No, dear Reverend Father, we can’t change our name to “Religion of Catholicism”. We remain Christians

April 29, 2017

Religious minorities are patently under pressure. Not just Muslims. All.

Catholic Bishops from UP meet CM Adityanath

Photo opportunities don’t always create a buzz. In normal times, the photo would make no news at all – a Sadhu in his saffron robes meeting other religious heads, in this case Catholic Bishops in their cassocks and kurtas and heavy Crosses on silver chains. Interfaith dialogue makes little news.

It was the posture. The saffron robed one sitting imperiously, the others facing him just a little distance too far for convivial dialogue.
UCAN, the Catholic news agency, told us the Catholic bishops of Uttar Pradesh called on the state's new chief minister, Yogi Adityanath, on April 21. The Yogi, said UCAN, “assured his government’s support and protection to practice Christian faith in the state”.

That was mighty kind and magnanimous of the chief minister. “He sounded very protective and welcoming,” UCAN quoted Metropolitan Archbishop Albert D’Souza of Agra, who led his sufragans.

This was the first such meeting after the Bharatiya Janata Party government took office riding a historic and sweeping victory in elections to the state legislature, defeating a coalition of the then ruling Samajwadi party and the Indian National Congress. The Dalit-focussed Bahujan Samaj Party of Mayawati sank, almost without a trace.

The Lucknow meeting, of course, was not meant to discuss any issue “but was a courtesy visit”. The Catholic Bishops Conference in high level delegations has often met the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Give unto Cesar what is due unto the ruler. It always makes for a nice photograph, a keepsake for one group, a propaganda tool for the ruler. Understandable.

One cannot live in a situation of a perpetual confrontation, specially if it is an entire, albeit microscopic, community of a bare 27 million in a national population of a billion and a quarter, with about 50,000 or so educational and medical institutions on the ground.

The chief minister told the bishops to contact his office directly in case of a problem.

The bishops seemed satisfied. “Christians have nothing to worry,” the chief minister had said.

Christians are a mere 0.18 percent of Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest and most populous state, not even a blimp on the radar, and concentrated in the old railway and military towns of Allahabad, Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Bareilly and Meerut, and in recent years, Noida which is home to migrant corporate workers from all over the country, including Kerala.

There was nonetheless some consternation among a section of the community, among them clergy, women religious, or Nuns, and lay persons, Catholic, and protestant.

There were also voices, fewer perhaps, but voices, supporting the bishops, welcoming the meeting. This is right and proper in a democratic society and a democratic community, although many would not agree to my definition of democracy in the Catholic church because of their own experiences with bishops in their dioceses, or priests in their parishes. I hold the Church is democratic, and that the Catholic church, specially under Pope Francis, offers a rare ray of hope not just to the denomination he leads from the Vatican near Rome, but to all mankind at this critical juncture when we seem on the brink of a nuclear confrontation.

But what worried me was a letter from a friend, a senior theologian specialising in finding common grounds between Indian culture and Christ’s message. Out of my abiding respect for him, I sanitise his mail, removing names, places and designations so that only close friends and acquaintances can venture a guess at his identity, and no other.

The operative part of the mail, after the salutations is:

My dear John,
I am planning to meet Yogi ji during my next visit.
We have a kind of equation whereby we respect one another while agreeing to disagree.
He has many doubts about Christian missionaries. In fact, I had suggested to our Bishops to meet him and express their solidarity with the good works he wants to do.

Let him know that the Catholic Church has a different approach.

In fact, I had requested the CBCI long ago to change the name of our religion in India to 'Catholicism'. We need not be victims of the folly of those who go around condemning others. Most people do not know the difference. For them all are 'Isai'. We can win over Yogi ji with love without much difficulty. He has not many 'advisers' around him. He stands on his own. He is accessible to all.”

This letter has scared me, I must admit.

I was reminded of a chapter I read in a text book of psychology, or was it sociology, that I read some 55 years ago as part of the history of science paper we had to read together with compulsory Hindi as the other requirement in Nehru’s India.

This was reverse of the well-known, and popular, thesis on How Not To Become Frog Soup, the one about frogs swimming in cold water put on the stove. They swim merrily till the water is at a certain temperature. They wriggle and try to scape. It is too late. The water boils. The frogs turn belly up. Other frogs in a control experiment are dropped in hot water. They feel the heat, instinctively jump and are clear of the pot, and the stove. They live.

The experiment I remembered was abut mice, in a cage. They were immersed in tub of water. Slowly. The mice took a sip, and started to swim. All animals can swim at birth, barring humans. The water rises. The mice swim a tad more vigorously. The water is now near the top of the cage, with barely a centimetre of air. The mice, now frantic in the crowded space and with no place to even swim, turn on each other. They bite with their sharp incisors. Some die even before they all drown.

Catholicism is a part of Christianity, which is so named after Jesus Christ whose command we all heed, loving each other as He loved us.

Religious minorities are patently under pressure. Not just Muslims. All.

And Christians are feeling the pressure. The Holy Week, in fact the ending fortnight of Lent, was traumatic in many areas. Police asked churches in some areas not to stage public processions on Palm Sunday and to keep all celebrations within church premises. As it is, Easter and Christmas in Delhi have been held under heavy police protection. Every church is guarded by razor wire, glass shards and close circuit TV. Private guards sit at the gates of most churches.

The divisions of dogma and doctrine between Catholics and Protestants, and between various groups of Protestants, were just an inner point of friction, ever a political instrument.

We seem to be entering a time of private negotiations, bilateral agreements of peace with the ruling dispensation and its political masters. This sort of a negotiation is usually, in other contexts, centred on buying individual or group peace.

There is a trade-off

In some cases, it is material. The ceding of some rights, the promise of silence, or overlooking some intransigence.

In other cases, it is leaving some weaker sheep to the wolves. There are too many folk tales from the old Russian masters narrating the flight of horse driven sleds on the frozen Siberian tundra with a pack of wolves chasing them. I will not complete this script.

But I think there is a ray of hope. There is a strong section that makes common cause with others on the margins, with other communities, and with civil society.

I quote from another letter, by another senior friend, shared on a catholic forum. This too will be unnamed.

“I do not have any objection in bishops meeting with Yogi. One major trend in Yogi, after his becoming the CM is that he has stopped making controversial anti-minority statements unlike he has been doing during the election period and earlier. But one statement he has made after becoming the CM is on 'Hindu Rashtra' which goes against the Constitution of India and it is detrimental to the very foundation of the Indian state. Did the bishops assume courage to express their mind on this issue? Similarly, the issue of closing the slaughterhouses has affected the livelihood of thousands of poor Muslims, who run these small-scale slaughterhouses and meat shops. As leaders of the Church, which has an option for the poor, did the bishops show courage to challenge the CM on this inhuman policy?”

UCAN did not cover this point.

New Policy Would Have Kept Me Out of JNU: Dalit PhD Scholar

April 28, 2017

My achievement as a student coming from a government school and from a deprived background from down south of this country is a matter of pride not just to me, my family and my community but also a moment of pride for my institution (JNU), imagined by the people of this country to be an inclusive university.

I am one of the fortunate PhD scholars lucky enough to study in JNU. I am a Dalit woman. My mother is my family’s main breadwinner and my father struggles as a daily wager. I have two siblings who are younger than me. My mother is a low paid private school teacher today because of the education, which her single mother provided to her.

My maternal grandmother who became a widow at a young age, didn’t sit inside the house after her husband passed away, she works as a sanitation worker even today, a profession that is considered a taboo by her community people. It is the hard work of these two women that has helped me reach this position.

Because of my family situation my school education was scattered all over Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. I never studied in one school for more than two years. So one can understand how many types of schools and people I have experienced with. I started my schooling in a convent in Pondicherry. Then I went to three matriculation schools before I completed my 6^th standard; after that because of my family’s economic condition I was put in Government and aided schools from class 7 till the completion of class 12.

Irrespective of changing schools every alternate year I was good at my studies, I was always encouraged and motivated by my friends and by my teachers. I was always fortunate when it came to teachers: teachers stood by me in all my obstacles throughout my education wherever I went and JNU has been no exception to this.

I stood first throughout my schooling but my board exam marks were not sufficient for an engineering or medical seat. Since I liked English Literature and my marks in that subject were very high, I applied for a BA in English in Salem’s famous Sarada College for Women. When the results came, my parents looked for my name first in the SC list, but when they couldn’t find my name there, they thought I didn’t get a seat. But then my mother thought to look for it in the open category list, and found it at rank three there. My parents were very happy and I was admitted.

During my graduation I stood first in curricular and co-curricular activities in the final year of my graduation and because of my achievements I was made the Secretary of the students union in the college. (I don’t think that an SC had ever been selected as a secretary of that college before me). Finally I graduated with a First rank in BA English Literature and with the honor of being the Best Outgoing Student of the year 2013.

My mother’s education made us aware of the facilities in Central Universities and helped her three children write entrance exams for Central universities. Admission to JNU had a huge impact on my life, and my family’s living conditions. Her first daughter (me) wrote the JNU entrance for MA in Linguistics and was admitted into JNU with the help of woman’s deprivation points, (a unique feature of JNU’s now scrapped admission policy) in the SC quota.

During my Masters in Linguistics at JNU, I was exposed to Chomsky’s generative linguistics, not usually taught in most other Indian universities. I was always keen to apply whatever I learned from the courses taught to my mother tongue, Tamil, and my second language, Malayalam. As I progressed through my MA course work, my curiosity about these two languages led me to discover more about Dravidian languages and Linguistic theories. The turning point in my career as a linguist was a research paper on Tamil that I wrote in a Chomskyan syntax course in the third semester of my Master’s degree, a topic that has grown into my PhD work.

When I appeared for the JNU MPhil/PhD entrance examination, with a first class degree in MA Linguistics from JNU, there was no seat cut; this Dalit woman, raised by the sweat and blood of her grandmother and mother, used her knowledge she got in her MA from JNU and made it through a highly competitive selection to the MPhil/PhD programme. She secured the first rank in the open category, and also a JRF. (Although the irregular disbursal of the JRF by JNU/UGC causes frequent tension, as I need the money to meet not only my own expenses but also the needs of my younger siblings’ education. I am frequently forced to borrow money from friends and acquaintances, leaving me in debt for most of the year.)

This achievement by a student coming from a government school and from a deprived background from down south of this country is a matter of pride not just to me, my family and my community but also a moment of pride for my institution, imagined by the people of this country to be an inclusive University. Today I am a proud independent woman who shoulders the burden once carried by her mother and her aging grandmother. JNU and other such public institutions have played a huge role in making me.

Unfortunately the new admission policy in JNU has dictated that there will be zero admissions in my Centre, as in many others in JNU, for this academic year. This move, using the pretext of some UGC regulations, actually shuts the doors of social mobility for various students from deprived communities like me. Our success is not just an individual’s achievement but a brighter hope for our family and community. And given the fact that many PhD students in JNU are women, these new regulations will have a great impact on woman’s higher education in our country.

If such a seat cut was implemented in my time, what would have I done with my MA degree in linguistics? Given the high cost of education in other universities, I would have probably gone back to my hometown. Since I am a woman, society would have pressurized my parents about my marriage and my dream to be the first PhD in my family would have been buried. Is this what we want the woman in this nation to do? Bury their dreams of a better life?

Rajamathangi S is a PhD Scholar at Center for Linguistics, JNU

This article was first published on Kafila.

India at par with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt in violation of religious freedom, reports US body on human rights

April 28, 2017

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has alleged that 10 of the 29 Indian states are suffering from severe religious rights violation, and blamed Hindu nationalist groups for the situation.

In its 2017 Annual Report released yesterday on the state of religious freedom in selected countries, USCIRF has put India with countries like Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkey and several other countries.

India is put in Tier 2 where religious freedom violation is severe but does not fully meet the CPC, Country of Particular Concern standard. Bahrain too shares the same tier with India for cracking down on its Shi’a Muslim majority.

USCIRF has shown concern not only for minority communities but also for Dalits.

“Hindu nationalist groups—such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Sangh Parivar, and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)—and their sympathizers perpetrated numerous incidents of intimidation, harassment, and violence against religious minority communities and Hindu Dalits,” said USCIRF in the report.

The annual report broadly mentions the fund-cutting cases of various NGOs and puts it with several other factors like the religious conversion, cow slaughter which are eventually helping these conditions in getting severe.

USCIRF further said, “National and state laws that restrict religious conversion, cow slaughter, and the foreign funding of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and a constitutional provision deeming Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains to be Hindus helped create the conditions enabling these violations.”

The 10 states which are of concern for USCIRF are Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. USCIRF has warned that religious freedom violations in some of these states are ‘systematic’ and ‘egregious’ which may put them under CPC standards.

The report talks about members from Muslim community and Dalit community who have been facing tough times due to Article 48, which prohibits cow slaughter in 25 out of 29 states of India.

“The application of these legal provisions also economically marginalizes Muslims and Dalits (who adhere to various religious faiths), many of whom work in the beef or leather industries. During the reporting period, there were a number of incidents of Muslims and Dalits being charged under these laws or subject to violence based on such accusations,” the report said.

The report also talks about the Anti-conversion laws – which are being practiced in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Odisha – which makes choice of religion a crime. The report finds flaws in the anti-conversion and says, “While the laws purportedly protect religious minorities from forced conversions, they are one-sided, only concerned about conversions away from Hinduism but not toward Hinduism.”

It adds, “Observers note that these laws create a hostile and, on occasion, violent environment for religious minority communities because they do not require any evidence to support accusations of wrongdoing.”

USCIRF acknowledged the role of BJP president Amit Shah who dared opposition and made a call for enacting anti-conversion law across the country six months after the BJP came to power in 2014.

The report also mentions how cracking down of NGOs citing FCRA regulation has made the matter worse for the country and is “detrimental to the national interest”.

USCIRF separately talks about violence against Muslims, Christians and Schedule castes and tribes that happened in the year 2016. It also talks about how so-called cow protection has served as a fuel for religious violence and how it has provided impunity to the accused personnel.

“Based on these concerns, in 2017 USCIRF again places India on its Tier 2, where it has been since 2009”, the report said.

When USCIRF team tried to visit India during March 2016, the Indian government failed to issue visas to the team members even though they had full support from the US State Department and US Embassy New Delhi. The failure came out as a denial, which State Department spokesperson John Kirby termed as a disappointment. The Indian government had previously denied visa to USCIRF in 2001 and 2009.

USCIRF has recommended to US Government that it should press Indian government for providing enough training and education on human rights violation; to sack and rebuke government officials and religious leaders who pass derogatory remarks; to repeal and amend anti-conversion law which are not according to international human rights standards and to allow USCIRF officials to visit the country.

Courtesy: Two Circles

For a Syrian refugee’s zest for life, think of Zozan Hassan Khalil

April 28, 2017

Given her grit and determination, Zozan is bound to go places; her hopes will surely become a reality one day!

Zozan

There is a steely determination in Zozan. As one listens to this 25-year old woman, one cannot but feel that she will go places. In a very casual way, she shares what she would like to do most in life: to learn new languages and to travel to distant lands.

In some ways, Zozan Hassan Khalil has begun doing both. She has already crossed international boundaries but as a refugee. When the war in Syria became just too bad, together with her parents, brother and sister, Zozan had to flee in February 2013, their native town of Al-Hasakah, in northeast Syria. It was not an easy journey. The vehicle driver who brought them had the ‘right connections’ at the various checkpoints. They eventually made it into the Kurdistan area of Iraq. Then carrying their few possessions they walked through the mountainous terrain right up to Dohuk.It was not easy, but they now felt safer.

Zozan looks back at the days in Al- Hasakah. She was a student doing her engineering studies when war broke out. Life was comfortable until then. Al- Hasakah a city with a historic past was home to an ethnically diverse population of Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians and Armenians. She is filled with nostalgia as she remembers her home of her childhood and teenage years. A wave of sadness overwhelms her as she thinks of the violence that has gripped so much of Syria, “there is too much of killing; it will take a long time for peace to return to Syria,” she says with teary eyes.

Her family finally settled in Ankawa in Erbil. Adjusting to a new city, culture and environment was not easy. Nevertheless, Zozan took everything in her stride. Her elder sister is married and settled in Ozal, about 25 kms away from Ankawa. She called Zozan one day to inform her that a team from the JRS Centre in Ozal had come to visit her family. The JRS team had also informed her that the JRS was conducting various programmes for refugees and IDPs. At that time, Zozan was looking for opportunities to do something in life. She immediately contacted the JRS Centre in Ankawa and from then on, she began a new chapter in her life.

She enrolled, for not one, but for three courses at the JRS Centre: English, Kurdish and Computer Education. Three courses at the same time? Rupina Khachik, the JRS Project Director chips in “We allowed her to do all three courses because we saw that she was determined to do so! Zozan came out with flying colours in all of them. We are proud of her!” Zozan says she enjoyed doing the courses .The JRS Centre soon became a second home for her. She was given a sense of belonging and acceptance, “I was never treated as someone different: as a Syrian or a refugee. I was made to feel that I belonged here!” She goes on to add, “I have made many new friends coming to JRS, from different religions, nationalities and ethnicities.”

Zozan is effusive about the courses. “They were really very good and so were the teachers. JRS also helped her through some short-term courses, ‘How to write a CV’ and ‘Preparing for a Job Interview’. Zozan feels that JRS empowered her and enabled her to get a good job, as an Administrative Assistant in a Company. A couple of months ago her father died due to a painful illness. She misses him. However, for Zozan life goes on.

Zozan has dreams of going back to Syria one day; of imparting the skills that she has learnt from JRS with others in her country, who are less fortunate. As she shares her dreams, an endearing smile lights up a face. Given her grit and determination, Zozan is bound to go places; her hopes will surely become a reality one day!

Why blame judiciary for granting Pragya Thakur bail when investigative agencies show no spine?

April 28, 2017

India’s investigating agencies have often demonstrated that they follow the directives of the party in power in the Centre.

“RIP Indian justice” was the message going around on social media the moment Pragya Thakur, among the most famous faces of “saffron terror”, got bail on Tuesday.

This is the first time Thakur has been granted bail since her arrest in October 2008 for her alleged role in the Malegaon blasts that year that killed six Muslims. Immediately after her arrest, she applied for bail under normal bail provisions only to have her application turned down right up to the Supreme Court.

After the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act was applied to the case, bail became difficult for the accused. Yet, Thakur kept on applying. She was turned down both by the trial courts and the High Court in 2012, 2014, and finally once again in November 2015.

This repeated denial of bail made it clear that given the evidence on record against Thakur, no court was inclined to give her even temporary freedom from jail.

Suddenly in May last year, the evidence against her changed drastically. From being one of the two main accused in the case, she became a non-player. How did this happen?

‘No objection to bail’

Two key witnesses who had given incriminating statements against Thakur to Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad, the agency that initiated the investigation into the blasts, changed their statements after the National Investigative Agency re-examined them. Three others had also implicated her, but of them, one had died, one was said to be “missing”, and the third had already retracted his statement earlier.

It is not clear why the National Investigative Agency, which took over the case in 2011, suddenly decided in late 2015 to re-examine witnesses. According to media reports, the central agency was all set to file a charge sheet in the case in 2014 when Narendra Modi’s government was voted in at the Centre. The investigation was then reportedly handed over to another officer.

In May last year, the agency submitted a supplementary charge sheet declaring that there was no evidence against Pragya Thakur and five others and dropping Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act charges against all 12 accused. This was a green signal for the accused to apply for bail.

In June, the National Investigation Agency told the special NIA court that it had no objection to Pragya Thakur’s bail.

The blast in Malegaon in 2008 killed seven people. (Photo credit: HT).

Normally, once the prosecution says it has no objection to the accused getting bail, the court does not refuse bail, even if in its view, there exists a prima facie case against the accused. How important the prosecution’s say is can be seen from another case where the accused was a prominent person. In 2001, Ram Dev Tyagi, former Mumbai Police Commissioner and prime accused in the Suleman Usman Bakery case of the 1992-’93 Mumbai riots, was granted bail by sessions judge Abhay Thipsay despite the judge’s observation that there existed a prima facie case of murder against Tyagi. At that time, on being repeatedly asked by the court, the special public prosecutor kept replying that he had no objection to Tyagi’s bail.

But for Thakur, things did not go as expected. Taking everyone by surprise, the special NIA court refused bail to her in June despite the investigating agency’s no objection. Not just that, presiding judge SD Tekale asked why the agency had re-examined witnesses. He pointed out that the Anti-Terrorism Squad investigation had to be considered along with the National Investigation Agency’s, and that Thakur had been present at a meeting held in Bhopal to plan the blasts, and also owned the motorcycle used in the blasts.

Judge Tekale also allowed an intervener to oppose Thakur’s bail application. Malegaon resident Sayyed Nisar’s 19-year-old son was killed in the 2008 blasts. The High Court bail order records that the NIA court noted that since no one was objecting to the accused getting bail, in order to have a “fair hearing” on the point of bail, it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to the intervener who was the “real aggrieved person”.

In the Bombay High Court

On the same grounds, the Bombay High Court also allowed Nisar to intervene when Thakur appealed against the special court’s rejection of her bail.

The 78-page order signed by Justice Ranjit More and Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi of the Bombay High Court, rejected the defence’s arguments on two grounds, but ruled in Thakur’s favour on the crucial ground of whether she deserves bail for her role in the crime. The reasons are:

The judges doubted that the motorcycle used for the blasts was the one owned by Thakur. Presuming it was, they pointed out that “much prior” to the blasts, it was being used by another accused.
The judges found contradictions in witness statements against Thakur. While two witnesses told the Anti-Terrorism Squad that she had offered to provide men to execute the blast, two others present at the planning meeting in Bhopal said nothing incriminating against her. The court noted that the former two had retracted their statements when re-examined by the NIA, and also alleged torture by the Anti-Terrorism Squad. But even without taking into account the retractions and allegations of torture, the contradictions in the statements, says the order, are enough.

Hence, says the order, “it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations made against her are prima facie true”. The judges also give consideration to Thakur’s defence that she is a woman suffering from cancer. This plea had been rejected by all courts earlier.
Once a court says there is no prima facie evidence against an accused, the latter files for discharge. Thakur has already done so.

Comparisons with Rubina Memon

This case is being compared to the Rubina Memon case. Memon was sentenced to life imprisonment in the March 12, 1993, bomb blasts case because a van used to plant bombs was registered in her name. The court rejected her argument that she had shifted to Dubai eight months before the blasts, and had no idea what the van was being used for.

But there is a difference between the two cases. As an under trial, Memon remained on bail almost through the entire 12 years of the trial, though the draconian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act was applied to the case. When she was convicted in 2006, she was out on bail. She remained in custody for a year before she got interim bail again. However, after she was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007, Memon has been denied bail and even furlough.

Rubina Memon at a TADA court in Mumbai in 2007. (Photo credit: Pal Pillai/AFP).

In contrast, Pragya Thakur has been in custody as an under trial from the time she was arrested nine years ago.

There is another comparison which indeed makes the Bombay High Court’s grant of bail to Pragya Thakur unsettling. Innocent Muslims have remained in jail for periods ranging from five to 14 years on false terror charges, without bail, till their acquittal. Except in two cases, no agency has come forward to further investigate the false cases against them. Ironically, in one of the two cases, it was the National Investigation Agency that proved to be their saviour, when it found Hindutva terrorists were responsible for the 2006 Malegaon blasts, instead of the nine Muslims arrested by the Anti-Terrorism Squad.

In defence of the judiciary

But can all these factors be used to cast a slur on the judiciary? The same judges who granted Pragya Thakur bail, refused bail to her co-accused Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Purohit. After the NIA court dropped Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act charges in the case in 2009, the Bombay High Court restored them in 2010. In 2015, the Supreme Court that denied Purohit and Thakur bail, asked the NIA court to hear their bail applications on merits, without applying Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act provisions. Again, it was a sessions judge who discharged the Muslims falsely accused in the 2006 Malegaon blasts, though the National Investigating Agency opposed their discharge.

In 2015, Rohini Salian, NIA special public prosecutor in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case, had gone public about being asked to “go soft” on the accused ever since the BJP government came to power. Reacting to Thakur’s bail, Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Pravin Togadia appealed to the government to withdraw all cases against Hindus in jail for such cases, instead of “single case tokenism”.

So, instead of blaming the judiciary, should we not be asking ourselves why we repose so much faith in our investigative agencies? Be it the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Anti-Terrorism Squad or the National Investigation Agency, all of them have demonstrated that they simply follow the directives of the party in power at the Centre.

Instead of “RIP Indian judiciary”, the social media message should have been “RIP Indian investigative agencies”.

This article was first published on Scroll.in

‘Gau rakshaks’ on the rampage, yet again: Three tribals attacked in Udupi over alleged cow slaughter

April 28, 2017

13 ‘gau rakshaks’ booked by Karnataka police in connection with the assault

Reuters image (for representational purpose only).

Now add adivasis to Muslims and Dalits in the hit list of self-styled ‘gau rakshaks’ on the rampage in state after state.

In the latest such incident, the Karnataka police has booked 13 gau rakshaks for allegedly thrashing three Koraga tribal community youths after accusing them of slaughtering a cow at Hosadu in Udupi district, the Indian Express reports.

The accused include Sunil Poojari, Chandrakanth Poojari, Gururaja Acharya and 10 others on the basis of a complaint filed by one Shakuntala, whose house was attacked.

They assailants have been booked under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 506, 324, 504 and under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In her complaint Shakuntala has alleged that the gang led by Sunil Poojari entered her house around 12.30 am on Monday and assaulted her kin Harish, Mahesh and Srikanth at Ganadamakki Koragara Colony in Hosadu.

Meanwhile, the police have also charged Harish, Mahesh and Srikanth for allegedly slaughtering cows illegally at their home under the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Preservation of Animals Act, 1964.

Additional Superintendent of Police (Udupi district) N Vishnuvardhan told the Indian Express that Mahesh, Harish and Srikanth were arrested and later released on bail. But the police was still looking for the attackers, who have reportedly gone underground.

“No, You Don’t Remember Kunan Poshpora, or Rapes in Kashmir”: Essar Batool

April 28, 2017

ICF interviews the co-author of Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora?

February 23 is commemorated as Kashmir Women's Resistance Day, in remembrance of the brave and ardous struggle for justice against the rapes allegedly committed by the Indian Army, on the intervening night of February 23 and February 24, in 1991. The Jammu and Kashmir police officially called the case "closed as untraced", until they learnt that a PIL was going to be filed by a group of Kashmiri women. The process of filing the PIL, as well as the struggle for justice so far, has been recorded in Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora?, published by Zubaan. Souradeep Roy and Vidhya from the Indian Cultural Forum, speaks to Essar Batool, one of the co-authors of the book in a three part interview:

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

Arguments in Zakia Jafri case implicating top netas, cops and babus in 2002 carnage to conclude tomorrow in Gujarat HC

April 27, 2017

The tortuous round of proceedings in the famed Zakia Jafri case wound down to the final arguments today, April 27 in the Gujarat High Court; after tomorrow it’s the Day of Judgement

The Zakia Jafri case is an attempt to establish criminal and administrative responsibility for the mass and targeted crimes that took place in Gujarat in 2002 (from February until August 2002).It is the case of the complainant that the failures by the political and administrative machinery were not just departmental lapses but were criminal offences in respect of which each of the accused needs to be criminally prosecuted. The complainant an her legal aid team has galvanised 7122 pages of direct evidence from the investigation papers and garnered these to make a strong argument to issue process (charge sheet) the powerful accused. The complaint seeks to lay out evidence to prove that the approximately 300 incidents that broke out all over the state of Gujarat and continued for over six months in 2002 (till at least the visit of the CEC Lyndoh who did not allow early elections) took place as the result of this wider conspiracy.

Arguments for the complainant, Zakia Jafri began in the Gujarat High Court on August 4 2015. It had taken over two years for translations to take place in the High Court. Thereafter there have been about eight hearings in all of two days each and today is the last batch of hearings before the judge closes the case and delivers her judgement. Justice Sonia Gokhani is hearing the matter in the High Court. Twenty four volumes of annexures compiling this direct evidence that runs into 7122 pages have been filed by the petitioner in the High Court. The actual criminal revision is itself 540 pages long.

Senior counsel Mihir Desai, MM Tirmizi, Mihir Joshi appeared for the complainant Smt Jafri assisted by the civil rights group Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Tomorrow will be the day for the Special Investigation Team, formerly head by ex-CBI head RK Raghavan to respond. Smt Jafri filed a criminal revision application in the Gujarat High Court (205/2014) on March 15, 2014 after Magistrate Ganatra rejected the Protest Petition filed by her on April 15, 2013. The magistrate had rejected the petition after rigorous hearings over 25 days conducted before him from April to September 2013. He delivered his judgement on December 26, 2013.

Detailed Background of the Case
Zakia Jafri filed a Complaint dated June 8, 2006 concerning various aspects of the events which took place in 2002 in Gujarat. The Complaint was made to various agencies which did not take note of the same and hence a Petition was filed in Gujarat High Court which was dismissed on November 2, 2007 against which an SLP was filed. Supreme Court asked a Special Investigative Team to investigate and an amicus was appointed. Finally SIT stated that the investigation was complete and therefore on September 12, 2011 the Supreme Court stopped monitoring the matter and asked SIT to file its Final Report before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. SIT filed final report before the Magistrate on February 8, 2012 being a closure report and the Petitioner filed a Protest Petition that was over 1,000 pages on April 15, 2013. (The Judgment of the Magistrate accepting the Closure Report was given on December 26, .2013. This Judgment is under Revision).

The complaint of Zakia Jafri runs into about 119 pages making allegations against 62 persons (political functionaries, bureaucrats, police and private individuals). The allegations pertain to conspiracy, abetment, negligence, failure to perform duties by public servants and hate speech. Three Reports were filed by the SIT before the Supreme Court. The first Report was filed by by AK. Malhotra dated May 12, 2010; the second report by Himanshu Shukla (Crime Branch, Ahmedabad) dated November 17, 2010 and the report styled as report u/s 173 (8) (after further investigation was ordered by the Supreme Court on March 15, 2011) was dated April 24, 2011. During this historic process Raju Ramchandran, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, ho had been appointed Amicus Curiae in the case filed two reports- the first was dated January 20, 2011 and and the second one dated July 25, 2011. The Supreme Court was faced with a piquant situation when the investigation team appointed by it (SIT) came to the conclusion that there was no material to prosecute the powerful accused whereas the amicus appointed by it opined to the contrary. The first accused in the complaint is the then chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. The final judgment of the Supreme Court came to be passed on September 12, 2011 and the Closure Report was filed on February 8, 2012.

The complainant Zakia Jafri was not even called by the investigating agency as is the norm or requirement under law, despite her repeated communications to the SIT between September 2011 and February 2012. All the investigation papers were handed over to the petitioner only after a further order of Supreme Court dated February 7, 2013. Before that senior counsel had to make several arguments before the Magistrate before getting access to 23,000 pages of the investigation papers in April 2012. After this, on 15.4.2013 the Protest Petition was filed.

The SIT in its Closure Report has treated the Complaint as having made 32 allegations which have been separately dealt with and negated. Magistrate has in his Judgment upheld the findings of the SIT in respect of each of the 32 allegations.

In the course of the arguments today, the petitioners have argued that apart from the 32 allegations crystallised by SIT there are certain other allegations which have been totally ignored by SIT and also by the magistrate in his Judgment which is under challenge.

Senior Counsel from Mumbai Mihir Desai making arguments today argued that the issue before the Court is whether the events after the Godhra carnage were
(a) spontaneous outpouring of people;
(b) which could not have been anticipated, prevented or controlled
or it is likely that
(a) they were part of a conspiracy which was hatched by certain people in power politically and administratively to create an environment whereby targeted violence was allowed to be unleashed on the minority community where hate speeches and hate writing were continually deployed; and
(b) in carrying out this conspiracy or otherwise certain public servants including Ministers, police, bureaucracy or other individuals aided and abetted the events.

He strongly argued that it was the petitioners case that those named in the Complaint are guilty of the following offences:

Conspiracy (Sections 120A, 120B, 34, 149 of IPC and Section 10 of Evidence Act)
Abetment (Sections 107 to 120 of IPC)
Failure to perform duties by Public Servants (Sections 166, 167, 217, 218, 221 of IPC)
Criminal Negligence (Section 304A of IPC)
Hate Speech (Sections 153A, 153B, 504 and 505 of IPC)

Conspiracy

It is not the case of the Petitioner that the train burning was a result of conspiracy by the accused. The conspiracy was to ensure that what happened in Godhra was not confined to Godhra but taken to other parts of Gujarat which allowed violence to take place. The conspiracy was to ensure that if an incident of communal violence (such as Godhra) takes place there is sufficient hatred generated that violence will explode all over the State.

The counsel further argued that the conspiracy was at four levels:

To generate and allow to be generated and deepen feeling of hatred towards a particular community prior to the train incident:

The evidence for this include (1) IB Messages and (2) Statements made in Sting operation (3) Hate Writing through VHP Pamphlets and Hate Speeches of the BJP and VHP Leaders on television and in the media

The second component of the conspiracy involved the actions from the time of train burning in the morning of 27.2.2002 till the mass violence started on 28.2.2002.

This involves the following components:

Telephonic conversation by A.1 with VHP leader
Statement issued in the Assembly
Statement of A.1 while in Assembly
Post Mortems conducted in the open;
Handing over the dead bodies in Godhra to a private individual
Parading of the bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad
Violence in Sabarmati express between Godhra and Ahmedabad
Meeting held at the residence of the Chief Minister on the night of 27.2.2002 where effectively the police were asked to go slow on riots which start as a response to the train incident
Mobs Gathered at the Sola Civil Hospital who took out Funeral Processions in Ahmedabad and Districts Parading the Dead Bodies of the Godhra Train Victims

Besides the counsel argued that
No Action for Preventing Violence

Bandh call supported
No preventive arrests
No curfew imposed till very late
No Army deployed till very late

The third component played out DURING VIOLENCE

Police abdicating duty as evident from

Firing episodes
Not responding to calls
Not imposing curfew
Widespread demolition of mosques, etc.
Fire brigade access (non response of the Police to Frantic Calls received by the Fire Brigade Messages)

Army was called in late and deployed even later
Ministers placed in control room

The fourth component was Subversion of Law after Violence

Non filing of FIRs and false FIRs filed
No relief camps set up/ Hardly any provisions given for relief camps and no rehabilitation of victims
Public Prosecutors of certain ideological bent appointed to sabotage the cases
Illegal instructions given by the politicians to the police and bureaucrats
The police who acted against the rioters punished while those who allowed the carnage favoured
False reporting to Constitutional Authorities
Destruction of and Tampering with evidence
Misleading the NHRC, Election Commission, etc. And even the Government of India (on scale and extent of violence)

4 Types of Conspirators

Section of political estalbishment
Section of the Bueracracy
Section of the Police
Some private organisations/ individuals

8. Abetment at Two Levels

(a) Those who were part of conspiracy

(b) Those who were not part of the conspiracy

(a) Those who abated by actions

(b) Those who abated by omissions

9. Public Servants Liable at the Following Levels

Violating the law
Failure to perform duty
Criminal Negligence
Command Responsibility

10. Hate Speech

Those who are directly involved in hate speech
No action by police or political establishment whose consent and action was required
Attempt to thwart investigation into hate speech

11. Evidence

Statements of R.B. Sreekumar
Statement of Rahul Sharma
Statement of Sanjiv Bhatt
Statements of Justice Sawant and Justice Suresh
Statements of former chief minister Gujarat Suresh Mehta and Vithalbhai Pandya, father of Haren Pandya
IB Messages (SIB Messages-State Intelligence Bureau Messages)
Phone records
Diary (Confidential Contemporary Register)of Sreekumar
Sting Operation by Tehelka
Reports of Constitutional Authorities
Hate speeches (Texts and Videos)
Judgments of various courts concerning riots

The Criminal Revision Application (CRA 205/2014) deals with the complete failure of the Supreme Court appointed SIT to adequately probe the evidence on the above lines despite there being substantial primary evidence that points to the need for a prosecution.

The overall context also cannot be lost sight of:

2 trials i.e. of Bilquis Bano and Best Bakery transferred out of Gujarat by the order of Supreme Court and in both cases the Mumbai Courts have convicted offenders. For the first time NHRC itself decides to approach the Supreme Court
NHRC Reports dated 1.4.2002 and July, 2002 (Annexure L)
Election Commission Report (Annexure L)
Editors guild Report (Annexure N)
8 trials stayed by Supreme Court at the instance of NHRC and subsequently SIT appointed by Supreme Court with directions to appoint special judges and special public prosecutors for these cases.
2000 Cases ordered to be reopened by the Supreme Court
Demolished religious places directed to be rebuilt by the Gujarat High Court (Annexure L)
For the first time Chief Secretary and DGP (Chakravarthi) are personally summoned and examined by the Supreme Court in open Court on 19 September, 2003 (p.566 Ann B)
A Tribunal headed by 2 retired Supreme Court judges finds that there was conspiracy, abetment and hate speech.

Substantive judicial precedents were garnered by the legal team in the course of arguments. In the Supreme court between 2008-2010 senior advocate, Sanjay Parikh and Kamini Jaiswal assisted by Aparna Bhat and Ramesh Pukhrambam had appeared for Zakia Jafri and the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

Within eight days of the rejection of the protest petition the crime branch of the Ahmedabad police registered an FIR against Tanvir Jafri, Salim Sandhi, Firoz Gulzar Pathan, Javed Anand and Teesta Setalvad alleging misappropriation of funds. This FIR and subsequent intimidation in refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the office bearers of CJP (Setalvad and Anand) have been seen as brazen attempts by the state to prevent the appeal against the rejection of the protest petition.

Related Articles:

The Importance of the Zakia Jafri Petition Hearings to Resume on April 6-7, 2016
The End of Impunity: Gujarat 2002

1...2,1252,1262,127...2,697 Page 2,126 of 2,697

No, dear Reverend Father, we can’t change our name to “Religion of Catholicism”. We remain Christians

Religious minorities are patently under pressure. Not just Muslims. All.

New Policy Would Have Kept Me Out of JNU: Dalit PhD Scholar

India at par with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt in violation of religious freedom, reports US body on human rights

For a Syrian refugee’s zest for life, think of Zozan Hassan Khalil

Given her grit and determination, Zozan is bound to go places; her hopes will surely become a reality one day!

Why blame judiciary for granting Pragya Thakur bail when investigative agencies show no spine?

India’s investigating agencies have often demonstrated that they follow the directives of the party in power in the Centre.

‘No objection to bail’

In the Bombay High Court

Comparisons with Rubina Memon

In defence of the judiciary

‘Gau rakshaks’ on the rampage, yet again: Three tribals attacked in Udupi over alleged cow slaughter

13 ‘gau rakshaks’ booked by Karnataka police in connection with the assault

“No, You Don’t Remember Kunan Poshpora, or Rapes in Kashmir”: Essar Batool

ICF interviews the co-author of Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora?

Arguments in Zakia Jafri case implicating top netas, cops and babus in 2002 carnage to conclude tomorrow in Gujarat HC

The tortuous round of proceedings in the famed Zakia Jafri case wound down to the final arguments today, April 27 in the Gujarat High Court; after tomorrow it’s the Day of Judgement

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT