US Religious Freedom Report Highlights Cow Vigilantism

August 16, 2017

The targeting of persons, mostly Muslims, suspected of bovine trafficking or having beef in India by lynch mobs masquerading as gau rakshaks has been highlighted in the United States’ International Religious Freedom Report (IRFR) for 2016 released on Tuesday by secretary of state Rex Tillerson.

“There was an increase (during 2016) in violent incidents by cow protection groups against mostly Muslim victims, including killings, mob violence, assaults, and intimidation,” the report said.

“Members of civil society expressed concerns that, under the BJP government, religious minority communities felt vulnerable due to Hindu nationalist groups engaging in violence against non-Hindu individuals and places of worship,” the report added.

While listing the various instances of attacks by cow vigilantes on people suspected of having or eating beef, the report also noted that the Bombay High Court decriminalised the possession of beef brought from outside Maharashtra saying “it violated a citizen’s right to possess and consume food of his or her choice.”

Perhaps for the first time, the IRFR also cites instances of religious intolerance on the part of the religious minorities in India.

Instances were cited of attacks on people suspected of making what were claimed to be derogatory remarks against Islam, including the involvement of police in one incident in Madhya Pradesh, the denial of burial rights by Christian and Muslim institutions to inter-religious couples and the arrest of a Catholic priest in Maharashtra on complaints that he denigrated Islam and prevented a teacher trainee from wearing a burqa.

“There were reports of religiously motivated killings, assaults, riots, discrimination, vandalism, and actions restricting the right of individuals to practice their religious beliefs and proselytize,” the report said. It also referred to the report of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) according to which there were 751 conflicts between religious communities, which resulted in 97 deaths and 2,264 injuries in 2015.”

On the positive side, the report took note of the fact that Jews had been accorded minority status in Maharashtra entitling them for certain government schemes aimed at minorities.
The IRFR quoted religious minority communities as stating that, “while the national government sometimes spoke out against incidents of violence, local political leaders often did not, which left victims and minority religious communities feeling vulnerable”.

In 2015, India Lost 2 Children Below Age 5 Every Minute

August 16, 2017

Nearly 1.08 million Indian children under the age of five years died in 2015–that’s 2,959 deaths every day or two each minute–many of them of causes that were preventable and treatable.

India’s under-five mortality rate (U5MR)–the probability that a child born in a specific year will die before reaching the age of five–was reported to be 43 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2015 in the Sample Registration System Statistical Report 2015, the latest available data.

Child mortality is considered one of the bellwethers of the health and well-being of a nation because factors that impact child mortality also affect the health of entire populations. During 2015-16, when the economy was scaling the growth charts by recording a best-in-five-years growth rate of 7.6%, India’s U5MR of 43 in 2015 placed it the worst among BRICS countries and the third worst in South Asia, despite a 26-point improvement from a rate of 69 in 2008.

Some Indian states such as Assam and Madhya Pradesh recorded worse U5MR than Ghana in sub-Saharan Africa.

Most under-five deaths were attributed to neonatal causes (53%), pneumonia (15%), diarrhoeal diseases (12%), measles (3%) and injuries (3%), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Annual Report 2016-17 said, citing World Health Organization data from 2012.

“More than two-thirds of infants die in the very first month. About 90% of these deaths are due to easily preventable causes like pneumonia and diarrhoea,” according to Save the Children.

More under-five children died in rural areas (48 deaths per 1,000 live births) than in cities (28), data show.

The government has identified 209 low-performing districts as priority areas which would be closely monitored while receiving higher per capita funding, technical support and help in adopting innovative approaches, Faggan Singh Kulaste, minister of state in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, told the Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) in a reply on July 28, 2017.

The minister outlined government initiatives to reduce child mortality under the National Health Mission such as the Janani Suraksha Yojana (safe motherhood scheme) and the Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakaram (mother and child care programme), which entitle pregnant women who deliver in public health institutions to free ante-natal check-ups, post-natal care and treatment for sick infants for up to one year of age. Special neonatal care units have also been set up in government facilities, he said.

Under the universal immunisation programme, the government provides free vaccination against life-threatening diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, tetanus and measles, the reply stated.

U5MR: Assam, Madhya Pradesh worst in India and as bad as Ghana in sub-Saharan Africa

Despite these government programmes, the data paint a worrying picture.

Among the 22 Indian states and union territories (UTs) with a population of 10 million or more, Kerala reported the lowest U5MR at 13, while Assam and Madhya Pradesh reported the highest at 62.

Only four of these states–Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab–have lower female U5MR than male.

India’s sex ratio at birth–the number of girl children born per 1,000 male children–was 903 girls per 1,000 boys in 2015, IndiaSpend reported on August 2, 2017. This was worse than Pakistan (920) and Nepal (939).

Source: Census – Sample Registration System Statistical Report 2015
NOTE: Data available only for 22 larger states as per survey

The Millennium Development Goal (MDG)-4 (to reduce child mortality) was to bring U5MR down to 42 deaths per 1,000 live births by 2015, the Lok Sabha reply stated.

The Sustainable Development Goal, which replaced MDG-4 from January 2016 onwards, is a U5MR of 25 deaths per 1,000 live births for all countries by 2030.

Data show that 14 of the 22 larger Indian states have attained MDG-4 (<42 deaths per 1,000 live births) and four states have surpassed the SDGs, namely Maharashtra (24), Delhi (20), Tamil Nadu (20) and Kerala (13).

This wide variance across states is due to systemic but potentially remediable differences in one or more aspects of healthcare facilities across states, as well as other social and cultural factors such as women’s education and sanitation.

India sluggish in tackling child deaths despite fast economic growth, says UNICEF

About 5.9 million children under the age of five died worldwide in 2015–16,000 every day–due to diseases that are preventable or treatable, such as pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, meningitis, tetanus, measles, sepsis and AIDS, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said in its The State of The World’s Children report for 2016.

The report said countries such as India and Nigeria are “sluggish” in reducing child mortality, despite leading on the economic growth front globally. This indicates that “economic growth does not guarantee improved child survival, and a country’s income need not hinder progress”, it noted.

South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 80% of under-five deaths in 2015, nearly half of which took place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Pakistan, the report said.

India reported the highest U5MR among BRICS countries at 43 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2015, followed by South Africa (41), Brazil (16), China (11) and Russia (10).

Among its South Asian neighbours, India fared better only than Afghanistan (91) and Pakistan (81). Maldives reported the lowest U5MR at nine deaths per 1,000 live births, followed by Sri Lanka (10), Bhutan (33), Nepal (36) and Bangladesh (38).

Source: Lok Sabha

“More than three-fourth of under-five-deaths in India are due to neonatal causes, pneumonia and diarrhoea,” Rajesh Khanna, senior technical advisor with child rights NGO Save the Children India, told IndiaSpend. Babies with birth asphyxia (deprivation of oxygen during delivery that can lead to lifelong brain damage and death), preterm babies, babies delivered at home, babies of poor and/or migrant families, and malnourished children are most vulnerable, he said.

Khanna said although interventions to prevent and treat childhood diseases are available, there are many challenges: Lack of knowledge and awareness about these solutions among communities, inadequate availability and access to these interventions within the public health system, and patchy quality of services provided for these interventions. “All these challenges are more pronounced for the marginalised and underprivileged population which has the maximum burden of child deaths,” he said.

Khanna said all pregnant mothers must be provided with proper antenatal care services and nutritional supplements. “Institutional delivery or delivery by skilled personnel, early and exclusive breastfeeding for all babies, access to universal immunisation and hygiene must be ensured” in order to reduce infant mortality, he said.

(Mallapur is an analyst with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

“… Seems like part of a bigger agenda to malign me personally”: former editor, EPW

August 16, 2017

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta responds to the claims made by some of his former colleagues in their letter to the trustees of Sameeksha Trust

Reproduced below is the text of the statement issued by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta on August 2

I have agonised for days about whether I should put out this statement, ever since the letter dated 25 July, 2017, sent by eight of my former colleagues in the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) to the trustees of the Sameeksha Trust, owners and publishers of the EPW, entered the public domain soon after it was sent. This was a letter that was not meant to have reached me. But now that it is circulating widely, I have decided it is time to respond. My silence on the points raised in the letter have been interpreted by some as my tacit acknowledgment of the claims made by some of my former colleagues. This is far from correct.

On the issue of my allegedly undermining the review process in the EPW, I wish to assert that I exercised my prerogative as an editor to shorten the review process in the cases of barely a handful of articles out of the hundreds of articles that were published in the print and web editions of the EPW in the 15 months that I was privileged to serve in this position. I wish to place on record that among this handful of articles was one that was strongly recommended for publication by one of the Trustees of the Sameeksha Trust. After this article was published, it attracted a strong rejoinder which too was published. The same Trustee also wrote an email to me expressing unhappiness at the rejection of a particular article. While it is not normal practice in the EPW to specify the reasons for rejecting an article, in this instance, because a specific complaint had come from a Trustee, I requested the reviewer to specify the reasons for rejecting the article. These reasons were then emailed to the Trustee who retorted with a harangue questioning the decision of the reviewer. I wish to, therefore, categorically deny the claim that I have undermined the review process in the EPW.

On the claim that I favoured my close associates by promising to pay them substantially more than what the EPW normally pays its contributors, the following facts should be noted. One particular investigative article by Subir Ghosh (my co-author and close associate) on the cartels that were apparently responsible for the spike in the prices of tur and urad dal was published on the website of the EPW. This article was written after more than a month of research based on a perusal of thousands of pages of documents that were leaked to me by a whistleblower. Another article on Kingfisher Airlines by Nihar Gokhale (a freelance journalist who could become my close associate) was published on the EPW website based on leaked internal documents of a bank. I proposed a payment of Rs 30,000 and Rs 20,000 respectively for the two authors of the two articles which I felt would be commensurate with the efforts they had put in. These were not the typical articles contributed to the EPW for which the authors are paid token amounts. The articles were specially assigned. An important point to note in this context is that the EPW recently received a generous grant from a foundation for its digital edition and one component of this grant was specifically meant for “corporate investigations” and “web exclusives” for which a separate budget has been earmarked. Nevertheless, I had in addition raised a sum of Rs 50,000 from an individual as a donation for corporate investigations. This person subsequently withdrew his donation on learning about my resignation. At this point of time, neither Ghosh nor Gokhale have been paid the amounts I had “promised” them.

On the question of the editor writing signed articles, from the day I joined the EPW as editor on 04 April 2016 till the day I resigned 15 months and 15 days later, eight articles written and/or co-authored by me have been published in the digital and/or print editions of the EPW. I have never been ashamed of the fact that for the forty years I have been a journalist, I have been a reporter for much of the time. Over and above the articles I authored or co-authored, I had during my tenure as editor been responsible for publishing close to two dozen articles that may be described as “investigative” in nature. I wish to state that not only did these articles attract more than the usual number of readers to the website of the EPW, but also that not a single fact published had to be retracted or were contradicted. My former colleagues refer to an article on alleged over-invoicing of imported coal by prominent private and public companies that I published on the very first day I joined the EPW. That was also the day I received a copy of a document (on which the article was based) that had been sent to 50 different government establishments. I wanted the EPW to be the first to publish the news and indeed, after the EPW published the report, it was picked up by a number of Indian and international dailies and publications.

It has also been alleged by my former colleagues that I had compromised the “egalitarian” work culture in the EPW. They are indeed entitled to their opinion. I do not agree with them. I believe I did try and accommodate the viewpoints of my former colleagues even when I vehemently disagreed with them. It is up to the larger community of the EPW to evaluate the contribution I made to this reputed publication.

What has pained me the most is the claim that I have on occasions used inappropriate and sexist/sexual language in office. On only one (repeat one) occasion, did I inadvertently use a phrase in a conversation with a woman colleague that may have been considered inappropriate. On realising this, I immediately apologised to her. Later in the day I followed it up with an email to her placing on record my apology for what I had said. I cannot prove what I have stated as my email account with the EPW has been suddenly blocked. It is important to note that if my way of functioning with my women colleagues in office had on occasions caused them discomfort as is being alleged in the letter to the Trustees, I am not aware if any formal complaint was ever made. That this is being made an issue now seems like it is part of a bigger agenda to malign me personally.

I am taking particular umbrage at the decision to suddenly block what used to be my official email account. This is contrary to the explicit assurance that had been given to me that I would be allowed access to my EPW email account for a few weeks after my resignation from the post of editor of the EPW on 18 July. I sincerely hope that what is contained in my EPW email account will not be tampered with. I also hope I will still be given an opportunity to access my email account to retrieve what is rightfully my own work.

I am particularly thankful to my former colleagues for expressing their disagreement with the manner in which the trustees of the Sameeksha Trust directed/instructed/ordered me on 18 July to pull down an article on Adani Power Limited ostensibly because a lawyer representing the company had sent the EPW a letter/notice alleging defamation without having moved a court of law. My former colleagues have rightly perceived this action as an encroachment on editorial autonomy.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the institution that is the EPW is far bigger than any individual and will always be that way. Its survival and further development, I believe, is the responsibility of the larger EPW community that has sustained and nurtured it.

Yours faithfully

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
Gurgaon (Haryana)

Secular Indians Marched to Protect Democracy

August 16, 2017

In a massive show of strength hundreds of Indians living in United Kingdom gathered at Tavistock Square to express their disapproval of the politics of hatred and growing incidents of mob lynching against minorities, Dalits and other marginalised sections in India. They expressed their horror how the constitutional values of secularism, pluralism, democracy and dissent are under the assault by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and other Sangh Parivar affiliates.

There were different civil society and human rights organisations who participated in the march. They include South Asian Solidarity, Federation of Ambedkarite and Buddhist Organisations, Caste Watch, Voice of Dalit International, Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, Dalit Solidarity Network and others.

At the Tavistock square, Ms Amrit Wilson spoke of the growing threat to minorities, Dalits and others in India and why we need to disapprove the culture of mob violence. The marchers then marched silently nearly about two kilometers passing through Central London’s important streets and reached the India House, Indian High Commission. They shouted slogans at the India House against the mob lynching and Narendra Modi’s government’s absolute freedom to these goons in the name of cow protection.

Speaking on the ocassion Mr Satpal Mumman, the Chair, Caste Watch UK, said that it is deeply disturbing to see how fascist forces are taking India to a dark age violating our constitutional principles of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity as enshrined in our constitution drafted by Baba Saheb Ambedkar.

Ms Santosh Das, President, Federation of Ambedkarite and Buddhist Organisations, UK and Vice Chair, Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, spoke of the growing culture of cow vigilantism as well as violence against the Dalits, Muslims and others under various pretext by the Hindu fundamentalists. She said that the government of India need to change its attitude and protect free speech, dissent and people’s choices to eat the food of their choice. She warned that we would continue to speak loud and take to street to show our concern and solidarity with all those victim of vicious violence by the Hindutva groups against Dalits and minorities.

Speaker after speaker spoke against the cow vigilantism by the Hindutva organisations and asked the government to act against them. It was also mentioned that the NRIs living in the West in particularly must not support the hate mongering groups in India. The responsibility is more on the secular organisations to protect idea of India, its constitutional values and its minorities including Dalits and adivasis.

It was definitely a positive development in long run that secular and organisations devoted to human rights and anti caste discrimination took to the street and showed their solidarity in the biggest western capital. The message was loud and clear that government of India must protect secular constitution of India and that the world is watching now and will be more watchful in future too of their actions.

Vidya Bhushan Rawat in London

The danger of supplementing aid to Africa with weapons

August 16, 2017

During the recent G-20 meeting in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel floated the idea that African countries should be given weapons as part of development aid so that they could be more effective in combating militant groups.

Illicit firearms and small weapons recovered during security operations being destroyed in Nairobi. REUTERS/Thomas Mukoya

This was a bold departure from the traditional emphasis on economic aid as the bedrock of development efforts in African countries. To many, and for most African states, her statement sounded like a contradiction in terms because spending on arms can divert funds from vital areas such as food security, health care and education.

Over the past 20 years Africa has been transitioning from a focus on economic integration to one on security. Until the late 1990s the emphasis in many regions was on economic integration. This was clear from the consolidation of a number of regional economic integration communities like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

But since the turn of the century, there has been a much bigger focus on security and fighting radical Jihadist groups typically affiliated to Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. As of May 2015, there were nine UN Peacekeeping missions in Africa. The big shift towards security started in 2002 when the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was formed. This was followed by a security partnership being agreed between the African Union and the EU. And then there are sub-regional security forces like Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group and the Sahel G5 states’ counter-terrorism force.

As a result of the growing threat from terror groups, a number of countries, with the help of major powers, have boosted their military capabilities. These include Mali, Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire to name a few.

Merkel’s statement was made in the context of many African countries experiencing economic growth while, at the same time, battling militant and terrorist groups.

The view seems to be that by helping Africa contain instability, growth rates will be enhanced, and Europe relieved of mass migrations.

Increase military capability

Increased securitisation – the emphasis on a militarily strong state at the expense of basic human needs and a strong civil society – started after the 1998 Al-Qaeda attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These led to the creation of AFRICOM which included putting active American troops on the continent. Djibouti serves as a forward base for AFRICOM. It also included a commitment from the US to train and advise African countries that request it. Current key beneficiaries of US military assistance are Djibouti, Ethiopia, Uganda Chad, Cameroon, and Mauritania.

In addition, French troops have become more active in Africa. In Mali they are helping the government contain Jihadist organisations in the north of the country.

There are also regional international efforts, such as the security partnership between the European Union the African Union, and the UN Mission established to contain terrorist attacks in the Sahel region. Known as the G5 Sahel force, it includes troop contributions from Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger.

France and the US are also active in the Sahel region providing training and equipment to the militaries of Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, Naiger and Mauritania, and engaging in joint exercises with the G5 forces.

Merkel’s proposal is aimed at taking these engagements even further. What’s she’s put on the table is a compact with Africa and the G20 which includes weapons transfer as development aid.

Implications

Merkel’s suggestion would mean more weapons on a continent that is already awash with small arms and light weapons. It can’t be denied that Africa as a secure continent would benefit Europe. But weapons as development aid sounds like a contradiction. Do weapon transfers in fact contribute to development?

There are studies that show that the acquisition of weapons by developing countries doesn’t contribute to development.

I believe that more weapons on the continent would have the opposite effect. The African continent already has a great deal of weapons which exacerbate civil strife. Evidence points to the fact that weapons transfers are responsible for conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Somalia, among others.

More weapons and an increased military presence for incumbent African regimes could have negative consequences.

Firstly, it could lead to even more violations of the rule of law as incumbent regimes become militarily stronger.

Secondly, it would improve the changes of regimes surviving longer. They would have the wherewithall to violate human rights even more, as well as suppress opposition voices. And finally, weapons could be diverted to rebel groups through political corruption or for personal selfish objectives.

In conclusion the G20 Compact with Africa is very encouraging. But when it comes to the transfer of more weapons, donors and investors should make sure that this is done under strict rules and regulations. Conditions for receiving aid should also be based on strict adherence to the rule of law, and in particular democratic processes.

In the end the biggest emphasis should be on private investments – as set out in the compact – which will generate millions of jobs for the unemployed.

Earl Conteh-Morgan, Professor of International Studies, University of South Florida

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

India at 70: bigotry rules

August 16, 2017

“Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’”

As India marks 70 years of independence today (August 15), two events of the past week illustrate the predicament a country that often preens itself as the world’s largest democracy finds itself in.

One was a vitriolic and graceless speech by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a farewell ceremony for Mohammad Hamid Ansari, who was stepping down after two terms as Vice-President. The other a prominent television anchor declaring that a panellist’s mention of the deaths of dozens of children in a hospital in Uttar Pradesh state was an attempt to divert attention from the real issue, which in her opinion was the rectitude of the state government’s order to Muslim schools to celebrate Independence Day with the recitation of a nationalist song entitled Vande Mataram (salute the motherland).

Modi said in his speech in Hindi (translation taken from thewire.in) addressing Ansari in the Rajya Sabha, the Indian parliament’s upper house which the Vice-President chairs:

“Your life was that of a career diplomat. I understood what being a career diplomat means only after becoming prime minister. Because the way they smile, the way they shake their hands has a meaning which a novice may not understand immediately. They are trained to do that. But that skill must have been useful for you in the last 10 years. Your skill must have benefitted the house in trying to manage contrarian voices within it.

“In your career as a diplomat, you spent most of your time in West Asia. You spent most of your life in that single circle, that environment, that way of thinking, among those people. Even after retirement, your work was similar, whether it be in the minorities commission or Aligarh Muslim University. More or less, your circle remained the same.
“But in the last 10 years, you had a different responsibility. Every minute, you had to work within the limitations of the constitution. And you worked to the best of your abilities. It is possible that you must have encountered restlessness in the process. But after today, you will not have to face even that dilemma. You will experience freedom and will be able to work, speak, and think according to what you really feel.”

By West Asia, the area generally referred to in western media as ‘the Middle East’, Modi meant Muslim countries. He neglected noting that Ansari had also served in other places such as Australia and that he had been a very active Permanent Representative of India in the United Nations before retiring as a diplomat. Modi also failed to mention that Ansari has served as ceremonial president of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, the Indian Council of World Affairs and other such bodies.

Modi’s clear attempt to depict the much respected former diplomat and scholar as someone steeped in a Muslim “circle” was breath-taking in its venality rarely matched by heads of governments or states.

Then again, Modi was clearly waiting to tick Ansari off for thinly veiled criticism of his government. Asked in an interview whether he had shared concerns over growing intolerance in India, Ansari said he had and when pressed as to whether he was satisfied with the response, said obliquely “Well, there is always an explanation and there is always a reason. Now it is a matter of judgment, whether you accept the explanation, you accept the reasoning and its rationale.”

A few days earlier, in a convocation speech at the National Law School of India University in Bangalore, Ansari said: “For many decades after independence, a pluralist view of nationalism and Indianness reflective of the widest possible circle of inclusiveness and a ‘salad bowl’ approach, characterised our thinking. More recently an alternate viewpoint of ‘purifying exclusivism’ has tended to intrude into and take over the political and cultural landscape. One manifestation of it is ‘an increasingly fragile national ego’ that threatens to rule out any dissent however innocent. Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’”
This was an unmistakable dig at the kind of polity ushered in by Modi since his Hindu chauvinist Bharatiya Janata Party came to head the central government in New Delhi in mid-2014. Of a piece with this style of governance, Modi chose as Chief Minister of the most populous state, a Hindu supremacist politician named Adityanath who has headed a militia named Hindu Yuva Vahini (youth brigade) that has been implicated in incidents of violence against Muslims.

It was Adityanath’s order for Muslim schools known as madrasas to celebrate Independence Day and provide proof thereof by video-recording the events that Times Now television channel anchor Navika Kumar was dealing with. She objected, during a panel discussion on prime time she was chairing, to the raising of the deaths of children in Adityanath’s own parliamentary constituency, Gorakhpur. About 70 deaths from encephalitis have occurred in a hospital there. A reference to these deaths on the leading television channel – a hyper-nationalist and Hindu supremacist version of Fox News – was what its anchor was objecting to.

It encapsulated in a few moments, along with Modi’s venom-filled speech, all that has gone wrong with India over the past 70 years. Instead of emerging as a vibrant, modern democracy, it is being led down an antediluvian path towards medieval bigotry.

N. Jayaram is a journalist now based in Bangalore after more than 23 years in East Asia (mainly Hong Kong and Beijing) and 11 years in New Delhi. He was with the Press Trust of India news agency for 15 years and Agence France-Presse for 11 years and is currently engaged in editing and translating for NGOs and academic institutions. He writes Walker Jay’s blog.

Courtesy: Open Democracy

#WomenFreedomFighters: Remembering Ahilya Rangnekar

August 16, 2017

She stitched the tricolour from saris and hoisted it from the prison walls

Image courtesy Frontline

Ahilya Rangnekar came from a progressive family influenced by the values of the social reform. The family’s four daughters, and the daughters-in-law were graduates. On 8 August 1942, in response to the declaration of the ‘Quit India’ movement, Ahilya joined the students in enforcing a strike in their college. On 15 August, hearing of the death of Gandhiji’s secretary Mahadevbhai Desai in jail, Ahilya led her student friends in a protest march, resulting in their arrest. They were sent to Yeravda jail as Class B prisoners for three months. In prison, she and her comrades worked with Class C prisoners who were given poorer quality of amenities and food. They mobilised women prisoners to donate coloured saris with which they stitched together and hoisted the Congress tricolour on the prison wall standing on a human pyramid. As punishment, Ahilya and co-inmate Indutai Kerkar were confined in a tiny cell for seven days.

Meanwhile, she was rusticated by Fergusson College and came to Mumbai to complete her graduation. She was drawn into the struggles of the mill workers and became active in the Girni Kamgar Union (Lal Bavta). In 1943, Ahilya joined the Communist Party of India. Along with other communist women freedom fighters, she formed the Parel Mahila Sangh to organise women in the Lalbagh-Parel area. They raised demands for maternity leave and better wages for women mill workers. With a strong base amongst the mill workers of Mumbai and their families, they took up the issue of the shortage of milk and other essential commodities during the war, forcing the government to supply them at controlled prices.

Mythily Sivaraman (standing) with (from right) Vimala Ranadive, Ahilya Rangnekar, Sushila Goplan and Papa Umanath at the 5th national conference of AIDWA held in Bangalore in 1998 / Image Courtesy: Frontline

During the Royal Indian Naval Ratings (RIN) Mutiny in February 1946, the Parel Mahila Sangh organised food for the striking sailors from the homes of mill workers and organised the Koli (fisher caste) women to deliver the food. In the firing by British soldiers on striking mill workers below Elphinstone Bridge at Parel on February 22, her comrade Kamal Donde was killed, her sister Kusum Ranadive was shot at in both her legs. Ahilya escaped. The Parel Mahila Sangh later became the Janwadi Mahila Sangh, the Maharashtra state unit of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA).

Following Independence, Ahilya was among the leaders of the struggle in support of the Hindu Code Bill of 1950, a movement spearheaded by Babasaheb Ambedkar and vehemently opposed by M.S. Golwalkar and others of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. She was renowned also for her fearless participation in the Samyukta Maharashtra movement that started in 1950, a role that prompted Acharya Atrey, the leading Marathi poet and writer, to refer to her as “Ranaragini Ahilya” in a poem.

Ahilya Rangnekar (right) leads a demonstration outside British Deputy High Commission in Bombay during August 1988, protesting against the Thatcher government’s support to the racist regime in South Africa and demanding the release of African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela. Image Courtesy: The Times Of India Group

She was elected corporator of the Bombay Municipal Corporation from 1961 and held that position for 19 years. Besides that she held several important positions in various left organisations. She later became the national working president of the AIDWA and in 2001, its patron. She was the secretary of the Maharashtra state unit of the CPI(M) from 1983 to 1986. She was the member of its Central Committee from 1978 to 2005. In 1975, she was elected to the General Council of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions and, in 1979, became its vice president.

She worked untiringly to improve civic amenities for the Mumbai’s poor and deprived. She had connections in different areas and worked among the poorest people — slum dwellers and shantytown dwellers; contract workers; anganwadi workers and home-based workers; and women who worked at home for no wages. She fought for the rights of women, for the rights of hutment dwellers; she fought for better water supply, and so on.

Despite frail health and failing eyesight in her last years, she continued to remain active and engaged with politics and people. Her last public appearance was on March 8, 2008, when she spoke at a women’s convention on the occasion of Women’s Day. Aged 87, she died in the early hours of 19 April 2009 in her home on Bhao Daji Road in Mumbai.

Published here with permission from AIDWA

UN chief concerned over India’s plan to deport Rohingya Muslims

August 16, 2017

The United Nations secretary general Antonio Guterres is concerned over reports that Rohingya Muslim refugees, both legal and unregistered, are possibly facing deportation from India.

Image: Hindustan Times

Denied citizenship status and classified as illegal immigrants, Rohingya Muslims have been the target of repeated violence with state connivance in Buddhist-majority Myanmar. The continuing persecution has forced the Rohingyas to flee and seek refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia. From Bangladesh, an estimated 40,000 Rohingyas have sought shelter in India.

The Union Minister of state for Home, Kiren Rijiju told Parliament last week that the Centre has asked state authorities to identify and deport illegal immigrants, including Rohingyas.

“Obviously, we have our concerns about the treatment of refugees,” Guterres’ Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq told during a regular briefing at UN Headquarters in New York. “Once refugees are registered, they are not to be returned back to countries where they fear persecution.”

According to doctrine in the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, no nation shall expel or return a refugee in any manner to territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.

Some of the 4,000 Rohingyas who have been living in the old city of Hyderabad told the Hindustan Times, “If sent back forcibly we’ll be killed.” Maulana Hameed-ul-Haq (50), a cleric at one of the Rohingya settlements in Balapur, says, “It will be better if we are killed in India than in our own country. We will anyway be killed if we are forcibly sent back.”

“The Indian government was kind enough to acknowledge us as refugees. The Telangana government has been looking after us really well and we feel safe and secure here. Now, suddenly the news about we being sent back has caused a lot of panic among us,” said the Maulana.

The UN spokesperson told the Dawn that UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) office would take up the issue with the Indian government. He reminded India of UN’s position against deporting refugees.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International has said deporting and abandoning the Rohingya would be “unconscionable,” according to an ANI report.

1...2,0302,0312,032...2,697 Page 2,031 of 2,697

US Religious Freedom Report Highlights Cow Vigilantism

In 2015, India Lost 2 Children Below Age 5 Every Minute

“… Seems like part of a bigger agenda to malign me personally”: former editor, EPW

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta responds to the claims made by some of his former colleagues in their letter to the trustees of Sameeksha Trust

Secular Indians Marched to Protect Democracy

The danger of supplementing aid to Africa with weapons

Increase military capability

Implications

India at 70: bigotry rules

“Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’”

#WomenFreedomFighters: Remembering Ahilya Rangnekar

She stitched the tricolour from saris and hoisted it from the prison walls

UN chief concerned over India’s plan to deport Rohingya Muslims

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT