People: Prasheel Anand Banpur, Vinesh Recharla Kondra, Moses John Paul

Met With: Dontha Prashanth, Manne Krishank, Goutham Uyyala, Mudavath Venkatesh

Apart from requesting us to call their parents or to safeguard their vehicles which were parked in

campus, the following are the statements from the 4 arrested students.

Journey Since Arrest:

The protesting students were Lathi Charged and at 5pm were taken in two groups to Gachibowli PS remanded for some time and biodata was taken, then transported to Kukkatpally PS and held for a while, then taken to Miyapur PS, then taken to Narsingi PS where the night was spent, transported then to Moinabad PS, then transported through inroads of villages, then waited for a long time near Nacharam, apparently near magistrate’s house, and then to Cherlapally Jail at 12.30 am on March 24, 2016.

Treatment during Arrest :

The arrested students were beaten continuously by the police while being transported from one police station to another, their phones were snatched, not given any information regarding their arrest or where they were being taken. The FIR and cases filed without intimation and knowledge of the arrested students; All the time during the arrest the arrested students were abused constantly, humiliated, and were called insulting names and labelled as naxalites and vandals.

When asked why they are being treated as if they were hardcore criminals, the police replied that they were anti-nationals and that they had no Human Rights. They reiterated that all their Human Rights had collapsed and no negotiation was possible. The Police did not even allow phone calls to be made and created a complete isolation for the arrested students. The Police also took videos and photos of the students when they were eating and talking amongst themselves.

The Muslim students who were arrested were beaten and accused of being Pakistanis and labelled them as anti national wanting to destroy India. The arrested students were also repeatedly accused of possessing drugs and indulging in drug related activities despite the students denying it outright.

The arrested students were then asked to sign on the cases that they were accused of, post which all the students had to sign on this document but mentioned it clearly that they were doing it under force and not voluntarily. The two professors were slapped repeatedly, their shirts torn and were humiliated in the worst of ways regarding their profession and duties.

Arrival at Jail and stay :

Around 12.30 am on March 24, 2016 they were brought in 2 police trucks amidst high security and put up in the barracks as ISI terrorists, hawala mafia, murderers, mafia, and others serving rigorous imprisonment were put up. When Dontha Prashanth and Krishank Manne wanted to fast in the jail to protest the inhuman, unjust, and undemocratic treatment of the arrested students, the authorities blackmailed them saying they would publicize the videos taken by them of students when they were eating the night before.

Message from Jail:

It should be known to people outside regarding the inhuman and sadistic treatment of the arrested students by the police authorities till they reached the Cherlapally Jail. They also said it is important to keep the struggle on for ensuring democratic rights of the students and the people of India.

On Kanhaiya, 1984, 2002 and Fighting Fascism: Ayesha Kidwai

By
-
0

March 30, 2016
From Ayesha Kidwa’s facebook wall

I have no desire whatsoever to get caught in between the spats on 1984 vs 2002 (CPI vs CPI ML) but I think this has become important because the left really has to find a new way to having a conversation with each other if there is going to be united resistance against fascism (which is of primary concern here). It is absolutely correct that one has to have a proper understanding of the past, and that unity of intent to defeat the fascists cannot be created by agreeing to set aside differences, as such a unity will not last.

In the narrative thus far, it appears that it’s only Kanhaiya who had the wrong characterisation of 1984 vs 2002, then gave a ‘I have been misrepresented’ clarification, which many have not deemed satisfactory by many. I don’t agree, but not because I am rooting for Kanhaiya (I am also rooting for Shehla, for Richa, for Dontha Prashanth, for Kishlay, and the scores of other student leaders emerging across the country). Rather, there are many mistakes all around, as we are increasingly infected by a whataboutery discourse that involves very lazy uses of the term fascism. If we continue down this path, we shall not end up even recognising the monster that is upon us, let alone fighting it.

The corrective that is necessary is to consider critically our understanding of the exceptionalism of 1984 and 2002. In fact, whenever large scale communal violence has been organised, agencies of the state are heavily embedded in organising it. Anis Kidwai writes of the communal violence in Ajmer thus:

“People I met in the city told me of the build-up to the riots of 25 December 1947—the quarrel that began over the gramophone on 5 December, the convention of wealthy and educated insurgents in Kishangarh a few days later, the partisanship of the officials, and then on 14 December, the burning of seven persons alive. The food supply and rationing department played a vital role; information about the city layout, accurate maps of the neighbourhoods where Muslims lived, their population and numbers of their men and women, even their names, were all provided by the rationing officer to the goons. This information proved crucial for the rioters to plan and sustain their assaults on a wider scale than elsewhere.

And then on 25 December, the massacre of 5,000 humans, the plunder of homes and belongings. I was told the mobs were really assault battalions, comprising inhabitants of seven villages each. Here too (like Delhi) was news that cannons had been used, but this time the rioters had pressed them into service. Here too, a wealthy landowner was said to have raised his sword and two large village communities forced to become Hindus. The fervour shown in these attacks by the brave Rajputs on these villages of ‘Mughals’ and ‘Mirzais’ befitted ancient battles. As did the cruelty—a landowner ordered the massacre of unarmed, captive Muslims, which was accomplished in a trice.”

This ‘grammar’, if you will, of pogrom-matic violence (terrifying as it is) in my view, is not fascist in itself, as fascism lies in the goals that such violence is oriented to — the installation of a totalitarian regime that can freely use such violence as necessary to forge ‘national unity’ behind one party, one leader. That’s what differentiates 1947, 1984 from 2002, and not the identity in the suffering of the victims or in the complicity of state machinery. The great betrayal of the Congress is that it has, particularly since Indira Gandhi’s time, cynically created a security machinery that can easily be bent towards the needs of a totalising regime.

I am absolutely sure that all the Left parties make this important distinction between 1947, 1984 and 2002, so the question for me is why in correcting Kanhaiya’s clumsy formulation of this difference, why the Left has not sought to explain to him what the correct understanding of the distinction is? Surely, an understanding of what fascism is essential to our armoury.

If we do not understand what fascism is, we shall just be unable to fathom the connection between the imposition of Presidents rule in state after state, the beef lynchings, the internet trolls, the suspension of Dr. Bhattacharji, the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula, the incarceration of student leaders, the attempts to cancel Richa Singh’s admission, and the hundreds of other things we don’t even know are happening. In each of these, there is an unambiguous role of one or the other arm/instrument of the state is being perverted. While such perversion has been ‘normalised’ by decades of Congress misrule, the important point is that all these perversions are now being carried out IN COMPLETE CONCERT, directed to a SINGLE goal of totalitarian control by one leader, one party.

If solidarities are to be achieved in the face of this terrifying reality, they must be built on a common understanding of fascism. I do not think that the Congress is capable of such an understanding at all, and even less so in acting upon it, but I think the Left does, and it MUST engage in a conversation that is deeper than the superficial issues of tactics.
 
(The writer is a professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru Univeersity, JNU, Delhi)

Proud to be ‘anti-national’: Gurpreet Singh

By
-
0


Gurpreet Singh / Image: Charlie Smith
 
“You are a lion, Mr. Singh. We Indians are proud of you”. I still remember those kind words of a Vancouver-based leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist group that is currently in power in India. He showered praises on me after listening to my speech on Sikh separatists active in Canada.

I pulled no punches while criticising the Sikh extremists at the launching ceremony of the Punjabi edition of my book on the Air India victims’ families, back in 2013. Air India Flight 182 was bombed mid-air in 1985, killing all 329 people aboard. The crime was blamed on Sikh separatists seeking revenge from the Indian government for attacking their holiest shrine in Amritsar in 1984, and engineering anti-Sikh pogroms following the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards later that year.

Posted on social media, my speech had grabbed the attention of this self-styled patriotic Indian leader. He was excited to see how an Indo-Canadian journalist like myself, was “boldly” criticising “anti-India” separatists who have always been considered very powerful and influential in Canada.   

He kept phoning me from time to time to give updates about BJP activities in Vancouver, and I as a reporter continued reporting them. But something went terribly wrong after the BJP came to power with a brute majority in 2014 under Narendra Modi, a controversial political figure.

Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat state when an anti-Muslim massacre took place in 2002. The massacre followed the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims. Over 50 of them died. The Modi government blamed Islamic extremists for the incident, after which the Muslim community was targeted across Gujarat by mobs led by the BJP activists. Human rights groups and the survivors maintain that Modi was complicit in the crime.

The scenario was no different from the one witnessed across India in 1984, when the Sikh community was targeted after the murder of Indira Gandhi. The only difference was that the anti-Muslim violence was orchestrated by an outright Hindu nationalist party, whereas Indira Gandhi’s Congress party claims to be secular.

Being a secularist, my criticism of all the religious extremist ideologies has been alike. I used to work with Surrey-based Radio India as a talk show host at that time. I had joined the organization in 2001 after emigrating from India where I used to work with The Tribune.
The Sikh separatists seeking Khalistan – an imaginary Sikh homeland to be carved out of Punjab, India – had been very active in Canada and I was frequently warned to stay silent against them. Nevertheless, I kept bringing up crimes committed by the Khalistanis in Punjab, such as killings of Hindus and political critics, including many leftists.

For the record I have been equally critical of the Indian government for its high handedness in dealing with the militants and repression of Sikhs in 1984. Also I had criticised Modi for allowing the anti-Muslim violence a year after my joining Radio India. But I was still branded as “anti-Sikh” and “an Indian agent” by the supporters of Khalistan.

The leader of a Hindu temple that honoured me for my book on Air India actually accused me of having an agenda against Modi. During a radio interview when I grilled him about his support for Modi, he just hung up the phone. He is a die-hard supporter of Modi, but highly critical of Sikh fundamentalists.  

The threats started when I began criticising those involved in the Air India bombing. Luckily at that time, my employer, Maninder Singh Gill, supported me whole heartedly in spite of pressure on him to get rid of me. He also used to complain that my commentary was causing financial loss to the organisation, as advertisers who subscribe to the Khalistani ideology were reluctant to sponsor our programs. Still he stood behind me like a rock. 

When Modi became the prime minister, the situation completely changed. Not only in India, but in other countries too, his critics began facing the heat. Hindu extremists became emboldened. They started harassing anyone who questioned Modi and his politics of hatred.

In India, media persons who were critical of Modi began to be pushed around. Some felt that an era of censorship had been ushered in under a right wing government. With the BJP assuming power after getting elected, it gained legitimacy around the world. Modi, who had been denied visa by various countries for repression of Muslims in Gujarat, was free to go anywhere.

On top of that, the BJP and its supporters also gained the upper hand within the Indo-Canadian community and increased its influence over Indian consulates. In those circumstances, several groups decided to organise protest rallies against Modi during his first official visit to US.

One of them was Sikhs For Justice (SFJ), a human rights advocacy group that supports Sikh sovereignty. As a host, I decided to highlight the contentious tour of Modi and gave some airtime to SFJ. Although I strongly disagree with their political agenda of Sikh sovereignty, as a journalist I felt it necessary to talk to their leader about the upcoming visit of Modi and the planned protest in September 2014.

This enraged my employer, who did not want any anti-Modi voice to be given air time. He was particularly annoyed over my interview with someone who supports a Sikh homeland. The story did not end there, as he also wanted me to start endorsing Modi’s visit on behalf of the radio station. I was suggested a change in nature of my duties if I could not handle this. This led to an argument and I rather decided to quit.

This small step made me an alien among the very people who earlier appreciated my stance against Khalistan. The same BJP leader who earlier used to call me a lion and often stated “you are always in our hearts” began avoiding me, to the extent that he did not invite me to cover an event organised for a visiting BJP leader, the chief minister of Haryana state, Manohar Lal Khattar.  

When another senior politician from Punjab Prem Singh Chandumajra came, I could see a pattern behind slighting me. Chandumajra’s party, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) is an alliance partner of the BJP. Its supporters have known me for years. Nobody invited me to his media conference, despite the fact that both the BJP and SAD supporters know that I still  write for India-based publications, including Hindustan Times, for which the visits of Khattar and Chandumajra were important. 

Notably, the leader of a Hindu temple that honoured me for my book on Air India actually accused me of having an agenda against Modi. During a radio interview when I grilled him about his support for Modi, he just hung up the phone. He is a die-hard supporter of Modi, but highly critical of Sikh fundamentalists.  

The Indian agents in Vancouver also started to eye me with suspicion. I often hear from sources close to them that they are upset over my comments, which are obviously not favourable to the ruling party, because of its right wing policies against religious minorities and growing attacks on Muslims and Christians under Modi.

Those who violate the principles of secularism and democracy enshrined in the national text are the biggest anti-nationals. If questioning Sikh separatists alone makes you a patriot, and challenging Hindu separatists makes you seditious, then the apologists of India should openly admit that the current Indian state is really a Hindu nation in the making, and not the secularist and pluralist India I loved and I was born in

Some sources tell me that they now refer to me as “friend-turned-enemy” and I never get any personal invitation to attend any of their official events, although they had recommended my name for coverage of the annual Indian Diaspora event held in India in 2010. In the years of my frequent criticism of Khalistani extremists, before Modi came to power, I used to get calls from them appreciating my journalism. Back then I was seen as a friend of India.    

When I joined Spice Radio, some of the Indian officials expressed their displeasure with my current employer, Shushma Datt, who did not buckle under any undue pressure and gave me freedom to work fairly and fearlessly. After all, she is a seasoned broadcaster who understands how to run a media outlet with integrity.

Whenever I had Sikhs For Justice activists on air to speak their mind against Modi, or interviewed those who protested against Modi’s visit, she never interfered. It’s a shame that in spite of her open-mindedness, even some so-called progressives in our community questioned me: being a Hindu, will she allow me to criticise Modi? Just because she is a Hindu woman, one cannot presume her to be a BJP supporter. How many times have such questions been raised about the ethnicity of the male Sikh owners of South Asian radio stations? 

So much so, the moderates and secularists within the local Sikh community, who have been opposed to Sikh fundamentalism and often sided with India, also started neglecting me. This was despite the fact that I had defended them in an event of ostracising by the orthodox Sikh clergy at the behest of fundamentalist forces on religious matters.

Some even went out of their way to meet Modi in the US, and were among those who accorded him a heroic welcome during his visit to Vancouver in 2015. Others, who call themselves Marxists, affiliated with the mainstream communist parties in India that are opposed to Modi, have remained indifferent towards any activity or demonstration in Vancouver against Modi’s government. Notably, they have been supporting moderates in maintaining control over Sikh temples, to keep Sikh separatists at bay. They too continue to enjoy cordial relationships with Indian agents.

It seems that the commitment of the grand moderate coalition towards secularism is sham and selective. It conveniently overlooks the fundamentalism of Modi’s party, while only targeting Sikh extremists, either due to their blind patriotism or with an agenda to please their political masters in New Delhi.
As the Modi government completes almost two years in office, the threat of Hindu extremism has grown enormously. Anyone who challenges their ideology and anti-minorities’ stance is branded as anti-national. Interestingly, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the ultra Hindu nationalist body of which BJP is a part, never participated in the freedom struggle when India was under British occupation.

Rather its supporters had helped the British rulers in continuing with their policy of divide and rule, by asking for a separation of Hindus and Muslims into two distinct nations. They stand incriminated in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the towering leader of the passive resistance movement, in 1948, for standing up against both violence against Muslims and the untouchability that was permitted in orthodox Hindu society.

Gandhi has always been known as the father of the Indian nation. Since Modi came to power, demands have grown for the installation of statues of Naturam Godse, a staunch Hindu separatist and the assassin of Gandhi. Anyone who questions the BJP and Hindu extremists is quickly branded as anti-national.

It seems that “anti-national” has become a synonym with anything that is anti-BJP. This year witnessed a spate of incidents in which students, scholars, journalists, activists and even elected officials who are critical of the growing threat of religious intolerance and Hindu nationalism were either intimidated, assaulted or slapped with sedition charges.

Student leaders at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University were thrown into jail after being charged with sedition for questioning the government. When I had to quit Radio India and suffer the silent social boycott, I sometimes found myself very lonely. But today, when I look at the resistance being given to the Modi government by people with a burning conscience, I feel vindicated. I rather feel proud of standing up against Modi mania. If one is branded as anti-national for standing up for reason, pluralism and humanity, then I am definitely very proud to be an anti-national.

But here is my question to those who claim to be nationalists: how do they describe a nation? Is it just a territory, a piece of land, or a composition of political borders and land mass represented by a symbolic flag or a constitution? Or is a nation is represented by people? By human beings, who have dreams for a better future and who want to live with dignity?

If anyone is anti-national, it’s definitely not those who fight for the rights of the people, but those who lick the shoes of those in power and work against people, and divide them for their political survival. How can a person like me, who actually respects the values enshrined in the Indian constitution, be seen as anti-India?

Those who violate the principles of secularism and democracy enshrined in the national text are the biggest anti-nationals. If questioning Sikh separatists alone makes you a patriot, and challenging Hindu separatists makes you seditious, then the apologists of India should openly admit that the current Indian state is really a Hindu nation in the making, and not the secularist and pluralist India I loved and I was born in.

(The writer is a senior journalist with radio in Canada)
 

Journalists in Pakistan Unite to Fight Violence Against Media

By
-
0

With increasing attacks and threats to journalists, the media in India could take a lesson from its counterparts in the neighbourhood


Image: Reuters

 
Pakistan is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. Media personnel are targeted by militants; religious, ethnic, and separatist groups; intelligence and law enforcement agencies; and even mainstream political parties. The country—a frontline state for almost four decades—suffers from a polarized society and a culture of intolerance. As rule of law is not well established, perpetrators of violence against media enjoy near absolute impunity, seriously undermining freedom of expression. 

Since 2001, the Pakistan Press Foundation has documented 405 cases of violence against media personnel, including 49 murders, 269 assaults, and 42 abductions and detentions. Given this dire state of affairs, it was shocking that the media companies themselves were not working collectively for the safety of media professionals.  

Launched in December 2015, the Editors for Safety (EfS) initiative has improved news coverage of violence against Pakistani media professionals. Comprised of the country’s leading editors, publishers, and media owners, EfS’s philosophy is that an attack on one media professional or organization should be considered an attack on the entire Pakistani media.

Zaffar Abbas, founding chairman of EfS and editor of leading English-language daily newspaper Dawn, explaining the reasons behind creating this initiative, says that when a journalist was targeted, it was a big story for his or her media organization but covered—if at all—as a routine story by the others. Most papers would not even mention the name of the media outlet that was attacked. “There was a realisation that the reason media outlets were not able to speak with one voice was their commercial interests, and this lack of unity had become a huge problem for the safety of journalists,” he adds. 

Thus, editors and directors of leading newspapers and television channels met in Istanbul in June 2015 to discuss the safety of Pakistani media. They came to the conclusion that, despite their different editorial lines and the fact that competing in a difficult market led them to disagree on many issues, they could agree on the common goal of responding to the growing threats against them. Then and there, they decided to unite for safety. The participants tasked Abbas with consulting the other editors to establish an effective mechanism to promote media safety. The result was Editors for Safety.

Abbas is satisfied with the progress EfS has made in just a few months. “No one in the journalistic fraternity in Pakistan could believe that an attack on a media house would be breaking news in media groups that are fierce competitors,” he beams. In a break from previous norms, television channels and newspapers now routinely highlight attacks on other organizations and journalists, regardless of the outlet.

Abbas is satisfied with the progress EfS has made in just a few months. “No one in the journalistic fraternity in Pakistan could believe that an attack on a media house would be breaking news in media groups that are fierce competitors,” he beams. In a break from previous norms, television channels and newspapers now routinely highlight attacks on other organizations and journalists, regardless of the outlet.

The second major success has been real-time coordination of editors and directors whenever journalists are attacked or threatened. A powerful example of this was when Siddique Baloch, editor of the Baluchistan Express, sent a message to the group that armed men had broken into the house of journalist Afzal Mughal in Quetta and abducted him after kicking and punching him in front of his wife and children. Abbas sent an urgent appeal to television channels to highlight the issue until Mughal’s safe return. “Critical at this point is to make every effort not only to save his life, but also to protect him from possible torture,” said the message sent by Abbas. The media responded with breaking news, tickers, and updates. Within hours, Mughal was released and back with his family.

Less dramatic but equally important are the exchanges between the group’s editorial leadership every time media are threatened. These include acting as a unified front in a number of cases, such as when Islamic State militants threw grenades at offices of media outlets and fired on mobile television crews. These discussions are helping to create an informal understanding around editorial issues, such as how to avoid giving coverage to hoaxes and rumors of attacks or bomb threats.

Abbas feels that much more needs to be done, however. “While these are important first steps, the ultimate ambition is to end violence against media and the culture of impunity,” he says.

One area of weakness is the lack of follow-up coverage of cases of violence against journalists. After the initial media attention, which usually lasts about a week, cases are typically forgotten, with no coverage of investigations or prosecutions in the courts. Thus, the authorities feel little pressure to bring the perpetrators to justice. One of the goals, therefore, of EfS is to ensure that sustained coverage—and attention by the media community—can place further pressure on authorities to address this growing impunity.

Abbas believes it is the responsibility of the government to ensure a safe environment for the media to function without fear. This will only be possible if the media acts with one voice to respond to incidents of violence.  

Courtesy: Open Society Foundations

‘Not a single journalist working without fear or pressure’: Editors Guild on Bastar

By
-
0

 

A team of editors visited Chhattisgarh and was told that 'every single journalist is under the government scanner'.

A team of the Editors Guild of India travelled to Chhattisgarh and found that journalists in the state were "working under tremendous pressure". There was a "sense of fear" among journalists in the conflict-affected region of Bastar and even those working in the state capital Raipur complained of their phones being tapped.

"The state government wants the media to see its fight with the Maoists as a fight for the nation and expects the media to treat it as a national security issue, and not raise any questions about it," the team said in a report released on Tuesday.

It added that there was pressure from the state administration, especially the police, on journalists to write what they want or not to publish reports that the administration sees as hostile. "There is pressure from Maoists as well on the journalists working in the area," it said. "There is a general perception that every single journalist is under the government scanner and all their activities are under surveillance. They hesitate to discuss anything over the phone because, as they say, 'The police is listening to every word we speak.'"

The Editors Guild of team is an independent body of editors with more than 200 members from national, regional and local newspapers, magazines and the electronic media.

It formed a three-member team to investigate reports of threats to journalists in Chhattisgarh. In 2015, two journalists were arrested by Bastar police for purported links to Maoists. In February, Scroll.in contributor Malini Subramaniam was forced to leave Jagdalpur in the face of intimidation by the police and a vigilante group called Samajik Ekta Manch. Soon after, Alok Putul, a contributor of BBC Hindi, had to abandon his assignment in Bastar mid-way after receiving threats. The Inspector General of police in Bastar, SRP Kalluri, had refused to meet him, questioning his nationalism.

In mid-March, two members of the Editors Guild team travelled to Raipur and Jagdalpur and met journalists, members of the police and administration, and the chief minister.

They could not find "a single journalist who could claim with confidence that he/she was working without fear or pressure". Senior editors told them that their phones were being tapped. Journalists in Bastar said they had stopped travelling to the conflict areas. Journalists confirmed that the Samajik Ekta Manch was supported and financed by the police, with the direct involvement of IG SRP Kalluri.

On the case of Subramaniam, the team found, "It is clear from the on record statements made by the authorities that the administration was not comfortable with the reports Malini Subramaniam was sending to Scroll.in. And instead of putting their side of the story, the so called citizen’s forum ‘Samajik Ekta Munch’ was incited to attack Malini’s house and compelled her to leave the city and even the state."

In Raipur, Chief Minister Raman Singh met the team and expressed concern over the incidents. When the team brought up the complaints against Kalluri, Singh "instructed the officials that the behavior of one officer should not take away all the credits of the good job the government is doing in Maoist area". He instructed the administration to ensure better coordination and co-operation.

The report, however, notes that a journalist was arrested shortly after the team met the chief minister, suggesting that "there is no shift in policy".

Here is the full text of the report.

Challenges to Journalism in Bastar: A report by the Fact Finding Team of the Editors Guild of India

The Team:
Prakash Dubey, General Secretary
Seema Chishti, Executive Committee member
Vinod Verma,Executive Committee member

Places of Travel: Jagdalpur, Bastar and Raipur

Dates of Travel: 13th to 15th of March, 2016

Terms of reference:

To verify and assess:

Recent reports of the arrests of journalists in Chhattisgarh
The threats and challenges faced by journalists in the state
The challenges to the profession of journalism

Summary
Bastar division of Chhattisgarh state is fast becoming a conflict zone. There is a constant battle on between the security forces and the Maoists. Journalists, caught in the middle, are under attack by both the state and non-state actors.

Several incidents have been reported over the past few months of attacks on journalists. At least two, according to the reports, were arrested and imprisoned and others threatened and intimidated to a point where they had to leave Bastar for fear of their lives. The residence of at least one journalist, according to the information, was also attacked.

The Editors Guild of India constituted a three member Fact Finding Team to look into these reported incidents. Since Seema Chishti was unable to travel, Prakash Dubey and Vinod Verma travelled to Raipur/Jagdalpur on 13th, 14th and 15th of March, 2016.

A team of the Editors Guild of India travelled to Chhattisgarh and found that journalists in the state were "working under tremendous pressure". There was a "sense of fear" among journalists in the conflict-affected region of Bastar and even those working in the state capital Raipur complained of their phones being tapped.

The fact finding committee members met a number of journalists and government officials in Jagdalpur. In Raipur the team met Chief Minister Dr. Raman Singh and all top officials of the state, several Editors and some senior journalists.

The team recorded the statements of journalists Malini Subramaniam and Alok Putul. It also visited the central jail to meet journalist Santosh Yadav.

The fact finding team came to the conclusion that the media reports of threats to journalists are true. The media in Chhattisgarh is working under tremendous pressure. In Jagdalpur and the remote tribal areas the journalists find it even more difficult to gather and disseminate news. There is pressure from the state administration, especially the police, on journalists to write what they want or not to publish reports that the administration sees as hostile. There is pressure from Maoists as well on the journalists working in the area. There is a general perception that every single journalist is under the government scanner and all their activities are under surveillance. They hesitate to discuss anything over the phone because, as they say, “the police is listening to every word we speak.”

Several senior journalists confirmed that a controversial citizen group Samajik Ekta Manch’ is funded and run by the police headquarters in Bastar. According to them it is a reincarnation of Salwa Judum.

Challenges to Journalists: Some Cases

Challenges of writing for the newspapers are not new in Bastar division of Chhattisgarh. A journalist Premraj, who was representing the Deshbandhu newspaper in Kanker, was booked under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activity (Prevention) Act (TADA) in the year 1991-92 when the undivided Madhya Pradesh state was ruled by the BJP. He was charged with being close to the Maoists. He was later acquitted by the courts for want of evidence.

In December, 2013 a rural journalist Sai Reddy was killed by the rebels in a village near Bijapur. According to the police, a group of Maoists attacked him with sharp edged weapons near the market and fled from the spot.

Bastar Journalist Association President S Karimuddin told the fact finding team that in the year 2008, Sai Reddy was arrested by the police and kept in jail under the controversial Chhattisgarh Special Security Act, accusing him of having links with the Maoists. On the other hand, the Maoists suspected him to be loyal to the security forces and set his house ablaze and killed him later.

In February, 2013 one more rural journalist Nemi Chand Jain was also killed by the rebels in Sukma. Rebels were under the impression that he was passing messages to the security forces. 45 days after his murder, the Maoists apologised for his killing.

Last year, in 2015, police arrested two news persons under the same controversial law for allegedly having connections with the Maoists. One of them, Santosh Yadav was arrested in September. He was a stringer for at least two Raipur based newspapers Nav Bharat and Dainik Chhattisgarh. The editors of both the news papers have owned the journalist. The fact finding team met Santosh Yadav in the Jagdalpur Central Jail, where he said that he is also suspected by both the sides of being close to the other side.

A second journalist, Somaru Nag was arrested in July, 2015. He was also a stringer and news agent for a Raipur based newspaper, but that newspaper never came forward to own him as their employee.

Charge sheets in both the cases have been filed and the matter is pending in the courts.

On February 8, 2016, the residence of Malini Subramaniam was attacked by some unidentified people. She is a contributor for Scroll.in and former head of International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC). As Malini told the fact finding team, her house was attacked in the early hours of the morning. Malini found stones scattered around her Jagdalpur residence and the window of her car shattered. According to her around 20 men gathered around her house a few hours before the attack, shouting slogans like "Naxali Samarthak Bastar Chhoro", "Malini Subramaniam Murdabad". She suspected that the same people must have been involved in the attack. According to the local administration, “her writing is one sided and she always sympathises with the Maoists.” The same allegation was made by the Samajik Ekta Manch. According to the local administration the Manch is being run by citizens opposed to the Maoists. However, the journalists in Jagdalpur and Raipur said that it was supported and financed by the police. A few of them said that the Inspector General of Police Mr. SRP Kalluri is directly involved in this.

The latest case was reported by BBC Hindi journalist, Alok Putul who was forced to leave Bastar after he received threats. According to his statement, recorded by the FFT (fact finding team), before these threats Alok received messages from the IG and SP who refused to meet him maintaining that they preferred to deal with “nationalist and patriotic journalists.”

Fear Factors

FFT could not find a single journalist who could claim with confidence that he/she was working without fear or pressure. The journalists posted in Bastar and the journalists working in Raipur, all of them spoke of pressure from both sides.

They said that the journalists have to work between the security forces and the Maoists, and both sides do not trust journalists at all.

All of them complained about their phone calls being tapped by the administration, and being kept under undeclared surveillance. The government officials categorically denied these charges. Principal Secretary (Home) BVK Sumbramiam said, “I have to sanction every single request for surveillance and I can say this with authority that no govt. department has been authorised to tap phone calls of any of the journalists.”

The journalists posted in Bastar said that they cannot dare to travel to the conflict zone to report because they cannot report the facts on the ground. Although collector Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria told the fact finding team that the whole of Bastar is now open for everyone, including journalists.

The President of Divisional Journalists Association of Bastar, S Karimuddin said, “I have not visited any place outside Jagdalpur for the last six years, simply because I am not supposed to write the truth and if one cannot write what one sees then there is no point going out to gather information.” He represents UNI in Bastar for more than three decades.

A similar claim was made by the Editor of a local newspaper Dilshad Niyazi who said that he had not visited the neighbouring district Bijapur for the last eight years out of fear. Another senior local journalist, Hemant Kashyap, well travelled in the area said he knew Bastar like the back of his hand but that now journalists had stopped travelling. “All the journalists have now stopped going inside the forests because of the fear of police as well as Maoists,” he said. “Now we ask Maoist organizations to send photographs and press releases. We publish them as we receive them because we don’t want to explain every single line we are writing to them. Similarly the police expect us to publish its version so most of the journalists print their press releases as well without asking any questions,” Kashyap said.

Malini Subramaniam told FFT that even if someone dares to go out to gather information, one is not supposed to talk to the people. She said, “Police officials expect journalists to believe and publish whatever they claim. They don’t like it if someone wants to walk an extra mile for finding the facts. In one case of surrender, when I tried talking to a couple of people, they asked me to identify the persons I wished to talk and then they briefed them before I could reach them.”

The fact finding team found that this fear is not confined to the tribal areas only, but is there in the capital city Raipur too, 280 kilometres away from Jagdalpur. All the reporters working in Raipur also said that their telephones were tapped. Some of them shared incidents that confirmed this. A very senior journalist, who is considered to have a cordial relationship with the Raman Singh govt. said, “No one is spared, not even me. They have been tapping my phone calls too.” Government officials denied this charge as reported earlier and claimed that not a single journalist is under surveillance. They said that there was a perception gap and they would try to change this.

Chief Editor of an old and reputed newspaper Lalit Surjan said that it had become extremely difficult for a journalist to do his/her job. During his meeting with the FFT he said, “If you want to analyse anything independently, you cannot do it because they can question your intentions and can ask bluntly, ‘Are you with the government for with the Maoists?” He admitted that this problem was not only with the government, but also with the Maoists. He said, “Both sides feel that what you are writing is wrong.”

Surjan said that it was becoming increasingly difficult to work in areas like Bastar as the journalists cannot avoid meeting Maoists, and the government is not prepared to give them even the benefit of the doubt. “The government should respect democratic rights and should give benefit of doubt to the journalists,” he said. He questioned the arrest of the two journalists Santosh Yadav and Somaru Nag and remembers Sai Reddy, who was killed by the Naxals, as a fine reporter.

Challenges faced by Journalism

A journalist working in Bastar expects to be asked “Which side of journalism?” This question appears a bit odd but in Bastar it comes naturally. As the local journalists put it, there are three categories of journalists in Bastar. 1. Pro-government, 2. Not so pro government and 3.Pro Maoists or Maoist sympathisers.

The FFT found that there are nearly 125 journalists working in Jagdalpur alone. They can be divided in four categories:

Journalist by profession: There are only a few in this category. They are generally representatives of the Newspapers published from Raipur. Some newspapers have editions in Bastar, so heads of those editions can also be counted in this category. Journalists of this category are on the pay roll of the newspaper or news agency.

Part time journalists: Dozens of journalists belong to this category in Jagdalpur (or in other cities of tribal division of Bastar.) Journalism is not their main occupation. They have to take govt. contracts, work as builders or property dealers, traders, hoteliers or directors of NGOs etc. Apart from their business interests they have become printers and publishers of a newspaper or a periodical magazine, work as correspondent of some unknown or little known publication. Journalism is not their principal vocation. So called journalists of this category did not seem to be at all concerned about the salary they received from the publication they were working for, they don’t bother about circulation of the publication they own and least bothered about the reputation of the same. Their money comes from somewhere else. The fact finding team was told that many of them use journalistic influence for getting business, govt. contract, advertisements and some time extortion money from government officials and businessmen. Most of the time they are pro government for obvious reasons and senior journalists sitting in Raipur introduce/identify them as journalists on the ‘government pay roll’. Since corruption is rampant in Bastar, they are earning more money for not publishing a news item, than for publishing it. In a conflict zone like Bastar, they are the favorites of the local police and other officials.

Stringers and News agents: They are the backbone of journalism in Bastar. Posted in remote areas of the conflict zone known as stringers, newsagents or even hawkers. They collect news and send it to Jagdalpur bureau of to the head office directly. They don’t have any formal appointment with the newspaper nor do they get remuneration for their work. They get a letter from the newspapers or news agencies they represent, that authorises them to collect news and advertisements. Some might have been issued a press card, that the organisation rarely bothers to renew after it has expired. To the surprise of the FFT many of the stringers in the remote areas are carrying a press card issued by some national television channels too. Their money either comes from advertisement commission or from some other business they are involved in. In case of television sometimes they get paid if the video footage is used, but it happens very rarely and the payment is very low.

Visiting Journalists: They are the journalists representing national or international media. They come from either Raipur, where they are generally posted or from the head offices like Delhi and Mumbai. Police and local administration dislike them the most because they ask many questions, insist on getting the facts and try to visit the affected areas. They are generally seen as Maoist sympathizers or pro-Maoists. As one senior editor in Raipur puts it, “their reports seems pro Maoist because they go inside and talk to the people and anything coming from the people usually contradicts the government’s version and hence it is labeled as pro Maoists or anti government. ” The problem with this lot is, they cannot stay for a long time in Bastar so their reportage is not sustained. Secondly they came with an assignment and they end up looking for a particular story. Third, they cannot access most of Bastar because they are not allowed to visit many parts of the tribal areas, on the grounds that it is not ‘safe’. Four, they don’t understand the local language/dialact and hence are dependent on what the interpreter is telling them. It could be a local journalist from the above described category no. 2. There are some exceptions like Scroll contributor Malini Subramanian who was staying in Jagdalpur and visiting remote places for gathering news, but she could not stay there for a long time for obvious reasons.

Language and Class:

There are only a few journalists who can understand the language/dialect tribal people speak, whether it is Gondi or Halbi or some other dialect. There is not a single full time journalist who comes from one the tribes. Most of the journalists belong to a different class and speak some other language. Their mother tongue could be Chhattisgarhi, Marwari, Hindi, Telugu, Bangla or Hindi but not the one in which local villagers speak. Language constraints are a problem.

Difficult Terrain:

Major part of the conflict zone is in Abujhmarh, which means ‘unknown hills’. It is hilly forest area which is home for many tribes. The population in this area is very thin. According to the 2011 census India’s average population density is 382 persons per square kilometers but in this part of the country the population density is 10 persons only. Then it is one of those areas of the country where Malaria is common. Because it is also the so called liberated zone of the Maoists, it is very difficult to go inside the jungle to gather reports.

Government’s response

The FFT met Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh Dr. Raman Singh at his residence. All top bureaucrats of the state were also present in the meeting. Editors Guild’s executive committee member Ruchir Garg and editor of a local daily Sunil Kumar were also present in the meeting.

The Chief Minister said that he is aware of most of the incidents and he is concerned about it. He said that his government is in favor of free and fair media. He informed the fact finding team that after the controversy over the arrest of journalist Santosh Yadav he had called a meeting of top officials and some editors and formed a monitoring committee which will be consulted for any cases related to the media and journalists.

About the phone tapping and surveillance allegations, the principal secretary (home) assured the team that he is the authority for sanctioning surveillance and he could say that not a single journalist is under surveillance. The principal secretary to the CM admitted that there is a perception gap and said it was the government’s responsibility to change this perception.

The attitude of Bastar IG Mr. SRP Kalluri towards the press also came up in the meeting. The CM instructed the officials that the behavior of one officer should not take away all the credits of the good job the government is doing in Maoist area. Some senior police official with credibility should be authorized to talk to the press, he said. Principal Secretary (Home) should visit Jagdalpur and interact with the media, the Chief Minister instructed.

CM Dr Singh assured the FFT that his government has no prejudice against any one and he will personally take all necessary steps required to make media free of any kind of fear.

Samajik Ekta Manch

This is an informal but controversial organization in Jagdalpur. The administration calls it a citizen’s forum and claims that people from all walks of life are members of this organization. The collector of Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria said that many religious organizations are also part of it and they are against the Maoists. But many journalists call it the urban version of Salwa Judum. They, however, did not want to oppose it openly. They said off the record, that the Manch is sponsored by the police and it takes its orders from the police headquarters.

The FFT met one of the coordinators of this organization Subba Rao to understand the working of the Samajik Ekta Manch.

He introduced himself as editor of two dailies, one morning and the other published in the evening. When asked, whether his main occupation is journalism, Subba Rao was candid enough to explain that he is basically a civil contractor and he is working on some government contracts. The FFT met more than a dozen journalists in Jagdalpur, but he was the only (so called) journalist who claimed that he had never experienced any pressure from the administration.

His statements about the arrested journalists were the same as the administrations. He termed Santosh Yadav and Somaru Nag as informer for the Maoists. He said that what Malini Subramaniam was reporting was very biased. “Malini was glorifying Maoists and painting a picture of police like exploiter”, he said. He denied that Samajik Ekta Manch was behind the attack at Malini’s residence.

Cases and the findings

Santosh Yadav/ Somaru Nag

Santosh was arrested by the police on September 29, 2015. Police charged him for working as a courier for the Maoists and taking money from them.

Government officials claim that Santosh Yadav is not a journalist and they don’t know which newspaper he was working for. The FFT met Santosh Yadav in the Central Jail in Jagdalpur and discussed the case with him. He claimed that he had been working for at least two newspapers Navbharat and Chhattisgarh. (Editors of both the newspapers confirmed that Santosh Yadav was working for them and they own him as a journalist working for their newspapers).

Santosh Yadav admitted that he had been attending calls from the Maoist leaders because of the nature of his job but he had never passed any information to them. He also admitted that he had been occasionally dropping packets between Darbha and Jagdalpur. Sometimes it was bundle of newspapers or magazines and sometimes some other papers he did not know anything about. He said that anyone who lives in remote area of conflict zone cannot risk his life by refusing the Maoists to carry a bundle of papers from one place to another.

The Chief Editor of the newspaper group the Deshbandhu, Mr. Lalit Surjan said during his discussion with the fact finding team, “Santosh Yadav and many other journalists working in remote area of Bastar should be given the benefit of doubt because they have been talking to Maoists as part of their job. They don’t have any choice.” He said that journalists of those remote areas are also talking to the police as part of their jobs and become victims of Maoist anger.

Santosh Yadav told the FFT that he had been given money by a senior police officer and he was expected to pass information about the Maoists movements around the area, but did not do so. He claimed that after some news items published in the newspapers, he was called by the local police station and was tortured for three days.

Somaru Nag was also arrested last year. He was basically a newspaper agent for a newspaper and also gathering news for the same. But the newspaper doesn’t own him now. Charges are same for him too.

Malini Subramaniam

Malini is a contributor for the website the Scroll.in. She was living in Jagdalpur and collecting news for the website. She was working for the Scroll for nearly one year. Before that she was head of International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC). She was first threatened by a group of people then her house was attacked in the wee hours of February 8, 2016. Then she was compelled to vacate her rented accommodation in Jagdalpur.

When the team was in Jagdalpur she was in Hyderabad. The FFT discussed the case with her over the phone.

The local authorities claim that they were not aware that someone is contributing for the Scroll from Jagdalpur. As the collector of Jagdalpur put it, “which is not even mainstream media”

Local journalists say that even they were not aware that Malini Subramaniam was writing for Scroll before the whole controversy came up. Malini admitted that she never bothered to enroll herself as a journalist with the local govt. public relations department, as she was not covering day to day events.

The govt. officials admit that they are not happy with Malini’s writing because ‘it is always one sided and sympathises with the Maoists.’ The Collector of Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria told the FFT- “Even her questions in the press conferences used to be pro Maoist.” Malini in her testimony to the FFT, denied this and said, “Despite my limitations, I have been travelling to remote areas, meeting local people and writing about them. That is something the police don’t want any journalist to do. They want journalists to write what they say of what their press release say.”( Malini told the team that when she was trying to meet some tribal people, the police objected to it and they picked up a couple of tribal people briefed them first then only did the police allow her to interact with them.)

Malini said that objection on her writings came from a newly formed organisation ‘Samajik Ekta Manch’. Her impression is that this organization is supported by the local police and they take orders from the police only. She told the team that during the day a few dozen people gathered in front of her house and shouting slogan against her and then after mid night her house was attacked.

The fact finding team asked many government officials if they have issued any denial for contradiction notice against the Scroll report, the answer was negative.

Malini said that the local police is becoming intolerant and doesn’t want any voice of dissent to be present in Bastar.

Alok Putul

He is a contributor for BBC Hindi from Chhattisgarh. He was in Bastar for gathering news and was trying to meet the Bastar IG Mr. SRP Kalluri and SP Mr. Narayan Das. After many attempts he received this reply from the IG, “Your reporting is highly prejudiced and biased. There is no point in wasting my time in journalists like you. I have a nationalist and patriotic section of media with and press which staunchly supports me. I would rather spend time with them. Thanks.”

The SP sent a similar message, “Hi, Alok, I have lot of things to do for the cause of nation. I have no time for journalist like you who report in biased way. Do not wait for me.”

In his testimony before the team Alok Putul explained that this message was unexpected from the police officers from whom he was trying to take their quotes on the Naxal surrender and law and order situation story he was trying to do.

As Alok explains, “This message was the beginning. After these messages, one local person, known to me, came and advised me to leave the area as some people were looking for me. Initially I was taking it lightly and travelled to another area, there one more person came to me to give me same information. Then I had no other choice but to leave the area immediately.”

Alok told the FTT, “First thing I did was to inform the BBC office in Delhi and some journalist friends in Raipur and then I came back to Raipur.”

The Jagdalpur collector, Amit Kataria when asked about this by the team, laughed and then said, “There was some communication gap between Alok Putul and IG, nothing else.”

After several messages and phone calls, the team could not get a chance to meet IG SRP Kalluri. When the team left Delhi, he had assured that he would give an appointment, but stopped responding when the FTT reached there.

Conclusions

1. Santosh Yadav is a journalist and he has been writing for at least two news papers of Raipur. Both the newspapers have owned him. So the government’s claim that he is not a journalist is baseless.

2. Authorities claim that they have enough evidence about Yadav’s links with the Maoists. It is now for the court of law to decide where these evidences will be produced. But senior journalists in Raipur feel that he has been a victim of circumstances and he should be given benefit of doubt.

3. It is clear from the on record statements made by the authorities that the administration was not comfortable with the reports Malini Subramaniam was sending to Scroll.in. And instead of putting their side of the story, the so called citizen’s forum ‘Samajik Ekta Munch’ was incited to attack Malini’s house and compelled her to leave the city and even the state.

4. Alok Putul was in Bastar to gather some news about the law and order situation for the BBC. Instead of meeting him or talking to him, the two top officials of Bastar sent him messages questioning his nationalism and patriotism. Later he came to know that a few people were looking for him, so he had to leave the place to save himself. Police officials were not available to meet the FFT. The DM dismissed the threats to the journalist as a “communication gap.”

5. There is a sense of fear in Bastar. Every journalist who is working in Bastar feels that he/she is not safe. On one hand they have to deal with Maoists who are becoming more and more sensitive about the reports appearing in the media and on the other hand, the police wants the media to report as and what they want.

6. As one Senior Editor Mr. Lalit Surjan puts it, “If you wish to analyze anything independently then you can be judged whether you are with the government or with the Maoists. The democratic space for journalism is shrinking.”

7. There is a general feeling (in government) in Chhattisgarh that a large section of the national media is pro Maoist. One senior editor, who is perceived as close to the government, said this.

8. Newspapers and other media houses are appointing journalists as stringers in the remote areas without any formalities. These journalists gather news, collect advertisements and arrange the distribution of the newspapers too. They generally survive on the commission they get from advertisement collections or they rely on other professions for the same. A separate and detailed report on stringers is recommended.

9. There is no mechanism in place for accreditation of those journalists who are working beyond the district head quarters. So when the question of identity arises government conveniently denies that someone is/was a journalist. Media houses also disown them because they see them as liability beyond a point.

10. The state government wants the media to see its fight with the Maoists as a fight for the nation and expects the media to treat it as a national security issue, and not raise any questions about it.

11. Chief Minister instructed the administration for better coordination and co operation. A journalist was arrested shortly after the FFT meeting with him, suggesting that there is no shift in policy.

12. FFT is of the view that news paper organizations should take care while appointing stringers and give them adequate protection.

Religion-based Nationalism is back in Full Force: Romila Thapar

By
-
0


Image: The Hindu

 
In the 1960s we were confident that the use of religion for political mobilisation would decline because nationalism, namely, the secular, all-inclusive, anti-colonialism nationalism that brought us independence, would, despite Partition, be firmly established. This was in some ways such a firm belief that it was not thought necessary to specify the inclusion of secularism in the Constitution at the initial stage.  This has not happened. Religion as political mobilisation, and religion-based identity as the core of nationalism, sometimes called communalism, is back in full force.
 
Historians and other social scientists do not make predictions. Our inability to do so is because there may always be some irrational factor in our society that intervenes. So we can only analyse what went wrong and make some suggestions for how to put it right.
 
It is useful to consider the changing contours of communalism in post-colonial India since the parameters and the historical context are no longer the same as they were in colonial times. There was, to begin with, an anti-colonial relatively secular nationalism that pre-dated and was distinct from communalism, both Muslim and Hindu.
 
Communalism was born out of colonial policy, and took as its foundation the dubious two-nation theory that culminated in two categories of communalism – Muslim and Hindu. The first led to the creation of Pakistan. Hindu communalism is awaiting its fulfillment.
 
Communalism continues to have a role in the politics of post-colonial India, but this is not identical with its earlier role. The prime reason for anti-colonial secular nationalism has ostensibly been removed after independence, since we are no longer a colony and do not require an anti-colonial nationalism. But we still have to contend with the kind of communalism, that is aspiring to a Hindu Rashtra, of the 1930s vintage.
 
Interestingly the defining of this form of a nation, is embedded in the colonial interpretation of Indian society. It goes back to the nineteenth century interpretation of Indian history by James Mill who spoke of the two nations that have always constituted India – namely, the Hindu and the Muslim.
 
The two-nation theory fueled communalism, assisted by another colonial contribution which was the Census that led to describing Indian society as consisting of a majority community and minority communities. To this was added the colonial theory of the foundation of Indian civilisation being the Aryanism of the Vedas. This contributed to the concept of the nation as a Hindu Rashtra and the Hindu therefore being the primary citizen of India.
 
Whereas the major nationalism of anti-colonialism led the movement for independence, the colonial perceptions of the history and society of India, gave root to the two communal nationalisms in the form of the Muslim league and the Hindu Mahasabha – to be replaced with the RSS. These latter two did not support secular anti-colonial nationalism but instead focused on opposing each other.
 
Subsequent to Independence, secular nationalism was no longer confronting a colonial power, but instead, it had to confront the power of identity politics that draws on religious extremism. The need for awareness to check the activities of religious extremism was under-estimated. Both Islamisation and Hindutva took the path of concretising Islamic and Hindu identities as oppositional.
 
Indian Governments have each to a greater or lesser extent, been party to such politics. We have experienced extreme violence against various minorities – Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Dalits. It has been and continues to be a serious threat to democracy in India.
 
It is difficult to establish a functioning democracy in a society where there are special categories of privileged and under-privileged groups, and majority and minority communities based on religious identities with varying rights ; and an ideology that endorses the two-nation theory, where religion, caste, and language, become identities. It is difficult because democracy requires the reverse of this – it means equal rights for all and an equality in laws applicable to all citizens.
 
Many of our problems come from an unquestioned inheritance that we have accepted of colonial policy, administration and law. We continue to base our identities derived from religion and caste on those that the colonial system imposed on us. If we were to question these, something different may well emerge.
 
 I often wonder whether all post-colonial societies nurture continuity and conservatism by clinging to what their colonizers had taught them about who and what they were and are ?  

Communalism was born out of colonial policy, and took as its foundation the dubious two-nation theory that culminated in two categories of communalism – Muslim and Hindu. The first led to the creation of Pakistan. Hindu communalism is awaiting its fulfillment.

It would be interesting to do a comparative study with African and Caribbean nationalism, for instance, that saw the emergence of theories such as Negritude and where people read Aimee Cesare and Leopold Senghor when constructing their nationalisms. Did they also go back to colonial versions of their past or did they question these versions?
 
Are the ideologies of religious and cultural extremism invariably drawn from the interpretations of the society and culture of the ex-colony as constructed by the colonisers ? In other words do we have to endorse the identities that British colonialism imposed on us?  Can we not instead question these identities and consider alternatives. The continuation of such identities is inherently anti-democratic. They were meant for a colony not for a free democracy.
 
This debate has been going on for a while now. There is a need to change the premises.
 
Instead of speaking of the past only in terms of who victimised whom, (and as we all know such theories of victimisation are easily constructed), we should instead look more carefully at what we want from the present and what from the past can help us construct a more positive present.
 
We have to recognise that we too, like every other society with a long past, have not been a society characterized by tolerance and non-violence. However much we may wish to believe that we were tolerant and non-violent, it simply isn’t true.
 
Such theories served their purpose in the days when we were contesting colonialism. But they are not of much help now with the constant daily actions that we witness or even experience, of intolerance and violence, and it seems to increase by the day. But we cannot suddenly have become violent and intolerant. There have to have been some elements of such behaviour in us in the past as well, which we perhaps kept under better control. It would be salutary to investigate why there was less of violence and intolerance in the past, if that was so?
 
Our texts from pre-Islamic times tell us that there were two streams of dharma that were dominant – the Brahmanical and the Shramanic. The latter were the Buddhists, Jainas, Ajivikas and such like.  There are rulers that insistently call for tolerance among the sects as in the edicts of Ashoka Maurya, or there are references to conflicts between sects in Sanskrit texts, or in accounts of visitors to India in those times.
 
Patanjali, the great grammarian of around the second century BC, refers to the two streams of dharmaas dominant, and adds that their relationship can be compared to that of the snake and the mongoose. Buddhism was finally exiled from India. Sectarian conflicts continued into Islamic times with now an additional factor.
 
As far as intolerance goes, we must also remind ourselves that every religion in India discriminated against what we today call the Dalits. Even the religions that claimed that all men are equal in the eyes of God, did not give them equality.
 
Islam and Christianity did not have a category of Dalits outside India, but in India, Muslim, Christian and Sikh Dalits were segregated and lived separately.  These are aspects of our society that we still have to come to terms with. We cannot claim to have been a tolerant society in the past by ignoring our treatment of some sections of society that we are now trying to amend. Intolerance does not refer only to religion. It also refers to the demeaning of another human being.
 
If we want a democracy then it has inevitably to be secular, and not give rights to privileged groups. This is irrespective of whether the claim is that such rights are justified by status or by numbers. It means that institutions of society have to be so organized that privileging a group becomes redundant.
 
This means a constant check on the functioning of those institutions that sustain a democracy to ensure that they are doing so. This also means being aware, for instance, that institutions of education where we learn about secular democracy, and are socialised to belonging to a democratic society, are not dismantled, or are replaced with teaching that is anti-democratic. This is a serious threat.
 
It also means changing the mind-set of institutions and people to encourage them to understand and support a democratic society.
 
What are the major institutions that would be involved with this?
 
The Constitution is based on values of secular democracy but most of us know so little about it. Perhaps we should be more aware of how it defends democracy. This would also involve greater knowledge about the functioning of the judiciary – so crucial to the current many crises.

We have to recognise that we too, like every other society with a long past, have not been a society characterized by tolerance and non-violence. However much we may wish to believe that we were tolerant and non-violent, it simply isn’t true.
 
The Code of Civil Laws should be geared to eliminating the continuing discrimination against Dalits, Adivasis and women. We also need to check from time to time to ascertain as to how affirmative action is working and who is benefitting from it.It does seem curious – and this question is now being commonly asked – as to why dominant castes in so many parts of the nation are taking to violence to ensure that they be given reservation rights, some of which are reserved only for those that have an under-privileged status.
 
A major positive change can be brought about if quality education is made available to all.  The aim should not be just for literacy but also to teaching the young how to think, how to question their world, and how to improve it. The aim should be to impart how to  handle knowledge and why this is important. Education is not just the acquiring of information.  We have to remember that in the coming generation virtually half the population will be young adults with aspirations.
 
We have to ensure basic human rights so that five hundred million Indians can live with dignity. We have to think of how we can perhaps insist that our administrators, those that run our institutions as well as those that are required to protect us, be taught that their prime function is to protect the rights and the person of the Indian citizen ? Subservience to authority is not what is required from them. They have to be encouraged to be helpful to the citizen.
 
May be that if we begin to make these our demands and do so with a firm commitment, then some of the indignities associated with the communal mind-set, and that are so common in our society, may start to fade.
 
Communalism is ultimately an attitude of mind among people based on the assumption that whatever is told to them by their mentors is all they need to know. It shows a disinterest in knowing better. To focus therefore solely on the rights of religious communities – whether of the majority or the minority – ultimately has a limited purpose. This will not terminate communalism.
 
It seems to me that we have to think of other ways by which identities are defined. We seem to have arrived at a point when communal ideas and activities are taken as legitimate nationalism. We have to disentangle nationalism from communalism. No group has a monopoly on claiming that its activities alone, constitute nationalism, and all others are anti-national. We have to reconstruct nationalism in an inclusive, secular mode, to allow every Indian to participate equally and with equal rights.

Talaq, Talaq, Talaq: If it’s inhuman, how can it be ‘Islamic’?

By
-
0


 
In response to the Supreme Court's recent suo motu decision to test the legal validity of triple talaq in Muslim personal law, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has said that the country's top court has no jurisdiction to undertake the exercise as the community's personal law was based on the Quran and not on a law enacted by Parliament. Contrary to what the ulema claim, the fact is that what prevails in the name of Muslim Personal in India is not God-given but a legacy of the British rulers. As is evident from the experience of the recent period, the courts of secular India are the only hope for countless women victims of instant divorce

Whichever way you look at it – in simple human terms, rationally, constitutionally or theologically – the dogged refusal of the bulk of the ulema in India and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to call for an end to the Muslim male right to triple talaq (instant divorce) defies comprehension.

In human terms, in terms of any notion of gender justice, the unilateral, arbitrary and whimsical right of a Muslim male to divorce his wife in an instant – a letter, telegram, telephone, telex, fax even an SMS would do – cannot be described as anything but inhuman and anti-women.

In rational terms it defies any definition of justice or equity. Triple talaq cannot but be unconstitutional because it is so blatantly unjust, unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory.

Even theologically, it is difficult to digest the position long held by the ulema and until recently accepted by the courts: "Though bad in theology (haram, sinful), triple talaq is good in law".

What this means in simple terms is that the moment a Muslim male utters talaq, talaq, talaq, his wife becomes unlawful to him, even if he has uttered those words under coercion, in a fit of rage or in a drunken state and regrets his utterance the very next moment. The only way out for the couple to resume their marital relation, the ulema say, is through halala: the woman must marry someone else, consummate the marriage, get the second husband to divorce her and then remarry the first husband.

It is repeatedly claimed, not by Muslims alone but also by many non-Muslim scholars, that justice and equality are the key social message of Islam. How can the practice of triple talaq be squared with any notion of justice or equity? It is not known if the ulema or the AIMPLB have ever asked themselves this question, and, if so, what their answer is.

It is repeatedly claimed, not by Muslims alone but also by many non-Muslim scholars, that justice and equality are the key social message of Islam. How can the practice of triple talaq be squared with any notion of justice or equity? It is not known if the ulema or the AIMPLB have ever asked themselves this question, and, if so, what their answer is.

Not all the ulema and not all members of the Board accept triple talaq as lawful. Besides, the triple talaq practice is today unlawful in an overwhelming majority of Muslim countries, even though Islam is declared to be the State religion.

For the first time since its inception in 1972, the AIMPLB resolved in its meeting of July 4, 2004 to take some concrete, if highly inadequate, steps to give justice to Muslim women. The Board resolved:

(1) To launch a nation-wide campaign to create awareness in the Muslim community that the prevalent practice of triple talaq was wrongful and to educate them on the Islamic way of divorce.

(2) To prepare and popularise a model nikahnama that both husband and wife be asked to sign at the time of marriage, committing themselves to not seeking a divorce except in the correct Islamic way as spelt out in the model nikahnama.

(3) To ensure that Muslim women get a share in agricultural property.

(4) To establish Darul Qaza (Islamic courts) in different parts of the country to settle marital disputes and to strive for constitutional status to these courts (so that its orders become legally enforceable).

The Board has fallen between two stools. These resolutions have left the Muslim fundamentalists aghast at the very thought that the AIMPLB is contemplating the unthinkable: bringing any change in Muslim Personal Law.

On the other hand, the proposed measures have not impressed women’s groups and other secular organisations in the least. And this is so for several reasons.

So long as you keep reiterating the position that triple talaq is good in law but bad in theology, what would be the efficacy of any campaign against it, even assuming (and this is a very big assumption) the Board has the machinery to run a nation-wide campaign and the mechanisms to ensure its success. As for a model nikahnama, the same Board has been sitting on a model nikahnama suggested by some of its own members for ten years. How many more decades before an approved nikahnama goes into mass circulation? How do you create mass opinion in its favour?

No less objectionable is the fourth resolution, asking for a religious body to be integrated as part of the judicial apparatus in a secular State. How can any secular State grant such legitimacy to any religious organisation? How would anyone react to the demand for a Hindu Dharam Sansad as an integral part of the courts’ set up in India?

The only saving grace in these four resolutions is the one concerning restoration of Muslim women’s right to agricultural property. It is a welcome development for more than one reason. In demanding fresh legislation to ensure Muslim women’s rights to agricultural property (a right that has been denied to them since 1937 with the connivance of the ulema), the Board will nullify the oft-repeated though baseless claim that any change in Muslim Personal Law is interference in God-given laws.

Even as there is endless debate over whether those concerned with gender justice should engage with or ignore the Board, victims of triple talaq (Muslim women) have kept knocking at the doors of constitutional courts in search of justice. And surprisingly, though neither the media nor the Muslim masses have awakened to its implications, a big, big change is evident here.

It is clear from a spate of judgements by the high courts and even a division bench of the Supreme Court since 1998 that the upper echelon of the judiciary is no longer willing to buy the "bad in theology, good in law" line of the ulema. There now seems to be a near consensus among them that unless it is for a reasonable cause and is preceded by efforts at reconciliation, talaq is un-Islamic and unlawful.

What this could mean for a victim of arbitrary talaq is best understood from a brief recount of the September 18, 2002 judgement of a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice RC Lahoti (now Chief Justice of India) and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi in the case of Shamim Ara v. State of UP and another, (2002) 7 SCC 518.

Shamim Ara from Allahabad got married to Abrar Ahmed in 1968. In 1979, she filed an application before a family court seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125, CrPC, on the ground that he had deserted her.

In 1990, the husband filed a written statement to claim he had divorced her in 1987 and so she was not entitled to any maintenance. Accepting the husband’s contention that she had already been divorced, the family court, in its judgement in 1993, dismissed the wife’s plea for maintenance.
On her appeal, the high court (Allahabad) held that the communication of talaq stood completed in 1990 with the filing of the written statement by the husband.

But on September 18, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that "neither the marriage between the parties stands dissolved on December 5, 1990 nor does the liability of the husband to pay maintenance come to an end on that day. The husband shall continue to remain liable for payment of maintenance until the obligation comes to an end in accordance with law."

The judges held that the mere plea of a husband of having divorced his wife sometime in the past was of no use as, "There are no reasons substantiated in justification of talaq and no plea of proof that any effort at reconciliation preceded the talaq".

The courts of secular India are the only hope for the countless victims of triple talaq.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004 Year 10   No. 99, Cover Story 1
 

1...2,5712,5722,573...2,697Page 2,572 of 2,697

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

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

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

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

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved