Taiwan, 1st Asian Country to Legalize Gay Marriage, Shouldn’t India Follow Suit?

May 26, 2017

In a landmark judgement delivered on May 23, judges from Taiwan's Highest Court ruled in favour of Chi Chia-wei, legalizing gay marriage, making the small, island nation the first in Asia and setting a precedent for other Asian countries.

The court has given the country's parliament two years to amend existing laws or create new ones to ensure equal treatment of individuals with respect to marriage laws.

Back home in India, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Naz Foundation V. Government of NCT Of Delhi And Others, had ruled in favour of the LGBT community in 2009. The Court had asked the Indian parliament to amend laws according to the recommendations of the 172^nd Law Commission of India Report. The report may be read here.Sadly, little has been done in this regard. The LGBT community still suffers from exploitation, discrimination and denunciation. Hopefully, this progressive judgement passed by the Taiwan High Court will motivate the Indian law makers to finally frame laws to protect the preferences and rights of its diverse populace.

Just like India, in Taiwan the fight for rights of the LGBT community, is not recent. The issue of same-sex marriage has been a source of contention for decades in Taiwan. The key plaintiff, Chi Chia-wei, a gay-rights activist, has been fighting for gay rights since the 1980s and first sought a gay marriage license 16 years ago according to Focus Taiwan Reports. Chi Chia-wei’s suit claims that the prohibition against same-sex marriage violates the rights guaranteed in the Constitution by Article 7 which declares that all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, ethnic origin, class or party affiliation, to be equal before the law, and Article 22, which states that all other freedoms and rights of the public that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare are guaranteed under the Constitution.

The obiter dicta of the Grand Justices reflect their liberal, reformist outlook.The Justices called sexual orientation an "immutable characteristic that is resistant to change." This, in our opinion is the most logical definition of the sexuality of an individual, knowing that it is internal and natural and not an externally developed sentiment. The court further said that, “Allowing single people to have the autonomy to decide whether to marry and whom to marry, is vital to the sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right."

The alliance of Taiwan Religious Groups for the Protection of the Family and representatives from Buddhist, Taoist, Christian and Lamaist groups, rallied against this decision of the Court. However, it was the key campaign issue for President Tsai Ing-wen, who took office one year ago, and the legislature has been weighing a change to Taiwan's Civil Code.

Taiwan will now join 20 other countries from across the world which have legalised same-sex marriage. Netherlands was the first to legalise same-sex marriage(2000), followed by Belgium (2003), Spain and Canada (2005), Finland, Ireland and United States (2015) and now Taiwan (2017). India, certainly has a lot learn from this international reform. The first step in the right direction was taken by the Delhi High Court in 2009 as discussed above, but the Supreme Court took a U-turn in 2013, when it overruled the order of the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court Judgement may be read here.

What the Indian diaspora fails to understand is that Homosexuality is innate to the Indian culture and has been a part of our multihued heritage. Ancient texts such as Shrutis and Smritis make a mention of the existence of Homosexuals and Trans genders. The Kamasutra, another ancient Indian text makes explicit mention and portrayal of various relations existing between individuals of different as well as same genders. Sculptures and paintings in the Khajurao Temple, Ajanta and Ellora caves are evidence of the deeply rooted connection of homosexuality and Indian heritage.

Quite contrary to this, the ‘progressive’, ‘modern’, Indian society of today considers acts of homosexuals and transgenders as taboo. Accepting the Tibetans and not the Transgenders, allowing communal movements and not LGBT movements, criminalising homosexuality and not marital rape; isn’t this a reflection of the hypocrisy of the Indian polity?

The percentage of the population strongly preferring same-sex, sexual acts and relationships, and thus identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual, is thought to be somewhere between 1% (a figure generally considered too low) and 10% (a figure generally considered too high). In India 25 lakh individuals have been identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, as per a report submitted to the Supreme Court in 2012. The irony is, these are only the few who have come out of the closet. The rest, perhaps the majority, still fear the stigma attached hence, do not reveal their sexual orientation and identity. The Indian laws lag behind when compared with the rest of the world as they fail to identify, accept and protect the members of the community.

On the contrary, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalises homosexuality primarily on the basis of the form of sexual intercourse. This is the biggest obstacle in the path to equality. The Constitution of India – the supreme law of the land, protects and promotes diversity, ensures an egalitarian society where freedom should no longer be a privilege. Although Part III of the Constitution provides certain rights to the citizens, it only covers those citizens who form part of the ‘popular morality’. The LGBT community does not form part of this ‘popular morality’ and hence is neglected. It is the right of each member of the LGBT community to be treated equally like other citizens, to live with dignity as enshrined in A 15 (1), (2), Part III, Constitution of India. As given, “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

It is important that the ground of ‘sex’ must include the sexual orientation of the individuals along with the ‘gender’ as these develop over time, differently for every individual depending on the genetical make up. Further, A 19, Part III, Constitution of India, provides certain rights and freedoms to individuals which we are well aware of. Of course, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India and maintenance of public order. The LGBTQ communityis not harming the integrity and sovereignty of India and clearly forms an integral part of our society. At the same time, we know, it may be against the ‘popular morality’ but is not against ‘constitutional morality’ or public order. Then why are those belonging to the LGBT community prevented from taking an apartment on rent or buying a house or property? Why are the queer individuals discriminated against on public forums? Why is it difficult for a transgender to get a white-collar job? Why is a homosexual harassed, treated as an inferior being, abused, exploited, stigmatized? Clearly because the Constitutional interpretations have not expanded so as to include them.

As citizens of India, can’t lesbians, gays, transgenders and bisexuals live their lives with as much freedom as the rest of the Indians? Provisions need to be made to enable these individuals to acquire property, reside in a house, work freely and violations of the same need to be made punishable. A 21, Part III, Constitution of India, states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Though not explicitly, the A 21, does provide Right to Privacy to the citizens of India. Thus, what individuals do in private with consent should not be a crime. If the state does not involve itself in consensual sexual acts of heterosexuals, why should it criminalise consensual sexual acts of homosexuals? S 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860, is a draconian law of the British colonial powers, with a misconception that homosexuals indulge in anal sex which amounts to sodomy. The law fails to take into account, the feeling of mutual love, care and security that partners provide to each other. Thus, if two men find happiness in cohabiting, they should be allowed to do so and S 377 should be amended. A 14, Part III, Constitution of India, provides, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision is not reflected in the current scenario. Evidence of mass human rights violations of members of the homosexual community is obvious, numerous cases have also been filed. However, little has been done by the police and other authorities to provide protection to the LGBT community. The courts still do not rule in the community’s favour. Thus, the question remains, are the doors of the Courts really open for the LGBT community in India?

Our fight here is not just to decriminalise sexual acts of homosexuals but to ensure that they are provided with the same rights as other citizens of India. We need to fight for their right to marriage, right to procreate or have children, right to work without discrimination, right to consent any and all acts done with partners, right to seek justice in the formal court of law and finally, right to be included and accepted as part of Indian society.

Related Articles:

ADVANCE QUESTIONS TO INDIA (FIRST BATCH) UPR Process 2017

Mumbai Pride March: LGBT supporters share their hopes for the future

What the Women’s March on Washington can learn from Black Lives Matter

Concentration camps’ opened for Gay Men in Chechnya

Torture and Threats on SIMI Accused, Allege Families: Bhopal Central Jail

May 26, 2017

Undertrials forced to shave beard and chant 'anti-Islamic' slogans, NHRC told

Undertrial activists of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India(SIMI) have had their beards forcibly shaved in Bhopal's New Central Jail and are being compelled to chant "anti-Islamic slogans", their families have told the National Human Rights Commission. The Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association (JTSA) and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) facilitated their complaints before the NHRC, reports The Telegraph.

The 21 undertrial prisoners are being brutally beaten and threatened with death by jail authorities in the capital of BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh, wives and relatives of four of the men told rights panel member Justice (retd) D. Murugesan here yesterday.

"My husband is being routinely tortured, humiliated and forced to shout anti-Islamic slogans," said Shama Parveen, wife of Mohammed Javed, a farm labourer arrested a year after their marriage in December 2012.

"He fears for his life: the jail authorities have told him he would be killed and his death shown as suicide," she told the newspaper after handing the families' petition to the rights panel.

Shama and the relatives of Mohammed Irfan, Mohammed Adil and Mohammed Zubair – all Ujjain natives -said all 21 men had been put in solitary confinement and were being denied medical treatment, morning and evening walks, the chance to meet co-prisoners – even enough food.

Farzana, wife of Adil and mother of a 10-year-old son, said the prisoners were being allowed only five-minute meetings with their families, that too in the presence of anti-terrorist squad personnel who deny them any privacy.She said that several of the prisoners, held for years without conviction, had gone into depression.

The families said the ill-treatment had intensified after the alleged "encounter" killing of eight Simi operatives hours after they had broken out of the same jail on October 31 last year.

Relatives of the dead have alleged "cold-blooded murder", prompting chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan to order a judicial probe, which raised several questions about the police's version of events. "I'm not allowed to meet my husband for more than five minutes a week, but before last year's encounter we were allowed 20-minute visits. He is being tortured and forced to chant anti-Islamic slogans," Farzana told this newspaper.

"We have written to the chief minister, Prime Minister and senior government officials but nothing has happened." Madhya Pradesh director-general of police Rishiraj Shukla told this newspaper: "We have no knowledge of these allegations. If the National Human Rights Commission asks us, we'll get the necessary probe done."

According to the petition, Mohammed Iqrar, one of the 21 accused, had recently told the trial court through video-conferencing that he was being physically tortured, carried injuries on his head, thighs and hips, had his beard forcibly shaved and had been compelled to chant anti-Islamic slogans.

The petition says the court has not acted on the allegations, and that Iqrar has been threatened with death if he speaks to the magistrate ever again about the jail conditions."There is a common feeling among several of these undertrials that they may be killed by jail authorities. They fear for their lives," the petition says.

Rights commission registrar A.K. Kaul said the panel had "received the complaints of torture and abuses meted out to Simi activists in Bhopal jail", and would soon pass an order.The commission had issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh government after the "encounter" killings that followed the October jailbreak. Nothing much has happened after the state sent its report on the events.

The delegation has demanded a probe and immediately send a team to the jail to meet the suspected Simi activists.

Perfume Yourself Before Meeting Yogi CM, Dalits Ordered

May 26, 2017

Is this the Indian Constitution and the Rule of Law at work? When poor Dalits, whose economical and social condition demand immediate concern, are asked to poweder and persome themselves before a meeting with the state’s chief minister?

Patrika reports that authorities in Kushinagar asked Mushars of Mainpurkot area to take bath and apply talcum powder and perfume before going to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The administration distributed bathing soaps, shampoo, talcum powder and perfumes among poor Mushars. The officials clearly instructed them to remain clean and tidy during chief minister’s inspection.

Actually, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath was scheduled to inspect Mushars’ locality in Mainpurkot village of Kushinagar on Thursday morning. The Administration was leaving no stone unturned to make this 25 minutes-long inspection a smooth affair. Deprived of development even after 70 years of independence, the locality virtually witnessed a ‘turn around’ as each and every official of the administration was busy in giving the locality a facelift. Some of them were constructing toilets in Mushars’ homes, others were busy in repairing the approach – road. Drains were cleaned. Sanitation works were conducted even inside the houses as well.

An elderly Mushar of the village said,”Sahebs came and gave us soaps, shampoo, powder and perfumes. They told us to apply them before going to the chief minister.”

Who gave these orders, obnoxious and unlawful in content? The CM or the bureaucrats?

Modi Sarkar’s Ban on Sale of Animal for Slaughter Signals Death of Cattle Farming, Farmers & Trade

May 26, 2017

The new rules of the Ministry of Environment and Forests notified on May 25 as ‘new rules’ under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, now bans sale of cattle for slaughter in open markets across the country. Not only cows, but bulls, bullocks and camels now can no longer be sold for slaughter. So it’s not just cow meat but all beef that now cannot be sold or slaughtered for consumption.

Cow market

As importantly, the ministry has notified another rule that makes it mandatory for the owner of the animal to bear the cost of its upkeep in a shelter. If the owner is unable to pay, it should be recovered as land arrears, the rule says. The cost will be specified by the state government every year on April 1. So will this mean land grab by the government in return for cattle that cannot be sustained or nurtured?

Unions of Farmers and organisations see these new rules formulated by the late environment minister Anil Dave before his death, as a direct and dangerous assault on agriculture. They said that in a time of distress, sale of cattle was one of the important ways through which a farmer overcomes financial difficulties. Enacting such stringent rules to regulate sale of cattle will push farmers further into debt.

According to the new rules published late on Thursday, May 25 evening, the Centre has banned sale of cattle, which includes bulls, cows, bullocks, buffaloes, steers, heifers, calves and camels, for purpose of slaughter. The cattle can be sold only to agriculturists and not for slaughter.

The rules further stated that a cattle bought cannot be resold for a period of six months. The purchaser has to produce his name and address to the market committee and the officials have the right to inspect the person’s premises to ensure the cattle is not sold for six months from the date of purchase.

Rules are considered subordinate legislations which are framed to ensure the parent law is implemented properly. The Centre has titled the new rules Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2016.

The following are the provisions that govern sale of cattle under the new rules:
“(a) no person shall bring to an animal market a young animal;
(b) no person shall bring a cattle to an animal market unless upon arrival he has furnished a written
declaration signed by the owner of the cattle or his duly authorised agent—
(i) stating the name and address of the owner of the cattle, with a copy of the photo identification
proof ;
(ii) giving details of the identification of the cattle;
(iii) stating that the cattle has not been brought to market for sale for slaughter;
(c) every declaration furnished to the Animal Market Committee shall be retained by it for a period of six
months from the date on which it is furnished to them and the Animal Market Committee shall, on
demand made by an Inspector at any reasonable time during that period, produce such declaration and
allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;
(d) where an animal has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the Animal Market
Committee shall—(i) obtain the expenses incurred for each animal, as approved by the District Animal Market
Monitoring Committee, so as to provide the basic facilities for animals and people;
(ii) take an undertaking that the animals are bought for agriculture purposes and not for slaughter;
(iii) keep a record of name and address of the purchaser and procure his identity proof;
(iv) verify that the purchaser is an agriculturist by seeing the relevant revenue document;
(v) ensure that the purchaser of the animal gives a declaration that he shall not sell the animal up
to six months from the date of purchase and shall abide by the rules relating to transport of
animals made under the Act or any other law for the time being in force;
(vi) retain such record for a period of six months from the date of sale;
(vii) produce such record before an Inspector on demand being made by him at any reasonable time during that period and allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;”

Are the rules the result of a Supreme Court direction last year? That is the interpretation being given by the Modi sarkar, at any rate. The court, had reportedly, acting on petitions filed by animal rights activists, asked the Centre to regulate cattle trade. Officials at the Animal Welfare Board of India told scroll.in on condition of anonymity that the rules do not ban slaughter of all cattle. Rather, it only regulates the sale of cattle in markets. In case someone wants to sell the cattle for slaughter, it could be done legally outside the markets subject to slaughter rules implemented the respective states.

It is unclear from the rules what the other locations are, where sales can take place outside animal markets. India has about 3,900 slaughter houses licensed by local bodies, according to a planning commission report for 2007-’12. The total cattle population in India is 190 million, according to the 2012 livestock census. Animal markets have traditionally acted as a conduit between the farmers and the butchers.

For instance, before the trade both seller and buyer will have to produce documents before the committee to prove their identity and that they own farmland. After buying a cow, a trader will have to make five copies of proof of sale and submit them at the local revenue office, the local veterinary doctor in the district of the purchaser, animal market committee, apart from one each for seller and buyer.

The rule also prescribes about 30 norms for animal welfare in markets, including water, fans, bedding, ramps, non-slippery flooring, veterinary facility and separate enclosure for sick animals.Introducing inspector raj, the regulation makes it mandatory for veterinary inspector to certify proper loading and unloading of animals to ensure they are not cramped inside trucks. The inspector can mark any animal unfit for sale.

In most states except Kerala and in the north-east, the slaughter of cows is banned. Ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party government took over in May 2014, there have been several incidents of cow vigilantes indulging in violence against those suspected to be selling cows or eating cow meat.

Farmers in distress

The new rules have not gone down well with farmers’ unions, who feel that such tough regulations on sale of cattle will cripple the rural economy.

Vijoo Krishnan, national joint secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha, said in times of drought, selling of cattle was an important way through which the farmers managed financial distress. While the government may say that sale of cattle for slaughter outside the markets are still legal, the bare fact was that most such sale happens within the market places as farmers may not have the means to transport cattle over long distances.

“To say you cannot sell the cattle for six months from the date of purchase or cannot sell infirm cattle will cripple the farmer in a drought situation,” he added.

Krishnan said in many states, restrictions on cow sale have forced the farmers to let the animals loose as they could not afford fodder in times of distress. “Take the case of Tamil Nadu, which is facing severe drought. When farmers cannot feed themselves, how do you expect them to feed an infirm cattle?” he asked.

He added that if the Centre wants farmers not to sell infirm cattle, it should make arrangements to procure and take care of them.

The rules also provide for extensive paper rules. When a cattle is sold, five copies of the sale documents should be made and filed with relevant officers for future verification. Authorities also have the powers to seize and animal and detain it in a separate enclosure if the animal is found to be unfit for sale by a veterinarian.

Krishnan added that in a context where self-proclaimed cow protectors are unleashing violence across the country, such rules may pose a serious threat of security of farmers. “These rules could lead to mob regulations,” he alleged.

K Balakrishnan, former legislator and farmers’ leader in Tamil Nadu, said the new rules would only lead to an unofficial ban on slaughter. “Where are the registered slaughter houses to sell directly? In most districts in Tamil Nadu, recognised slaughter houses do not exist,” he said.

After the Yogi Adityanath governnment took over in Uttar Pradesh in March, many slaughter houses were temporarily shut for not following regulations.

Balakrishnan also pointed out that hardly any farmer knew about the draft rules published by the Centre in January to solicit views. “The draft rules are always in English and Hindi. How will a farmer in a remote village in Andhra Pradesh or Kerala or Tamil Nadu understand these rules? Essentially, they are regulating a crucial aspect of a farmer’s life without consulting them. This a fraud on us,” he charged.

The idea behind such regulations was to protect cattle illegally transported. “But in the final rules, they are taking away the rights of the farmer.”He added that the village custom of a cattle fair is under assault through such regulations.

A Security Hole in What’s App Can Allow ‘Anonymous’ Posts That Spread Lies, Venom & Vitreol: Fix It!

May 26, 2017

Why are the Indian authorities not acting against this loophole that allows instigators and abettors of crimes to go scot free?

A security hole in Whatsapp allows anyone to go anynomous on Whatsapp in India. Whatsapp has two ways of verifying identity — either via an SMS or via a voice call, what is called the call me option.

By using the ubiquitous public pay phone which has no ownership associated with it, one can receive the OTP in voice on the phone and use it to verify one's identity. This associates the Whatsapp with the Public Pay Phone number which cannot be attributed to a particular owner and thus one can hide oneself.

Given the huge use of Whatsapp — Whatsapp is increasingly becoming the medium of communication and the assumption is that given that Whatsapp users usually are tied to a mobile number, their identity can be found.

Just as an example, radio stations receive messages from listeners on Whatsapp. The Bangalore airport authorities receive feedback or complaints on Whatsapp.

Imagine the potential of misuse when whatsapp can be used anonymously. Whatsapp has been informed of this security hole. They have refused to fix it. It is high time Indian law enforcements take action before this hole is misused.

The following youtube video illustrates the security hole.

What False and Vicious Whatsapps Can Do, Have Done: Take Lives

Social Disharmony Through Whatapp

Jharkand

Recently, in Jharkand, seven persons were lynched to death after scurrilous rumopurs of child kidnappings were spread on Whatapp. Too late,the local police sought to act on rumours that were being spread on What's App for over a month on alleged 'child kidnappers' on the prowl. Read more about this here

In October 2016, 22- year old Minhah Ansari was flogged to death in Jharkand after a false Whatsapp image of him behading a calf was circulated. Unbeknownst to the young men, Sonu Singh, the district head of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad's Jamtara unit, had complained to the police that Ansari had posted a photograph of himself with a calf on a WhatsApp group on October 2, followed by another of him posing with beef.

Read more about this here

Maharashtra
Barely a few months ago, a professor was beaten up, arrested, and suspended in the climax of a grand, long war waged against him.“I had never imagined that a WhatsApp forward would cost me my job, my dignity, and everything that I have loved”, said Professor Sunil Waghmare, worriedly. “I want my life back. I have had no experience of fighting injustice of this scale before” he says, referring to the mob that humiliated and slapped him within the campus premises, in public view. He was forced to leave his small room in Khopoli after the incident, and left for his village along with his family.

Read more about this here

Haryana

And in Mewat, a doctored video on Whatsapp School attendance in this Haryana district fell to as low as 5% after a doctored video began to do the rounds on social media. Mewat fathers are standing guard outside schools after rumours about injections causing sterility

In February, the Union health ministry had launched a campaign to administer the measles-rubella vaccine to children between the ages of nine months and 15 years. The campaign started with the states of Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Karnataka, Goa, and Lakshadweep. The campaign was yet to reach Haryana.

The first half of the ABP News programme summarised the rumours that had spread in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, while the second half featured experts, including doctors, debunking them. Only the first half of the programme circulated on WhatsApp in Mewat.
Read more about this here

And the story begins with the Muzaffarnagar violence opf September 2013 when vicious Whatsapp messages were used to spread hatred and vitriol against Muslims living in four districts of western UP.
Why are the Indian authorities not acting against this loophole that allows instigators and abettors of crimes to go scot free?

LK Advani denied exemption in Babri Masjid demolition case, told to appear on 30 May

May 26, 2017

A special CBI court on Thursday deferred till 30 May framing of charges against six accused in one of the two Babri Masjid demolition cases, after five of them sought exemption from appearance.

Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, Mahant Ram Vilas Vedanti, Baikunth Lal Sharma alias Prem Ji, Champat Rai Bansal, Dharma Das and Satish Pradhan are the accused in the case.

Pradhan, a Shiv Sena leader, was present in the court today. But special CBI court judge S K Yadav said that since the other five accused had sought exemption, it would not be possible to frame charges against him alone.

Postponing the matter till 30 May, the court said no further adjournment would be allowed.

The special court is likely to frame charges todday against BJP leader L K Advani, Union Minister Uma Bharti, party veteran Murli Manohar Joshi and others in the second case which has been transferred here from Raebareli on the direction of the Supreme Court.

The apex court had on 19 April restored the serious criminal conspiracy offence against Advani and the other accused in the case and directed the court frame charges.

Besides the BJP three leaders, the conspiracy charge would now be invoked against Vinay Katiar, Sadhvi Ritambara and Vishnu Hari Dalmia.

Altogether, 13 persons including Advani, Joshi and Bharti were discharged of conspiracy charge in the case, the trial of which is being held at a special court in Raebareli.

The Allahabad High Court too had upheld the lower court’s verdict on acquittal, but the Supreme Court, last month, decided that these men should face trial for criminal conspiracy.

Advani along with party colleagues like Uma Bharti and Murli Manohar Joshi, charged with making inflammatory speeches that motivated lakhs of right-wing volunteers or karsevaks to pull down the mosque in 1992.

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter

Kill people. Add up points. Move up the ranks: Disturbing truth in CRPF inspector general’s report

May 26, 2017

Inspector general of police Rajnish Rai filed a report saying the army and police conducted a fake encounter in Assam on March 30.

Image: PTI

Not far from Guwahati on the busy NH 31 is the intersection Baihata Chariali, notorious for exchange of victims of staged encounters.

This is how it happens, say the insiders familiar with such operations:

A white Maruti van comes and parks itself near a fuel station.The police wait at a distance and watch. A second vehicle is already there – a civil car of some known person with changed number plates. It could also be an officer’s personal vehicle with ready-made fake number plates.
The most popular vehicles for exchanges are Maruti vans because their doors slide, making it easy to exchange passengers.
The sedated victim is shifted to the other vehicle, money is paid and he is immediately taken to the army unit. A doctor checks him and he is kept under observation for a few days to assess whether anyone has filed complaint for a missing person.
Usually, various security forces operating in the area jointly work to diffuse accountability. Either the victim is a militant or a petty thief or an illegal immigrant from across the international border. The police confirm his antecedents. The place and time is determined by the army uni.
And then the victim is shot in cold blood.

For years now, the districts of Lower Assam in the north bank of the Brahmaputra, bordering Bhutan on one side and Bangladesh at the other, offer safe haven and easy crossovers. The proliferation of armed groups and presence of arms have allowed a free run for all involved in counter-insurgency operations. The chaos provides the smokescreen for encounters.

It is in this location that Central Reserve Police Force Inspector General (North East Sector) Rajnish Rai has recently alleged a staged encounter by a joint team of CRPF, the Army, Sashastra Seema Bal and the Assam Police, in which two militants belonging to National Democratic Front of Bodoland (Songbijit) were shot dead and, as he claims, weapons planted on their bodies.

Rai’s claim is not unlikely, given that it eerily follows the pattern of encounter deaths in Assam.

There are categories of encounters. One is when the security forces go out in the field, and are fired at and they fire back. “Fake encounters” are killing a genuine militant, but not in a genuine encounter. The third category, many say, is “false encounter” or “staged encounter”, which involves killing an outright innocent individual.

Pressure from the top

The job of a unit of army or paramilitary force is to catch or kill. It doesn’t help to create a climate of peace and reconciliation. They are meant to eliminate. When they fail to do this they are questioned – and asked to produce a headcount, show weapon seizures and all that comes with the kill.

That is the context in which staged encounters sustain themselves.

To ward off pressure from the top, these agencies tend to “create” militants with the help of the police. It is possible that some of those killed are not entirely innocent. But these are murders nevertheless.

In the process, the police also sets its record straight and eliminates the criminal class. So it serves a dual purpose. Mostly, criminals are weeded out. In this, there is some element of vendetta as well. Personal scores are also settled. When there is even greater pressure mounting on the army and the police, the poor Bangladeshi who has just jumped across the border fence, and is not identified, becomes a victim. And the cartel flourishes.

There is no brief – nobody prompts anyone. But the subtle pressure is there though it can be resisted – and many do resist. The consequence, though, is that they may have to lose their rank.

Awards and medals

“Encounters”, as is now commonly known, are staged to win medals and awards, among other benefits. In the army, the system of unit citations is based on points, which are earned by eliminating or apprehending militants, or having militants surrender in designated counter-insurgency areas. Thus, a unit that gets a citation may land in a United Nations mission. This will earn its personnel more money and allow them to receive other benefits.

It is like a bonus granted by the government for the “good work” they have done, which may include extrajudicial killings or hosting fake surrenders of ordinary young men and women.

This is how it operates: besides the genuine hard work required for a combat formation in a conflict zone, a formation – the army unit posted there – also needs professional acknowledgement. And that comes most easily through killings. So they scout for favourable heads for kills as well as candidates for surrender.

Illegal arms dealers inevitably flourish in such areas, since the security forces often purchase weapons that are shown in apprehensions, fake encounters or surrenders. This is how the surrendered militants then hand over these weapons to the government in ceremonies attended by the media. The ones arrested – again willingly – serve a three-month jail sentence. They then emerge to be recycled as militants or link men of some other armed organisation. They may be viewed as freelance fake militants – willing candidates for a remunerated arrest. Their families receive compensation while they serve jail terms. The “surrender” actions are often recorded as “joint operations”, so that the police may also claim a share of the “good work”.

The different gallantry awards (all of which end with the word “chakra”) have designated points in the hierarchy of awards and benefits. But how does one get the chakras? Kill people. Add up points. Move up the ranks. The only casualty in this is the truth.

It is unlikely that the recent letter written by Rai will shake up the institutional nexus of state violence. This ambiguous violence is the result of regimes of impunity and it is extremely significant that a serving officer has stepped out to flag his concern knowing well that the consequences for his whistle-blowing act could be detrimental to his own career and well being. It will certainly not earn him a chakra.

Kishalay Bhattacharjee is an Associate Professor at OP Jindal Global University. He is the author of Blood on my Hands: Confessions of Staged Encounters.

This article was first published on Scroll.in

How Adani Will Reap in Rs 33 crores unfair revenue in Kerala Port Deal: CAG

May 26, 2017

How will Gautam Adani’s flagship company Adani Ports and Private Limited get undue benefits from the Vizhinjam Internation Seaport Project in Kerala, though the Kerala government will bear 67% of the total investment required for the project? This is what is explained by the CAG report that has probed the deal and which was tabled in the Kerala assembly on May 23. According to CAG, at the end of 40 years from the commencement of the project, Adani Group will walk away with a cool Rs 29,217 crore as additional revenue.

And this is why the CAG concludes that the conditions in the agreement with the Adani Ports and Private Limited for implementing the Rs 7,525 crore Vizhinjam International Deep-water Multipurpose Seaport project were not favorable to the state.

The concession agreement for the project with the Adani group was signed in August 2015 when the Congress led United Democratic Front government was in power. Oommen Chandy was the then Chief Minister. Adani Group was the lone bidder for the PPP model project, the cost of which was Rs 7,525 crore. CPI (M) veteran and former Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan on Monday had demanded the government to issue a White Paper on the port, alleging corruption in the deal.

Details
For PPP (public-private participation) projects, the standard concession period is 30 years.According to the government, the most common form of PPP (public-private participation) projects used is where the private sector operator designs, builds, finances, owns and constructs the facility and operates it commercially for the concession period. After the concession period, the facility is transferred to the authority or the public sector.

For PPP projects, the standard concession period is 30 years.

But in this case, it has been fixed as 40 years, going clearly against recommendation. This extra 10 years will allow the Adani group to get the additional revenues. “In the report on Vizhinjam project by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the concession period was recommended as 30 years. The concession period was specified as 30 years in all the three tenders issued for Vizhinjam project prior to the 2013 tender. In the current agreement, however, the concession period was fixed as 40 years,” the CAG report said.

And this was done by the previous UDF government and is being carried forward by the LDF too. Obviously Adani enjoys favours across party lines!

The government had originally envisaged an extension period of ten years, and if it was retained, an additional revenue of Rs 61,095 crore (present value-Rs 353 crore) would have accrued to the state.

There’s more.

The CAG report says that in the Concession Agreement, the Concessionaire (Adani Group) was given right to mortgage all assets (except funded works) on the ground that “it would provide an additional layer of security to Lenders”.

Though the rules laid down by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs says that project assets were excluded from the assets and rights which could be mortgaged or pledged to lenders as security for debt incurred by the Concessionaire.

In spite of this a modification was made post award of concession and that too contrary to advice.

End result? The Concessionaire (Adani Group) has the right to mortgage assets which includes land taken over by the government at a total cost of Rs 548 crore.

The CAG report also says that a last-minute modification made in the contract on the equity support payable to Adani Group will make Government of Kerala pay excess equity support of Rs 283.08 crore in advance, resulting in interest loss of Rs 123.71 crore.
Also, as per the projected cash flow statements prepared by the consultants engaged by Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited, Adani group will recoup their investment of Rs 2,454 crore by the eleventh year from Commercial Operation Date, that is by 2030. Since the government bears 67% of the total investment required for the project, the revenue sharing with the Adani group should have commenced from the date on which the private partner recovers its investment i.e. from 2031. By postponing the commencement of revenue sharing, the government has forgone revenue of Rs 2,153 crore. This also allows undue benefit to the Adani Group.

Reacting to the CAG report, Oommen Chandy said, “Allowing extra concession period was not a unilateral decision, but done as per the model concession agreement of the Planning Commission of India. No change was made after the final agreement of the port. Also, the finding that the cost of Colachel port is less than that of Vizhinjam Port is wrong,” Oommen Chandy said in a press conference in Thiruvananthapuram on Wednesday. “I owe full responsibility of the agreement of Vizhinjam port. No official will be made scapegoat in this,” he said.

“Three groups bought the tender form for the port. But the government received the tender only from the Adani group. The tender works of the port were transparent” he said. Chandy also said that he is agreeing with the Chief Minister’s statement that the CAG’s criticism on the agreement should be examined. “The examination should be conducted soon,” the former Chief Minister said.

1...2,0972,0982,099...2,697 Page 2,098 of 2,697

Taiwan, 1st Asian Country to Legalize Gay Marriage, Shouldn’t India Follow Suit?

Torture and Threats on SIMI Accused, Allege Families: Bhopal Central Jail

Undertrials forced to shave beard and chant 'anti-Islamic' slogans, NHRC told

Perfume Yourself Before Meeting Yogi CM, Dalits Ordered

Modi Sarkar’s Ban on Sale of Animal for Slaughter Signals Death of Cattle Farming, Farmers & Trade

Farmers in distress

A Security Hole in What’s App Can Allow ‘Anonymous’ Posts That Spread Lies, Venom & Vitreol: Fix It!

Why are the Indian authorities not acting against this loophole that allows instigators and abettors of crimes to go scot free?

LK Advani denied exemption in Babri Masjid demolition case, told to appear on 30 May

Kill people. Add up points. Move up the ranks: Disturbing truth in CRPF inspector general’s report

Inspector general of police Rajnish Rai filed a report saying the army and police conducted a fake encounter in Assam on March 30.

Pressure from the top

Awards and medals

How Adani Will Reap in Rs 33 crores unfair revenue in Kerala Port Deal: CAG

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT