Demonetisation—Strictly, the PM didn’t go by the Law

November 20, 2016

While economists debate the desirability of declaring Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes illegal, the decision itself does not appear to be backed by the law

All this for my own money. Photo credit: Indian Express

While much has been written and said about the demonetisation move by the government, the question of its legality has received scant attention. The issue however is not the desirability or the economic viability of the decision and the undoubted public and national interest it serves. The goal of eliminating black money from circulation is undoubtedly in public interest. While I unambiguously support the policy of removing black—untaxed—money from the hands of those who have it, I question the legality of the manner in which it has been done.

To begin with, let us examine what is the status of the currency we hold in our hands. Section 26 of the Reserve bank of India Act 1934 (“RBI Act”) states as follows:

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every bank note shall be legal tender at any place in 4[India] in payment or on account for the amount expressed therein, and shall be guaranteed by the 5[Central Government].

This means that the money you and I hold in hand or in the bank is a debt guaranteed by the government to us. Currency thus represents a ‘public debt’ owed by the government to the holders of the bank notes, you and me.The notification issued by the Central Government on 8 November 2016 has been purportedly issued under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act.

Section 26(2) reads as under:

[Government] may, by notification in the Gazette of India, declare that, with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, any series of bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender 7 [save at such office or agency of the Bank and to such extent as may be specified in the notification].

The first legal question which arises is what is the meaning to be ascribed to the term “any series” in the above sub section. ‘Series’ in plain language can only refer to the series number on the denomination of a bank note. Going by this meaning, the government under this power can only scrap the legal tender of a series of a bank note of any denomination.

Traders association at Delhi’s Azadpur Mandi protest scrapping of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes by the central government, on November 17, 2016. Photo by Sanchit Khanna/Hindustan Times

If the Legislature had intended that the government was to be invested with the power to withdraw the legal status of all bank notes of a particular denomination, as has been done in this case, the use of the words “any series” would be entirely superfluous, and redundant. Hence I conclude that Section 26(2) was never intended to be used as measure of dealing with the withdrawal of black money form the economy, nor was it meant to withdraw legal tender from all bank notes of a particular denomination.

That may have been the reason why previous attempts at demonetisation have been undertaken by the Ordinance route, followed by a Legislation. Demonetisation of 500 and 1,000 rupee notes by an executive fiat appears to a first of its kind procedure and raises fundamental questions on the authority and jurisdiction of the Executive to do what the Legislature has not permitted.

The matter can be looked at from another angle. Article 300A states that “No person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law.” Thus a person cannot be deprived of his/her moveable and immoveable property except with the authority of law.

The Notification dated 8 November 2016 thus appears to be entirely outside the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It is completely without authority of any law.

Demonetisation amounts to extinguishment of the public debt owed by the government to the holder of the demonetised note. A currency note is movable property in the hands of the holder. The Supreme Court has held in a series of judgements that deprivation of property by State jurisprudentially speaking could have three dimensions (a) a ‘taking’ of property by the government as in the case of land acquisition, (b) it could be in the form of an ‘extinguishment’ of right in the property as happened during land reforms where the tiller became the owner, (c) in certain situations even modification of property rights could amount to deprivation of property.

Interestingly the Supreme Court in Jayantilal Shah Vs RBI AIR 1997 SC 370, while upholding the validity of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978, held that demonetisation results in extinguishment of a public debt which amounts to deprivation of property and therefore could be done only by law.

The Notification dated 8 November 2016 thus appears to be entirely outside the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It is completely without authority of any law.

Further, the restrictions imposed by the Notification for withdrawal of legal currency are again completely without authority of law. Section 26(2) of the RBI Act by any stretch of imagination does not permit the Executive to restrict the rights of citizens to withdraw their own tax paid money from banks. The restrictions imposed by the Notification on a person’s right to withdraw from the bank are therefore seemingly without any authority of law.

This is precisely why in 1978, an Ordinance followed by a law was enacted. Why this was not done in this case is not at all clear. Parliament was not in session and this was a classic case where an Ordinance would be justified. The element of surprise could be maintained even by an Ordinance, which would have the force of law. But this was not done perhaps for the reason that the Ordinance would have to be replaced by a law and that would require debate in Parliament and a vote on the law.

But if the measure was in national interest, what explains the reluctance of the government to take the issue to the Cabinet and to the President for an Ordnance? Why the desire to avoid a debate in Parliament? Or was it a case of bad legal advice? The answer to these questions my friends, at this stage, is blowing in the wind.

What explains the reluctance of the government to take the issue to the Cabinet and to the President for an Ordinance? Why the desire to avoid a debate in Parliament? Or was it a case of bad legal advice?

While we all learn to tighten our belts and live within our withdrawal limits, Janardhan Reddys of the world have by their ostentatious display of wealth raised eyebrows on the seriousness of the Government to crack on members of the ruling establishment, friends and allies.

While I have argued that the demonetisation of 8 November 2016 is without authority of law from a legal stand point, it is for economists to say whether the measure will or will not achieve its desired result.

I once again make it clear that the goal of withdrawing black money from the market is something that I wholeheartedly support, but that is not the point. It must be done under authority of law. In our country today, it is the ‘rule of law’ which is an endangered species, and that worries me.

Indira Jaising is a Senior Supreme Court advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India. She tweets at @IJaising

Gujarat Govt Callous on Manhole Deaths: HC Seeks Action

November 20, 2016

Gujarat manhole deaths: High Court seeks details of what state govt has done to compensate kin by Dec 7. Petition by Manav Garima Trust

Images Courtesy: Counterview (Jitendra Rathod)

The Gujarat High Court has asked the state government pleader to obtain details of the “follow up action” taken, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court for ending the despicable practice of manual scavenging, including manual cleaning of gutters, and reveal what it has done for implementing it in Gujarat by the next hearing scheduled for December 7, 2016.

The High Court order follows a writ petition filed by Manav Garima Trust (MGT), an Ahmedabad-based NGO, working among the Valmiki community, to ensure that the Gujarat government honours the apex court direction, which considered manhole workers entering into gutters without proper equipment as manual scavengers.

High Court Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, in their order, have quoted the Supreme Court direction dated March 27, 2014, which said in para 14(ii) and (iii):

“(ii) If the practice of manual scavenging has to be brought to a close and also to prevent future generations from the inhuman practice of manual scavenging, rehabilitation of manual scavengers will need to include:

“(a) Sewer deaths-entering sewer illness without safety gears should be made a crime even in emergency situations. For each such death, compensation of Rs.10 lakhs should be given to the family of the deceased.

“(b) Railways – should take time bound strategy to end manual scavenging on the tracks.

“(c) Persons released from manual scavenging should not have to cross hurdles to receive what is their legitimate due under the law.

“(d) Provide support for dignified livelihood to safai karamchari women in accordance with their choice of livelihood schemes.

“(iii) Identify the families of all persons who have died in sewerage work (manholes, septic tanks) since 1993 and award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for each such death to the family members depending on them.”

Quoting Hirak P Ganguly, counsel of the petitioner, the High Court said, he had said, May 19, 2014 submitted to Principal Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Gujarat, a list of workers who had died during sewerage work of manholes, septic tank, etc. MGT is of the view that the state government has refused to implement the Supreme Court order of March 27, 2014, which had asked all states to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to manhole workers, who died due to asphyxiation after 1993.

According to MGT, there more than 170 manhole workers have died while cleaning drainage in Gujarat since 1993. While MGT has represented state government to implement the 2013 law banning manual scavenging, and award compensation, several times over, it says, the government has not taken any action.

According to Parsottam Vaghela of Manav Garima Trust, “We have prepared this list of 170 manhole workers, and handed it over to the state government. We have identified each of them. It should be more than that. It is the duty of the state government to prepare the list after contacting city and town local bodies and police. It is a matter of just one month. Yet, even after two years, nothing has been done.”

He added, “Dalit rights activists working in other states tell us that Rs 10 lakh compensation, as directed by the Supreme Court, has been paid by several South Indian states. It's a question of paying Rs 15 crore only in gujarat. It is difficult to understand why state government government is dilly dallying.”

Courtesy: Counterview

South Gujarat Farmers Revolt: Failure of Cash Crop Due to Cash Crunch They Warn Modi

November 20, 2016

Demonetization: South Gujarat farmers protest, warn Modi, it will lead to failue of winter crop due to cash crunch

Farmers from across south Gujarat districts choked Surat city roads on November 19 as a mark of protest against demonetisation and the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) decision restricting majority of the cooperative banks from dealing with the Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes.

Farmers dumped grain and poured milk on the streets in massive rallies in Surat and Anand on Saturday to protest the withdrawal of high denomination currency notes and restrictions imposed on district central co-operative banks (DCCBs) on exchange and deposits. In Surat, thousands of farmers under the banner of Gujarat Khedut Samaj (GKS) gathered at Jehangirpura in the Randher area in the afternoon, and travelled nearly 10 km through the city with truck-and tractor-loads of wheat, sugarcane and other agricultural produce to the office of District Collector M S Patel at Athwalines.

Tens of thousands of farmers joined in the massive rally starting from the Jehangirpura cotton gin to collector's office in Athwalines on November 19. Most of the farmers carried the truck loads of sugarcane, rice and vegetables which theydumped on the road outside the collector's office to register their protest against RBI and the Central government's lackluster attitude on the woes of the farmers community.

Farmer leaders said there are over 6 lakh bank accounts belonging to the farmers in district cooperative bank. The farmers are unable to withdraw money from their own accounts as the RBI has restricted the cooperative banks from accepting Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. There is commotion in the villages, especially among the farm labourers, who have to literally spend their days without food.

Leader of the Khedut Samaj, Darshan Naik told the media, "Farmers are part of the cooperative sector. All the payments and deposits are made through the cooperative banks. There are over 22,000 mandlis across south Gujarat where the farmers sell their agriculture produce. The mandlis are not getting money from the cooperative banks due to RBI restriction and thus they are unable to pay to the farmers."

Naik added, "The situation of sugarcane workers is worse. There are 12 sugar mills in south Gujarat employing over one lakh workers. Around 95 per cent of them have not received wages due to the demonetisation. How will they survive? These are some of the big questions concerning the farmers community."

Former chairman of district cooperative bank, Dilip Bhakt said, "It seems the RBI is treating the farmers as terrorist and thus they are not allowed to either deposit or withdraw money from the cooperative banks. If this will continue for another few days, farmers will have tough time and people will die of hunger."

Farmers' protest against demonetization in Surat; Courtesy: Counterview

The farmers of South Gujarat have taken up cudgels against the Government of India's controversial decision to ban Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes, saying it has led to severe cash crunch, leading to complete failure on their part to begin farming for the winder season and sell their agricultural produce, especially vegetables.

Warning that if cash crunch does not end immediately, says a memorandum forwarded to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with a copy to Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani, the winter season will be a “failure” for the farmers, who are already suffering because of low prices in the monsoon season.

Pointing out that they “will be further distressed”, the memorandum, submitted to the Surat district collector following a well-attended vehicle rally under the banner of Gujarat Khedut Samaj (GKS), says, “If the crops of vegetables, wheat, sugarcane and paddy are affected there will be an unprecedented rise in the prices which will affect the entire population of the country.”
It adds, “Owing to lack of cash liquidity and difficulty in procuring essential items there may be issues of law and order that also arise.” As for vegetable growers, the memorandum adds, they cannot sell their produce in the market due to the cash crunch, as there are no buyers.

“Ultimately the cash crunch also affects the final purchases and sales by the end consumers in the retail market”, the memorandum complains, adding, the cooperative societies, too, are facing cash crunch, as they need lakhs of rupees daily to be disbursed to the farmers.

What has made things worse, the memorandum says, is that the “freeze” imposed by the Government of India on district cooperative banks (DCBs) and their financial transactions.
“This put the cooperative societies are in a bind: they cannot turn down the farmers and their produce, but they also cannot pay them the cash for the produce”, it underlines.

You are aware that the monsoon crops of cotton, groundnut, sugarcane and paddy have reached the markets. At present, even the traders of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs) do not have the capacity to buy these crops.

“Currently the farmers are scrambling in order to meet the daily cash requirements for the winter crop such as seeds, fertilizers, fuel and wages”, the memorandum says.
Pointing out that even today most Gujarat villages do not have branches of nationalized banks, and very few of the rural people have the ability to operate accounts, the memorandum says, “Even the few who do have accounts, have them with the branches of DCBs.”

It adds, “The accounts of the milk cooperatives and the agricultural cooperatives are also linked to district cooperative banks.”

In this circumstance, the memorandum says, “The government’s action of keeping the district cooperative banks outside the purview of financial transactions smacks of distrust on farmers, milk producers and cooperatives.”

It adds, “On account of this ill-thought decision the farmers, maldharis (milk producers) and agricultural labourers in rural Gujarat have been reduced to the plight of beggars despite having money on them.”

“With a cash withdrawal limit of Rs. 3,000 against a daily requirement of lakhs of rupees daily in the peak agricultural season is making it difficult for the farmers to continue their agricultural operations”, the memorandum says.

Against this backdrop, the memorandum asks Modi to immediate lift the freeze imposed on the DCBs. “If there is severe distrust of the DCBs then use their infrastructure to open counters of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on their premises”, it underscores.

Recently, the Congress won all 36 seats out of 36 in the Unjha Taluka Panchayat election in Gujarat.

Courtesy: Counterview

Only Donald Trump’s views matter in his administration: Spokesman

November 19, 2016

Anyone joining the Trump administration would have to leave their personal views behind and implement the vision and ideas of the President-elect, a top transition team member has said.

“Regardless of someone, whether it is a staff member appointed or nominated or intended to be nominated, one of the things that always has to be remembered is that everybody who serves in a Trump administration will serve Donald Trump and Mike Pence and they will implement that vision and their ideas and no one else’s,” said Sean Spicer, Chief Strategist and Communication Director of the Republican National Committee.

“One point on all nominees, and I think this is important for people to recognise, is that anyone’s personal view is not what matters. You are serving the President-elect of the US and implementing his views,” Spicer told reporters on Friday.

Spicer was responding to questions on the past views and statements made by several of Trump’s appointees and nominations – the announcements for which have been made in the last few days.

Yesterday, Trump announced his intent to nominate Senator Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General, Lt Gen (rtd) Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser and Congressman Mike Pompeo as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Trump, before heading for Bedminster in New Jersey where he will spend his weekend, had two-hour meeting with the transition team headed by the Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

Today, Trump is slated to meet Mitt Romney, Republican party’s presidential candidate in 2012, General (rtd) James Mattis, Bob Woodson, who’s the founder and president of the Center for Neighbourhood Enterprises, Andy Puzder (a right wing commentator and fast food CEO), and investor Lew Eisenberg.

“These meetings that the President-elect is holding shows that he’s meeting with some of the best and the brightest and the most qualified people not only to fill specific roles within the administration but also to give advice and counsel on the policies and structure of how to best put together a team and enact a successful agenda.

“It also goes to the fact that Trump is not putting together meetings based on political affiliation or if they’ve supported him in the past. He’s bringing together a broad and diverse team to help come up with a number of different policies and procedures and specific team members to help move our country forward,” said Jason Miller, communication director of the Trump Transition Team.

The Transition team needs to fill up to 4,000 positions in the administration for which the team has received more than 51,000 resumes. Over 145,000 people have shared their story or idea on how to make America great again, Miller added.

Source: PTI

Courtesy: Janta ka Reporter

Maya Kodnani Appeal: 7th Judge Recuses, Why was Advocate Engaged at the Last Minute asks HC

November 19, 2016

Criticising this practice which appeared to have been adopted in the controversial and sensitive Naroda Patia massacre case of the 2002 riots, to possibly deliberately engage an advocate who is a distant relative of Justice Akil Kureshi, the division bench of Kureshi and Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that instead of requesting the judge not to hear the case, the senior counsel should have refrained from appearing in the case as the judge does not hear the cases of that lawyer. This happened on Friday, November 18.

This is the seventh recusal of a judge of the Gujarat High Court from this sensational case in which Judge Jytotsana Yagnik, had on August 29, 2012 convicted 32 persons to life imprisonment. The Gujarat high court on Friday took strong exception to the practice of involving a particular senior counsel in cases only to avoid a particular bench because, due to personal relationship, the judge does not hear cases in which that particular senior lawyer is appearing.

"When appearance is made by the senior advocate at late a stage, we wonder would it not have been better if the advocate had recused himself rather than request the court to do so," the court said.

The lawyer in question is senior counsel BB Naik. The high court noticed that though the appeals in Natoda Patia case were filed in 2012, advocate Naik appeared in the case as only as late as last week. The court questioned why the senior counsel was brought in this case at the last moment, and Justice Kureshi was requested to recuse himself on this ground. It has been a known fact the Justice Kureshi does not hear cases in which advocate Naik appears.

The court also noticed that the Naroda Patia case has a history of "several learned judges of this Court recusing themselves from hearing due to one reason or the other." The judges on Friday made it clear that when a large number of litigants are involved in cases like Naroda Patia riots, many advocates would be representing them. "Somewhere or the other, it is bound to happen that one out of the two judges may not be taking up the cases of at least one out of the several advocates appearing," the court said and questioned why advocate Naik had to appear in this case at the last moment.

2015 Mysterious Case of the Maya Kodnani Bail Applications
The bail applications of Maya Kodnani, once a minister in Narendra Modi’s Gujarat government, have taken curious turns ever since she filed the first plea in February 2014. She was first refused bail by the Gujarat High Court and then granted it by the same court in July 2014.

Witness survivors, backed by the group Citizens for Justice and Peace, filed a special leave petition challenging her bail. An elected representative in 2002, Kodnani was found guilty by a special court (set up by the Supreme Court) of not only being the kingpin of a conspiracy to launch a physical attack on sections of the populace in her constituency, but also of physical presence during the attack and distribution of swords to further it. Officially, the charge-sheet said 96 persons were killed in Naroda Patiya, the single biggest massacre of 2002. (Survivor groups have put the loss at 124).

Not long after, another round of drama began: attempts to speed up her appeal in the Gujarat High Court. The first such bid in April 2014 was objected to by survivors in the Supreme Court, as there were reservations about the manner in which the appeal was being rushed through. The Supreme Court listened and the hearing of the appeal was stayed for two months. Then on July 13, 2015 one of the two judges of the division bench assigned to begin hearing the case from that day recused himself, saying ‘not before me’.

There was more drama to follow.
A two-member bench of the Gujarat High Court, for the second time, recused itself from hearing appeals in the Naroda Patiya case. This time it was not a simple ‘not before me’. Justices MR Shah and KS Jhaveri stated in open court that while, under normal circumstances, reasons are not given by judges recusing themselves, this time they were constrained to state that some of the accused had approached them.
This shows how far these perpetrators are ready to go to subvert justice.

Related Articles:
1. For the 14th Time, Babu Bajrangi Gets a 7 Day Parole: Naroda Patiya Case
2. Justice Delivered, The Naroda Patiya Verdict

Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & IGP Bastar Summoned by NHRC

November 19, 2016

The NHRC has summoned the Chief Secretary of Government of Chhattisgarh and IGP, Bastar to explain the allegations of hostility and abuse of power against Human Rights Defenders

Bastar IG S.R.P. Kalluri (centre). Image: PTI

The National Human Rights Commission has noted and taken suo motu cognizance of "the nationwide outcry and protest on IG of Bastar Range Shri S.R.P. Kalluri for registering FIR No.27/2016 P.S. Tongpal dated November 5, 2016 against Delhi University Professor Archana Prasad, JNU Prof. Nandini Sundar, Vineet Tiwari, Sanjay Parate of CPI(M) and Manju Kawasi for offences of murder, criminal trespass, conspiracy and for offences under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. It has been alleged that the professors (human rights defenders) are being threatened by the Bastar Police.”

Several reports in the media – print and electronic – have, over the last week alleged that Chhattisgarh Police have named professor Nandini Sundar and ten others as accused in the murder of a tribal Samnath Baghel in Sukma District on November 4, 2016. Reports leaked by the police state that he was killed by Maoists as he had been leading a campaign against Maoists activities since April, 2016.

Ironically, both academics have been involved over years in the developments within Chhattisgarh, especially with relation to brutal counter-insurgency squads instituted by the government and law enforcement agencies that have splintered the local Adivasi community. Sundar has been a petitioner against Salwa Judum and has, again, in 2016 moved the Supreme Court of India for the re-emergence of another brutal counter-insurgency outfit that was using violent methods against the local Adivasi population.

Five months ago, the two professors were part of a team that had visited Bastar in May, 2016, while this killing has taken place in November, 2016. There is no apparent connection between murder and the visit of these human rights activists and, therefore, it has been alleged that they have been framed in mala fide manner by police to settle scores. It has been stated that FIR has been registered in the name of the wife of killed Baghel. Media reports have however interviewed the wide of the slain tribal who has stated that she has not named any person in the killing of her husband.

The NHRC has also taken judicial note of the petition filed by professor Nandini Sundar in the Supreme Court recently that has highlighted the renewed atrocities by the Bastar Police against the tribal people by burning of their homes. The Supreme Court ordered investigation by the CBI. The CBI found S.R.P. Kalluri, IG of Police, Bastar Range responsible for the burning of homes. Sundar had also earlier filed a petition in Supreme Court in Salwa Judum case in 2007 against atrocities by police in the tribal areas. She, along with other lawyers and journalists has in the past brought to the notice of the Commission the mass rape of women, murders and other crimes by security officers under the umbrella of police. The Commission is separately examining those complaints and has sought comments from the State of Chhattisgarh on the findings submitted to the Commission by its team after visiting Chhattisgarh.

The Commission also took suo motu cognizance this month against the unprecedented acts of hostility and indiscipline by Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Police in burning the effigies of the professors, lawyers and journalists as they were instrumental in exposing the deeds of police.

The Commission on consideration of the whole situation obtaining in Chhattisgarh over more than a year views the action of registration of FIR against Prof. Nandini Sundar and others as an act in line with earlier acts of hostility displayed by police.

It has also been reported in the press that Mrs. Baghel, wife of killed Samnath Baghel had told NDTV on November 4, 2016 that she had not named Nandini Sundar or anyone in her complaint. She is reported to have said that t Maoists had attacked their house while they were sleeping on the night of November 4, 2016. The NHRC has also note that Nandini Sundar has told the ANI that she and others have not been in the area for the last five months.

The naming of these human rights activists in the FIR in the backdrop and circumstances mentioned above lends credence of the observation of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) that all this was part of the State Police vendetta against the lawyers, journalists and human rights activists who have been critical of fake encounters, mass rapes, arson, etc. by security forces. The naming of these persons in FIR appears to be the ploy to stop their entry and visit to the tribal areas for exposing their misdeeds.

In the considered view of the Commission, Police of Chhattisgarh in the circumstances mentioned above owes its explanation to the Commission as there are allegations and its action seems to be coloured by malafide, hostility and abuse of power on the allegations of false implication to silence the human rights defenders. Though, the Commission is aware of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given on November 15, 2016 directing issue of notice of four weeks before their arrest, yet the acts on the part of police stand on independent footing for the Commission to intervene.

It is the duty and function of the Commission to see that the faith of the people in the police is not eroded and society is governed by rule of law and faith of people in upholding the human rights of people is restored and vindicated at the earliest.

The Commission is deeply disturbed by the state of affairs in the State of Chhattisgarh over last one year or more and is of the view that the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh and S.R.P.Kalluri, IGP, Bastar Range should appear in person before the Commission November 30, 2016 at 11.00 am with all reports to explain the allegations made against the police and administration in the press media and by human rights defenders.

The Commission also is of the view that since allegations are made against the S.R.P. Kalluri, IGP, Bastar Range, the Commission would like to know from them why the investigation in the FIR now registered should not be handed over to an independent agency like CB CID or CBI.

Related Articles:
1. Fact Finding Team Indicts State and Maoists, Govt Retaliates by Filing Case calling team ‘Anti-National’: Chhatisgarh

Urdu not on PMO’s website, is it another attempt to do away with anything Muslim

November 19, 2016

Earlier this year, Honourable Prime Minister Narendra Modi decided that the PMO website , www.pmindia.gov.in should be made multilingual in order to effectively highlight various initiatives of the government.

Previously it was available only in English and Hindi. In May 2016, Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj launched 6 language versions of PMO

India’s website viz. in six major regional languages, including Gujarati, Marathi, Malayalam and Bengali. Sushma also announced that government will launch the PM’s official website in other regional languages also in a phased manner.

If checked the recent updates, there are Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Tamil and Telugu also in the language drop down.

Right after the NDA government regained power in 2014, the PMO is seen to be doing away with many issues related to minority community.

The present RSS-backed government is known to be staunch and hardliner, if one goes by general belief.

According to the census 2001, Urdu is the sixth most spoken language of India. Urdu speakers, mostly Muslims constitute 5.01% of the population, surpass those speaking Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya and Punjabi languages.
Now the questions that arise in mind are; Is it deliberate to ignore Urdu? Does the central government want Urdu speakers to be barred from benefits of government resolutions and schemes and official information etc?

If we look for a possible logical reason of this delay, we fail to find one but a deliberate act of injustice. Because, in a phased and planned development, one usually tends to give priority by looking at statistics. And, going by the sheer number of Urdu speakers, Urdu ought to have found a place on PMO’s website.

In the democratic land of India, let’s all just hope that people in power refrain from targeting few of their own citizens.

Editor’s note: Janta Ka Reporter made several attempts to contact the PMO for their reaction on the above story, but they remained unavailable for comments. We will update the blog as and when we get a reaction from the PMO.

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter

HINDUS with MUSLIMS against Islamophobia

November 19, 2016

A powerful statement of solidarity between concerned Indians, Hindu and Muslim, South Asian Americans and others against the growing Islamophobia manifest in the United States after the Donald Trump victory has been issued.

The text of the Solidarity Statement:

We issue this statement as concerned Hindus, South Asian Americans, and members of the AMEMSA (Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, South Asian) community who are tired of defending our people from hate and living in fear for the safety of our families. While Islamophobia and xenophobia are not new—and neither are resistance and solidarity—we believe this is a particularly urgent moment that requires a response from all of our communities. We as Hindus bear a particular responsibility in this moment of rising U.S. fascism, alongside rising Hindu fundamentalism in India.

As Hindus, we believe we have a particular responsibility to stand up against this hate and for the U.S. – and world – we want to live and thrive in. We have a long history of being divided against our Muslim brothers and sisters, EVIDENCed in the ‘divide-and-conquer’ colonization of the Indian subcontinent. When the colonial project was finally abandoned, it left a deep rift in our homeland – separating “Hindu India” from “Muslim Pakistan”. In reality, we know that Hindus and Muslims lived together for centuries, sharing their spaces and resources, inter-marrying, living as neighbors and friends, before our communities were violently separated by colonizer-imposed borders.

The long list of hate crimes since the San Bernardino shooting and the election of Trump includes violence on places of Sikh and Muslim worship, physical assault on AMEMSA community members, vandalism, hate speech, and hate mail. We reject any normalization of this violence, and are committed to a vision where Hindus resist this trajectory with our AMEMSA family.

White supremacy culture and xenophobia are overwhelmingly prevalent in the US today. Earlier this week, 60 million people cast ballots for radical right wing presidential candidate Donald Trump, who ran on pledges to deport millions of immigrants and require Muslims to register. This rhetoric is part of a vicious cycle of hate which fuels and is fueled by the deeply embedded racism on which the United States economy was originally built. The same ideology shows up in public institutions through racial profiling and armed police forces that brutally attack communities of color and Black people in particular; it shows up in the militarization of our borders, and the refusal of Syrian refugees displaced by climate chaos; and it shows up in renegade self-appointed “saviors” and vigilantes physically attacking Muslims, Black people, and anyone else who doesn’t fit into the white supremacist narrative of who and what America is.

In that context, the South Asian diaspora of today has often been pushed to separate and divide itself. Particularly since the racial profiling and government-sanctioned surveillance that has followed the 9/11 attacks, it has become commonplace for non-Muslim South Asian Americans to distinguish ourselves by religion, feeding into false binary narratives of good vs. bad South Asians. But for us this is defeat – surrendering to white supremacy and condoning racist violence against our own. The only value of distinguishing ourselves as non-Muslims is to recognize how we are impacted differently, so that we are better equipped to stand in solidarity as allies.

We must pledge resistance in our homelands, as we see the rise of Hindu fundamentalism under the Modi government in India, and how this supports Islamophobia and U.S. Empire globally. And we must pledge resistance in our home the United States, where one man can paint Nazi symbols and “go home” on a Somali restaurant before setting fire to it a few days later, and another can bomb threat a Muslim community center – and both can walk free with barely a blink from the media or local law enforcement.

Enough is enough. We pledge to resist hate and to organize our people and resources towards an America where all people are free to live without fear: free to work, play, pray, raise their families, and serve their communities without being dehumanized, targeted, incarcerated or attacked. We will work towards a world without Islamophobia. We will live and work in active solidarity, and we will move together towards a vision and practice of collective liberation.

1...2,3612,3622,363...2,697 Page 2,362 of 2,697

Demonetisation—Strictly, the PM didn’t go by the Law

While economists debate the desirability of declaring Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes illegal, the decision itself does not appear to be backed by the law

Gujarat Govt Callous on Manhole Deaths: HC Seeks Action

Gujarat manhole deaths: High Court seeks details of what state govt has done to compensate kin by Dec 7. Petition by Manav Garima Trust

South Gujarat Farmers Revolt: Failure of Cash Crop Due to Cash Crunch They Warn Modi

Demonetization: South Gujarat farmers protest, warn Modi, it will lead to failue of winter crop due to cash crunch

Only Donald Trump’s views matter in his administration: Spokesman

Maya Kodnani Appeal: 7th Judge Recuses, Why was Advocate Engaged at the Last Minute asks HC

Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & IGP Bastar Summoned by NHRC

The NHRC has summoned the Chief Secretary of Government of Chhattisgarh and IGP, Bastar to explain the allegations of hostility and abuse of power against Human Rights Defenders

Urdu not on PMO’s website, is it another attempt to do away with anything Muslim

HINDUS with MUSLIMS against Islamophobia

A powerful statement of solidarity between concerned Indians, Hindu and Muslim, South Asian Americans and others against the growing Islamophobia manifest in the United States after the Donald Trump victory has been issued.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT