“If Hinduism is a way of life, so are Islam and Christianity, or any other — SC must revisit Hindutva verdict”

November 10, 2016

Contextualizing the Secular Fabric of India and Section 123 of RP Act

The shadow of a sinister ghost lurks over the Indian polity. Opportunistic, even supremacist notions of society are being articulated by major political players and their parties, programmes and manifestos, all working decidedly against the rich tradition of India’s pluralism by narrowly using our religious and caste identities pitted against each other. Especially during election time which is the festival for garnering voter support. There is a strong need to be watchful of the very functioning of the political parties who are holding the composite political system of the country to ransom for narrow electoral gain. Thus destroying our secular fabric, ironically, through the very electoral process, that is the heart of any democracy.

Though, constitutionally, the role of political parties has not been defined, there is no possibility of a politics within the parliamentary system without a healthy party system that believes, upholds and re-enforces constitutional values. It is in this spirit, that Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act (RPA), 1951 was devised as a reasonable restriction on political speeches in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the nation based on common citizenship and not on religion, race or caste.

Section 123 therefore erected a wall of separation between state on one hand and religion, caste, race and language on the other hand. Any party or organisation campaigning elections on any of these prohibited grounds has the proximate effect of eroding the integrity of nation and secular philosophy embedded in the Constitution and would undoubtedly be perpetrator of an unconstitutional course of action.

Introducing religion into politics is to introduce an impermissible element into the body politic and an imbalance in our constitutional system.

Functional Jurisprudence Upheld
The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1 Paras. 310-311] very firmly held that Political parties are formed and exist to capture or share State power. That is their aim. They may be associations of individuals but one cannot ignore the functional relevance. One cannot conceive a democratic form of government without the political parties.

If the Constitution requires the State to be secular in thought and action, the same requirement attaches to political parties as well. The Constitution does not recognise, it does not permit, mixing religion and State power. Both must be kept apart. That is the constitutional injunction. Introducing religion into politics is to introduce an impermissible element into body politic and an imbalance in our constitutional system.

The most unsettling feature of the present time is the way the ruling right-wing party espouses Hindutva and romanticises it for electoral gain. By careful design, the party is flamboyantly using Hindutva in its electoral campaign and policy initiatives without calculating the damage done to syncretic India. In the imagined India of the right-wing party, all other religions as a way of life have been pushed to a less favourable or secondary status. This is plainly antithetical to Articles 14 to 16, 25 and the entire constitutional scheme adumbrated hereinabove.

Under our Constitution, no party or organisation can simultaneously be a political and a religious party. It has to be either. Same would be the position, if a party or organisation acts and/or behaves by word of mouth, print or in any other manner to bring about the said effect, it would equally be guilty of an act of unconstitutionality.

If Hinduism is a way of life as suggested by the Supreme Court, then so are Islam and Christianity, or any other.

The Hindutva Verdict
A bench of Supreme Court headed by the late Justice J S Verma in Dr Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo (Hindutva Judgement) ventured to define the meaning of the word "Hindutva" or "Hinduism" contextualizing it with election publicity and clinched that the words "Hinduism" or "Hindutva" must not be construed narrowly and unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people. The bench has further observed that "the mere fact that these words (Hindutva or Hinduism) are used in the speech would not bring it within the prohibition of sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123. This approach defies reality and hence beyond our comprehension. When term Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva is used by a politician particularly the Hindu fundamentalists, it refers primarily to Hindu religion to the general voter/masses. An audience more educated than the average Indian electorate would not comprehend it as inclusive of the culture and religion of those whose religion originated outside India, such as Muslims, Christians and Jews.

The apex court in Suryakant VenkatraoMahadik v. Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosale) [(1996) 1 SCC 384] (Mahadik case) held speeches by a candidate and some others made on different dates referring to Hindutva as corrupt practice. Also appeals by such Hindu candidate to a congregation of Hindu devotees in a Hindu temple during a Hindu religious festival with emphasis on the Hindu religion for giving votes to a Hindu candidate espousing the cause of Hindu religion was held to be corrupt practice.

This court also specified (Para 14) that whether an appeal is such that voters understand the meaning and use of the word "Hindutva" in the speech as appealing to Hindu religion is the relevant factor.

This judicial logic was deduced from two previous five-judge bench decisions of the Supreme Court namely Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Bhudarda Vaishya 1966 (3) SCR 242; and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras v. late R. Sridharan by LPs, 1976 SCR 478 but interestinglyneither of these two judgements support the conclusion of the Supreme Court that Hindutva or Hinduism means the culture of the people of India in entirety.The bench also unnoticed the fact that same judgement elucidated the essential features of a Hindu and one such “acceptance of the Vedas which is a religious text with reverence as the highest authority as defined in Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal.Hinduism or Hindutva has two contextual meanings.

The Hindutva judgement does not illuminate these functional insinuations of Hinduism or Hindutva and hence its reconsideration was imperative but seven-judge bench of Supreme Court hearing arguments in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen and Narayan Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa appears to have let slip this opportunity.

The broader meaning as proliferated by scholars like Swami Vivekananda who said in World Parliament of Religions (1893) that, “the Christian is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.” The narrower meaning is very common and associated with religion as spread by Hindu radicals such as Vishva Hindu Parishad, Shiv Sena and other such political and non-political groups. Appealingelectorates in the name of Hindu Rastra, or Ram Madir would fall certainly under section 123 of the RP Act.

Functional Relevance is Vital to Save Parliamentary Democracy
If Hinduism is a way of life as suggested by the Supreme Court, then so are Buddhism, Islam Christianity – or any other religious domination – for their followers. All dictionaries suggest that way of life describes the pattern in which a person lives which includes their religion, their language, their arts and crafts, their ways of earning a living, and their behaviour with others. The Hindutva judgement does not illuminate these functional insinuations of Hinduism or Hindutva and hence its reconsideration was imperative but seven-judge bench of Supreme Court hearing arguments in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen and Narayan Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa appears to have let slip this opportunity.

If the task of reforming political parties is not assumed thoroughly and instantly, the future of Indian democracy will be in serious peril.

While recognising the far-reaching and paramount authority of the state, the Constitution articulates with equal clarity the principle of secularism and tolerance, which is integral part of our constitutionalphilosophy towards religion. This was echoed by Chinnappa Reddy J. in the National Anthem Case:

Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.

(The first author is Deputy Registrar Supreme Court of India, New Delhi and the second is Associate Professor and Head, Department of Political Political Science Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Hyderabad)

Also Read: Is the Misuse of Religion Tainting India’s Electoral Process?

Also Read: Is the Politics of Hindutva Not Fascist?

Kejriwal targets Modi for alleged secret deal with Paytm on demonetisation, Aaj Tak deletes tweet

November 10, 2016

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi alleging a secret deal behind demonetisation announcement with e-commerce company Paytm.

He tweeted, “Paytm biggest beneficiary of PM’s announcement. Next day PM appears in its ads. Whats the deal, Mr PM?”

Kejriwal was responding to a news carried by Aaj Tak website, whose headline had drawn a parallel with Modi appearing in Reliance Jio ad and Paytm’s newspaper ad congratulating him for scrapping the old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes.
Aaj Tak’s headline said, “Paytm walks on the path of Reliance Jio, carried PM Modi’s photo in ad.”

No sooner had Kejriwal tweeted, Aaj Tak deleted its tweet. But the channel’s report on Paytm using Modi’s image to increase its business remained on its website.

In another tweet, Kejriwal termed Modi appearing in Paytm’s newspaper ad as ‘shameful.’

He said, “Utterly shameful. Do people want their PM to model for pvt cos? Tomo, if these cos do wrongdoings, who will act against them?”

Paytm, which is an e-commerce giant and also India’s largest mobile payment service, had booked front page ads in national newspapers within hours of Modi’s speech. Many wondered as to how it was able to secure premium newspaper spots for ads given that Modi’s speech on Tuesday could only end at around 9.30 PM.

Kejriwal’s cabinet colleague, Satyender Jain, on Wednesday tweeted, “How did Paytm got permission from PMO to use PM’s picture so quickly.” (sic)

Twitter user and AAP supporter Kapil raised a similar question on Wednesday in his tweet, which was shared by Kejriwal, “How PayTM knows about this decision in advance? Newspaper ads are booked in advance as per my understanding!.”

Modi’s announcement to do away with old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes had caused ripples across India with the decision adversely impacting middle class population, who were given just few hours to make alternative arrangements.
The move was hailed by BJP supporters but Modi’s detractors had condemned the announcement calling it draconian.

Banks across India were closed on Wednesday primarily to stockpile the new Rs 500 and Rs 2,000 notes. On Thursday, hundreds of people were seen queuing outside banks after they opened for operations.

The jury is still out on whether Modi’s announcement is a masterstroke or an extremely foolish step. Meanwhile, the prime minister has left for yet another foreign trip to Japan for three days.

Courtesy: Janta ka Reporter

Fascism Rising: Is this how it begins?

November 10, 2016

The right is on the move—in Britain, Hungary, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, India and now, far more importantly than any of those, in the United States. If Marine Le Pen can win in France in 2017 then fascism will truly have arrived, just seventy years after we assumed it had been banished for good.

Press Association Images/Paco Anselmi: Donald Trump as he makes his acceptance speech in New York

Is this how it begins? With rage, with the demands of the entitled millions who feel their birthright has been stolen, with those who claim “we built this country, we fought its wars, when is it our turn?” Donald Trump is by any stretch of the imagination an awful candidate to be president of the most powerful state on earth, a sexist, racist, impulsive narcissist who lies with abandon and hates with fervour. His handlers don’t even trust him with his own Twitter account anymore. And now he is the standard bearer for an increasingly familiar social coalition, angry white working class men (and women) with weak formal education and weaker job prospects, along with disaffected white middle class conservatives, many of them religious, who are furious that they lost the culture wars. We’ve seen this coalition before: it’s a breeding ground for fascism. Liberals need to wise up and fast. The International Criminal Court (ICC), global human rights, international norms? These are sideshows. The battle is much more present and visceral than that now. It is the battle of democracy and in that struggle, human rights are too compromised by their association with the very liberal elite—exactly the elite that the Putin/Trump/Brexit coalition hates—to be a principal mobilizing banner.

It isn’t Left vs. Right any longer… It is the out-of-touch liberal elite vs. the rest.

For Trump’s constituency, his obvious and stupefying flaws are irrelevant. He’s a policy-lite hand grenade intended to spark a revolution. From his admiration for Putin to his authoritarian style, right down to the machismo, sexual bravado and contempt for minorities, the outlook for human rights in the US—let alone globally—under Trump is catastrophic. For his coalition, human rights are a shell game pushed by cosmopolitan liberals to steal the nation away from its legitimate, mainly white, heirs. Make no mistake about it, the right is on the move—in Britain, Hungary, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, India and now, far more importantly than any of those, in the United States. If Marine Le Pen can win in France in 2017 then fascism will truly have arrived, just seventy years after we assumed it had been banished for good. Get those immigrants out, get those trade barriers up, put my nation first, and forever, crush those bespectacled intellectuals, demean the unpatriotic, wrap yourself in that flag and humiliate the non-believers. Trump even threw in a healthy dose of anti-semitism for good measure.

Also Read: The Rise of American Authoritarianism.

After Brexit, I argued that winter was coming for human rights. Well, it’s here.

It’s here because the liberal democratic market model that has underpinned forty years of human rights growth is broken. It is here because what was supposed to happen, trickle down affluence, never did in any meaningful way. The age of rights, four decades of a newly potent set of claims for dignity, equal treatment and protection—for civility, for vibrant opposition to authority—were built on what Trump supporters have come to see as a lie. For them, human rights were not heralds of a new era of fair shares for all but a way to steal the inheritance of real Americans. Of course human rights were not the drivers of this change, they were part of its ideology. What drove it was a massive democratic experiment in which millions of working class, largely white voters, those whose forebears—so their mythology goes—built the nation, were told to hang tight while the economy was modernized. Liberalize those markets and break that union power and we would all be free. For election after election, as millions lost out in this vast demographic transformation, where wages stagnated or fell, and cheap and even illegal immigration filled the service sector with low paid workers, a “precariat” grew whose everyday life experience was chronic insecurity. But where illegal immigrants and the recently arrived were disenfranchised, white working class voters and their culturally conservative fellow travellers were citizens. They seethed. “Left” governments who promised a Third Way—Clinton and Blair—failed the former, “Right” governments who did nothing to stem immigration and talked down Christian values failed the latter. The mix of class and race was suddenly salient again, posing a major challenge for a country with such a problematic race history as the United States. All forms of diversity were suddenly in the crosshairs.

Also read: Trump’s victory sparks dozens of protests across country

Political entrepreneurs, Trump, Le Pen, Farage, Wilders, emerged to say: there is another way. They were quick to identify immigrants, religious minorities, refugees, foreign aid recipients and the liberal establishment as the problem. Their supporters know the liberal elite sees them as ignorant, backward, an embarrassment. But with the help of Trump they found their voice, which says: you can take control. You just have to take back power from the government and throw out the foreigners who have stolen your jobs or are doing them in China. It was a vast conspiracy, after all. You were right. The (white) social contract has been reneged on. And you were forced to be grateful for this, forced by the PC police to tolerate those who attack what you stand for and trash your most cherished values.

It isn’t Left vs. Right any longer… It is the out-of-touch liberal elite vs. the rest.

Trump’s election has changed all of this. It isn’t Left vs. Right any longer because a lot of that Left’s natural constituency has been lost (hopefully not permanently—a ray of hope—but what a missed opportunity a Sanders candidacy was). It is the out-of-touch liberal elite vs. the rest. And, guess what? The liberals are going to lose. Their signature ideology, free markets and human rights, will be among the first things to go. It appeals to too small a demographic. Why have people missed this? Because liberal elites talk to other liberal elites and political science often can’t see the wood for the trees.

Trump did everything possible to lose and he still won.

Can he fix any of this? Of course not. The seismic economic shifts are impossible to reverse without cutting off trade and growth, in which case greater fairness will come at the cost of huge economic contraction. Let us remember he’s promised tax cuts for the wealthy! What’s needed is a long-term plan of retraining, strategic investment in education and a great deal of research and development work for the new economy. All of which requires coordination, rather than endless bipartisan confrontation in both political and legal systems. It will need the very same experts, whose names are now so tarnished, to help formulate and implement the plan. These are big problems and will take a while to surface. What of the short term?

There are so many areas in which human rights will suffer, but let’s highlight three. Supreme Court appointments: one at least (with a Republican Senate likely to approve) will be enough to repeal Roe vs. Wade, and Trump might get three during his four years. Hang in there, Notorious RBG. Immigration: if the plan is really to deport millions of undocumented workers, then internment camps, dawn raids by thousands of armed government officials, deaths and killings in custody, border firefights and lacerating misery are almost inevitable. And foreign policy: Assad and Putin know that they can crush Aleppo with impunity because President Trump is only interested in something they also want, a massive air attack on ISIS. This isn’t even to start on Trump’s repudiation of generations of US foreign policy consensus on NATO, his tendency to make unilateral demands of other countries that he cannot possibly deliver on without negotiation and compromise, and his commitment to torture. Trump’s toxic attitudes will also surely affect the general climate for rights, for women, for the disabled, for minorities, in a deeply negative way by legitimating discrimination.

So, what is to be done? For human rights on the global scale, fight Trump and Trumpism. Fight fascism. Stop this ill-starred pursuit of failing global norms and institutions like the ICC, criminalizing the crime of aggression and a Convention on Crimes Against Humanity, and go where the struggle really is, on the ground, in national legislatures, in national courts, where there really is an “us” versus “them”. Embrace domestic, rather than international, politics. The struggle is now about democracy, democratic organization, reaching out, building coalitions of support that weaken the fascist base and getting into, in a serious way, class, race and identity. You fight fascism by rebuilding support for progressive democratic politics within national borders, not by building castles out of international normative air. It is now the national ballot box, more than international law, where the battle for human rights must be won.

(Stephen Hopgood is a professor of International Relations at SOAS, University of London. His most recent book is The Endtimes of Human Rights (for critiques see here), following on from Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International).

(This article was first published on openDemocracy).

Flip Flop Flip: Kerala Govt is Now for Women’s Entry into Sabarimala

November 10, 2016

The state plea to change its position was resisted by the temple through senior advocate KK Venugopal. The case will now be taken up on February 20.

The Kerala government has changed its stance, once again, in the case before the Supreme Court of India relating to entry of women of all ages in Sabarimala temple. The state government told the court on November 7 that it is ready to allow women, irrespective of their age, inside the temple. This is the second time the State is changing its stance in the case.

Soon after elections in the state that resulted in the Left Front government coming to power, a controversy had erupted when Kerala’s new Devaswom Minister, Kadakampally Surendran, then in office for little more than a week, had indicated that the government would reverse the UDF government stance opposing women’s entry. When the matter came up for hearing on Monday before Justices Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan and R Banumathi, the Judges sought a clarification from the lawyer for Kerala, Senior Advocate Jaydeep Gupta,to unequivocally state Kerala’s stance in the matter. Gupta’s response to the query was that it supported the entry of women into the temple. The petition challenging the ban on women between the age group 10-50 in the temple shrine was filed in Supreme Court in 2006. The LDF government, which was in power in Kerala at that time, had chosen not to oppose the petition and had filed an affidavit supporting the entry of women to the temple.

The case was then referred to a 3-judge Bench and went into cold storage for nearly 8 years before it was finally listed for hearing in 2016. By then the UDF was in power in the State and various factors including a change in the political equations in the State made the Congress government re-think the stance of the government. At this stage the Congress-led UDF government proceeded to file an affidavit changing it’s earlier stance. Claiming that the government had made a mistake in 2007 and had omitted to consider certain facts, the affidavit stated that women cannot be permitted in the temple since the practice flows from the temple deity’s celibacy vows.

The UDF government claimed that the practice is,“an essential and integral part of the right of practice of religion of a devotee and comes under the protective guarantee of the Constitution under Articles 25 and 26 which have been held to contain guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are an integral part of religion.”

However, with the Left Front returning to power in May 2016, there were expectations on a fresh look at the issue. Contrary to these expectations, the LDF government had, on July 11, submitted in the Supreme Court that it stood by the stance taken by the UDF government. However, finally on November 7, it has stated that it stands by the progressive position.The case is now posted for hearing on February 20 next year. The Court will also consider various intervention applications on that date.

Interestingly, however—in a move to possibly delay the issue further–the Travancore Devaswom Board suggested at the last hearing that the matter should be referred to a Constitution Bench. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, who appeared for the Devaswom Board, put forth the suggestion but Justice Dipak Misra quipped in a lighter vein that, “We’ll hear it first, otherwise it’s an insult to our intelligence”. The Devaswom Board is making this suggestion for the second time. It had sought the same during the hearing of the case on July 11.

Another similar litigation relating to entry of women in Haji Ali Dargah had just concluded in the Supreme Court. In that matter, it was the Bombay High Court had decided that women should be allowed into the shrine. The Durgah trust had inexplicably stopped entry there in 2011. Until then women had entered! This was challenged by the Haji Ali Dargah Trust in Supreme Court. But subsequently the Trust had chosen not to contest the matter and had told the Supreme Court that it will implement the decision of the High Court.

Sabrangindia has been consistently carrying articles on this issue. A critical piece by former Director General of Police (DGP) RB Sreekumar on the issue sheds light on the crucial issue of faith and constitutional first principles.

Also Read: Unholy and Unconstitutional: the ban of women from Sabarimala

Issues at Stake
Judicial scrutiny will be on how far can a gender discriminatory custom be allowed under the guise of it being an essential religious custom?

Can the individual right to religion (Article 25) be completely overshadowed and abrogated by a denominational right to manage internal affairs [Article 26(b)]?

Does preventing entry of ‘menstruating women’ in temples qualify as discrimination under Article 15?

Individual and group rights, their understanding and counter-balancing will be adjudged.

Genesis
Initially, the ban on ‘menstruating women’ was enforced under Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules 1965, which states that “Women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship”. It is as distressing an irony as any that these rules were made under a legislation, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965, meant to attack discrimination and facilitate temple entry. In 1991, the Kerala high court upheld the ban in the S. Mahendran v the Secretary, Travancore case and directed the Devasom Board to implement it. The judgment went unchallenged for 15 years until the India Young Lawyers Association revived the issue in Supreme Court through a PIL contending that Rule 3(b) violates constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination and religious freedom (Articles 14, 15 and 25). The PIL, filed in 2006, has seen many delays. The Kerala high court in 1991 held that the Sabarimala temple was within its rights to decide what were essential practices and to that extent, the custom of disallowing menstruating women into temple enjoyed constitutional sanction. It further held that the restriction on menstruating women was a restriction based on age and not ‘women’ as a class. Para 22 of the judgment, the high court is significant in as much as it read:

“The position that emerges is that a religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion. No outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of such religious denomination. Article 26(b) gives complete freedom to the religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The only restriction imposed by that article is that the exercise of the right is subject to public order, morality and health.”

Article 26(b) of the constitution reads: “Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion”. The challenge before the Supreme Court pointed out that the high court erred grievously in interpreting the limitations on the exercise of Article 26(b). For the custom of disallowing menstruating women to pass constitutional muster, it must have satisfied two tests – (i) the custom should have formed part of ‘essential religious practice’, and then examined on the touchstone of ‘public order, health and morality’. Besides, the denominational right to manage internal affairs must not be interpreted so widely as to totally abrogate the individual right of religion for women.

Twin Concerns: Essence of Religious Practice and Constitutional Paradigms

The constitution guarantees individual rights [Article 25(1)], as well as group rights [Article 26(b)], but these guarantees are for ‘religious practices’ and not for all practices associated with religion. Over the years, the Supreme Court has developed a questionable, if not controversial doctrine of ‘essential religious practices’ to determine which religious practices enjoy constitutional protection and which do not. As with other such issues in developing jurisprudence, the Court has not taken a consistent view and judgements have been marked by a changing gaze on what constitutes essential religious practices and what not.

For quite some time now, the high threshold under this doctrine requires the denomination to demonstrate a contested practice as so central that its absence will change the nature of the religion fundamentally (Ananda Margi II case, Haji Ali case). So while the “non-entry” of women can be a religious tenet, in this case, it cannot be readily presumed that its regulation will fundamentally and irreversibly challenge the existence of the sect and its core belief system.

RB Sreekumar’s seminal article for Sabrangindia shows how, in fact the issue of mensturation is contested and complexes, faith actually even worshipping deities shown in this menstrual cycle.
In the landmark judgments of Naz Foundation and Shreya Singhal, ‘morality’ has been interpreted as ‘constitutional morality’ and not popular or individual morality. Constitutional morality may be understood as the core framework of values and principles like equality, non-discrimination, dignity, rule of law etc., that characterises and justifies the constitution. In the Sabarimala case, there is a very strong presumption that the controversial custom of restricting women offends the value of ‘non-discrimination’ which is the central pillar of that constitutional morality.

Custom and Equality

Article 15 of the constitution only prohibits the state from discriminating against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth. When reminded of this provision, the Kerala high court said,
“Women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship. That amounts to a reasonable restriction and the entry in Sabarimala temple is prohibited only in respect of women of a particular age group and not women as a class.”

The challenge demonstrates how the high court merely mechanically interpreted the discrimination between menstruating and non-menstruating women to be “reasonable classification” without engaging with the legitimacy of the classification. Why classify between those menstruating and those not in the first place? The discrimination is based on two levels – it targets women as a group at first instance and then employs an age filter to exclude menstruating women. If the classification was not based on sex, it should not have excluded women only. But the obvious fact is that classifying on the basis of menstruation will end up being a default classification on the basis of sex. Additionally, the objective of differentiation itself is constitutionally suspect and illegitimate. The objective of menstruating women is disallowed because they are seen as “incapable of being celibate” or “impure”. This is a refined way of saying they are impure because they can menstruate and they can reproduce. Purity is not and cannot be a constitutional ideal, especially since the measures of purity are defined by and sculpted from vicious structures and wellsprings of casteism and patriarchy.

The Critical Balance: Individual and Group Rights
When confronted with the question of the relationship between individual and denominational rights, the high court took the literal route and reasoned,
“The freedom of conscience and freedom to speak, profess and propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the constitution is subject not only to public order, morality and health, but also subject to the other provisions of Chapter III. It necessarily implies that the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 is subject to the freedom to manage religious affairs guaranteed under Article 26(b) of the constitution.”

This means that if there is a conflict between individual claims of religious freedom and denominational claims of management of religious affairs, the denominational claims can completely abrogate the rights of the whole group such as women, Dalits and dissidents. No attempt was made to balance these rights or even harmonise them. This is constitutionally questionable, even regressive for various reasons. The court failed to consider if a group right makes sense independently on its own without the individual right to practise religion.

Deserting the mandate of social reform
According to Article 25(2) (b), the state has the overriding power to bring a legislation to provide for social reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. This power can be used to reform all retrograde aspects of religious practice and customs, especially in matters of temple entry. Article 25(2) (b) is living proof that the constitution-makers were quite wary of unfair, discriminatory practises within religious customs and committed to purging them. The claims of sacrosanctity of religious customs are belied by the history of legislative interventions banning customs relating to Sati, child marriage, Devadasis and untouchability.

The controversial Kerala Hindu places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 was born out of this very constitutional prerogative. Section 3 of the Act provides that no Hindu, of whatever section or class, shall in any manner be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of public worship (meant for Hindus), or from worshipping or offering prayer, there at, or performing any religious service. Though Section 3 of the Act prohibits discrimination against any class in temple-entry, Rule 3(b) goes on to do exactly that by preventing women who were customarily prohibited from entering or worshipping at any place of public worship. It is an established and fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that ‘rule making’, which is delegated legislation, cannot be interpreted in a way to supplant the provisions of the enabling Act but only to supplement it. The state cannot claim rule-making power for the objective of facilitating temple entry and proceed to achieve exactly the opposite goal. There is more than a mistake here – Rule 3(b) has the odour of bad faith and all the trappings of a concealed constitution scandal. The rule cannot be allowed to swallow the whole edifice of the social reform legislation itself and therefore must be struck down.

Where will this end ?
The Sabrimala Case has traversed a decade. The Sabarimala case represents not just the hopes of devout women seeking entry into the temple, but also those who wish a strong, cogent constitutional precedent be established for the future. The battle for gender justice, individual rights and non-discrimination cannot be waged on only observations, interim orders of the court. This case is an opportunity for the court to give us a precedent that firmly entrenches constitutional morality in our political vocabulary and liberates individual rights from the choking hold of group rights. How the Supreme Court navigates through these invisible fault lines of religious and constitutional morality will tell us if ten years were too short.

That awkward Moment Tipu Sultan restored a Hindu Temple that the Marathas sacked

November 10, 2016

Today, medieval India is seen as a place of eternal religious conflict. But that view is more due to modern-day politics than the actual events of history.

Image credit: Scroll.in

In 1940, as Mahomed Ali Jinnah laid out his vision of the Two Nation Theory in Lahore, he argued that Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent have separate pasts. “It is quite clear,” said the soon-to-be Qaid-e-Azam, “that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history”.

More than anything else from the 1940s, this unfortunate – and erroneous – formulation has stuck on across the subcontinent, raising its head most recently in Karnataka, where a furious debate rages over celebrating the birth anniversary of a 18th-century ruler of Mysore, Tipu Sultan.

Two-nation theory versus reality

Even as the ruling Congress party in the state is adamant about celebrating the birthday of the monarch on November 10 – spurred in large part with an eye on Muslim votes – the Bharatiya Janata Party is organising anti-Tipu rallies and has declared the occasion to be a “black day”. In a mirror image to the Congress, the BJP hopes its stand will attract Hindu votes. “Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other,” Jinnah had said in Lahore, little aware that this would describe Kannadiga politics eight decades later.

Yet, the historical record is far more complex than modern politics would have you believe. For example, where does the tale of a Muslim Tipu Sultan as the defender of a Hindu temple fit? Especially when he was defending it from the Marathas, who are often seen in modern India as archetypal Hindutva heroes, battling for a mythical proto-nation.

Third Anglo-Mysore War

In the late 1700s, the subcontinent was in flux. The Mughals, while still seen as token sovereigns, had lost actual power. Any hope of the Marathas replacing them was dashed at the Third Battle of Panipat, where the Afghans won a crushing victory. As subcontinental powers declined, the star of the British rose.

In 1789, the British teamed up with their allies, the Marathas and the Hyderabad Nizam, to pluck out the last thorn in their side: the king of Mysore, Tipu Sultan, who had, more than any other ruler, understood the grave threat the East Indian Company posed.

The Marathas and Tipu Sultan did not like each other very much and their hostilities predated this war. In fact, Hyder Ali, Tipu’s father, first made his mark by taking the fort of Devanhalli (close to Bengaluru) from the Marathas in a bitterly fought battle.

In 1791, therefore, the Marathas, under the command of Raghunath Rao Patwardhan invaded the Mysore district of Bednur. Here, there proceeded to sack the Sringeri monastery.

Temple, run

Attacking temples during war wasn't exactly unusual (for example, the Maratha attack on the Tirupati shrine in 1759 is little remembered). But this was no ordinary place of worship. It had been founded a thousand years before by the father of Hindu Adviata philosophy, Adi Shankaracharya. The monk set up an abbey in each corner of the subcontinent: Shringeri in the South, Puri in the East, Dwaraka in the West and Joshimath in the North.

Given this lineage, the Sringeri monastery had been patronised by rulers – both Hindu and Muslim – ever since it was founded. Tipu continued this tradition and maintained a close relationship with the abbey, sending it valuable gifts and awarding it tax-free land. In fact, in his personal correspondence, Tipu would address the monastery’s swamy, head reverentially as “jagadguru” or “ruler of the world”.

This prestige meant the temple was also wealthy, which was probably why the Marathas sacked it – the first time it was to see such a calamity in its millennia-long history. The Marathas stripped the monastery of its considerable wealth, killed many Brahmins and desecrated the idol of the temple's presiding deity, the goddess Sharada.

After the attack, the Swamy, who fled the sack, wrote urgently to Tipu asking for his help in reconsecrating the idol of Sharada. Tipu replied back angrily, writing in Sanskrit, “People do evil smiling but will suffer the penalty in torments of agony." The Sultan also made monetary arrangements for the consecration of the Goddess and also sent along his token gifts for the idol.

Past is a different country

With the rise of Hindutva in Karnataka in the 1990s, Tipu’s image was sought to be changed from a secular freedom fighter to Muslim tyrant. However, this incident stuck out like a sore thumb. The event – where “Hindu” Marathas attacked a temple protected by a “Muslim” Tipu – confused people who would have liked to see medieval Karnataka as a mirror of modern India, with Hindu-Muslim communal sentiment being a major axis of politics.

Of course, the past is a foreign country. There is no doubt that Tipu committed, what would be by modern standards, atrocities and war crimes. But so did the Marathas, in Sringeri. While Tipu's violence was par for the course during his age, the mistake many modern-day readers do is to backread a modern communal motive to his actions.

They do things differently there

What Tipu was doing was an old template of power politics in the region. For example, he demolished the Varaha Temple, which employed the boar symbol of the Mysore dynasty that he had replaced. But he also let other temples in his kingdom remain unmolested. In fact, like with Sringeri, Tipu patronised a number of powerful Hindu temples. He donated silver vessels to the Sri Ranganatha temple in his capital and even ordered the installation of a jade linga, Shiva idol at the Nanjundeshwara temple at Nanjangud.

Hindu and Christian communities were targeted by Tipu but, as historian Kate Brittlebank points out, “this was not a religious policy but one of chastisement”. The communities he targeted were seen as disloyal to the Mysore state. Tipu also, in fact, acted against Muslim communities such as the Mahdevis, who would support the British and find employment as horsemen in the East India Company’s armies. Even as Tipu attacked Hindus and Christians from outside Mysore, as Susan Bayly says, he “was careful to foster close ritual and political relations with Hindus and even Christians with his own domain, provided these groups posed no threat to this authority”.

Tipu’s right-hand man, in fact was a Hindu: Purnaiya, his chief minister. This is so different from the modern subcontinent that it is actually quite difficult to think of a Hindu being the second-most important person in the Pakistan government or a Muslim in the present Indian government.

In the end, the Tipu Jayanti fracas provided a ringside view of how modern politics uses history to create and reinforce present-day identities.

(This article was first published on Scroll.in.)

Trump’s Victory: the ‘Whitelash’ against the Liberal Order

November 10, 2016

The new nativism thrives off the failures of neoliberalism. We have entered a dangerous era of anti-liberalism.

Image credit: Business Insider

A few thoughts on the causes and consequences of Trump’s victory:

– Bill Clinton’s legacy may have cost Hillary the election. It’s now clear that NAFTA, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to regulate banking, and the welfare reforms that threw millions into poverty, laid the seeds for Trump’s victory. Under Obama, who will leave office with a higher approval rating than Reagan, unemployment is under 5% and worker pay is growing at 2.8% – the highest rate since the 2008 crash. But Clintonism as a political economy has created deep alienation, and it has no future.

– The age of neoliberalism is drawing to a close. Despite his love of theatrics, Donald Trump has never been an admirer of Ronald Reagan, whose aversion to walls helped foster globalisation. Trump, in his vitriolic tone and ‘divide-and-rule’ cultural strategy, is more reminiscent of Nixon, the master of anti-liberalism. The economic decline and backlash against the liberal order makes our moment feel like the mid-1970s, with all its reactionary insularity.

– In part because of this shift, Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate. Not only did she offer continuity when Americans were yearning for change, but she embodied a corrupt establishment order. The hubris of her campaign was staggering: Clinton did not visit Wisconsin after the primaries in April, and with a fortnight to go, money and energy was redirected to Texas, which the Democrats had little chance of winning. Voter demographics are changing in the south, but not so rapidly to shift the deep roots of Republican support.

– Nonetheless, Clinton was the recipient of virulent and vicious misogyny: ‘the wicked witch’, the ‘nasty woman’. That 45% of white college-educated women voters backed Trump is testament to a dismaying lack of solidarity across racial and class lines.organized social democratic solidarity is the only way to fight the politics of ethnic grievance.

– The most severe and significant impact of this result will be on the planet itself – Trump has stated that he will cancel the Paris climate accords, and with them our best chance of halting global warming.

– A vote for American chauvinism will result in the weakening of American power. Like Brexit Britain, the US will become consumed in internal division, with emboldened reactionaries sowing seeds along racial and religious fault lines. Trump has offered a textbook example of how to win by exploiting ethnic divisions – his campaign will be copied in years to come.

– The nativist backlash against Obama, stoked by Trump since his ‘birther’ campaign, has deep roots in the unresolved legacy of slavery, as illustrated by the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2005, during the bleak days of George W. Bush’s second term, the literary critic Harold Bloom wrote: “Sometimes I find myself wondering if the south belatedly has won the civil war, more than a century after its supposed defeat”. After the election of the Barack Obama, this thesis seemed absurd – but the ‘whitelash’ may suggest otherwise.

– ‘Socialism or barbarism’ – Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could have beaten Trump. Far from representing an ‘un-American tradition’, Bernie was capable of reconstituting (part of) the New Deal Democrat coalition. He would surely have retained the key blue-collar states that Clinton lost – Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Moreover, organized social democratic solidarity is the only way to fight the politics of ethnic grievance. Elizabeth Warren may have been an even stronger candidate: a fluent speaker with a powerful back story and a proven commitment to tackling inequality.

– The election campaign was an embarrassment for American democracy. Of all the farcical episodes, the FBI (Trump) vs CIA (Clinton) saga was redolent of the power struggles of a banana republic. (A strange sensation for Democrats to be supporting the CIA, backer of banana republics, in the name of democracy). James Comey, the FBI’s director, has a lot to answer for.

– The hard-won achievements of the Obama presidency will be eroded. Trump has promised to repeal Obamacare within his first 100 days – a decision that will cause immeasurable pain for millions of Americans.

– “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS”, said CEO Leslie Moonves. Like its competitors, CBS – once the gold standard of American journalism – enabled the rise of Trump. Ratings-obsessed, financially-imperiled networks gave Trump thousands of hours of free coverage during the primaries, and indulged him with false equivalences (particularly over the email ‘scandal’). In the world of political reality television, why vote off the most ‘entertaining’ contestant?

– This media was guilty of terrible complacency. At the start of the primaries, The Huffington Post refused to report on Trump in the Politics section, instead relegating him to Entertainment. (The HuffPo also gave Clinton a 98% probability of victory in its final reckoning – a perfect example of the failure of the polling companies to map the underlying trends). Exactly a month before the election, Slate ran an article in the past tense: ‘Donald Trump Could Have Been President’. The nations that conceived of the Enlightenment have turned against it with a vengeance.

– Expect Trump to go after independent media – there is no reason to believe that as president he will respect the boundaries of the fourth estate, after having attacked journalists so personally and relentlessly. We need independent media now more than ever.

– The vanities of the liberal echo chamber (the campus conversation about cultural appropriation, for example) shows quite how far progressives have strayed from the national debate. Young people need to re-engage in conversations beyond their ‘safe spaces’.

– We are back in the era of the strongman: Duterte in the Phillipines, Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey. As Modi in India proves, majoritarian identity politics can be electorally potent.

– Le Pen is now in pole position to become France’s president next year. The nations that conceived of the Enlightenment have turned against it with a vengeance.

– Trump’s courting with Russia is deeply troubling, but his relationship with China may be even more significant. Trump obsessed over China during the campaign, and how his administration deals with the Xi Jinping will tell us much about the future of free trade, as well as nuclear disarmament. (Trump, looking to draw down American involvement in east Asia, has suggested that Japan and South Korea develop their own nuclear weapons).

– This is the end of the ‘End of History’. Or is it? Fukuyama himself anticipated this reaction in the final paragraph of his essay:

The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period, there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come… Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again”

(This article was first published on OpenDemocracy.net.)

What Should We Do? Delhi Govt Asks Citizens. IIT Answered 10 Months Ago

November 10, 2016

Ten months after the Delhi government accepted an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) study that it had commissioned on the city’s air pollution, key recommendations remain unimplemented. Instead, a government minister has put out a social-media petition requesting suggestions from citizens.

A woman wears a mask to protect herself from the pollution during a protest in Delhi. An Aam Aadmi Party minister put out a social media petition asking citizens for suggestions to check pollution following reports that Delhi is experiencing the worst smog in 17 years. On November 2 and 5, 2016, some areas in Delhi recorded a 24-hour average PM 2.5 level of over 950 µg/m³–nearly 40 times above the WHO safe levels.

In a 334-page report, submitted to the Delhi government in January 2016, IIT Kanpur (IIT-K) recommended 28 measures over the next seven years, to contain and reduce from source various pollutants fouling the Capital’s air; 17 measures could begin immediately. The IIT report should also be useful to the Centre, which has been given two days by the Supreme Court to suggest how the air quality crisis can be addressed, according to this Mint report.

If all the 28 recommendations are implemented, air quality will improve by anywhere between 30% to 100%, the study estimated. At least 19 of these 28 steps are not new to the Delhi government, found an IndiaSpend analysis of available government data sets on action taken to curb air pollution in Delhi since 2015, indicating that solutions were either ignored or not implemented.

These recommendations include:

prohibiting the burning of domestic waste;
ensuring electric tandoors for restaurants with seating capacities of over 10 persons;
stopping the burning of crop residue;
careful handling and transportation of construction materials and debris;
minimising the release of particulate matter into the air at concrete plants;
and regularly checking vehicular pollution.

The study, which did not recommend a restriction on cars based on odd-even registration numbers, put forth a slew of longer-term measures to curb emissions from vehicles and industries–some of which may begin in 2017.

Click here to view the action taken on the recommendations.

Through the year, there was no debate and little action over the IIT-K recommendations and Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government only took emergency measures–including closing down schools, shutting down a power plant, banning garden-waste burning, and banning construction activity, and diesel generators for 10 days except in hospitals and emergency situations–when the air-quality deteriorated in Delhi last week.

Instead, AAP minister for water and tourism, Kapil Mishra,, put out a social media petition on November 7, 2016, on Change.org, a social-media platform.

‘What steps should the Delhi govt take?’ asks minister. IIT-K told his govt

“Pollution in Delhi has reached a point of being a Public Health Emergency. I have seen multiple petitions and appeals on Change.org to address Delhi’s pollution crisis… I am keen to hear from you,” read the petition. “Take two minutes to let me know your opinion – What steps should the Delhi Government take?”

The petition came following reports that Delhi is experiencing the worst smog in 17 years, as mentioned in this Indian Express report. On November 2 and 5, the daily average levels of PM 2.5 pollutants in Delhi (fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size) hovered over 700µg/m³ with some areas registering a 24-hour average of over 950µg/m³–nearly 40 times above the safe levels set by World Health Organization(WHO)–show data from our #Breathe network of sensors.

PM 2.5 is about 30 times finer than a human hair and poses the greatest risk to humans. The particles can be inhaled deep into the lungs, causing heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer and respiratory diseases. Their measurement is considered to be the best indicator of the level of health risks from air pollution, according to the WHO.

Delhi environment minister Imran Hussain also urged Union environment minister Anil Madhav Dave the same day for a large-scale apportionment study–identifying sources of pollution–for the national capital region (NCR), by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), to design anti-air pollution measures, said this Mint report.

This apportionment study, Comprehensive Study on Air Pollution and Green House Gases (GHGs) in Delhi, is–as we said–already available with the Delhi government, its details reported by IndiaSpend in October 2016.

Source: Source: Comprehensive Study on Air Pollution and Green House Gases (GHGs) in Delhi, IIT Kanpur

In winter, Delhi’s major sources of PM 2.5 pollutants, as identified by IIT-Kanpur, are: industries, especially thermal power plants, emitting secondary particles (25 – 30% of pollution), vehicles (20 – 25%), crop fires (17 – 26%), solid waste burning (9 – 8%), and, to a lesser extent, soil and road dust, as we reported.

New pollution-control measures: Old wine in a new bottle

Our analysis of Lok Sabha (parliament’s lower house) responses and websites of the Delhi Government show that the central and state governments were already supposed to have carried out some of the measures that IIT-K suggested in its report, an indication of poor implementation.

While the CPCB banned the used of coal in restaurants and hotels in December 2015, burning garbage has been banned for more than a decade under the Municipal Solid Waste Management rules of 2000.

Construction dust, previously governed under the same law, is now addressed in the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.

Meanwhile, a 2006 Environment Impact Assessment Notification regulates pollution from building activities and concrete plants, with laws for prevention, abatement and air pollution, as this response to the Lok Sabha from December 2015 revealed.

Similarly, efforts to check vehicular pollutants have been underway at Pollution Under Control (PUC) centres under a 2004 programme.

Among the new measures recommended in the report, the government has yet to buy machines that can vacuum major roads and spray water to settle dust. Private contractors largely did not respond to a related tender because it clubbed sweeping with greening and beautification of roads, according to this March 2016 NDTV report.

Meanwhile, minister Mishra says 5,000 responses from citizens

“In a single day Change.org received 600 petitions with respect to the Delhi smog,” AAP minister Mishra told IndiaSpend. “We felt that aside from the policy decisions the Government will take on this issue, it was time to reach out to the people and find out what are their thoughts on how to tackle this problem and what they can commit to individually.”

In less than one hour, his petition elicited more than 5,000 responses, said Mishra.

In the petition, Mishra said he and Hussain would personally look into the recommendations offered: “My commitment to you is that we will start working on the solutions being provided immediately.”

(Saldanha is an assistant editor with IndiaSpend.)

This article was first published on IndiaSpend

Online Petition demands Withdrawal of Charges against Sundar, Prasad and Others

November 9, 2016

An online petition demanding withdrawal of charges pressed against the academicians and activists by Chhattisgarh police in the case of murder of a tribal villager, has been receiving support not just from India, but also from parts of world like South Africa, UK and USA.

Prof Nandini Sundar

The petition, uploaded by Prof Aparna Sundar addressed to the president, prime minister and home minister of the country, alleges that the charges have been fabricated by police.

On Sunday, Chhattisgarh police booked Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Professor Archana Prasad, Delhi University (DU) professor Nandini Sundar, Vineet Tiwari of Joshi Adhikar Sansthan, Delhi, Chhattisgarh CPI(M) state secretary Sanjay Parate, Mangalram Karma, and Manju Kawasi, CPI activist and Sarpanch of Guphidi in Sukma district for the alleged murder of a tribal villager Shamnath Baghel on November 4. Baghel had earlier this year complained to the police that Prof Sundar and others are inciting tribals against the government.

SabrangIndia had earlier reported that the Chhattisgarh police had called all the accused academicians and activists ‘Naxals’, and had booked them under sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 and 149 of IPC.

However, talking to SabrangIndia, Prof Prasad and Parate had called the allegations ‘bogus’ and had termed it as an attack on activism. Several academicians have since stepped forward showing their support, including JNU Teachers’ Association and the said petitioner.

The petition, which has received support from 404 people so far, elaborates on work done by those named in the FIR in the insurgency-afflicted area and their repeated attempts at achieving peace in Bastar. It has also blamed Chhattisgarh police for fabricating the charges in order to intimidate the activists. It has been endorsed by many users who claim to be belonging to several other countries.

Read the full text of the petition below:

We, the undersigned, are outraged by recent charges of murder that have been laid against Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar, JNU professor Archana Prasad, Vineet Tiwari (of Joshi Adhikar Sansthan, Delhi), Chhattisgarh CPI(M) state secretary, Sanjay Parate, Mangalram Karma, and Manju Kawasi, CPI activist and Sarpanch of Guphidi in Sukma district, by the Chhattisgarh police in the killing of Shamnath Baghel.

The charges are patently fabricated, and follow a pattern of intimidation by the Chhattisgarh police every time evidence is released of their lawless prosecution of the war against the Maoists. Earlier this year, Sundar, Prasad, Tiwari and Parate were part of a fact-finding team that looked at the impact of Maoist violence and state excesses on ordinary villagers in Bastar, finding that they were victims of fake encounters, rapes, arrests, beatings, IED blasts, and killing of informers, implicating Maoists, police, and security forces. The residents of Bastar were also found to be facing the renewal of attacks by civilian militias armed by the state. At that time too, the district administration of Bastar had tried to implicate the fact-finding team on fake charges on the basis of a contrived complaint. More recently, when the police were charge-sheeted on the basis of evidence gathered by Sundar and others for carrying out arson in an operation in 2011, they retaliated by burning effigies of her and other activists and journalists in order to intimidate and incite violence against them.

Sundar and others have put on record their unequivocal condemnation of the killing of Shamnath Baghel. Their writing and interventions on the ongoing war in Bastar have consistently condemned all forms of violence, whether by the state or by the Maoists.

We are saddened by the climate of silencing of dissent that is becoming widespread in India and concerned that the work of researchers, journalists, lawyers and activists is being monitored and controlled to quell critical scrutiny of governmental actions. We believe such silencing of opposing views poses a grave danger to the democratic values of India.

We condemn the police tactics of intimidating and harassing of journalists, lawyers, researchers, political leaders and human rights activists who have been documenting and speaking out against the violence and brutality unleashed by the police, paramilitary, and civilian militias against the local population of Bastar in the war against the Maoists. We demand that the Government of India unconditionally withdraw all charges against all the six persons who have been falsely accused by Chhattisgarh police. We further demand that an inquiry be set up to interrogate the manner in which the police is interfering with law and taking the liberty to frame researchers and activists to create an atmosphere of terror.

1...2,3792,3802,381...2,697 Page 2,380 of 2,697

“If Hinduism is a way of life, so are Islam and Christianity, or any other — SC must revisit Hindutva verdict”

Contextualizing the Secular Fabric of India and Section 123 of RP Act

Kejriwal targets Modi for alleged secret deal with Paytm on demonetisation, Aaj Tak deletes tweet

Fascism Rising: Is this how it begins?

Flip Flop Flip: Kerala Govt is Now for Women’s Entry into Sabarimala

The state plea to change its position was resisted by the temple through senior advocate KK Venugopal. The case will now be taken up on February 20.

That awkward Moment Tipu Sultan restored a Hindu Temple that the Marathas sacked

Today, medieval India is seen as a place of eternal religious conflict. But that view is more due to modern-day politics than the actual events of history.

Two-nation theory versus reality

Third Anglo-Mysore War

Temple, run

Past is a different country

They do things differently there

Trump’s Victory: the ‘Whitelash’ against the Liberal Order

The new nativism thrives off the failures of neoliberalism. We have entered a dangerous era of anti-liberalism.

What Should We Do? Delhi Govt Asks Citizens. IIT Answered 10 Months Ago

Online Petition demands Withdrawal of Charges against Sundar, Prasad and Others

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT