Set up Information and Facilitation Centres with each public authority to help RTI applicants
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has put out the following issues that need to be part of a mass campaign:
Excerpts from suggestions* of the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) on the proposed Right to Information (RTI) Rules, 2017: Several provisions of the RTI Act are not being properly implemented due to the absence of rules. Therefore, we suggest that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) frame rules on the following issues through public consultation:
Compliance with Section 4– In order to ensure compliance with section 4, DoPT must take appropriate steps, through framing of rules, to operationalise and implement the recommendation made by a committee set up under the chairmanship of Shri Devesh Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary – DOPT to examine the report of the committee of experts on suo motu disclosures (report available from https://goo.gl/wc0c0b), that compliance with Section 4 be included as one of the performance indicators in the annual performance appraisal report (APAR) of the HoDs of public authorities.
Accessing information about private bodies- Formulate rules, pertaining to accessing information about private bodies under section 2(f), to specify the obligations of private bodies under the RTI Act and to clarify the procedure to be adopted by PAs in accessing and providing such information to the applicants.
Information and Facilitation Centres- The role of the PIO, as envisaged under the RTI Act, is to provide assistance to persons seeking information and facilitate them in the process (Section 5(3)). Section 6(1) requires the PIO to render all reasonable assistance to a person making an information request orally and also reduce the same in writing. Despite more than 11 years of the implementation of the RTI Act in India, in most public authorities no mechanism to assist information seekers has been put in place. Therefore, it is suggested that ‘Information and Facilitation Centres’ (IFCs) be set up in each public authority. These centres could keep copies of Section 4 disclosures of the public authority, copies of citizen charters, applications forms for various services, and also facilitate the process of filing applications under the RTI Act. The proposal to set up IFCs was also approved by the committee set up by the DOPT to examine proactive disclosures (report available from https://goo.gl/wc0c0b). Till such time that IFCs are set up, it must be ensured that in every public authority mechanisms are adopted whereby information seekers can directly contact the PIO and seek his/her assistance in filing an information application.
Suggested time-frame for disposal of appeals and complaints- Second appeals and complaints before the information commission should be disposed of as speedily as possible and preferably the final order should be no later than 90 days from the filing of an appeal or a complaint.
Appropriate level of officers designated as “Registrar” of the Commission– In order to ensure that officials of adequately senior level are designated as “Registrars” to the Commission, the rules must specify that no officer below the rank of Under Secretary to the Government of India can be designated as a “Registrar” as defined in Rule 2(h) of the proposed RTI Rules, 2017.
MIS for uploading RTI applications and responses – In order to streamline the process of uploading RTI applications and responses, we suggest that rules for a publicly accessible MIS be framed which would, in addition to providing the RTI application and reply, also display relevant dates, status of the RTI application and details of PIO before whom the matter is pending.
Rules related to appointment of information commissioners- The issue of lack of transparency in the appointment of information commissioners has been widely debated since the enactment of the RTI Act. Therefore, to establish a transparent process, appropriate rules are required to be framed.
Procedure for dealing with appeals related to cases of life and liberty- The RTI Act lays down that in matters related to life and liberty, information is to be provided with 48 hours. However, there is no concomitant time-frame for disposal of first appeal, second appeal or complaints in cases where information is not provided within 48 hours. Therefore, to effectively operationalise this provision, appropriate rules should be framed with a clearly defined procedure and time frame.
Procedure for Section 24– DoPT must take appropriate steps through framing rules to put in place a proper mechanism to ensure wide public consultation prior to any public authority being exempted from the RTI Act under Section 24. As per the recommendation of a committee set up by the DoPT (report available from https://goo.gl/wc0c0b), prior to the government issuing a notification under section 24(2), the name of the proposed body, details of its functioning and the reasons on how it responds to the grounds set out under Section 24 should be publicly disclosed and a specified time-frame should be allowed for members of public to raise objections to the proposal. This would also be in line with the proactive disclosures required under Sections 4(c) and (d) of the RTI Act and the government’s stated Pre-legislative Consultation Policy (PLCP).
*Download full text of NCPRI’s recommendations submitted to the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, HERE
In a unique instance of a united initiative, a number of organizations in Rajasthan have come together to protest the lynching of Pehlu Khan and to demand justice in the matter. A large demonstration was recently held in Jaipur, following which many organizations of different political persuasions have come together to call for a three-day national dharna outside the Rajasthan State Assembly from 24-26 April 2017.
The organisations which have issued the appeal published below include: Rajasthan Nagrik Manch, PUCL, CPI (M), CPI, NFIW, AIDWA, WRG, Vividha, National Muslim Women’s Welfare Society, BGVS, MKSS, Suchna Evam Rozgar Adhikar Manch, JIH, Dr. Ambedkar Vichar Manch, CDR, AIDMAM, Welfare Party of India, Jan Vichar Manch, Samajwadi Party, JD (U), SIO, SFI, Rajasthan Smagra Sewa Sangh, HRLN, Samta Gyan Vigyan Manch, All India Kisan Sabha, NAPM, WRG, Vividha, SDPI, RUWA, Zari Workers Union and others.
JAIPUR CHALO!! JAIPUR CHALO!!
NATIONAL CALL TO JOIN THE DHARNA IN JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
DEMANDING JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF LYNCHING OF PEHLU KHAN AT BEHROR, ALWAR
Friends,
As you are aware that 55 year old Pehlu Khan a dairy farmer from Nuh, Mewat district in Haryana was lynched by a group of so called Gaurakshaks on NH 8 at Behror, Rajasthan, when he was returning with four others, including his 2 sons, in 2 pick up trucks, after buying a few cows (along with the documents) from the fair in Hatwara, near Jaipur city.
At about 6.30pm on the 1st of April, their vehicles were stopped and they were pulled out of their vehicles and beaten up brutally by a mob and later Pehlu Khan succumbed to his injuries on the 3rd of April at Kailash hospital in Behror. Azmat who was critically injured was harassed by the police in the name of investigations, that he too was not given proper treatment and even today he remains seriously sick and in a state of trauma.
Pehlu khan a dairy farmer was charged by the police of trafficking cows that day and the police booked all 5 of them under section 5 and 8 of the Rajasthan Bovine law. They were allowed to go home after the death of Pehlu Khan. Pehlu Khan’s FIR was also lodged against the attackers, despite the fact that the crime was so serious they were booked under simple bailable sections, except for sec 308 of the IPC, abetment to homicide, not attempt to murder. However, after the death of Pehlu Khan it was converted to sec 302 of the IPC.
To date only five people have been arrested. But not the six who were named in the FIRs. They are being completely protected by the police. We are told that the main accused are not being arrested as they are a part of the Bajrang Dal, VHP and RSS and are professionals and work as either college teachers, nurses and two are also student leaders. It is imperative that they be arrested.
We were also informed that in order to put pressure on the family of Pehlu Khan, the Haryana police has made Irshad the son of Pehlu Khan an accused in a 2011 case of trafficking of cows, police station Tauru in Mewat.
The Rajasthan Chief Minister has not cared to open her mouth on this serious crime in the State. Eighteen days have passed. Initially it was the election campaign period of the Dholpur bypoll and that speaking on this issue maybe politically incorrect for her, we were told. But now that the by polls have been won despite the lynching and death of Pehlu Khan, it does not matter anymore as such issues in no way affects their image with their supporters instead helps them polarise and consolidate the “Hindu” vote even more.
The State Home Minister who spoke to the media soon after the death of Pehlu Khan, instead of assuring the public that fair investigation would happen and the Gau Rakshaks would be behind bars, glorified the Gau Rakshaks and said that they have done a good job except that they should not have been so brutal with Pehlu Khan and not taken the law in their hands.
Groups in Alwar and Jaipur have been protesting from day one. Meetings have happened with the police SP in Alwar, the DG police and the Chief Secretary. On the 10th and the 17th public protests were also organised and memorandum presented to the CMO, as the CM was not there on both days.
Some members of the family of Pehlu Khan came to Jaipur on the 17th of April with the hope of meeting the CM and sharing their side of the story, which they felt the police had not given them a fair chance, but were disappointed.
The lynching of Pehlu Khan is not the first case in Rajasthan. In Bharloki, Khimsar Tehsil, Nagaur, Abdul Gaffar Qureshi was lynched on the 30th of May, 2015 which led to his death, following rumours of Muslims having consumed beef after slaughtering cows, when it was completely wrong as the evidence showed.
Similarly, in Rajsamand in October 2016, the Banjaras were beaten up badly by Gaurakshaks for buying cows in Rajasamand, despite having all the required documents, then it took several public protests to get them arrested. Similarly, Hotel Hayat Rabbani was shut down on 19th March, following a conspiracy between the police, the Nagar Nigam at the Mayoral level and the gau rakshaks, led by a Kamal didi, where they spread a rumour that the hotel staff served beef. The hotel remains shut even today.
In this context several groups in Rajasthan have decided that till national pressure is not brought on the Vasundhara Raje Government, Pehlu Khan will not get justice.
That is why the three day Dharna has been planned outside the Vidhan Sabha from the 24th to 26th of April.
It is important that the 200 legislators discuss this issue and the government give a reply to our demands.
Apart from the arrest of the attackers the demands consisted of the following” · End all vigilantism in the name of a cow now. · SHO Behor Police Station, be suspended with immediate effect and the SP of Alwar be removed. There was a failure of due diligence. · Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria , should resign on moral and ethical grounds for openly glorifying and lauding the criminals. · Azmat Khan be shifted to a good hospital in the vicinity in Gurgaon. · Rs. One Crore be compensated to nearest kin of Pehlu Khan · All the injured be provided with Rs. 25 lakh for rehabilitation and recovery. · All FIRs against Pehlu Khan and his family members and fellow travellers be closed. · A single window access to all documents required when transporting cows from one state to another. · Hotel Hyatt Rabbani should be reopened immediately.
Advocate Prasanna S who is strongly opposed to imposition of the Aadhaar card argues that it is void ab initio
Recently, I attempted a tweetstorm on why I think the 2016 Aadhaar Act does not override, or render useless, the orders passed in Oct 2015 by the Supreme Court. I argued that all of the recent notifications by various central government authorities making Aadhaar mandatory to avail the respective service of those authorities, are in manifest violation of the Supreme Court’s orders. This post is to explain those points in a little more detail and provide a rebuttal to counter-views that are being tweeted out such as this.
Here is a brief timeline of the events leading up to the recent Govt. notifications making Aadhaar mandatory for availing for services like food grain under PDS, mid-day meals for school children, girls rescued from human trafficking and many others.
The unique identification authority of India (UIDAI) was established by an executive notification in January 2009 and had been running/overseeing the operations of data collection, enrolment, deduplication through biometrics, assigning of Aadhaar numbers. It also provided Aadhaar authentication and related services. The authority operated under executive notification until it was reincarnated into its present statutory form after the coming into force of the 2016 Aadhar Act.
Nearly a dozen petitions challenging the Aadhaar/UID project have been pending in the Supreme Court since 2012. The petitions challenged the project on a number of grounds including:
The Authority operating without a legal sanction and in legal vacuum;
The unconstitutional irrationality of using Biometrics – not just unproven but provably inappropriate technology for deduplication and authentication; and tying the same for the purposes of identification for essential services such as food, NREGA lead to unconstitutional exclusion of people from accessing those services;
The enablement of surveillance, convergence of data without constitutionally sufficient statutory protection being an unconstitutional infringement of the right to privacy;
National security implications of employing foreign companies with link to foreign national governments and intelligence agencies for biometric operations, endangering the right to life of the entire population of the country;
Unconstitutional Irrationality of employing private contractors as enrolment agencies and having them handle sensitive personal data without constitutionally adequate techno legal safeguards;
Unconstitutional irrationality of using Aadhaar authentication or KYC for financial products or inclusion schemes as it facilitates money laundering; promotes exclusion even as it paints a picture of inclusion; and importantly threatens economic sovereignty of the nation;
The unconstitutional denial of dignity to Indian residents for using unlawful coercion to have then queue up to part with their biometrics and other personal data; and
The lack of competence, under the constitution of the union executive in operating the project.
Supreme Court passed the first interim order in the matter in September 2013 prohibiting any government body from insisting Aadhaar as mandatory for any of its services irrespective of any circular or notification that may have been issued in that regard.
It reiterated that position a number of times thereafter – November 2013, March 2014, March 2015, August 2015 (after Attorney General for India famously claimed before the Supreme Court, the highest constitutional court of the land, that Indian citizens do not have the right to privacy under the constitution and the matter was sent before a constitutional bench of a minimum of five judges, even as the matter raised grave questions of constitutional interpretation and is “of some urgency”) , and again in October 2015.
The August 2015 order limited even voluntary use of Aadhaar to two schemes viz PDS and LPG. The October 2015 order permitted four more schemes for voluntary usage of Aadhaar.
The October 2015 order categorically made it clear that Aadhaar scheme shall be “purely voluntary” until the matters are finally heard and decided one way or the other.
In March 2016, Aadhaar Act was passed as a Money Bill, bypassing the Rajyasabha. The unconstitutionality of such introduction and passage has also been challenged in the Supreme Court and that challenge has also been admitted and tagged along with earlier petitions before the SC.
Starting January 2017, more than sixty different government authorities issued notifications under Section 7 of the Act, apparently making Aadhaar mandatory for various purposes.
In my humble but considered view, such notifications are unlawful and are in violation of the Oct 2015 order which still holds the field. I argue that:
The primary basis of a court passing an interim order is the pending dispute before the court. As long as such a dispute is still pending, the orders would ordinarily hold force. In this case, the petitions are still technically pending before the Constitution Bench of the court, even if the Govt thinks they have become infructuous/ useless. The government has not moved the court for such a declaration or dismissal of the petitions or vacation of the orders citing the new law.
Note that this case is different from instances like the Shah Bano story in which a final judgment of the court was sought to be undone by an Act of parliament. In this Aadhaar case, the central government is still before the court and is subject to the jurisdiction and specific restraint imposed by the court. If any authority wants to exercise power, (even newly found power) contrary to such restraint, it cannot do so without the permission of the court.
I am not suggesting that a parliamentary legislation cannot in any case override interim directions of the supreme court. However, I argue that the following are the necessary (but not sufficient) ingredients for that:
There should be an express statement in the objects of the Act as introduced in parliament or elsewhere during the legislation process that this seeks to undo interim directions of the court; or
It is impossible for a person to comply with the later legislation as well as the orders of the court.
In this case, the Act has neither of these ingredients. While Section 7 confers power on various authorities to insist on Aadhaar as a mandatory pre-requisite, it does not impose a duty to do so. The authorities therefore can comply with the Act without being in contravention of the orders of the court, by simply not exercising the powers under Section 7. If any authority is desirous of exercising the newly found power, they can do so – but only with the leave of the court.
Moreover, when the interim orders were passed, the absence of law was not the only issue in consideration. In fact, the central government had argued that the Appropriation Act at the time read with Allocation of Business Rules under Article 77 provided the legislative basis for the project and that IT Act and the Rules under IT Act have enough statutory safeguards for data protection; and therefore there was no legislative vacuum under which the project was operating.
Government of India, and others seem to take a view that the 2016 Act did not exist before October 2015 and that there is no principle of automatic stay of an Act of parliament that did not exist at the time of passing the order and therefore, October 2015 order would not prohibit authorities from exercising power under Section 7 of the newly enacted Act.
That argument does seem to be appealing on the face of it. However, a plain unqualified application of that argument leads to absurd results.
Assume for one moment, that the 2015 Act did stay the operation of a law – lets call it Aadhaar Act-1. Say parliament passes another identical Act and lets call it Aadhaar-Act-2. Can the government continue to implement and enforce Act-2 believing that there is no automatic stay? Such a result would be absurdity. Why have constitutional courts at all if legislatures can simply reiterate their earlier position and escape orders of such a court? My point is that the question as to whether or not an earlier interim restraint prohibits persons from exercising powers under a future Act depends on the facts and circumstances under which the earlier orders were passed and the contents of such future Act. For instance, SEBI applied to the Court to modify the 11th august order complaining that the 11th August imposed a restraint on its statutory powers even though they were not in challenge before the Court. On the face of it one may argue that there is also no principle in constitutional law to put restraints on statutory powers when such a statutory provision is not under challenge. But the court did not accept such a contention in its 15th Oct 2015 order and disallowed SEBI’s application.
I also argue that the Act was incorrectly introduced and passed as a money bill in the parliament in brazen disregard for the qualifications of being a money bill under Article 110 (3) of the Constitution and in glaring violation of the principle of Federalism, which is a part of what is called “Basic Structure” of India’s constitution. I am of the view that the Act is still-born and people are not bound by it. Note that this is different from an Act which is contrary to provisions of Constitution such as any fundamental right etc. In such a case, people are required to act as though they are bound by it until such a law is declared unconstitutional by the court. However, because this Act is no valid legislation at all i.e. it is void ab initio, people are free to act contrary to it. It is no different from a random resolution passed by your neighbour’s family – to give a crude example.
(The author is one of the advocates acting for some of the petitioners in the Aadhaar petitions before SC. Source: https://aamjanata.com)
On the occasion of International Women’s Day on March 8, Ashutosh Sujan produced an advert to protest the torture and discrimination of women.
After its release online, the commercial started taking the Internet by storm.
From small-screen star Niloy Alamgir to promising model-actress Sporshia, many a celebrity shared the commercial featuring a young woman in respective Facebook profiles.
The advert garnered praise through Facebook comments by many such stars. Now, the advert has drawn the attention of the world media, who are analysing and hailing it, according to a Bangla Tribune report published on Tuesday.
On April 5, The Indian Express, a leading Indian news agency, ran a special report on the commercial, while the New York Times published a special article on it eight days later, the report said.
Even Twitter, another popular social networking site, is flooded with growing admiration for the work, the report added.
The commercial of Bangladeshi brand Jui Coconut Oil was produced marking International Women’s Day-2017.
Directed by Ashutosh Sujan, the key model in the advert is Shahnaj Sumi.
Ashutosh has said: “I am delighted that the commercial has gone viral across the world. Foreign media are analysing the advert after it appeared online, which is good news for Bangladesh. But, I do not deserve the success alone. Actually, Sun Communications gave me the task. Without their support and idea, it could not have been possible for me do make the commercial.”
The New York Times in a special supplement wrote that the commercial, lasting around two minutes, shows a young woman going to a hairdressing saloon to have her hair cut. Each time a female barber cuts her hair, the latter suggests it be cut “even shorter.” Finally, the customer says: “Cut my hair so short that nobody can grip it in their hand.”
The last dialogue, in essence catches the attention of the audience.
Sumi, the actress portraying the young woman, was first noticed in a dance show on a private TV station called Channel i. She became the talk of the town through the advert.
When contacted, she told Bangla Tribune: “This is the kind of advert which was not even aired on TV. It was produced only for online. And, we are getting immense response. After watching it, many filmmakers from India contacted me to work with them. A Kolkata-based movie director also talked to me. But I am not working with him. I am satisfied with the chatter taking place in the world media about the advert.”
Gender justice within the Muslim community will be achieved primarily by the struggle of Muslim women, of course with the support of democratic institutions. Politicisation of the issue to score brownie political points will harm the cause of Muslim women.
Heightened media coverage on the issue of triple talaq along with the statement of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Chief Minister of UP Yogi Adityanath is causing harm to the struggle for gender justice within the Muslim community. Media coverage is making a public spectacle of victims of triple talaq and encouraging voyeurism for TRPs. Media manages to get a “maulvi” of dubious repute for giving sound entertaining sound bites that make buffoon of the community.
Gender justice within the Muslim community will be achieved primarily by the struggle of Muslim women, of course with the support of democratic institutions. Politicization of the issue to score brownie political points will harm the cause of Muslim women. What Muslim women need is solidarity and support from the feminist movement in particular and liberal democratic forces in general.
Pronouncing the word ‘talaq’ (I divorce thee) thrice in one sitting and instantly snapping matrimonial ties unilaterally by the husband is once again in news as the Supreme Court is going to hear Shayara Bano’s petition on the issue and the PM has chosen to speak on the issue. This form of divorce is called talaq-e-bidat (bad in theology but valid divorce) and popularly it is called as triple talaq.
The ulema (learned religious leaders of the community) have validated triple talaq pronounced orally, even if in a fit of rage, in a state of inebriation, or conveyed on phone, through sms, or through post. The wife so divorced is instantly evicted from her matrimonial home or if not in the house at the time of divorce, she is prevented from accessing her matrimonial home and children.
The practice is abominable and indefensible. Yet the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has claimed in their affidavit that triple talaq is part of shari’a law which is divine and it is their Constitutional right to practice their religion. Elsewhere, we have elaborately argued that triple talaq in one sitting is unconstitutional as well as contrary to the Quranic method of divorce and prayed that Hon’ble Supreme Court read down the provision (Engineer, 2016).
Protectors of Muslim Women
The PM chose to speak on the issue of triple talaq at the BJP’s National Executive meeting in Bhubaneshwar on 16th April 2017. He said, “Our Muslim sisters should also get justice. Injustice should not be done with them… [I]f there are social evils, the society should be woken up and efforts made to provide justice to the victims.”
The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said on 17th April 2017 that those maintaining silence on the “burning issue” of triple talaq were as “guilty” as those practising it. Yogi compared the triple talaq to the disrobing of ‘Draupadi’ in the Mahabharata. He also called for a uniform civil code in the country.
Both, the PM and the CM of UP, are trying to project themselves as protectors of Muslim women from the evil and inhuman Muslim Personal Law. However both have a lot to answer for, given their past.
Under the watch of Modi, when he was the CM of Gujarat, in 2002, during the riots, Muslim women’s bodies were the site on which sexual assaults were mounted and they were subjected to worst inhuman atrocities. Neither of them then had any feeling of remorse nor an urge to fight the injustice. Modi, then the CM of Gujarat had to be reminded of his raj dharm by the then PM – Atal Behari Vajpayee of their party. Gujarat government refused to organize any relief work for the 150,000 survivors of the violence huddled in inhuman conditions in various relief camps.
The UP CM in a video on youtube says that if one Hindu woman was married to a Muslim and converted, 100 Muslim women would be married to Hindu men and converted into Hindu fold!
Of destruction of wombs and liberation of Muslim women
In 2002 during communal riots in Gujarat, the Hindu supremacists who mounted sexual assaults and heinous crimes on Muslim women’s bodies did so to pollute or destroy the wombs of Muslim women that gave birth to children of Muslim community (International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat, 2003, pp. 40-41). Now they are posing as liberators of Muslim women from the oppression of their men.
Modi then had sort of provided justification of the riots by terming it as a reaction to burning of Sabarmati Express in Godhra. Thereafter he never expressed his remorse that under his watch the scale of violence had reached its peak. Those who were accused of rapes and involvement in riots had little to fear the judicial process and were being acquitted until the Supreme Court stepped in and set up SIT to prosecute the accused. Bilkis Bano’s rape case trial was transferred to sessions court in Mumbai which resulted in conviction of some of the accused.
Behind the facade of getting justice for the Muslim women in general and victims of triple talaq in particular, the BJP has political motives. When the PM and the CM of UP were not on the posts they are presently holding, they stigmatized the Muslim community in harsher words using cruder language.
In the year 2002, after the riots Narendra Modi took out Gujarat gaurav yatra (pride journey). In the yatra he would address public meeting during and accuse that relief camps for riot survivors to be breeding camps where the survivors were breeding like rabbits. In the next Gujarat state Assembly elections, the target of the Modi’s speeches was “Mian Musharraf (the then President of Pakistan) mentality”! The subtle message was that Muslims were loyal to Pakistan and needed to be taught a lesson.
Posing as protectors of Muslim women, Modi and Yogi are achieving the same objective with more sophisticated means – stigmatising the Muslim community as one having unjust traditions and women in the Muslim community are being disrobed. General Secretary of Hindu Mahasabha – Pooja Shakun Pandey went a step ahead and asked all victims of triple talaq to convert to Hinduism and she would organise their marriage and do their kanyadaan (ritual of father gifting his daughter to the bridegroom).
The Hindu supremacists then want to convert Muslim women and gift (marry) them off to Hindu men to improve their demographic figures and reduce those of Muslim community. Rescue Muslim women only to gift them off and be property of Hindu men. Hindu supremacists opposed the Hindu Code Bill in 1950s so painstakingly drafted by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar to ensure gender justice to Hindu women. Hindu supremacists organized militant protests and denounced Dr. Ambedkar as an untouchable drafting laws for Hindus.
The Hindu supremacists do not problematise dowry, child marriage, female feoticide etc. Given caste hierarchies, Hindu supremacists defend the parental control over their daughters in matrimonial matters. They have never raised any voice against honour killings when daughters dare to chose their own life partners. “Anti-Romeo” squads and “love jihad” campaigns are precisely to ensure that Hindu women do not choose their life partners and do not have freedom to wear the clothes they like.
Ministers in the present government have advised women to wear appropriate (traditional) dresses to be secure from sexual assaults instead of ensuring safe space for women and inclusion in every field. BJP MP – Sakshi Maharaj and RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat called upon Hindu women to produce 4 children reducing the women to child producing machines for their husbands and their community.
Hindu supremacists are not very different from the religious and political leaders of Muslim community with regard to their attitude towards worth and role of women in family and community – chattels or property of the males within the family and under their complete control; slave labourers for the family confined to home for unpaid domestic work, rearing children for men; labouring outside home if men need their incomes; confine them to religious spaces so that they are indoctrinated to serve the men in the family and accept being reduced to chattels and slaves.
Triple talaq is one such weapon in hands of Muslim men to keep control over “deviant” wives. Khap Panchayats, domestic violence and misogynist culture are weapons of Hindu men. Strategies and instruments of control may differ slightly but nevertheless their objective is to control and reduce women to chattels and slave labourers and objects of sexual pleasure for men. Hindu supremacist talk of “liberating” Muslim women, but only to enslave them to new masters – Hindu men. The feminist movement and awareness and resistance of women – both – Hindu and Muslim have changed the situation slightly and progressively.
Media and stigmatization of Muslim community
Media has been presented with an opportunity to increase their TRPs whenever issues that stigmatise Muslim community are handy. TV channels a few years ago ran extensive coverage of a fatwa which declared that Imrana who was raped by her father-in-law is now forbidden to her husband. It seemed that was the only problem faced by the nation – otherwise everything was hunky dory.
One TV channel made a public spectacle of Gudiya’s problems and coverage went on for hours. Gudiya, a Muslim, married another man after her soldier husband’s whereabouts were not known for some years and presumed dead in war with Pakistan. However, her former husband returned after he was released from Pakistan jail. “Gudiya kiski?” went the title of the programme. All relatives, maulvis, the second husband and former soldier husband and few others were assembled in the studio and public spectacle was made of her life encouraging voyeurism.
Almost all TV channels have similarly conducted talk shows on triple talaq – they got some victims to depose their tragedies, one or two maulvis to entertain their viewers with their ridiculous and provocative views supporting triple talaq and a few gentlemen around. The Islamic scholars who did not support triple talaq were obviously not favoured by invitation.
The stage was then set for a match between the victims and the maulvis with some generous support from ‘nationalist’ anchors. The lung match between Muslim women and maulvis would be good spectacle attracting eyeballs of male voyeurs into a problem of Muslims and beam them various advertisements persuading them to buy various corporate products.
The louder and angrier the fight between the victims and maulvis, more would be the entertainment and fun for the voyeurs. The BJP spokespersons would be there on the panel to represent the PM and Yogi as heroes of the nation liberating Muslim women. Perhaps that is why the media loves the PM and Yogi as they keep giving them such opportunities targeting left and liberal “anti-nationals”, cow slaughterers, terrorists, Kashmir separatist and Paki agents, religious converters.
Democracy and humanist values be damned so long as the voyeuristic media had their TRPs, they would support whatever politics! Is this the responsible fourth pillar of the state?
If stigmatising the Muslim community is one objective of Modi and Yogi, subtly establishing the superiority of Hindu community, the other political objective is to divide the Muslim community along gender lines. They have also tried to win over a section of Shias and Sufis. The political objective as spelled out by Subramanian Swamy once is to divide the Muslim community and unite the Hindus to achieve the objective of Hindu Rashtra – antithesis of democracy.
The Muslim Personal Law Board
Cornered by the media barrage and becoming a laughing stock for defending triple talaq and claiming it to inseparable part of divine Shari’a law, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has come up with a new subterfuge. On 16th April it issued a code of conduct and warned that those who give talaq (divorce) without ‘Sharia’ reasons will face social boycott.
The ruse of social boycott is more for media consumption than a sincere campaign to curb the menace of triple talaq. Had the Board been sincere, it would not have filed atrocious affidavit in Supreme Court completely against the spirit of Quran which gives dignity and rights to women. Board’s affidavit reduces women to a status of chattel and a slave, unintelligent being.
This ploy of social boycott has occurred to them after 70 years of resisting any change in the Muslim Personal Law and ignoring the plight of victims of triple talaq. The Board has clout and power enough to silence the women suffering oppression and scaring them with curse of Allah. However, they do not have clout or sincerity to enforce social boycott against powerful men.
Declaring, announcing and enforcing social boycott is also an offence in Maharashtra. Social boycott of the husband who has pronounced triple talaq is not going to give any relief to the woman thrown out of her matrimonial home. If a man has divorced by pronouncing the dreaded words in a fit of anger or under inebriation and repents the morning after, will be doubly punished by social boycott if enforced or enforceable without offering any relief to either.
Way ahead
The only remedy in the circumstances seems to be to educate the women and men that any number of pronouncement of the word talaq can be considered as single pronouncement followed by arbitration and efforts for reconciliation. This is the procedure prescribed by the Holy Qur’an.
The Board should agree to codify Muslim Personal Law within the framework of Quran and the spirit of gender equality mandated by Quran and drawing the best from all Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The codified law should be presented to the Parliament for being legislated.
Until the codification, Indian courts have a constitutional duty to ensure justice and equality to Muslim women and read down the provisions of various Islamic schools of jurisprudence like Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi, Maliki, Ahle-Hadith and Shia schools of jurisprudence that are against the constitutional mandate.
Political parties will do great disservice to the country and the Muslim community by politicisation of the issue either in the name of national integration or demography or on any other ground. Peace and justice are more noble goals than winning an election or benefiting from communal polarisation.
While it is true that, India’s bovine meat exports have been increasing over the years – It has not caused any decrease in India’s bovine population.If we are to believe the propaganda of the BJP and Sangh Parivar – the cattle of India are on the verge of extinction. The blame for this imminent extinction, is laid at the door of those who consume and sell bovine meat – mainly Muslims. Equally blamed are the slaughter houses from where, apparently, beef is being exported on a massive scale, threatening the survival of the species.
Armed with these claims, the BJP has been promoting hysteria among its supporters against minorities and dalits, who are involved in transportation of cattle. Propelled by their ‘love’ for the mother cow, self-proclaimed ‘gau-rakshaks’ frequently beat up and lynch Muslims with tacit support from the police. Prime Minister Modi adds fuel to this fire, by frequently alluding to ‘the pink revolution’ – referring to beef consumption and exports. What are the facts? Is India’s cattle at risk due to beef consumption or export?
While it is true that, India’s bovine meat (buffalo and cattle meat) exports have been increasing over the years – It has not caused any decrease in India’s bovine (cattle and buffalo) population. In fact, India’s bovine population has increased – from 2.89 crore to 3 crore (1992 to 2012), as has per capita milk production, from 55 million tonnes to 155 million tonnes (1992 – 2016).
data source: Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI
Within the total bovine population, the number of buffalos has been steadily increasing , while the number of cattle (cows and bullocks) has declined. Considering that buffalo meat is also exported despite which their number has been increasing, meat exports alone can not be the reason for the decline in the cattle population.
If we look closer, we see that with in the cattle population – the number of cows (female cattle) has not declined at all, but rising steadily – from 1.03 crore to 1.23 crore (1992 and 2012). It is the steep fall in the number of bullocks from 1.02 crore to 0.68 crore – which is the reason behind the fall in the cattle population. If the increase in demand for the beef is the reason for declining cattle numbers, then it should have effected the cow population as well, which clearly is not the case. What is the reason for decline in the number of bullocks?
Traditionally in the rural areas, cows and bullocks were equally preferred – the former for milk and the later as draught animals. So, we see that in 1992, the number of cows and bullocks was more or less equal. But, in the case of buffalos, only the females were preferred by the farmers. Since male buffalos are of no great use as draught animals, farmers usually sold them to slaughter houses. This is clear from the fact that number of female buffalos has always been 4 to 5 times more than that of the male buffalos. Today, similar trend is seen in the cattle population as well, with the bullock population declining to half that of the cows, in the last 25 years.
The advent of green revolution and the subsequent mechanisation of agricultural operations has increasingly made the bullock redundant in rural areas. Various agricultural operations – ploughing, levelling, transportation of agricultural product etc., which have been performed with bullocks – are today being performed by the tractors. So, just like the male buffalo, bullock too has very little role to play in today’s agriculture, resulting in decline of it’s numbers. The bullock still plays the role of a buffer for the farmer during droughts. For a small farmer, sale of his cattle, particularly the bullocks, is like an insurance during the drought years. He call sell it in the market during a drought.
The cow vigilantes, with beating up and killing those who sell and purchase cattle, are in fact hurting the small farmer, who is central to the cattle economy. In drought hit regions, one of which is the BJP ruled Mahararshtra, the cow vigilantism has led to a fall in cattle prices, causing a great distress to farmers, who are unable to sell their cattle.
The truth is that in India the livestock economy has been doing well, providing a much needed additional source of income for the small farmer. Per capita milk production has been steadily increasing, as has the meat production. These have been accompanied by a rise in the cattle population. But, the repeated attacks of gau-rakshaks on farmers, cattle traders, slaughter houses and meat consumer are going to damage the livelihoods of small famers. The vigilantism, will force the farmers to retain unproductive cattle – resulting in considerable increase in the costs of maintaining live stock. India’s small peasant, who is already suffering under frequent droughts and large debts, will be pushed to the brink, thanks to the saffron government’s cattle politics.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.
Azan, specially if the muazzin is besura, is a torture for auditory senses. Unfortunately, it’s very rare to hear soulful azans these days. In Aligarh, in our early childhood days, the masjids were somehow never too close to the kind of places we lived in. A strain of Azan would float by unobtrusively, through the playground, indicating the time to go home. 'Maghrib ki azan se pehle ghar aa jaana' used to be the standard instruction from Mom.
Masjids were few and far between, they didn't seem to get in your way on random roads. For years, the only Masjid I knew was this quaint, faded pink, single minar structure called Ek Minar ki Masjid. It was on the way to Qabristan and I had an eerie fascination for it. Once when a friend asked us to go in with him, I ran back the moment my feet touched the cold marble floor spreading out into a resounding silence.
I don't remember if it had a loudspeaker those days. Azan was an alarm clock for parents, a curfew to get back home for us kids, a segue into night after a cluttered day filled with school, friends and random visits from relatives – it was a lot of things to a lot of people – but never a war cry or an announcement of faith.
Later, as the town started spreading haphazardly beyond the neat rows of elegant University residential quarters or old kothis, Masjids started sprouting up here and there. These were not quaint – but belligerent. They got in your face at corners, Squatted in the middle of playgrounds, they grabbed breathing spaces between houses and screamed for attention. They had protruding corners and stubborn pointy towers. Some were a screaming white, some looked like they had been dropped in a tub of loud green by mistake. Grown ups scoffed at them complaining about gulf money.
While earlier one single familiar voice of the muazzin wafted across, knitting many mohallas together – gently inviting or marking time… now azans barged into homes from many directions. Loudspeakers amplified the harshness of untrained muazzins. These were not artists but more like raw zealots – There was more passion than reverence in their voices. We giggled, laughed poked fun at them and called them phata baans… irreverent, irreligious people like me and devout aunties who covered their heads when they heard the azan – we all called an unpleasant intrusion by it's name. No one judged us for laughing at the muazzins and covering our ears or for running indoors and shutting the door to keep the noise out. Religion was not a live bomb that could go off with the slightest touch of irreverence, it was more like a favourite delicate curio which people wanted to protect from harsh glare. You were free to not share their enthusiasm without being branded as an enemy of faith.
Around the same time in school, a teacher poked fun at azan quoting Kabir, 'Kankar, pathar jod ke, Masjid liye banaye Taa chadh mulla baang de, kya behra hua khudaye.'
The doha appealed to me. I was impressed with the idea of calling out the stupidity in screaming at the top of your voice to a God you claimed was omnipresent anyway!
My father, the staunch atheist, explained why the doha was faulty on a factual point. Azan is not a call or a prayer to Allah neither is it in praise of Allah, it is a call to the faithful to remind them that it's time for prayers. It's more like an alarm, a reminder and was needed in the time, when clocks and alarms had not been invented.
This was a harsh blow to my reverence for both, my teacher’s knowledge and for Kabir’s wisdom. I had just discovered that I liked Kabir for his thought process, his ambivalent identity and the fun he had with language. I don’t know if it came to me later or if my father spoke that day about how a single person cannot have all the right answers. Later too, instead of dogma, Daddy always fed us with the importance of questioning, seeking, finding our own answers. He said there are other ways to interpret the doha, and that Kabir was critical of outward expression in all religions. But facts are sacrosanct, so it’s important to know exactly what one is criticising.
I think we agreed on the redundancy of loudspeakers in the time of alarm clocks and wrist watches (now mobile phones too). If someone really cared for their God, they would find a way to remind themselves – after all you do not forget to do things that you really care for.
Loudspeakers then, it seems – in a masjid, mandir, mandap or pandal – are not about religion, reverence or spirituality. They are attempts at forcing your idea of your god or your leader down my throat. They are a war cry, an announcement of your supremacy, a gaudy display of your shallow faith or power and a rude invasion into someone else's space.
Kabir and Sonu Nigam are both right if we carefully consider the essence of their criticism about imposing our faith on others or inconveniencing others for what we consider sacred.
We won’t tolerate the terrorism in name of cow protection : Bhoomi Adhikaar Andolan (BAA) warns the State and central Governments Call for Nationwide struggle against the vigilante groups in name of cow protection and women safety.
Bhoomi Adhikaar Andolan resolves to fight for communal harmony and peace, call for programmes across country on April 30th
A Cheque of Rs.3 lakh from Kisan Sabha given to Angoori Begum (mother of Pehlu Khan) and Rs.50,000 to seriously injured Ajmat Khan.
New delhi, April 19 : The Bhoomi Adhikar Andolan (BAA) organised a day long Protest Dharna at Jantar Mantar demanding justice for the family of Pehlu Khan killed by "gau-rakshaks" (cow protectors) under the patronage of Hindutva elements and indirect support from the BJP ruled governments in power. The terrorism of the cow vigilante groups has witnessed a sharp rise their confidence level especially after the spectacular win of the BJP in different states. This has created havoc not only in Uttar Pradesh but also across the country. A particularly religious community has been targeted in complete violation of the secular fabric and values of this country.
Bhoomi Adhikaar Andolan challenged this brazen attempt at violating not only the constitutional spirit but also the democracy itself and resolved to launch a nation wide strike and struggle against this. BAA leaders collectively said that this attack is not only against Muslims but against farmers and workers as well. Cows and cattle’s have an intrinsic link to the agrarian economy and in our country farmers and workers are from all religions.
The BJP government in the name of cow and river protection is only promoting the corporate agenda and taking away all the rights and livelihoods form the working classes of this country. BAA is going to challenge each and every move and every attempt at diversion of the common property resources and village land for industrial purposes. BAA also supported the demands of the agitating farmers from Tamilandu who have been camping at Jantar Mantar for 36 days now. Comrade Hannan Mollah General Secretary of All India Kisan Sabha said, “the intentions of this government are clear and we should not be fooled by their agenda and the diversionary tactics they use. We have to fight the communal terror and also the corporate onslaught on farmers and workers of this country”.
The protest was addressed by Krishna Prasad, N K Shukla, Amra ram, Badal Saroj, and other leaders of All India Kisan Sabha; Dr Sunilam and Madhuresh of National Alliance of People’s Movements; Ashok Choudhary and Roma, All India Union of Forest Working People; Com Satyavan of All India Krishak Khet Mazdoor Sangathan; Com Prem Singh and Aslam Khan of All India KISAN Maha sabha; Com Atul Anjan All India Kisan Sabha (Ajay Bhawan); Kavita Srivastava, People's Union of Civil Liberties; Com Thirunavukkarasu, President, AIAWU; Com Suneet Chopra (ABKMU); Anil Choudhary and Virendra Vidrohi of INSAF and others. The dharna was also adressed by Com Brinda Karat, Subhashini Ali, Polit bureau Members, CPI(M); D.Raja, National Secretary, CPI; Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary, CPI(ML); K.C.Tyagi, former MP and leader, JD(U); D.P.Tripathi, NCP leader and MP. In addition, representatives from different Left and Democratic Parties as well as Organisations of Peasantry, Agricultural Workers, Workers, Women's, Students, Youth Dalit and Adivasis, Trade Unions, people's movements were present in solidarity.
The dharna was attended by a number of farmers and civil rights organisations from Haryana and Punjab who extended solidarity and also launched their own agitation in the States demanding justice. They resoled to continue their fight until justice for the victims of the Alwar is achieved and also to stop any further terror in the name of the cow protection.
Earlier, AIKS President Amra Ram had sat on a Dharna on 18th April demanding justice for the dairy farmer's family. Hundreds of peasants from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan attended the Dharna. The family members of Pehlu Khan and other victims as well as villagers from Nuh attended the Dharna.
The Bhoomi Adhikar Andolan demanded the following :
Rs.1 crore compensation for Pehlu Khan's family and job for a family member, arrest of perpetrators of the crime, Government purchase of unproductive cows at market rate and protection of right to cattle trade as well as right to choice of food.
The Vasundhara Raje Government of Rajasthan must provide Rs. One Crore as compensation to the bereaved family of Pehlu Khan and Rs.25 lakhs each to the other victims, taking the responsibility of the incident and to ensure civil and democratic rights and to give a strong message to the anti national elements which are trying to disrupt communal harmony.
The Manohar Lal Khattar government of Haryana must ensure Immediate and free medical treatment to all the victims.
The state Government must provide government job to one family member of Pehlu Khan.
Immediate arrest of all culprits and ensure stringent punishment. Withdraw false cases against victims.
A special investigation team under direct supervision of Supreme Court must be assigned to ensure impartial investigation to the crime and role of the police
A high level enquiry under the supervision of the Supreme Court to unearth the conspiracy of RSS to create communal unrest on the issue of cow slaughter.
Ensure farmers right to cattle trade and reopen all cattle markets immediately which had been closed down by the concerned state governments.
Make provisions in the cattle protection law to obligate state governments to purchase unproductive cattle providing market rate to farmers.
Protect the crops from stray cattle’s by incorporating clauses in the law to obligate state Governments to preserve all stray cattle in shelters ensuring sufficient fodder, water and veterinary care
The Union Ministry of Agriculture shall call a meeting of all the peasant and agriculture worker organizations to discuss protection of the rights of farmers on cattle wealth.
