The Supreme Court on Tuesday restored the criminal conspiracy charges against senior Bharatiya Janata Party leaders LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi in the Babri Masjid demolition case. They will face trial in the case along with Water Resources Minister Uma Bharti, though the bench excluded Rajasthan Governor Kalyan Singh from its judgement.
The judges came to the decision afer the Central Bureau of Investigation appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to acquit the politicians. The agency wanted them put on trial in the case, accusing them of being part of a larger conspiracy. On March 6, the court had asked the CBI to file a supplementary chargesheet against the accused, including the conspiracy charges.
The court revived the criminal conspiracy charges in the case against several other Hindutva leaders who had also been acquitted in the case. These include Vinay Katiyar, a BJP MP and the founder-president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s youth wing Bajrang Dal, Sadhvi Ritambhara, former VHP senior Vice President Giriraj Kishore, Satish Pradhan and Champat Rai Bansal. Kishore died in July 2014.
A joint trial:
There are two cases in connection with the Babri mosque demolition – one in Lucknow and the other in Raebareli. The Raebareli court had been hearing the case against leaders of the BJP and VHP, while the other case against karsevaks has been pending in the Lucknow trial court.
Advani, Joshi and Bharti will now face a joint trial with the karsevaks accused of demolishing the masjid in 1992 as the Supreme Court has clubbed the two. The matter will be transferred from the Raebareli court to the Lucknow court within four weeks and will then be dealt with in daily hearings. The judges have called for the trial to be completed in two years.
The verdict:
In its ruling, the court has put down a number of directions, including that there will be no adjournments under normal circumstances, and that the judges hearing the case will not be transferred.
It also observed that no case will be registered against Singh as he has immunity as the governor of Rajasthan. According to Article 361 of the Indian Constitution, a governor is not answerable to any court with regard to exercising his duties, and no criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against them while in office.
The case:
The bench – headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar and comprising justices PC Ghose and Rohinton Nariman – had earlier suggested resolving the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, through negotiations outside court.
On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by lakhs of karsevaks, who had gathered at the site from across the country. The incident had triggered communal riots across the country. The karsevaks had claimed that the land on which the mosque stood was the birthplace of Ram.
Republished with permission from Scroll. Read original.
The following, necessarily brief, reflections have been sparked off by two recent posts on Kafila – one by Biju Mathew published on 16 April, and the other by CP Geevan, published today. These reflections should not be seen as a response to the positions taken by Biju and/ or Geevan; they are, in fact, more in the way of addressing the central question raised by Biju Mathew’s piece – that of despondency and pessimism that has followed the UP elections and more importantly, the stealthy manner in which Adityanath was installed as the chief minister in the state. Stealthy, because after all, it was amply clear even to the decision makers in BJP, from the very beginning that if they had entered the election campaign with Adityanath as the chief ministerial face, it might have yielded very different results. It was too big a risk to be undertaken.The real stroke of Modi-fascist genius lay precisely in keeping not just the electorate but also the organizational machinery in the dark and turning it into an advantage.
Image: Deccan Herald
As it happens, despite the sharpness of Geevan’s comments, my sense, on reading the two pieces, is that there isn’t really as great a divergence on most issues as might appear at first sight.
The key point that is at issue in Geevan’s intervention is the role of political parties and the role they could possibly play in the struggle. I really do not think any one really believes that this fight can be carried out by sporadic movements – or even sustained ones – by writing off political parties altogether. After all, in the electoral arena, where the challenge has to be eventually posed, it is the parties which will be the deciding factor. My reading of Biju Mathew’s piece is therefore, very different. As I see it, the point really is that if we were to simply leave things to the good sense of political parties, then there is little that any one else – ‘people like us’ – can do. Individuals or movements then can only sit back and mourn their fate. I am sure this is not what Geevan has in mind – that much is quite clear from his piece which focuses on the urgency to act, if need be, sup with the Devil. If that be the case, then the key question is what can everybody else, people who do not belong to any political party, do? It should be clear from what I have said that ‘we’ are really nobody to decide whether political parties have any role in this struggle or not. And if they do, what precisely? They select or de-select themselves, entirely of their own accord. But we are certainly entitled to have our own opinions.
I do not want, at this stage, to enter into a hypothetical discussion of possibilities but would like to state my own position here in the light of the experience of the last 27 years. That is to say, from the time that the first rathayatra to demolish Babri Masjid took place and perhaps the last time, some political forces, largely representing the new bahujan upsurge, took a strong stand: Laloo Yadav’s government arrested LK Advani, VP Singh staked the very existence of his government and Mulayam Singh stood tough in preventing the kar sevaks from wreaking havoc.
All that was in 1990. By 1992, and from then on, we have seen the complete collapse of the political parties’ will to fight. The Babri Masjid was demolished with everyone looking on as passive bystanders: the Narasimha Rao government danced tango, while the parliamentary left stood trembling at the fury of the resurgent right; the Supreme Court, like a toothless old patriarch, watched helplessly as the solemn pledge made before it was blown to pieces. The entire system watched the demolition, not just of the Babrri Masjid but of the Constitution along with it. It was in those dark days that we saw the emergence of a whole range of citizens’ groups coming into action. The People’s Movement for Secularism (PMS) was formed on 7 December by many of us in Delhi who had come to join a self-mobilized protest only to discover it being taken over by the CPI(M). No one was averse to joining hands with the CPI(M) or any other force but no one was prepared for the hijack, even at that moment of unprecedented crisis. The PMS had had important precursors in the Nagarik Ekta Manch formed during the 1984 riots and the Sampradayikta Virodhi Andolan – formed on yet another occasion of total paralysis, if not abdication by the political class. It was the post Babri Masjid scenario that brought the Movement for Secular Democracy in Gujarat and and similar outfits into being in different parts of the country. Through the 1990s, we were witness to citizens’ groups coming into action, in whatever limited a way they could, in resisting the onslaught. I remember a convention and rally organized by Anand Swarup Varma (formerly of CPI(ML) Liberation and editor of Samkaleen Teesri Duniya) in Lucknow, in the immediate aftermath of the demolition of Babri Masjid. After the rally, we even met a range of Congress leaders in Lucknow and Delhi, in order to impress upon them the need to act – of course, to no avail. Groups of socialists and former activists of the JP movement’s Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Vahini became active in Bihar. All the while, the attempt was to build pressure on political parties as well. It was a time of despair but equally, it was a time of regrouping of forces everywhere, alongside unprecedented churning, accompanied by an intense self-examination as well. Everywhere, there was a serious attempt re-assess the limitations of secular discourse and practice as well but that is another story. From the side of the political parties, on the other hand, all we got were indications of cautious calculation and nothing more.
It is important to recall here that in 1996, when the United Front was cobbled up after elections and repeated efforts to get the CPI(M) to agree to Jyoti Basu taking up the prime ministerial offer, there was nonetheless a centrist government with the Left playing an important role in it (CPI also had ministers in the UF government). Not one new idea, not one new programme was initiated that could have actually built serious bridges between the Left and the new bahujan forces and set a new agenda for the years to come. In late 1996, the issue of workers rights became entangled with the question of environmental pollution and the Supreme Court ordered the relocation/ closure of thousands upon thousands of polluting industrial units. The issue of negotiating the two questions together rather than in opposition to one another, was undertaken by coalitions like Delhi Janwadi Adhikar Manch, not by the government of the day and the parties which comprised it. For them, it was business as usual – mutual bickerings and power hungry calculations. Within two years the NDA came to power, under Vajpayee’s leadership, with a seemingly more principled platform as far as popular perception is concerned.
The political bankruptcy of the period led to the new alignment and it was under that dispensation (NDA I) that the Gujarat 2002 massacres took place. Once again, in 2002, there was a complete prostration of political parties, across the board. That the NDA could be formed and that it could survive though the Gujarat carnage with constituents like TDP, JD(U), TMC, BSP, DMK staying on, was indication enough that there was something seriously wrong with the ‘party’ system itself. That those who were opposed to Hindutva and the carnage – the Left being a substantial component of that lot – were overcome with complete paralysis was another indication of the same malaise. Once again, it was citizens’ groups in different parts of the country that swung into action. Coalitions like the Aman Ekta Manch emerged in Delhi and other cities – organizing demonstrations and campaigns, and engaging in relief work. Right from the work of helping run relief camps, collecting relief material, helping people rebuild their lives to fighting their cases and taking on the regime – paying immense costs in the bargain – they had to do it all by themselves. One thinks of individuals and groups like Mukul Sinha’s in Gujarat and Teesta Setalvad’s in Mumbai. All through political parties were approached, their help sought but most often, my impression was that they saw these people as intruders into what they considered ‘their’ domain. Basically, the struggle of these citizens’ groups has been a fight on an everyday level, unspectacular and thankless, with political parties stepping in only when the tide had decisively turned. The NDA’s defeat in 2004 took all parties on both sides by surprise. It wasn’t as if the anti-communal activism of the citizens’ groups and social movements had by itself turned the tide; it was the combined effect of literally thousands of molecular interventions that helped produce that effect. Perhaps, a significant section of Hindus too was disgusted enough by what had been unleashed in their name. An analysis of the 2004 CSDS survey data showed that the BJP had lost significantly among two types of voters: dalits, tribals and lower OBCs, on the one hand and a section of its middle class globalization-oriented supporters, on the other. In any case, the very fact that the UPA government had to create a special space for social movement representatives (in the form of the National Advisory Council) and went in for innovative new legislations – Right to Information, Forest Rights, NREGA – had to do with the recognition of the role of social movements in the NDAs defeat and the charting out of a possible new direction in policy.
In the present context, I think there is a new element that was not there in 2004 and the years preceding it. Biju’s piece refers to the Pinjra Tod campaign but this really forms a part of a much larger new burst of youthful energy that has arisen over the past few years. The anti-corruption movement and the December 16 gang-rape protests were two immediate precursors but really this energy draws from a whole range of other sources including the sexuality movements, new era feminist mobilizations, as the ‘Hokkolorob’ movement in Kolkata or the ‘Kiss of Love’ in Kerala or the Pinjra Tod in Delhi clearly show. Side by side with with these movements, we have seen the emergence of struggles in universities in different parts of the country – FTII, Hyderabad Central University, JNU and lately Panjab University. The issues are different in each case, but their edge is directed against rigid attempts by the government and the RSS/ Hindutva forces to control everything in people’s lives ranging from love to food habits (thus the beef and pork festivals) and worship (thus Mahishasur as a symbol of lower caste/ tribal identity). The emergence of the slogan ‘Jai Bheem, Lal Salam’ as an index of the new synergies – despite continuing allergies – between left and dalitbahujan students groups and powerful Dalit protests after Una, point towards the arrival of certain powerful new political/ discursive currents. They do not speak the language of nationalism or Hinduism. They have a different take on key issues before us. These may have retreated a bit but they have not died down, waiting for the proper moment to make their appearance again. If anything can challenge Hindutva’s power in coming months, it is these movements. Whether political parties can do their bit by coming together to offer common resistance, at least during elections, remains to be seen.
A saffron army seeks to take over the revered shrine of Ajmer Sharief in this video
Blood-thirsty slogans (Bharat Mata Ki Jai, etc etc) with sturdy men on bikes sporting the saffron safa (turban) saffron flags on their bikes move towards the revered Ajmer Sharief shrine vowing in a threatening way to re-claim it. Today, since late afternoon this video clip also available on You-Tube has been circulating widely in the Chaibasa region of Jharkand in an obvious and clear bit to provoke violence.
Since Ram Navmi, when youth have been battered and attacked, parts of Jharkand have been under tension. Yesterday we reported how 130 persons had been forced out of their village in Kapali outside Jamshedpur. Last week a five persons including a Maulvi were attacked and injured seriously after they refused to stop their namaaz during Ram Navmi celebrations.
Another video sent to us from Jharkand today also depicts the Hindutva army –with pictures of Bal Thackeray and Sri Ram– marching on threateningly on its way.
Sabrangindia has received copies of both the videos from multiple sources and sent it with a letter to the Director General of Police, Mr DK Pandey as also the Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission, former Chief Justice Dattu. Repeated efforts to contact DGP Pandey on his mobile and land numbers met with no success, however.
We are not publishing the video though we have it in our possession.
An agitation being staged in the national capital that does not concern the rest of the nation is unlikely to spark a large-scale movement.
Cathal McNaughton/Reuters
The last time Delhi witnessed a memorable farmers’ protest was in 1988, when Mahendra Singh Tikait, a Jat farmer leader from Uttar Pradesh, laid siege to the capital with a charter of demands. With him, nearly five lakh farmers with their tractors, cattle and cooking utensils took over the Boat Club lawns – the original protest venue in Delhi, on Rajpath – till the Rajiv Gandhi government finally relented to their demands, which included an increase in the price of sugarcane and some waivers. It was after Tikait’s sit-in that the protest venue was shifted to Jantar Mantar so agitators could be kept at a safe distance from government buildings.
The farmers from Tamil Nadu who have been protesting in Delhi’s Jantar Mantar for a month now are a small number in comparison – there are barely more than 100 of them. But, the protest has, to an extent, engaged the attention of the national media.
Staging a protest
“If they put us on the train back to Tamil Nadu, we will pull the chain. If they beat us, we will jump off the train,” chanted P Ayyakannu, leader of the protest. “We will stay here till our demands are met or we die.”
This is the man who devises the theatricality that has marked this protest since it began on March 14. The 72-year-old farmer and lawyer from Tiruchi is a protest veteran, and has been campaigning for farmers’ rights in Tamil Nadu for nearly 20 years.
Ayyakannu came to Delhi last year to discuss the crippling drought in his state, which had not received much rainfall from either the July-September Southwest monsoon or the retreating Northwest monsoon in October. He said that the last time, the government gave them assurances and then sent them back. So in March, they came prepared with props, skulls and mice and snakes, and have been pulling off one desperate act after another, almost daily. The group is determined to get the government to meet their various demands, which include a Rs 40,000 central drought relief fund and pensions for old farmers who can no longer tend to their fields.
They’ve performed angapradakshinam – rolling prostrate on the street at Jantar Mantar – staged suicides, conducted mock funerals, shaved off half their moustaches and beards, stripped in front of the Prime Minister’s office, eaten dal and rice off the road, stood with mice in their mouths and have hung skulls around their necks, which they claim belong to farmers in their state who committed suicide because of mounting debt.
In its essence, the “skull protest”, as the media has nicknamed it, is the longest continuous demonstration in recent times and is an expression of the oldest form of protest in India – the nonviolent protest.
Organised under the protection of police and the consent of the state, it is contained and unlikely to descend into chaos, unlike some of the recent agitations in the country, such as the one in Chennai’s Marina Beach in January against the ban on Jallikattu and the quota stirs by Jats, Patidars and Marathas over the last two years, which started off as peaceful protests but soon turned violent. The only violence that has been seen at Jantar Mantar has been self-inflicted.
A farmer from Tamil Nadu plays dead near symbolic skulls during the ongoing protests in Delhi. Sajjad Hussain/AFP
Grabbing attention
Yet, the agitators are well aware that their protest has to be suitably dramatic for media consumption. A photographer from a daily newspaper who has been covering the farmers’ protest regularly, said: “My editors don’t want to write about the issue, they just want dramatic photographs.”
This is the tragedy of the protest, which is being staged from the national capital, but does not concern the rest of India. Shut out from social media and unlikely to engage the support of urban, middle-class India – who have been at the centre of the most vocal and hence, visible protests in the recent past – the farmers at Jantar Mantar have their work cut out for them.
In 2015, a rally against the land acquisition Act organised by AAP went tragically wrong when a staged suicide by a farmer at Jantar Mantar led to his accidental death. The incident emphasised the futility of spectacle as a form of protest.
The plight of the Tamil Nadu farmers is genuine, but there are questions being asked about the political forces behind the protests. Though there are no clear answers to this, there are also whispers about support from NGOs.
Irrespective of whether that is indeed the case, by now, the protest has taken on farcical proportions. The performance seems to have become the point of it, and the protest itself is lost.
So, what can the farmers hope to achieve beyond getting noticed?
HT Photo
How effective are protests?
While it is difficult to establish the impact of public agitations and very little research exists on it, India has a history of effective protest. It goes back to Mahatma Gandhi’s experiments with satyagraha and civil disobedience at the time of the Independence struggle, which were the bedrock for social movements in the West, like the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s.
But, somewhere in the decades after 1947, apart from student movements, protests in India were appropriated by political parties and politically affiliated trade unions – a hallmark of that era were incessant bandhs, hartals and dharnas. The average Indian citizen, meanwhile, became increasingly disconnected from the process of democratic engagement.
This has changed in recent years, said Sanjay Kumar, director at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. “In the last four or five years, we are seeing a larger number of people-led protests in India on different issues,” he said. “At one time, protests were only organised by political parties.”
Explaining why some of these protests have turned violent, he said, “People do not have the patience or the capacity to wait anymore, to protest for months on end. They want their demands to be addressed immediately, they are not willing to give a longer rope to the government, as they think it is inactive, and so violence is the means to capture attention.”
The 2012 Delhi gangrape protests. Adnan Abidi/Reuters
Loudest voice
The year 2006 was a turning point, when the middle classes demonstrated in large numbers in the Jessica Lal case, taking part in candlelight vigils and silent marches. It was the first time that technology – emails and SMSes – was used to galvanise the masses. From then on, the middle class in India, most often accused of apathy, has increasingly turned to protest as a force for social change.
Some of the most resonant agitations include the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement of 2011, the 2012 protests that followed the December 16 Delhi gangrape and the student protests last year triggered by Hyderabad University scholar Rohith Vemula’s suicide that spilled over to the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
All these protests had similar defining characteristics: they were unorganised, not localised or restricted to any one city and were a spontaneous outpouring of deep-rooted anger of the middle class on issues like corruption, women’s safety, caste and freedom of speech.
As protest becomes more widespread with the reach of social media, the diversity of agitations in India has expanded. People are taking to the streets for very different issues, from anti-corruption crusaders, to supporters of women’s rights, gay and lesbian people, Dalits and other minorities.
“The diversity of protest has broadened the idea of the ‘public’ in India,” said Sanjay Srivastava, professor in sociology at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. “There is a new definition of who is the public which can legitimately demand things.” We have moved from a narrow, homogeneous and mostly male category of “public” to one which encompasses diverse identities.
What hasn’t changed is the role of the State as the focus of all protests. Said Srivastava, “One would imagine that with globalisation and corporatisation, the significance of the state would diminish, but that’s not the case. With increasing political and economic uncertainty, the state is the only entity that people can appeal to for every issue, from job reservations to sugarcane prices to rights of minorities.”
Tension prevailed in the Birbhum district of West Bengal after a Muslim boy named Azhar Sheikh was killed on Monday night following a dispute.
Image: Indian Express Representation Image
On Monday, 25-year-old Azhar Sheikh was returning to his village, Amdole, where the incident occurred, on his bike, when he accidently hit the gate of Pandal. The pandal was installed on the occasion of a Hindu marriage ceremony.
Angry members of the Hindu community thrashed the boy, following which Azhar came back home and returned to the spot with his brothers and friends in order to confront the attackers. But according to locals, members of the Hindu community were already prepared with the sickle and javelins. When Azhar arrived, he was stabbed in his chest with sickles and country-made javelins. His friends and brothers took him to the hospital where he was declared dead.
Sarbeshwar Rajbanshi, his brother Bishu Rajbanshi and one of their colleagues have been linked with the murder. Both the brothers are said to be associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Azhar’s last rites were performed by his father today Malik Shiekh.
Residents of the village Amdole tell that Police has sealed the village perimeter and is not allowing any outsider to come inside but even after all the police arrangements, the area is still tense. A resident of the village told Twocircles.net over the phone: “They (the Hindu community members) are telling us that they have started the movement and will teach us a lesson. But Muslims here are also incensed after the killing of Azhar, and they are saying that we won’t sit silently if attacked again.”
About 65% of the village of Amdole consists of Muslims.
While Murarai Police Station PSI Arup Dutta refused to comment on the issue, CI Raj Kumar Malakar informed that FIR was lodged against Bishu Rajbanshi and he was arrested last night. Villagers do say that Police is taking all measures to control the situation and thanking the force too.
Since the last couple of weeks, a number of incidents in Birbhum have resulted in the district sitting on a communal tinderbox. On the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti on April 11, police lathi-charged members of Hindu Jagran Manch for taking out a procession. Hindu Jagran Manch and BJP condemned the Police for action, but Police clarified later on that procession was taken out without any prior permission. Earlier there were few CCTV footages and reports emerging of Hindu boys trying to buy Cattle carcases and cow heads with an aim to create communal disharmony.
Is Modi’s much touted promise a possibility? A number of internal loopholes within the Housing for All scheme seems to be denying housing to those who need it most.
Image: Indian Express
“We have a dream for 2022. The poorest of poor should have a house of his own. And that house must be equipped with electricity, water and other facilities. There should be hospitals and schools in the neighborhood”. This is what Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on the occasion of Ambedkar Jaynati. Noble sentiments these, but will this dream come true?
In Mumbai, in the aftermath of the municipal corporation election in February, different authorities have been demolishing more and more slums in the city; most of them remain unreported. Recently, in the city’s Andheri West area, authorities showed up with bulldozers and, without any warning, evicted hundreds of families from their homes. Many children of this community were appearing for exams at the local municipal school at the time.
In Vakola, pavement dwellers, including two city contract workers and their two-day-old infant, found their homes destroyed before the prime minister’s convoy passed through the area.
The city’s slums are homes to sweepers, maids and drivers, but also white collar workers. If you live in a high-rise apartment building or bungalow in Mumbai, chances are you depend on a small army of slum dwellers to do all the jobs you don’t want to do – or don’t have time for.
But we must ask the question: where do families living under the flyover, or in the basti next to apartment buildings go? What alternatives are there for the more than 50% of Mumbaikars who live in informal housing? And this isn’t just a Mumbai specific issue. With the rush to build smart cities, what will happen to those who live in slums in those towns and cities? Where do they fit into the larger scheme of things?
Is ‘Housing for All’ by 2022 a Possibility? The scheme – ‘Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Housing For All’ – has four provisions. The first provision provides for a house to slum dwellers through slum rehabilitation schemes to be carried out by a private developer. The goal is to re-house slum residents in multi-storey rehabilitation buildings while using the remaining land of the slum to construct residential/commercial buildings for selling flats in the open market. Second: there is an interest rate subsidy for a home loan for weaker sections; for up to 6 lakhs the interest rate will be 6.5%. Third, 35% of the housing in a particular project will be reserved for economically weaker sections (EWS), and each beneficiary will get a Rs 1.5 lakh subsidy. And fourth, the central government offers a subsidy for a beneficiary-led individual housing construction.
Together, these provisions are supposed to rehabilitate people living in slums. This is apparently the plan that is in place to counter-balance evictions and demolitions. A closer look, however, reveals why these provisions are inadequate.
Let us analyse the ‘Housing for All’ Scheme with an example. According to the Minimum Wages Act, the highest salary an unskilled sweeper can make is Rs 8238.25 per month. Someone living on this salary cannot possibly benefit from the scheme.
This is because, under the first provision, only those slum dwellers will get an alternative housing who will qualify the eligibility criteria. The eligibility is decided on the basis of a cut-off-date. Only those people who can show they have been living in their current home (where the rehabilitation scheme is proposed) prior to the cut-off-date, are eligible as the beneficiaries of the scheme. However, often families who have lived in the same slum for years and decades have been victims of frequent demolitions, due to which, even if they keep rebuilding their houses on the exact same plot, a lot of paperwork which is necessary to prove eligibility, goes missing during the chaos of these demolitions. Without these documents – like water bills and electricity books – it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove legitimate residence.
This is a dilemma: to prove residence and thus eligibility, the resident needs a water/electricity bill, but to get a water/electricity bill, he needs to prove residence. This cut-off-date condition will not only render a large number of slum residents of that particular slum where the rehabilitation scheme will be carried out as ‘ineligible’ but it will also dis-house them when new buildings are constructed. Others may move into this new housing.
Under the second provision, the EWS are defined as those households that have an annual income up to Rs 3,00,000 and lower income groups (LIG) are defined as those households that have an annual income between Rs 3,00,001 up to Rs 6,00,000. The guidelines further say that, “The credit linked subsidy will be available only for loan amounts upto Rs 6 lakhs and additional loans beyond Rs 6 lakhs, if any, will be at nonsubsidized rate”. This means that the beneficiary will get a loan at lower interest rate than he or she would get normally. The maximum loan amount is 6 lakhs, though there is virtually nothing available in the housing markets in the bigger cities. Now even homes in the far flung northern suburbs of Mumbai are out of reach for anyone in the EWS or LIG segment.
Let’s suppose the government increased the loan amount to Rs 10 lakh, and waived the interest altogether. Even so, the EMI would be Rs 5,500 per month at minimum, for the loan to be repaid in 15 years. Add to that the maintenance costs of Rs 1,500 per month for living in an apartment building. This sum of Rs 7,000 would be impossible to pay for the unskilled sweeper getting paid a maximum possible salary of Rs 8,238.
Finally, the fourth component of the ‘Housing for All’ scheme is designed to help people repair or redevelop dilapidated housing. In order to benefit from this part of the scheme, a person has to own the plot of land on which their house is built. This rules out slum dwellers for the obvious reason that their homes are built on government (or occasionally, private) land.
Every provision of this scheme leaves loopholes that cast doubts over the scheme’s bold title: ‘Housing for All’. The scheme might cater to one section of society that has a certain income level, but it overlooks vast numbers of people in the bigger cities. In Mumbai, for example, over 60% of residents live in informal housing.
India needs a law that recognises housing rights as basic human rights. After her mission to India last year, Leilani Farah, the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing expressed the importance of such a law in her report in the 34th session of the UN Human Right Council on March 1, this year. Such a law should ensure protection of minimum shelter to the neediest person to make sure he or she lives a dignified life.
Absence of such legal provisions will continue to pose the constant threat of eviction of people living in informal settlements. Demolitions are not a sustainable solution. Boldly promising them houses without putting in place the policies to make this happen will only mean that the Housing for All mission, will never be fulfilled.
(Bilal Khan is a housing rights activist working with the Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan (GBGBA) in Mumbai. Ane Gupta is a PhD student researching slum activism in Mumbai.)
Film certification is an epitome of the old adage, "THE PROCESS IS THE PUNISHMENT"
All films, music videos etc meant for public exhibition in a cinema hall irrespective of its length or format (whether celluloid, digital or on DVD etc) are subject to certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which was formulated under the Cinematograph Act 1952. The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, and The Guidelines issued in 1991 by the Central Government prescribe the regulatory structure in accordance to which CBFC discharges its functions. Through my Writ Petition(C) No. 187 of 2017, I have challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of all these 3 codifications which infringe the fundamental rights of artistes as well as the audience. No one had challenged the vires of these provisions for the last 47 years.
In light of the new technologies and developments, considering the paradigm shift in the mass media, it‟s the need of this hour that we redefine, reclaim and resurrect contours of our individual freedoms. Law must adapt itself to cope with new situations if it has to satisfy human needs and to meet the contemporary problems of life.
Background of the present challenge In 1970, in the matter of K.A. ABBAS v/s UNION OF INDIA, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that cinematographic films in theaters were the most influential media of mass communication affecting the social mind therefore, exercise of censorship under the said Act was valid and necessary. The social situation based on which the said decision was given is changed drastically to such an extent that the decision needs to be overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Today modern technology makes dissemination of information available in real time through a variety of media, many of which are either not regulated or if regulated, not subjected to pre-censorship.
From 1980, we had Doordarshan as the only public service broadcaster. Now we have more than 800 registered television channels along with 1000s of local cable channels. We have over 780 million TV viewers in India. By June 2017, the number of internet users shall reach about 450 million. With the onslaught of television and internet, we are increasingly "interfacing" to predominantly cultural data encoded in the digital form. Thus, it's no longer the 'cinema' but 'the digitized world' which is the 21st Century media machine binding the universe. The direct corollary of this is that if the content presented/exhibited/uploaded on either of these two avenues is free of censorship or pre-censorship, what is the rationale behind the same content getting cut/altered/deleted and thereby being censored when and if exhibited in a cinema hall? This amounts to discrimination barred by Article 14 of our Constitution. The attack on our right to equality is challenged in this context for the first time.
Documentaries which are factual depictions of real life events are closer to the news reports than fiction films. If Broadcast of news, investigative reports are presented on television and internet without any pre-censorship, subjection of documentaries to pre-censorship amounts to discriminatory treatment of similar entities which is violative of our fundamental rights ensured by Article 14, Art 19(1)(a), and Art 21 of our Constitution. None of the above laws define a ,documentary‟ nor there any specific ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue.
Since the decision in Abbas, the power of certification as a means of pre-censorship has been subjected to large scale abuse owing to ambiguity and lack of clear guidelines of how the power is to be exercised. As a result, the CBFC routinely demands cuts of scenes or dialogue failing which denies certificates to films for arbitrary reasons : Remove "Maan ki Baat" from a dialogue; get a NOC from the PM‟s office for the title of the film "Modi Kaa Gaon", the film is unsuitable to get released since "the story is lady oriented; their fantasy about sex, audio pornography", among others. Milder abusive words were demanded to be cut from many films whereas films like Parched, Saat Uchchkke, Udta Punjab were cleared with an ,A‟ certificate but without any cuts. On 31/07/2015, the CEO of CBFC informed the Board about the audit observations made by the CAG on working of CBFC. He said that ,the audit of 2014-15 had observed that CBFC converted 172 ,A‟ films into ,UA‟, and 166 ,UA‟ films into ,U‟ during 2012-15, without taking any law or provision into account. It had also observed that there were inconsistencies in the time taken by CBFC for issue of certificates to various producers."
The Aurangabad High Court has recently set another worse precedent which was not challenged by the producers of the film ,Jolly LLB‟. After the certification of the said film by the CBFC, the Hon‟ble bench demanded 4 cuts in a scene citing a possible ,defamation to the judiciary‟. Till now judiciary has played a role of a saviour of citizens‟ fundamental rights. With this decision, one more predator of artistic freedom has emerged which needs to be seriously scrutinized.
Brief details of the challenged provisions The present Writ Petition is challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3(1), 4(1)(iii), 5(1)&(2), 5A(1), 5D(5) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and Guidelines # 1 & 2 dated December 6th, 1991 formed under Section 5B(2) of the said Act, along with Rules 3, 7(3), 22(2) &(8), 24(2), 32, 33(2) and 43(6) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 on the grounds that those are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Prayers sought through this litigation –
Since we are all bound by the constitutional restrictions on free speech as per Article 19(2), we are not challenging the entire Cinematograph Act but merely certain provisions thereof.
Among other reliefs, the WP seeks –
a. to quash Section 4(1)(iii) which empowers CBFC to carry out excisions amounting to pre-censorship which is an unreasonable restriction. b. to declare the present CBFC incompetent to carry on functions under the said Act. c. to declare that Section 5-B inapplicable to section 4(1)(iii) since the Guidelines under Section 5-B are for ,certification‟ and not for ,pre-censorship‟. d. to quash the said Guidelines which are abstract, vague, imprecise leading to rampant erratic, subjective interpretations of scenes/language in a film amounting to unfair curtailment of the filmmakers‟ freedom of expression. e. to increase the categories for certification under Section 4(1) or 5A(1) considering the age group and commensurate sensibilities of the audience in mind. f. to remove ,documentary‟ from the ambit of definition Sections 2( c) and (dd), and to require documentaries to get the disclaimers regarding its content sanctioned from the CBFC. g. to quash certain provisions which provide for appointments of the members of the Board and/or the Examining Committee, or the Revising Committee, or even the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FACT), without specifying any qualifications, leading to subjective, erratic, arbitrary interpretation of overbroad, imprecise Guidelines by the unqualified members which in itself is very unfair and unreasonable restriction on the filmmakers‟ freedom of speech. h. That the recommendations of the Benegal Committee be given effect during the pendency of this WP.
Many core issues left untouched I do not believe that the freedom of speech is absolute. This position raises the real problem as to where do you draw the line between accepted and unaccepted speech. Since the Indian Constitution has given us the framework of restrictions under Article 19(2), I am compelled to bow down to the nine limitations ,in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of offence‟. These limitations are overbroad and vulnerable to subjective interpretations. Most alleged violations of freedom of speech are routinely based on either of these heads. In India, speech-based offences are cognizable that means a police officer has the authority to make an arrest without a warrant and to commence an investigation without the prior permission of the court. Thus the burden of approaching the courts is not on the Police/State but on the citizens. So the citizen-victim suffers double jeopardy – her/his right is curtailed plus she/he has to chase the judiciary!!! Should even the judiciary have a right to judge the artistic content of a work of art? In a scenario where the fence itself eats the crop, whom should the artistes and the audience approach? Similarly the provision for Government censorship (under Sec 13 & Sec 16(1)(a) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952) is equally objectionable. All such attenuating acts are disrespectful of autonomy and ought to be condemned.
On April 8, the well-known French television show Salut les terriensturned sour when guests discussed the very sensitive topic of the so-called “French Muslim vote”.
Philippe Wojazer/Reuters
One panelist, journalist Sonia Mabrouk, argued that Muslims in France are constantly used by opportunists, from politicians to intellectuals, as a constituency to serve their own purposes.
The incident recalled the final televised debate of France’s 2012 presidential election, when then-candidate François Hollande sparred with incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy over the “Muslim vote”.
Hollande was in favour of extending the right to vote in local elections to non-EU citizens living in France, while Sarkozy argued against it. The president claimed that such a move would lead to “identity-based voting practices” and “divisive sectarian demands”.
France’s 2012 presidential debate emphasised the issue of the so-called ‘Muslim vote’
As the French go to the polls on April 23 and May 7 to elect their new president, the question reemerges: is it reasonable to assume that Muslims’ voting behaviour is based on their religion and on the Quran?
The impact of religion on votes
Some 93% of French Muslims cast their ballots for François Hollande in the second round of the 2012 presidential election, according to a poll by OpinionWay. That’s 41% above than the national average, since Hollande was ultimately elected with 52% of votes.
In their 2012 book Français comme les autres? (As French as everyone else?), political scientists Sylvain Brouard and Vincent Tiberj concluded that the impact of religion on the voting practices of believers should not be overestimated.
Catholics in France and in the United States, for example, vote in ways diametrically opposed to each other. In France, people who identify as Catholic are today markedly in favour of the conservative Républicains, particularly since the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013.
How can this difference be explained? According to Brouard and Tiberj, Catholics in the US vote Democratic for precisely the same reasons that Muslims in France went for Hollande’s Socialist Party: they cast their ballots for candidates who support minority rights.
OpinionWay’s 2012 poll showed that many people who identified as Muslim voted for François Hollande. F.Khemilat, Author provided
Both groups are often found among racial and religious minorities – American citizens of Latin American origin and people of Maghrebian or African background in France – who have faced economic and social marginalisation in their respective countries.
In France, on the other hand, Catholicism is the main religious faith. Hence the difference in voting orientations (though a bastion of left-wing Catholic voters has also historically existed in France).
In other words, religion is not the be-all, end-all of a believer’s political choices.
Identifying as Muslims
Though the impact of faith must be taken with a grain of salt, it is not entirely irrelevant in the context of elections. Qualitative research I conducted in 2012 and 2013 found that the vote of French Muslim citizens I interviewed was indeed influenced by their religious identity.
Being a Muslim did not predetermine their answer to the question, Who should I vote for? But it did lead people to ask, Who shouldn’t I vote for? The impact was negative, helping them eliminate candidates deemed Islamophobic, rather than positive ([I] choose a candidate who defends my values, including religious values).
French Muslims took into account laws banning the headscarf or niqab, a veil that covers the face, as well as public comments against Islam, for instance, when weighing different candidates and their platforms. Candidates’ positions on foreign policy were also considered, with military interventions in Muslim-majority countries particularly frowned upon.
According to my study, being a Muslim can have three different effects on a person’s vote: it can consolidate a choice previously made, based on factors unrelated to religion; it can help select among a few candidates on the basis of the Islamophobia criterion; and when a candidate’s attitude towards Muslims is negatively perceived, it can destabilise and change a person’s political orientation.
Take, for example, Youssouf, a self-made man who in 2007 voted for Nicolas Sarkozy, the Republican party candidate. But in 2012, after what he called “the unashamed Islamophobic discourses and public policies targeting Islam made by him and his governement”, Youssouf decided to vote for the left-wing François Hollande. Even though Youssouf didn’t at all like Hollande’s stance on economic and social issues.
Because of their lower socioeconomic status and the marginalisation they face, many French Muslims, especially those living in France’s banlieues (suburbs), might simply choose not to vote.
Some of them justify their abstention with religious explanations, claiming that “voting is not halal”, since France is not a Muslim country.
Calls for abstention in 2017
Generally, this position is only held by a minority of highly orthodox Tabligh or Salafist Muslims. But today, several public Muslim intellectuals, including leaders who are not necessarily from those sects are calling for an “active abstention” by Muslims of the 2017 presidential election. The intent is to escape the constant trap of voting for the “lesser of two evils”.
Nizarr Bourchada, leader of the Français et Musulmans (French and Muslim) party, advocates a similar approach. His is one of the first French political parties to claim a strong attachment to both Islamic and French Republican values.
This echoes French author Michel Houellebecq’s prescient 2015 novel Soumission (Submission). Set in 2022, the book imagines the rise to power in France of a Muslim political party that imposes polygamy and prohibits women from wearing clothes that make them “desirable”.
‘Soumission’ imagines a dystopic French Islamic future that tapped into many French citizens’ fears. Jacky Naegelen/Reuters
Within a few weeks of publication, Soumission had become a bestseller in France, Italy and Germany. It bolsters the idea that a collective vote of French Muslims, or at least their federation into a political party, would be a threat for French society.
The reality is quite different. But whatever the outcome of this election season, it seems that the fantasy of a “Muslim vote” will continue to haunt Europe’s imagination for years to come.
