National Protest Marking One Year since M.M. Kalburgi’s Assassination

September 3, 2016

Protest in Dharwad

Writers, artistes and activists from different parts of the country came together in Dharwad for a protest march on August 30th to mark the passing of a year since the assassination of Dr M.M. Kalburgi. The protesters set a deadline of one month for the Karnataka government to arrest the persons involved in the assassination.

Expressing solidarity with the family members of slain thinkers and activists Kalburgi, Govind Pansare and Narendra Dabholkar, secularists attending the public meeting condemned the Karnataka government’s slow investigation of the case. They also threatened to gherao the upcoming assembly session to be held in Belagavi in November.

In his keynote address, linguistic scholar Ganesh Devy said the event was an answer to the fascist forces taking over the nation that are intolerant to different kinds of thought. Kannada critic Narahalli Balasubrahmanyam termed the convention a historic event.

A rally was taken out from residence of slain scholar Dr M. M. Kalburgi in Kalyan Nagar, Dharwad on Tuesday, in which over 5,000 students and commoners of Karnataka were present.

Filmmaker Anjum Rajabali said the three martyrs continued to remind us of the significance of liberalism and freedom of expression, which were under threat in the current atmosphere. "It is the right time for us to become capable of respecting freedom of expression. We have also gathered here to protect our secularism. Let the rule of law prevail in the nation," he added.

Prof Rajendra Chenni, a writer from Karnataka, said freedom of expression stood threatened in many countries of the world. "Fascist forces are grabbing the rights of farmers, labourers, and selling them to corporate interests. If we don't raise our voices against this trend, we will all become slaves of one thought and religion."

He asserted that Kalburgi had revived truth by capturing facts in his scholarly output of about 4,000 pages in Kannada. "His researches always concentrated on truth and life. However, the government is insulting the scholar by delaying the investigation into his death. It does not have the moral courage to show its face to the martyrs' family members. Having waited one full year, we have lost faith in the government, and are dispirited by its readymade assurances," he lamented.

Linguistic scholar Ganesh Devy and Punjabi writer Atmajit Singh meet Umadevi, widow of slain scholar Dr M. M. Kalburgi on his first death anniversary on Tuesday in Dharwad.

Prof Chandrashekhar Patil, who was a classmate and colleague of Kalburgi's, said Kalburgi, Pansare and Dabholkar were synonymous with a revolution. "Today’s convention is not only about offering condolences, it is a platform of pain, protest. The government should crack the mystery of the murder at the earliest. There is an opinion that communal forces have been a hurdle in expediting the investigation. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah should clarify… whether his government has also bowed before fascism," he demanded.

Megha Pansare, daughter-in-law of Govind Pansare, demanded that the conspirators be brought before the people to maintain their faith in the administration. "Though governments have mechanisms like the CBI and CID, they are not doing effective work in cracking these assassination cases. At the other end, different thoughts are being suppressed and silenced using weapons."

Mukta Dabholkar, daughter of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, demanded to know how Kalburgi was killed even though his residence was located in a posh area of Dharwad, right in the heart of the town. Calling him an asset to the nation, she blamed the Congress- and BJP-led governments for their failure to protect scholars and intellectuals. Goan writer Damodar Manjo echoed her words, adding, however, that he was glad to see fellow Indians fighting against fascists now targeting dalits in Gujarat and other states.

Kalburgi's son Srivijaya said the wounds created after his father's assassination were still fresh. He recounted, "My father used to tell us to work for society and humanity. He always fought for social equality and a healthy society. I feel that it is those who murdered him who are the anti-nationals. They killed an aged person; they are not brave, but cowardly." He concluded that even after their death, Kalburgi, Pansare and Dabholkar were still alive.

Aravind Malagatti, a dalit writer from Karnataka, questioned the state and central governments over the rise of moral policing and vigilante justice. He reminded the gathering of the need for a Gandhi nation, even as fascists attempt to convert India into a Godse nation. Claiming that progressive thinkers were the real patriots, Malagatti suggested that in order to discover the reality of India, the prime minister "should come face to face in a discussion with commoners rather than addressing citizens through his Mann Ki Baat show on the radio." Several speakers questioned the social developments that have led to increasing attacks on secular and rational thought.

Veteran Kannada writer Guruling Kapse noted that Basavanna, a social reformer of the 12th century, and Kalburgi were both from the Vijayapura district of Karnataka. "As a scholar, Kalburgi spread Basavanna’s teachings and revived them with his truth based research," he remarked. Noted scholar of Bhagat Singh's writings Prof Chaman Lal likened Kalburgi’s murder to the murder of the Vachanas ordered by the Sharanas of the 12th century, and placed his work in the tradition of thinkers like Guru Nanak, Kabir and Akkamahadevi.

Marathi writer Anand Karandikar observed that "assassinations of anti-brahminical and anti-caste movement leaders have been common in India." In the same vein, activist K. Neela from the Janwadi Mahila Sangathan, related the struggle against authoritarianism to the growing dalit movement in Gujarat as well as farmers' rights movements in other parts of the country.

Others in attendance included Noor Sridhar, Marathi writer Kumar Ketkar, veteran playwright Siddhaling Pattanseti, senior journalists Siddharth Vardarajan and Antara Dev Sen, economist Jaya Mehta, CPI leader Siddanagouda Patil, and TUCI state president R. Manasayya. Attendees voiced the urgent need to recast public discourse so as to protect India's multi-cultural, multi-linguistic heritage, and called attention to the repressive diktats around food, religion and thought issued during the Modi regime which have led to several incidents of mob violence. Several speakers attested that the struggle would continue until an end was put to atrocities committed on the basis of cultural and ideological differences.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

Why the case against the Human Rights Act is so weak

September 3, 2016

The Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 and made the rights set down in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) part of UK law for the first time. The ECHR was drafted after World War II and places obligations on its signatories to protect certain rights, such as the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured and the right to freedom of expression. The UK was instrumental in its drafting and was the first country to ratify it in 1951.

Now Liz Truss, Britain’s justice secretary and Lord Chancellor, has confirmed that the UK government intends to fulfil the Conservative manifesto promise to replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights. But the case for doing this is unconvincing and unnecessary.

Although Theresa May mooted the idea of withdrawing the UK from the ECHR during the EU referendum campaign, since becoming British prime minister she has stated that after Brexit she does not intend to do so. Given this, it seems pointless to consider replacing the Human Rights Act with a new UK Bill of Rights.

No threat to sovereignty

Before the Human Rights Act was introduced, the UK’s obligations under the ECHR existed only in international law, so that only the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg could hear cases concerning breaches of the Convention brought against the UK. The Conservatives argue that “Britain shouldn’t be told what to do by judges in Strasbourg”. Yet the Act enables UK judges to decide ECHR cases rather than judges in Strasbourg having to hear them.

The Act also incorporates the ECHR into UK law while protecting parliamentary sovereignty – the principle that parliament can enact any law whatsoever and that the courts cannot rule an Act of Parliament to be invalid.

Under the Act, parliament remains free to legislate in breach of the ECHR and, as demonstrated by the refusal to alter a ban on the rights of prisoners to vote, may refuse to comply with judgements of the Strasbourg court. So, the suggestion by May that the ECHR and the Human Rights Act “bind(s) the hands of parliament” is incorrect. If an Act of Parliament is incompatible with the ECHR, UK courts may issue a declaration to that effect but this does not affect the legislation’s validity or the outcome of any case. Neither the UK courts, nor Strasbourg, have the power to strike down legislation because it conflicts with the ECHR.

Where the judges sit in Strasbourg. Oleg Mikhaylov/www.shutterstock.com

The government has not yet published a draft of its proposed UK Bill of Rights, though there are reports that it is ready. But, like the Human Rights Act, it would apply only within the UK and would not alter the way in which the Strasbourg court works.

Respecting UK courts

Some Conservatives claim that the Human Rights Act “undermines the role of UK courts in deciding on human rights issues in this country” because it requires them to “take into account” decisions of the Strasbourg court. Yet it is difficult to see why this undermines UK courts. It simply obliges them to consider applying the ECHR in a way which is consistent with the Strasbourg court. It does not require them to slavishly follow Strasbourg but it does mean they can apply the ECHR in a way which respects the UK’s laws and principles and which is unlikely to be ruled a breach of the ECHR by the Strasbourg court. This empowers, rather than undermines, UK courts because they are able to conclusively determine ECHR matters rather than UK citizens having to rely on the Strasbourg court to enforce their rights.

The deportation of the extremist Abu Qatada, and other suspected terrorists, is often cited as a reason for replacing the Human Rights Act. Qatada’s deportation to Jordan was blocked by the UK Court of Appeal, and later by Strasbourg, because he may have been subject to trial using evidence obtained by torture in Jordan. Yet, once the government had obtained sufficient assurances from the Jordanians, he was finally lawfully deported in 2013.
The government’s reaction to the Qatada case suggests that they believe ministers should have the power to deport people at their whim, without judicial oversight and with no regard to what may happen to them in the receiving country – but that would not be the hallmark of a democracy committed to the rule of law.

The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, once said: “There are countries in the world where all judicial decisions find favour with the government, but they are not places where one would wish to live.” In any healthy democracy, there will, and should, be decisions which do not go the government’s way. This is not a sufficient reason for altering the protection of human rights.

The Human Rights Act incorporates the ECHR into UK law in a simple, elegant and sensible way while protecting long-standing principles of the UK constitution. It also allows disputes about those rights to be heard by UK courts rather than Strasbourg.

Talk of replacing it seems to be little more than playing to the gallery, a pandering to the Conservative party’s supporters. The result of the Brexit referendum should warn against such posturing and such an unnecessary, regressive step which may weaken the protection afforded to the rights of citizens in the UK.

Author is Reader in Law, Edge Hill University

Article was first published in The Conversation

How ascetics and yogis were depicted in Indian paintings from the Mughal era

September 3, 2016

A look at illustrated historical manuscripts and Deccani paintings from the British Library.

Being invited to give a series of three lectures on this wide-ranging topic at a seminar at the Universita di Ca’ Foscari in Venice in July 2016, I thought this was a good opportunity to write a blog highlighting the interesting material in the British Library. Here are discussed such images in Mughal and Deccani painting.

Yogis and other types of ascetics are found in Mughal illustrated historical manuscripts showing encounters recorded in Mughal histories between the emperors Babur, Akbar and Jahangir; and also in individual album paintings. From the Mughal point of view, more or less all Hindu ascetics were classed as yogis, since they all practiced bodily asceticisms of some kind or another.

The Mughal concern with naturalism towards the end of Akbar's reign to some degree accounts for what appears to be the accuracy of the early Mughal images of ascetics and yogis. Early Mughal pictorial representations of yogis have, as Jim Mallinson points out (Mallinson, Yogis in Mughal India) enormous value as historical documents on account of the accuracy and consistency of their detail, overwriting in many instances what can be gleaned from the conflicting literary traditions.

It is obvious, he writes, that a variety of traditions shared ascetic archetypes and freely exchanged doctrines and practices.

Ascetics being shaved at Gurkhattri in 1505. Detail from painting by Gobind from a copy of ʻAbd al-Rahim Khan’s Persian translation of the Baburnamah, 1590-92 (British Library Or.3714, f.197r)

In the account in his autobiography, the Baburnamah, of his first raid into Hindustan in 1505, Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, mentions the well-known cave of Gurkhattri near Bigram (Peshawar) with its then-famous great banyan tree: "It was a holy place for yogis and Hindus, who came from faraway places to cut their hair and beards there."

Babur, however, did not visit it at that time.

In 1519, in the course of another incursion, he managed to visit it.

… reaching Bigram, went to see Gurh Kattri. We entered a small, dark chamber like a monk’s cell and after passing through the door and down two or three steps, we had to lie down to get in. It was impossible to see without a candle. All around was an unending pile of hair and beard that had been clipped there. Many chambers like the ones in madrasas and caravansaries surround Gurh Kattri. The first year I came to Kabul … I went to the great banyan tree in Bigram and was sorry not to have seen Gurh Kattri, but it turned out not to be much to be sorry for.

Ascetics at Gurkhattri in 1519. Detail from painting by Kesu Khurd from the 'Baburnamah', 1590-92 (British Library Or.3714, f.320v)

The sacred site at Gurkhattri was clearly in the hands of the Nath yogis, followers of Gorakhnath’s Hathayoga system. Nath yogis can be distinguished by the horn worn suspended round the neck, by the fillet worn round the top of the head and in their leaders by the necklace suspended from the shoulders to which are attached strips of cloth.

They also wear cloaks often patched, but they do not have any sectarian marks, although they later became Shaivas. Note that at this stage, Nath yogis wear hooped earrings through their earlobes and have not yet become the Kanphat or split-ear yogis who split the actual cartilege of the ear. Other characteristics that mark them out is their long matted hair, piled up into jatas or loose, their nakedness or nearly such, and the smearing of their body with ashes. Note also the yogapattas or meditation bands and the fact that some seem still to wear the sacred thread.

Alongside these historical manuscripts, individual album paintings were also being produced in the Mughal studio in Akbar’s reign. Some of them poke fun at the ascetic tradition that had long existed traditional in Indian culture – in Basavan’s study, from around 1585, talks of a poor shepherd offering flowers to a grotesquely bloated ascetic as he stalks by unheeding; he is followed by an acolyte whose body is as thin as his master’s is the reverse.

A shepherd offers flowers to a holy man. Attributed to Basavan, c. 1585 (British Library J.22, 13)

By 1605, studies of yogis had become so commonplace that they could be added to the marginalia round illustrated manuscripts, as with this nearly naked Nath yogi tending his fire, complete with horn and earrings, from a manuscript of the Divan of Hafiz that was copied by Sultan Ali of Mashhad but beautified with marginal studies at the beginning of Jahangir’s reign.

A Nath yogi as a border decoration. Mughal, 1605 (British Library Or.14139, f. 100v)

Pictures of yogis were especially useful for Mughal artists, since their nakedness could be used as an exercise in depicting the volumes of the human body or alternatively their voluminous robes for an exercise in modelling.

Although Akbar was interested in all religions and especially those of his Indian subjects and of course had numerous Sanskrit texts translated into Persian, it is his son Salim afterwards Jahangir who seems to have had a specific interest in yoga and ascetic practices, although the Library has no representations relevant to Jahangir here.

Instead there are several studies of Nath yogis and other ascetics living in remote places (for example Falk and Archer, Indian Miniatures in the India Office Library, nos. 25-27, 45-46).

It was Jahangir’s grandson and the eldest son of Shah Jahan, Dara Shikoh, born in 1615, who was most famously involved with Hindu philosophy and ascetics. Here are two facing pages from Dara Shikoh’s Album, compiled in the early 1630s just before his marriage, showing two ascetics in yogic postures, attributed to the great artist Govardhan early in his career around 1610.

Both wear long beards and have their uncut hair twisted up on to their head: the one of the right has a Vaishnava sect mark and holds up a manuscript page, the one on the left holds a rosary.

Two ascetics from the Album of Dara Shikoh. Attributed to Govardhan, c. 1610 (British Library Add.Or.3129, ff.11v, 12r)

Govardhan’s famous study from the 1630s, formerly in the Cary Welch collection, of four nearly naked ascetics seated beside a fire seems to have served as inspiration for this study of Nath yogis by Mas’ud, which reproduces in mirror reverse Govardhan’s shrine on the hill and the tree with a group of ascetics seated before a fire. A young ascetic is bringing them food.

A group of Nath yogis. Ascribed to Mas’ud, Mughal, 1630-40 (British Library J.22, 15)

Dara Shikoh is often represented in later paintings meeting ascetics, normally Muslim ones such as Mian Mir and Mulla Shah, but occasionally also Hindu as here. The accompanying inscription suggests that this is Dara Shikoh with La‘l Sahib, who was born in Malwa in the reign of Jahangir, among whose disciples was Dara Shikoh.

The ascetic however in his white robe patched with pieces of variously coloured cloth, his sacred thread and his particular turban with a black fillet wound round a white kulah appears again in an important mid-17th century painting in the V&A Museum showing ten earlier Hindu mystics seated outside a Sufi shrine, where he is named as Kamal and seated beside his supposed father, the 15th century religious reformer Kabir.

An imaginary meeting between Dara Shikoh and Kamal, the son of Kabir. Mughal, early 18th century (British Library J.19, 1)

Both paintings are reproduced in Binyon and Arnold 1921, pls. XVII-XIX and XXII, who note that the two figures are the same but separate their identities according to the inscriptions. Kamal is mentioned in various hagiographical accounts of Kabir’s life and appears more of a spiritual than a biological son, but if he lived it was certainly earlier than Dara Shikoh. His presence here with Dara Shikoh adds weight to Elinor Gadon’s supposition (Facets of Indian Art, p. 157) that this prince was the patron of the V&A picture.

Artists in the Deccani studios were no less interested in portraying yogis than their Mughal counterparts, and they also developed the artistic idea of the female yogi or yogini. The library’s only 17th century image of a Deccani yogi is this magnificent and engimatic study of a royal ascetic wearing the patchwork robe of a yogi, seated on a tiger skin beside a fire and with the crescent moon linking him with the great yogi Shiva himself.

His sword, dagger, club and fakir’s crutch (no less useful as a weapon than a support for meditation) suggest he might be one of the warrior ascetics who roamed India in bands in the 17th and 18th centuries.

A royal ascetic. Deccani, Bijapur, c. 1660 (British Library, J.16, 2)

Yogis and ascetics continued as the subjects of paintings in the late 18th century, but now from the schools of Bengal and Awadh. Images of female ascetics became increasingly common in the later 18th century. They normally wear long gowns and have their hair piled up on top of their head or wear a turban.

They live out in the open with other yogis and attracted devotees just as did their male counterparts, as in this example from the variation of the Awadhi style from Farrukhabad in western UP. Here a group of women have brought fruit and flowers to such a one, watched by other ascetics. A small śivalingam beside her being perpetually lustrated indicates her orientation.

A female ascetic with devotees. Farrukhabad, c. 1770 (British Library J.66, 5)

They live out in the open with other yogis and attracted devotees just as did their male counterparts, as in this example from the variation of the Awadhi style from Farrukhabad in western Uttar Pradesh. Here a group of women have brought fruit and flowers to such a one, watched by other ascetics. A small sivalingam beside her being perpetually lustrated indicates her orientation.

In another painting from Murshidabad, a noblewoman has brought her child to a hermitage where live two male ascetics, one old the other young, who sit there telling their beads, while a female ascetic, naked to the waist, supports herself on a swing and smokes from a nargila. The fire beside her suggests she is undergoing mortification, standing up supported by the swing while she exposes herself to the heat of the fire.

A noblewoman visiting a group of ascetics. Murshidabad, c. 1770 (British Library Add.Or.5607)

Female ascetics leaning on swings are a feature of several other late 18th century paintings. The whole concept of Hindu female asceticism in India has only fairly recently become the focus of scholarly attention, specifically of anthropologists studying modern communities, but unless we are to believe that these pictorial studies are fantasies, then it clearly is a phenomenon known for several centuries.

This article first appeared on the British Library's Asian and African Studies blog.

Sikh contestant racially abused in UK bakery show

September 3, 2016

"So today I was asked 'Are you the p*** on the not so British bake off?' Really, in 2016?," Bansal tweeted.

Image for Representation

A 28-year-old Sikh contestant on this year's Great British Bake Off disclosed that he suffered racial abuse after appearing in the first two episodes of the hit BBC show.

Rav Bansal said he was asked whether he was a "P—" by a stranger who referred to the "not-so-British Bake Off", The Telegraph reported late Friday.

"So today I was asked 'Are you the p*** on the not so British bake off?' Really, in 2016?," Bansal tweeted.

Bansal, who resides in Erith, Kent with his parents and works at City University, was supported by his fellow contestants, who immediately rallied around to condemn the comments, The Telegraph reported.

Fellow contestant Benjamina Ebuehi, one of his fellow amateur bakers, responded to his tweet saying it was "so horrible".

However, Bansal is not the first Bake Off contestant to have suffered racist abuse, with last year's winner British-Muslim Nadiya Hussain previously speaking frankly about the insults and violence she has suffered at the hands of strangers.

Bansal is one of 10 remaining contestants on Great British Bake Off this year, and has won fans for his good-natured humour, The Telegraph added.

Article was first published on The News Minute

The Surrogacy Debate and the Missing ART Bill

September 3, 2016

Altruistic. Meaning: showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others; unselfish.

So once again the government is asking women to be unselfish and show selfless concern for the well being of others. The “others”, however, have been clearly marked. It has to be people within the close family. Women dare not feel selfless or altruistic concern for anyone other than those that are connected to them genetically or through marriage (since that is what defines a family by law and dominant customs). This concern should be so selfless that they should also not worry about their health after the pregnancy, they should not care for the loss of employment or any other changes that may happen in their lives as a result of this concern that they show for a family member. After all we are living in the “Indian ethos” where women are supposed to sacrifice for their “families,” and for none other. And in any case, till very lately, until all these new fangled ideas of women being natural guardians etc. came up, women were giving this altruistic services to their husbands. They are used to it and this is merely an extension of their familial labour. Simple!

It is such a waste of women’s reproductive potential that they bear children just for their husband. The family may as well benefit from the labour of the woman, and it be shared with other family members too. Especially for those who have married as per all the caste and community norms and have even stuck together for five years in spite of not having a child. Why should the hard earned money of “the family” be squandered on someone else? Is that not wasting the potential of women? After all why have we have saved the girl child? So that our boys can have the right girls to marry and also so that we can continue with our eugenic marriage and child bearing practices within the right caste and gotra unions.

This is what the government is saying. But there are others who are blaming the government for being conservative, people like the AIDWA and many others. Their unhappiness is with only this minimum application of the woman’s labour to married couples without a child. They are wanting this woman to extend her services for all those other poor sods within the family – the single people, those choosing to have “live in” relationships (with the knowledge and approval of the family), and the homosexuals (again loved and accepted and cared for by the ever loving Indian family). Trans persons exist only as far as the NALSA goes, they have no existence in real families, so of course their need for having children does not find a mention anywhere. Basically these liberal minded people are saying that families should get progressive enough to extend this familial privilege of reproductive labour by women within it, to all those who may or may not be able to carry forward the “lamp of the vansh”.

Commercial. Meaning: concerned or engaged with commerce; making or intended to make a profit.

I do not understand this liberal understanding which supports altruistic surrogacy for all but opposes commercial surrogacy. In whatever manner the anger against commercial surrogacy is articulated, somewhere it resonates with the emotion, “How dare women make a profit using that which they have been providing for free or in exchange for respect and aadar and izzat and samman and good family name and of course love!” This is couched under concerns of exploitation and violence, but strangely these arguments regularly crop up only when there is some commercial use of sexual or reproductive labour.

This is essentially the same logic that supported the ban on dance bars where women went to dance and use their sexual labour for the sake of making a living. They preferred to do that over the other options available to them. Then too questions of who it was doing these kinds of jobs was raised. We do not deny that these are probably choices that are made by those from the margins because they do not have other choices. We do want to make it possible for everyone to have a larger range of things to choose from. But we want to extend this choice to all women – including those that are choosing the option of getting married, or of doing domestic labour in their husband’s home or in someone else’s home, or of doing hard physical labour in agricultural lands and not being paid even minimum wages, or of being stuck with home based piece rate work that requires many hours of back breaking labour and pays pittance, or of many other jobs in small industrial units like in the garment industry where they have no time even to go and use the loo, the list is endless. Isn’t there exploitation everywhere, and should we not be raising these questions then in each of these situations?

When these questions are raised particularly in the context of sexual and reproductive labour, then they appear to be coloured with a moralistic understanding of how women should use their bodies and stay within the norms of society, and are definitely not informed by the choices that women themselves make in their circumstances. When profits and profit making systems are concerned, those who do not have enough power definitely get exploited and need protection. The usual way of a fair society should be to safeguard the interests of such people and to make their conditions for bargaining better. It cannot be about taking away the chance to make any money by banning the very activity.

Why is the Bill only about surrogacy?

This industry is not only about surrogacy. It is actually about assisting reproduction through use of technology. These technologies bring back the emphasis once again on the germ cell and gamete theory of children and every married couple is once again under a moral pressure to have “a child of their own”. So, in a sense, these technologies are actually the means of having children of one’s own genetic imprint. There were discussions over the last many years, almost for more than a decade, on procedures to regulate these new technologies. First, there were the ICMR guidelines, and then came the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill. Doctors and IVF centres and clinics were the ones that were instrumental in pushing these, possibly to make money from the domestic and international ART market, as also from surrogacy, but definitely not only from that.

Surrogacy with a fertile woman does not really need high tech technology. Anyone can bear a child for anyone else, especially if the woman is fertile, and can have access to the sperm via a syringe, if not a penis. In fact, in the scheme of things, the surrogate, who asks for monetary compensation and voluntarily gives her child to someone else to nurture, is probably one of the subversive elements in the story of assisted reproduction. She, in her act of getting pregnant with the conscious decision of not nurturing the child beyond birth, redefines motherhood, lineage, and reproductive labour. If there were a scale for subversive potential in this context, the surrogate would mark higher than the same sex couple who desires to have a genetic child to make a family like everyone else. Yet she helps continue the story of genetic continuity for those who cannot have their “own” child – the single man, the gay couple, the transwoman, etc.
Further, this technology is supposed to assist when two persons are not able to have a child because they are not able to produce the gametes or carry the pregnancy. Technology does not bother about why someone does not have the gametes. So it could be that the husband in the five year old marriage cannot produce fertile sperm, or it could be that the partner is not a sperm producing person (could be a woman or a transman or anyone who does not produce sperm). Technology could help all of these people. So even those unable to have children because of social norms and bodily limitations, all could use this technology to have their own biological child.

Sensing this subversive potential within the technology, the Bill somewhere tried to regulate who can have access to the technology; whereas actually it was for the regulation of the providers of the technology. So instead of concentrating on the doctors and the clinics, and the ways in which they used procedures and interventions in healthy functioning bodies, the Bill went on on to regulate who could access the technology. The Bill opined that the surrogate could not use her genetic material and thus brought her into the ambit of technology.

Many women’s groups tried to raise this issue from time to time in the last decade or so, and opposed the medical industry and its profit making intention in this whole process. There was also an opposition to the fact that gamete labs were seen as fit places from where to source eggs, sperms and surrogates. In this configuration of the labs themselves the surrogate was seen as just reduced to the womb and not seen as the person who actually laboured to carry the delivery. There were demands to look at surrogacy under laws related to unorganised sector workers and also to include them to talk of their concerns in the framing of the rules. Meanwhile there was more strident demand for regulation of the technology for all women, including the wives within marriages, the single women, the lesbian woman, the surrogates, and a demand that all be treated on par as far as technology goes.

And yet after years of discussions, a Bill for regulation of assisted reproductive technologies has become just merely a surrogacy bill. The government has not disclosed what happens to the rest of the Bill. The media reports the minister Sushma Swaraj saying, “There are enough regulations on IVF”. So this seems to be the trade off between the doctors, who are running the many ART centres across the country, and the government.

Yes, some of them will lose their business and their vision of making this country the hub for surrogacy. But they will get compensated by unregulated, or partially regulated, ART clinics because once the exploited women are out of the story, why do the doctors, who work so selflessly for profit, need any regulation for use of technologies? Who can question them on the amounts they charge, the medicines they give, the dream of having one’s “own child” that they nurture and build upon while underplaying adoption or child-free lives as options? There are already many who are pouring in their hard earned money to get this “own child” and am sure there is enough business. And finally of course, if not surrogacy, the doctors might get their chance to do many other things like clinical trials, embryo research of all kinds, cosmetic surgery, maybe even make good gender clinics…. The mind boggles at the possibilities (of what all can be made in india, keeping the families and ethos intact of course)!

Thus in one master stroke all the subversive potential of these technologies is finished. They could have been used by all those who are socially not allowed to have children of their own. They could have allowed for the possibility of multiple parents – the gamete donors, the pregnancy-nurturing mother, and the parents in whose guardianship the child grows up. They could have forced us to re-examine who can and cannot make a family and have children.

But by bringing in this Surrogacy Bill hasn’t this swayamsewak government done a great favour towards saving this country and its regressive ethos which only they know and understand?

Article was first published on Kafila.org

In 2015, Crime In India At 11-Year High

September 3, 2016

Dalits block traffic in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, after four men belonging to the community were beaten while trying to skin a dead cow at Una village in July, 2016. In 2015, human trafficking increased 42%, enmity between different groups 26%, road rage 10%, forgery 23%, theft 6%, according to data released by the National Crime Records Bureau

More crime was reported in 2015 across India than in any year since 2005, when the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) started collating crime data from states.

The crime rate—crimes reported per 100,000 population—increased to 581 in 2014 and 582 in 2015 from 456 in 2005, new NCRB data show. It was around 570 in 2009 and 2010.

The same crime rate in 2014 and 2015 hid many increases and decreases in crimes reported.

In 2015 human trafficking increased 42%, enmity between different groups 26%, road rage 10%, forgery 23%, theft 6%.

Among crimes that reported a decrease were offences against the state, 17%, crimes against women 5%, dowry deaths 10% (still, 7,634 women died in 2015), husbands “showing cruelty towards wives” 8% and robbery 5%.

While rapes, murders and dacoities reduced, this did not appear to be for want of trying: Attempts to rape, attempt to murder and “making preparation and assembly for committing dacoity”, as the NCRB puts it, increased.

Uttar Pradesh records most crimes; Kerala has highest crime rate

Poll-bound Uttar Pradesh recorded 2.8 million crimes for a population of 200 million, more than any other state; the crime rate was India’s second highest: 1,293 per 100,000 population.

Kerala was second in crimes recorded–possibly an outcome of better reporting and registering—650,000; Kerala’s crime rate, 1,838 crimes per 100,000 population, three times the national average of 582 crimes per 100,000 people.

Tamil Nadu was third in crimes recorded, Chhattisgarh has India’s third-highest crime rate.

Bihar and Jharkhand reported a lower crime rate than other large states—possibly a consequence of low reporting and registration of crime—although they topped in riot cases.

Delhi reported the highest rate of rapes–23.7 per 100,000 population— followed by Chhattisgarh (12.2) and Madhya Pradesh (11.9). About 34,000 rapes were registered nationwide, with a rate of 5.7 rapes per 100,000 population.

Uttar Pradesh is the only state that reported rapes in police custody, 91.

(Waghmare is an analyst with IndiaSpend.)

Article was first published on India Spend

श्रमिक संगठनो द्वारा 2सितम्बर-2016 को देशव्यापी हड़ताल के समर्थन में भूमि अधिकार आंदोलन

September 2, 2016

आज दिनांक 2 सितम्बर 2016 को प्रदेश के 27 जनसंगठनों व जनआंदोलनों ने भूमि अधिकार आंदोलन के बैनर तले करीब 600 की संख्या में इकट्ठा होकर देश के श्रमिक संगठनों द्वारा आहूत राष्ट्रव्यापी हड़ताल को मज़बूती से समर्थन देते हुए उ0प्र0 की राजधानी लखनऊ में रैली निकाल कर गांधी प्रतिमा जी.पी.ओ पर जनसभा करके पुरज़ोर तरीके से विरोध प्रदर्शन किया।

दोपहर करीब 11 बजे चारबाग स्टेशन से रैली की शुरूआत की गयी। दूर दराज के वनक्षेत्रों कैमूर उ0प्र0 जनपद सोनभद्र, मिर्जापुर, चंदोली व बिहार अधौरा, बुन्देलखण्ड मानिकपुर चित्रकूट, तराई लखीमपुर खीरी व शहरी क्षेत्रों लखनऊ, कानपुर, इलाहाबाद, बनारस, मिरजापुर, आजमगढ़ व चंदोली आदि में वनाधिकारों, ज़मीन के सवाल पर, बड़े बांधों के लिये अवैध भूमि अधिग्रहण व फर्जी मुकदमों आदि के सवाल पर अपनी अपनी जगह पर संघर्ष कर रहे समुदायों व कार्यकर्ताओं का यह समूह सरकार की मज़दूर विरोधी व जनविरोधी नीतियों, महंगाई व ग्रामीण श्रमिक वर्ग के ऊपर हो रहे सरकारी दमन के खिलाफ पूरे जोश-ओ-खरोश के साथ यह रैली चारबाग से स्टेशन मार्ग, हुसैन गंज, बर्लिंग्टन चैराहा से मुड़कर कैसर बाग होते विधानसभा मार्ग पर स्थित सभा स्थल गाॅधी प्रतिमा की ओर बढ़ रहे थे कि गाॅधी प्रतिमा के नज़दीक दारुलशफ़ा के ठीक सामने लालबाग चैक पर पुलिस ने प्रदर्शनकारियों का रास्ता बाधित कर दिया व रैली को दूसरी तरफ मोड़ने की कोशिश करने लगे। आंदोलनरत महिलाओं द्वारा इस पर विरोध करते हुए जब सभा स्थल की ओर जाने की कोशिश की तो पुलिस ने लाठी चार्ज भी कर दिया, जिससे 3 महिलायें चोटिल हो गयीं। जिससे लोगों में उत्तेजना पैदा होने की संभावना पैदा हो गई। लेकिन लोगों के जोशीले रुख को देखते हुए पुलिस को पीछे हटना पड़ा व लोगों सभा स्थल तक पहुंचने दिया।

गाॅधी प्रतिमा पर आयोजित जनसभा को अशोक चैधरी, राजेन्द्र मिश्रा, रवीन्द्र सिंह, रोमा, निबादा राणा, मातादयाल, गम्भीरा प्रसाद, सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद, रामचन्द्र राणा व राजकुमारी द्वारा जोशीले अन्दाज़ में केन्द्र सरकार व राज्य सरकार की अवैध भूमि अधिग्रहण करके बांध निर्माण, वनाधिकार कानून के असफल क्रियान्वयन, श्रमिक कानूनों के साथ छेड़-छाड़, विनाशकारी विकास योजनाओं, लगातार गरीब तबकों की कमर तोड़ती बढ़ती महंगाई जैसी जनविरोधी व मज़दूर विरोधी नीतियों के मुद्दों पर घेरते हुए खुले शब्दांे चेतावनी देते हुए सभा को सम्बोधित किया। इस सभा में ग्रामीण श्रमिक लोगों पर सरकार के दमनात्मक रवैये व महिलाओं पर हो रहे अत्याचारों के मुद्दे भी वक्ताओं द्वारा मज़बूती से उठाये गये। सभा का संचालन अमित मिश्रा ने किया।

देशव्यापी हड़ताल के समर्थन में किये गये इस विरोध प्रदर्शन में भूमि अधिकार आन्दोलन के बैनर तले अखिल भारतीय वन-जन श्रमजीवी यूनियन, जनसंघर्ष समन्वय समिति, नेशनल फेडरेशन आफ दलित लैंड राईट्स मूवमेंट, लोक हक़दारी मोर्चा, बारा पावर प्लांट, कैमूर क्षेत्र महिला मज़दूर किसान संघर्ष समिति, कम्यूनिस्ट वर्कर्स प्लेटफार्म, अखिल भारतीय जय भीम सेना, बौद्ध सेना, थारू आदिवासी महिला मज़दूर किसान मंच, पाठा दलित भू-अधिकार मंच, कैमूर मुक्ति मोर्चा-अधोरा बिहार, किसान विकास मंच, मज़दूर शक्ति संगठन, विकल्प-गोरखपुर, एकाउंटेबल सिटीजन फोरम, श्रमिक आंदोलन, जनपैरवी मंच, किसान मज़दूर एकता समिति, कन्हर बचाओ आंदोलन, इंसाफ-उत्तर प्रदेश, वीडियो वालेंटियर, एन.ए.पी.एम, ए.आई.सी.सी.टी.यू, संघर्ष संवाद, भारतीय मज़दूर यूनियन, रिहाई मंच व जनमंच-फैजाबाद के प्रतिनिधीगण व संघर्षशील वनाश्रित समुदायों की बड़ी संख्या में महिलाएं व पुरुष शामिल हुए।

‘Is this even legal?’: Why is Narendra Modi in a Reliance Jio ad, ask Twitter users

September 2, 2016

In the face of it, the ad would seem to violate The Emblems And Names (Prevention Of Improper Use) Act, 1950, social media users say.

Image credit: Twitter/Scroll Staff

On Friday, readers of the national dailies The Times of India and the Hindustan Times woke up to a full-page jacket advertisement with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, dressed in a blue jacket, staring at them from under the words “Jio: Digital Life”.

The advertisement for Reliance Jio, the second coming of Reliance Industries in telecom, carried the words “Dedicated to India and 1.2 billion Indians” in bold type, followed by a short message:

“In the journey of time, there come a few life changing moments. Our honourable Prime Minister’s inspiring vision of a Digital India is one such movement. Jio is dedicated to realising our Prime Minister’s Digital India vision for 1.2 billion Indians. Jio Digital Life will give the power of data to each Indian, to fulfill every dream and collectively take India to the global digital leadership…”

The tribute-in-an-ad came a day after Mukesh Ambani, chairperson of Reliance Industries, launched Reliance Jio in Mumbai with Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan by his side. There too Ambani, the richest man in India, had voiced a short dedication to Modi.

“Our Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision for Digital India is a life changing moment,” he said. “Jio is a dedication to that Digital India dream of the Prime Minister, his vision for the 1.2 billion people of India.”

Headed by Ambani’s daughter Isha and son Akash, both 24 years old, Reliance Jio’s 4G services are touted to disrupt the telecom industry. It is offering data services at as low as Rs 50 per GB, reportedly the lowest data charge anywhere in the world, free voice calls along with free roaming in India. According to Ambani, customers can show up with the unique biometric-based Aadhaar card at a Jio store and get a SIM card within 15 minutes.

A long time coming, Jio was expected to launch a media blitzkrieg. But an ad with the prime minister’s image? Social media was not amused. In fact, it wondered if the usage of the image was even legal.

According to The Emblems And Names (Prevention Of Improper Use) Act, 1950, "…No person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government use… for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession… any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or, any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government."

Of course, Reliance may well have received written permission from the government to use Modi's picture, which would make it okay to do. Previous matters in which this Act have come up have also suggested some nuance in interpreting the law, as with Montblanc's use of Mahatma Gandhi to sell pens a few years ago, resulting in a controversy.

The only caveat to the law is: "The name of pictorial representation of Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or the Prime Minister of India, except the pictorial use thereof on calendars where only the names of the manufacturers and printers of the calendars are given and the calendars are dot (sic) used for advertising goods."

It should be noted that the advertisement came on a day when central trade unions have called for a nationwide strike to protest against "anti-labour policies" of the Modi government.

Twitterverse used the opportunity to respond with jokes.

Meanwhile, the front page looks even more incongruous because on Friday night, Modi – who rarely gives one-on-one meetings – is set to appear in an interview given to Network18, a media company that happens to be owned primarily by Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries Limited.

Article was first published on Scroll.in

1...2,4702,4712,472...2,697 Page 2,471 of 2,697

National Protest Marking One Year since M.M. Kalburgi’s Assassination

Why the case against the Human Rights Act is so weak

No threat to sovereignty

Respecting UK courts

How ascetics and yogis were depicted in Indian paintings from the Mughal era

A look at illustrated historical manuscripts and Deccani paintings from the British Library.

Sikh contestant racially abused in UK bakery show

"So today I was asked 'Are you the p*** on the not so British bake off?' Really, in 2016?," Bansal tweeted.

The Surrogacy Debate and the Missing ART Bill

Why is the Bill only about surrogacy?

In 2015, Crime In India At 11-Year High

श्रमिक संगठनो द्वारा 2सितम्बर-2016 को देशव्यापी हड़ताल के समर्थन में भूमि अधिकार आंदोलन

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT