The cold blooded murder of veteran journalist Gauri Lankesh in Bangalore had sent shock waves across India’s journalist community and civil society. Alarmed at the audacity and frequency of such attacks a group of civil society member and journalists came together in London on Oct 24 to demand that the ruling dispensation in India accept that it has done precious little to protect fearless members of the fourth estate, especially those who have the penchant to investigate and publish anti-establishment stories.
Image: PTI
At a public meeting held at the University of Arts, London, academics, activists and Labour Party members got together for a panel discussion titled ‘Standpup to the Murder of Dissent: Stop the Killing of Journalists in Modi’s India’. Indian Human Rights activist Teesta Setalvad, who has often gone toe to toe with Prime Minister Modi began with a presentation emphasizing not only the killing of journalists, but also that the perpetrators of most attacks were allies of the ruling party and hence enjoyed a sense of complete impunity. “We need to reiterate that the government which is supposed to uphold the constitution is not run by the Parliament wing of the BJP, but by the RSS, an organization committed to un-constitutionalism,” said Setalvad.
Tim Dawson President of the UK’s National Union of Journalists emphasised the need for the British government to challenge the Modi government on its Human Rights record. He said, “Mob violence in India is like the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states in America in the 1930s when the government colluded by turning a blind eye. The Modi government’s apparent license for mob violence is an incredibly dangerous development.” He believes that journalists are no more important than other members of the public but they have a capacity to shine a light on what is really happening. “We need to see the rule of law observed, perpetrators held to account and prosecuted. British journalists have a job of work to do, they can be insular. They need to say to our government that if you have dealings with the Modi government, human rights must have centre stage”, he said.
Other speakers included journalist and author Rana Ayyub who paid a moving tribute to Gauri Lankesh the celebrated journalist who was shot dead outside her home on 5 September. She also spoke about her experiences of acute harassment and surveillance and said that constant surveillance was something which not only journalists but dissenters face in India.
Journalists from other parts of the world also shared their experiences. Mohammed Aboulenein, Head of News and current affairs at AlArabi TV spoke about the harassment which their channel had faced from the Egyptian government and the acute danger which journalists faced in the Middle East. He described the experiences of Al Jazeera journalists who were imprisoned simply for writing the truth. He concluded saying, “Dissenting journalists must speak out together and for each other”.
Nitasha Kaul, academic and writer spoke about the experiences of the Kashmiri media and the long-running censorship, closure of press outlets and newspapers and the frequent suspension of the internet and phone networks in the Kashmir valley.
The organisers of the meeting South Asia Solidarity Group said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should be aware that internationally and global organizations are watching and that India is in danger of abrogating the most basic requirement for democracy – a free press. Not only is India now 136th among 180 countries in terms of freedom of the press with the Modi regime being held responsible, but according to Reporters Without Borders India is ‘Asia’s deadliest country for media personnel ahead of both Pakistan and Afghanistan’
Umar Khalid is not known for mincing words. In an exclusive interview to Sabrang India, he lays threadbare the state’s agenda in curbing the burgeoning student movement in India by questioning the patriotism of it leaders and discrediting the movement’s goals. Here’s the first part of a two part interview.
Image: Hindustan Times
“That was the time when the attack was, if not the most intense, but certainly the most theatrical,” says Umar Khalid speaking of the state’s clamp down on JNU students and their agitation in Feb-Mar 2016. This period marked the beginning of a new chapter in the student’s movement in India, one where the ruling dispensation of a country with a large youth population appeared to be invested in making them out to be enemies of the state, merely for exercising their right to protest peacefully. “The modus operandi of the regime at that point of time was to vilify us on national television and portray us as ‘anti-national’ who should not be getting tax payer’s money which is very instructive because this was an attack on public funded education,” he surmises. But though it has been 19 months since the first FIR was filed in the case, the charge-sheet has still not been filed.
But according to Umar Khalid, the matter did not end in 2016. “For us who are in JNU, we are seeing the attack unfold on a daily basis in multiple ways,” he says highlighting the change in the state’s strategy in curbing student dissent. When the HRD Ministry changed hands from Smriti Irani to Prakash Jawdekar, the clampdown moved away from TV screens. “The Vice Chancellor is going about subverting all democratic procedures and norms. He runs the University in a dictatorial manner without consulting any of the stakeholders, primarily the students,” he alleges. He lists the reduction in the number of seats for PhD students allegedly without the approval of the Academic Council, doing away with deprivation points that were awarded to students from backward communities and the flouting of constitutionally mandated reservations as examples of this dictatorial stance.
He goes on to highlight that while right wing students organizations are allowed to carry on with their hooliganism, there is a crackdown on even the smallest actions of other students. He says, “Dissent is being criminalized in such ridiculous ways that recently one of my fellow students was asked to explain why he ate biryani in the admin block during the protest!” The admin block meanwhile has been cordoned off. Umar also has a serious question about the present government’s majoritarian agenda within education, commonly called ‘saffronisation’. “JNU is now offering a Certificate Course in Yoga. Now we have nothing against Yoga, but these people who believe they are custodians of our culture, know very little about Yoga themselves,” he says. But the results of successive elections at universities across India where right wing students groups have been defeated with decisive margins, offers a fresh lease of life to the student’s movement.
Finally on the subject of how the police manhandled Fatima Nafees, mother of missing JNU student Najee Ahmed, Umar says, “The police’s attitude towards Najeeb’s mother has always been hostile. The Delhi Police has been acting like Modi’s private agency.” He says that given how all agencies that are investigating the case are under the purview of the central government and that the key accused in the case are affiliated with a right wing students group that is in turn in ideological alignment with the ruling dispensation, it is not surprising that no headway has been made in the investigations into Najeeb’s disappearance. “From the point that his mother was filing the FIR the police was trying to dictate what to include in her complaint. They are trying to terrorise her into withdrawing her petition,” he alleges. “The CBI has been chastised by the High Court for their ineffective investigation. They are rattled by this and are taking out their frustration on Fatima Nafees,” explains Umar. “Just as they are making wild allegations about Najeeb having joined ISIS, they are alleging that Rohith Vemula wasn’t Dalit. They are harassing both mothers. This is what the system has to offer to these two mothers who have been fighting this battle. They hate both these women because instead of being overcome with grief, they forged ahead in their quest for justice and are fighting back. The forces of Bharhminical patriarchy cannot tolerate women fighting back,” he says.
Would you pay someone US$150,000 to have your baby?
A first-time surrogate mother in Anand, India, 2013. REUTERS/Mansi Thapliyal
The high cost of surrogacy in the U.S. has pushed many potential parents to seek cheaper options elsewhere. Countries like India and Thailand have attracted surrogacy clients from countries like the U.S., Britain, Australia and Israel. The global surrogacy trade, however, has been fraught with scandals.
In India, where I’ve studied surrogacy since 2008, the government is rethinking regulations. Gay couples were banned from using commercial surrogacy in 2012. In March 2017, the Indian government extended the commercial ban to everyone. Now, only so-called “altruistic surrogacy” is allowed – when a consenting female family member bears a child for a childless heterosexual Indian couple without pay.
But what impact are bans on commercial surrogacy having for women who work in the reproductive industry?
Downsides of commercial surrogacy
Some bioethicists and feminists have welcomed bans on commercial surrogacy. They argue that it’s unethical to build businesses on women’s reproductive capacities.
Surrogacy businesses in India almost exclusively focused on the needs of the client.
Destinations such as India became popular precisely because they offered surrogacy at bargain basement prices by paying surrogate mothers less. They offered preterm childbirth through cesarean surgeries in order to accommodate clients’ availability to take time off from work. They created barriers between surrogate mothers and clients to minimize the emotional costs for clients. This allowed clients to leave India with their babies – no strings attached.
Many bioethicists believe that selling pregnancy as a service is untenable because it puts a price on human body parts and life. Commercial surrogacy, they note, results in the devaluation of women and children and the eventual degradation of society. Thus, removing cash payment for surrogacy and instead endorsing it as an altruistic, gift-like exchange between transactors is seen as more ethical.
These arguments carry weight. Countries like Canada and Australia allow only altruistic surrogacy.
Downsides of bans
Like other countries that provide commercial surrogacy, there were no legal requirements in India to provide statistics on how many clinics provided surrogacy services, the number of clients or women employed. What we do know is that the ban has slowed a brisk global trade in Indian working-class women’s reproductive capacities that is estimated to have garnered anywhere from $400 million to $1 billion per year. The baby trade, however, does not stop with bans on commercial surrogacy. Instead, infertility clinics jump through legal loopholes by moving surrogate mothers across borders. These movements expose surrogate mothers to great risks.
For example, when India first banned surrogacy for gay couples in 2012, various infertility businesses in Delhi continued to sign on gay clients from all over the world. Clients shipped their frozen sperm to Delhi, which was used to fertilize eggs from Indian donors. The resulting embryos, legally belonging to the gay men, were implanted into Indian surrogate mothers. To avoid the ban, infertility clinics then moved surrogate mothers across international borders into Nepal. There, they gave birth and clients arrived to pick up their children.
This emerging trade route between Delhi and Kathmandu halted when an earthquake hit Nepal on April 25, 2015, killing 8,000 people and injuring more than 21,000. While various governments airlifted babies belonging to their citizens, the fate of the Indian mothers and how they got back home remains unclear.
I learned more about this type of workaround in conversations with a Mumbai-based infertility specialist in September 2015. The specialist, who will remain anonymous to protect confidentiality, revealed that he was recruiting surrogate mothers from Kenya to come to Mumbai. Through in vitro fertilization, he implanted the Kenyan women with embryos belonging to gay men. The women were then flown back to Nairobi after completing 24 weeks of pregnancy in India. They birthed babies in designated hospitals in Nairobi, from where gay father clients picked up the babies. The Mumbai doctor maintained that he had not broken the law, because technically, he had not interacted with gay clients within Indian territory, and all he had provided was in vitro fertilization for Kenyan “health-care” seekers.
News reports have documented a similar effect in Cambodia, where the government has begun to crack down on surrogacy earlier this year. Now, surrogate mothers from Phnom Penh are being sent to Bangkok, Thailand to deliver babies. Thai law bans commercial surrogacy transactions, but enforcement agencies are unable to distinguish surrogate mothers in hospitals from other pregnant women. Cambodian surrogate mothers are also being sent to Laos, where there are no laws, to deliver babies in clinics staffed by Thai doctors who once worked in Thailand when commercial surrogacy was still legal there.
Under these circumstances, women are far more vulnerable than before. They are wholly dependent on agencies that have brought them into countries where they are strangers and unfamiliar with the language, culture and social norms. Surrogacy agencies provide them with housing and food in these foreign countries. And they control the money. As a result, the women are powerless to terminate their contracts, or go back home if they choose to do so. They are isolated from friends and family and have no legal recourse to address financial abuses or medical malpractice.
Human rights of surrogate mothers
Country-specific bans do nothing to alleviate the vulnerability of working-class women across poor countries. Instead, these bans create situations where women may be exposed to far deeper mistreatment and exploitation. Governments might want to reconsider bans on commercial surrogacy.
One option is to negotiate multilateral agreements between countries to govern global surrogacy. Such international law would need to balance the rights of persons pursuing parenthood, children’s rights and surrogate mothers’ rights. But because of differences in countries’ norms on gay rights and surrogacy, international agreements are difficult to forge.
A more pragmatic solution for countries like India and Thailand would be to legalize commercial surrogacy but regulate it heavily. Rather than bans, governments should consider laws that uphold surrogate mothers’ sense of dignity and bodily integrity. Surrogate mothers should be treated as full human beings who have the right to choose how they get pregnant, the right to opt out of medical interventions, the right to refuse cesarean surgeries and the right to maintain contact with the babies they birthed. Commercial surrogacy is tenable only if surrogate mothers’ emotional, physical and intellectual well-being is respected.
Amid the continuing moral panic over homosexuality in Egypt, a draft law submitted to parliament proposes not only to criminalise gay sex but also to ban rainbow flags and outlaw almost any kind of social activity involving gay people.
The draft law, presented to the Speaker by MP Riad Abdel Sattar, currently has formal backing from 12 other members of parliament. Abdel Sattar belongs to the supposedly liberal Free Egyptians Party – the largest party in parliament with 65 of the 596 seats.
Anti-gay campaigner Riad Abdel Sattar
At present Egypt has no specific law against homosexuality but a law against “habitual debauchery“, originally intended to clamp down on prostitution, is often used instead.
The new draft law proposes jail sentences of between one and five years for “perverted sexual relationships”. Article 2 says:
“For every two or more persons, whether male or female, who engage in a perverted sexual relationship between themselves, in any public or private place, the penalty shall be imprisonment for a period not less than one year and not more than three years, and in the case of a repeat offence the penalty shall be imprisonment for five years.”
The draft proposes similar penalties for anyone “abetting” same-sex relations. This includes hosting gatherings of gay people, such as parties. It also requires the “closure” of any premises used for such gatherings. Article 3 says:
“For any person who abets homosexual relations, whatever they may be, whether by inciting or facilitating others, by preparing a place for them to be practised, or by inviting others to them, even if they are not practising them [themself], the penalty shall be imprisonment for a period not less than one year and not more than three years, plus the closure of the premises. In the case of a repeat offence the penalty shall be imprisonment for five years.”
Article 4 adds:
“It is strictly forbidden to advertise or announce gatherings that bring together homosexuals by any means of advertising or announcement, whether audible or visible, or through social media. In this case, the penalty for the advertiser and promoter shall be imprisonment for a period of three years …”
The current furore began last month when several fans at a music concert waved rainbow flags and the authorities responded by arresting dozens of people. At present there is no obvious law against rainbow flags but the draft bill aims to change that. Making, selling or even carrying them will result in a jail sentence. Article 5 says:
“It is forbidden to carry any sign or symbol for homosexuals, just as it is prohibited to manufacture, sell, market or advertise them. The punishment for anyone who violates that shall be imprisonment for a period not less than one year and not more than three years.”
Earlier this year Abdel Sattar proposed a monthly tax on social media users, saying the money would be used to pay for monitoring their activities and combating terrorism.
According to UNHCR, at least 604,000 Rohingyas have entered Bangladesh fleeing the violence that erupted in Myanmar on August 25
A woman carries her ill child in a refugee camp at Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, September 26, 2017 Reuters
Yanghee Lee, the United Nations investigator of human rights abuses in Myanmar, has expressed deep disappointment in Aung San Suu Kyi for her indifferent response to the Rohingya crisis.
Speaking to reporters at the United Nations on Thursday, the investigator underscored international frustrations over the behaviour of the state counsellor of Myanmar regarding the persecution of the Rohingya.
Child rights expert Yanghee Lee of South Korea was appointed to her United Nations human rights post in 2014, reports the New York Times.
“Well-documented accounts of killings, rapes, burned villages and forced displacement gets no coverage in Myanmar’s news media,” Lee said while talking about the hatred and hostility against the Rohingyas in Myanmar.
She said: “It has really baffled everyone, and has really baffled me, about Daw Aung’s non-position on this issue.
“She [Suu Kyi] has not ever recognised that there is such a people called Rohingya — that’s a starting point. I’m very disappointed.”
The UN investigator added: “If the Myanmar leader [Suu Kyi] were to reach out to the people and say, ‘Hey, let’s show some humanity,’ I think people will follow her — she’s adored by the public.”
“Unfortunately, there seems to be little sympathy, let alone empathy, for the Rohingya people in Myanmar,” Lee said. “For decades, it has been cultivated in the minds of the Myanmar people that the Rohingya are not indigenous to the country and therefore have no rights whatsoever to which they can apparently claim.”
Suu Kyi skipped the annual United Nations General Assembly in September what was widely viewed as a way to avoid hard questions and confrontations over the Rohingya crisis.
She was criticised by other leaders, including some fellow Nobel laureates, for her response towards the torture on the Rohingyas in her country.
According to United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR), at least 604,000 Rohingyas have entered Bangladesh fleeing the violence that erupted in Myanmar on August 25.
Myanmar’s de-facto leader last month publicly addressed concerns over the deadly conflict in Rakhine State, highlighting her government’s commitment to restore peace, stability and rule of law in the region scarred by armed conflict between insurgents – the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) – and security forces.
Without mentioning the word Rohingya, she said carefully-worded lines of condemnation, saying that Myanmar has “never been soft on human rights”.
Earlier, on August 29, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that satellite data accessed by the rights body had revealed widespread fires burning in at least 10 areas in Rakhine State, where local residents and activists have accused soldiers of shooting indiscriminately at unarmed Rohingya men, women, and children, and carrying out arson attacks.
Myanmar authorities, on the other hand, claim that Rohingya “extremist terrorists” have been setting these fires during fights with government troops. Human Rights Watch reports they could not obtain any comments on this issue from any government spokesperson.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Thursday filed a chargesheet before the NIA special court, Mumbai in a case pertaining to Islamic preacher Zakir Naik and his organisation Islamic Research Foundation along with Harmony Media Private Limited.
The charge sheet has been filed under the section 10 UA(P) Act and Sections 120B, 153A, 295A, 298 and 505(2) of Indian Penal Code.
In a press statement released regarding the same matter, NIA said, “He (Naik) has been promoting enmity and hatred between different religious groups in India through his public speeches and lectures.
51-year-old Naik, who is currently living outside of India was charged by the NIA for his alleged influence over the terrorists responsible for a shootout in Dhaka, Bangladesh last year.
NIA registered a case against Naik on November 1, 2016 in Mumbai. Zakir Naik has been residing out of India since July 1, 2016 and has offered investigative agencies to question him through Skype or digital means, but agencies have been pushing Naik to come to India. Even Union Home ministry stepped into the matter and declared Naik’s NGO an unlawful association.
In a rather accusatory tone, NIA statement said, “During the investigation, it was found that through his public lectures/speeches, accused Zakir Naik deliberately and maliciously insulted the religious beliefs of Hindus, Christians and non-Wahabi Muslims, particularly Shia, Sufi, and Barelwis, with intentions of outraging their religious feelings,” while accusing IRF and HMPL of providing the necessary modes and resources for propagating the same.
While raising questions over funding of IRF operations, NIA charge sheet also lists the particular speeches of Zakir Naik, which could hurt the religious sentiments, the statement said.
In the third part of a talk titled “End of Legacy of Freedom Struggle: Education for Exclusion and Enslavement” educationist Anil Sadgopal discusses the Right to Education act, its limitations and the way India continues to make education a commodity that can only be accessed by the elite.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed BJP leader and Rajya Sabha MP, Subramanian Swamy’s plea seeking a court-monitored SIT probe into the death of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s wife Sunanda Pushkar, terming his PIL as a “textbook example of a political interest litigation”.
A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta said the petition by Swamy could not be entertained as a PIL, reported PTI.
The death of Pushkar has been recently in news after Tharoor moved the High Court seeking restriction for Republic TV and its founder Arnab Goswami on the coverage.
On Swamy, the High Court bench also said that from what was placed before the court, it was unable to be persuaded that the probe, being carried out by the SIT, is botched up or under the influence of any party.
The court was also of the view that Swamy concealed information, based on which he had made “sweeping allegations” against Tharoor and Delhi Police, as he today offered to file an affidavit disclosing his source or reason based on which he had made the accusation. “Although Subramanian Swamy claimed he has not concealed any data or information, when asked specifically about the basis of his allegations in the petition, his response was to seek time to file affidavit thereby clearly showing that what was to be disclosed at the first instance was not done,” the court said.
The bench also said that “Courts need to be careful that judicial process is not used by political persons for their own purposes”.
“This is not to say that political persons cannot file PILs, but courts have to be extra cautious when allegations are made against other political persons,” the bench added.
The court said the petition by Swamy cannot be entertained as a PIL as it appears to be “a textbook example of political interest litigation being dressed up as a PIL”.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Centre and the Delhi Police, said that they do not subscribe to the views expressed by Swamy that the Congress leader continues to interfere in the investigation.
Pushkar was found dead under mysterious circumstances in a suite of a five-star hotel in Delhi on the night of January 17, 2014.
