About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 2487

An Open Letter to Rashtriya Muslim Manch of RSS on its plan to Hoist Tricolour at Madrasaas in India

By
-
0

As per press reports Rashtriya Muslim Manch is to hoist National Flag; the Tricolour at some madrasaas across the country on Independence Day, August 26, 2016. Since your organization, a creation of RSS, has taken a unilateral decision we would like to ask few related questions.


 

  1. Before taking up the task of hoisting our National Flag on madrasaas you must prove your credentials regarding loyalty to the National Flag. Please refresh our memories about the fact that when & where during the freedom struggle RSS and its ally Hindu Mahasabha raised Tricolour against the British rule. Please produce ONE ONLY ONE instance when your Godfather RSS displayed the National Flag during the freedom struggle. You may not know that Tricolour was declared to be a National Flag in December 1929 but RSS and its ally Hindu Mahasabha never accepted as National Flag. Have do you respond to it?
  2. In December 1929 Congress under Gandhiji's leadership at its Lahore session adopted Tricolour as National Flag and called upon all patriotic Indians to unfurl it on each August 30th. But both the RSS under the leadership of Dr. Hedgewar and Hindu Mahasabha under the leadership of Savarkar refused to accept it as National Flag and continued hoisting bhagwa flag. The reason was that anti-freedom struggle Hindutva organizations did not believe that India belonged to people of all the religions. According to them it was for Hindus only and only a Hindu flag or bhagwa dhawajcould be unfurled.Is this description wrong?
  3. When during the Quit India Movement in 1942, freedom fighters,which included large number of Muslims, came out on streets with the Tricolour hundreds of them were shot dead by the armed forces of the British & Native rulers. At that time RSS, Hindu Mahasabha in league with the Muslim League supported the massacre of freedom fighters. They pitched saffron flag against the Tricolour of the united struggle. RSS shamelessly continued to insult the Tricolour throughout the freedom struggle.
  4. The RSS English mouthpiece ORGANIZER demeaning the choice of the National Flag just on the eve of Independence (14 August 1947) wrote: "The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it never be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country."

Please tell us when did you change your opinion?
 
(5) Your organization is part of an anti-national organization which never-never respected the Tricolour but as its stooges you want to hoist Tricolour at madrasaas. You are not planning to hoist National Flag at Hindu/Sikh/Christian/Buddhist religious schools but aretargetting only madrasaas.Your sinister plot is part of RSS nasty plan of doubting loyalty of Muslims to India. Your Guru Golwalkar declared Muslims of India to be ENEMY NUMBER ONE. What have you to say on this issue?
 
(6) Since RSS was never part of the freedom struggle it is not familiar with the unparalleled, great and heroic deeds of madarsaas, its Moulvies and students during anti-colonial freedom struggle.Whether it was Great Liberation Struggle of 1857 or later century long anti-colonial struggle these were madarsaas which were centres of revolt. Hundreds of madrasaas were burnt/destroyed and thousands of Moulvies and students with their Hindu-Sikh companions were hanged or killed by the British masters. In fact, Cellular Jail was established by the British rulers to accommodate hundreds of Moulvies who had participated in the 1857 revolt and Wahabi Movement.
 
Lastly, we would like to tell you that Tricolour has been a symbol of unity in diversity of India. You are trying to use it for your nefarious polarizing game of isolating Muslims who made enormous sacrifices for India. You want Tricolour for madrasaas but bhagwa jhanda for Hindus. But people of this country of all religions will never let you undo the great heritage of the freedom struggle.
 
Shamsul Islam
notoinjustice@gmail.com
 

Theresa May’s Sharia Courts Review a ‘Whitewash’: Human Rights Campaigners

By
-
0

In an Open Letter to Theresa May, hundreds of women’s human rights organisations and campaigners warn against a further slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems.

Protest in London against the Law Society's guidance on Sharia Wills April 2014. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/See Li

In 2015, the UK government announced that it would hold an independent inquiry into the operation of Sharia Councils in the UK.  Predictably, some dismissed the move as yet another example of ‘Muslim bashing’ and ‘Islamophobia’ because it was located within the State’s counter- extremism strategy.

But some of us welcomed the inquiry precisely because it provided a vital and rare opportunity for the state to examine the resurgence of religious fundamentalism and extremism within black and minority communities in the UK, and its impact on gender equality and justice.

We have warned against those who tout Sharia or religious personal laws as alternative and ‘authentic’ forms of community mediation and governance: a profoundly regressive idea that has increasingly gained traction in this age of austerity and the state’s retreat from its promise to look after its citizens from the cradle to the grave.

For years, many of us have been in the forefront of challenging minority religious fundamentalist and conservative forces, particularly Islamists, who want to legitimate the role of religion in the legal system. We have opposed the slow but insidious drip-drip effect of a fundamentalist agenda that seeks to communalise law and social policy in relation to women and family matters, bearing fruit in developments such as gender segregated seating in universities and the Law Society’s promulgation of ‘Sharia’ compliant legal guidance on inheritance. We have warned against those who tout Sharia or religious personal laws as alternative and ‘authentic’ forms of community mediation and governance: a profoundly regressive idea that has increasingly gained traction in this age of austerity and the state’s retreat from its promise to look after its citizens from the cradle to the grave.
 

Protesting against gender segregated seating outside the universities governing body (UUK) offices in London, December 2013

We had hoped and understood that the inquiry into these alarming developments – that are conveniently ignored by some civil rights campaigners who decry state but not fundamentalist abuse of power – would be truly independent. However, we are now dismayed to learn that far from examining the key connections between religious fundamentalism and women’s rights, the narrow remit of the inquiry will render it a whitewash; and instead of human rights experts and campaigners, it is to be chaired and advised by theologians. The danger is that the inquiry is setting out with a pre-determined objective that will approve the expansion of the role of Sharia and religious arbitration forums and their jurisdiction over family matters in minority communities, albeit with a little tweaking to make it more palatable to the state.

Those of us who work with abused and vulnerable women, largely from Muslim and other religious backgrounds, are alarmed by the prospect of a further slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems in the UK

Those of us who work with abused and vulnerable women, largely from Muslim and other religious backgrounds, are alarmed by the prospect of a further slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems in the UK.  We know that in such systems vulnerable women and children will be even more removed from the protection of the rule of law and governance based on secular citizenship and human rights norms. These are norms that we, along with others worldwide, have struggled to establish within formal domestic and international legal systems.

At a time when we are threatened with the loss of the Human Rights Act, our concerns about the make up and terms of reference of the inquiry raise profound issues of constitutionality, legality and democratic accountability. It is for this reason, that an unprecedented number of women and human rights campaigners from across the world have come together to endorse the following open letter to Theresa May, the UK’s Home Secretary.

Open letter to the Home Secretary

As a group of women’s human rights organisations and campaigners, we express our profound concern and disappointment with the terms of reference and recent appointments to the government’s 'independent review' on Sharia councils and arbitration forums in the UK. Weattach previous correspondence on the issue.

For several years, we have been highly critical of the ways in which, in the name of religious tolerance and freedom, the government and state institutions have kow-towed to demands made by leaders and spokespersons of the religious-right. This has resulted in the accommodation of arbitration systems based on minority religious personal laws. We have been alarmed at the growing acceptance of such personal laws to govern private and family matters: areas where, arguably, the greatest human rights violations of minority women in the UK take place.

There is considerable evidence to show how these parallel religious ‘legal’, mediation and arbitration systems operate in ways that violate the fundamental principles of protection, equality and non-discrimination in respect of women’s rights in relation to marriage, divorce, children, property and inheritance.

There is considerable evidence to show how these parallel religious ‘legal’, mediation and arbitration systems operate in ways that violate the fundamental principles of protection, equality and non-discrimination in respect of women’s rights in relation to marriage, divorce, children, property and inheritance. See for example: "Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK" by Elham Manea published in May 2016, which documents the harmful and even life threatening consequences for vulnerable minority women who are denied the right to equality before the law.

Precisely for these reasons, we had welcomed the 'independent review', believing it to be a genuine attempt to look at the work of Sharia councils and Muslim arbitration tribunals in the UK in the context of rising religious extremism and fundamentalism and its impact on the human rights of black and minority women. Nevertheless it is evident from the limited terms of reference and the makeup of the review panel that the review is in danger of becoming seriously compromised and as such, we fear that it will command little or no confidence.

Below we set out five of our major concerns:

1.The terms of reference of the review: The terms have ruled out a full evaluation of the harm caused by the existence of discriminatory religious ‘legal’, mediation and arbitration systems. Our information suggests that the existence of parallel or informal justice systems in itself creates conflicts in law and gaps in human rights protection. Yet we note that the review is not addressing this vital issue. Instead, the terms of reference suggest that the task of the review is to improve the functioning of systems that are discriminatory in effect and intent.We urge you to remove wording on ‘seeking out examples of best practice in relation to governance, transparency, and assuring compliance and compatibility with UK law’. Instead, the review should be free to examine whether the existence of sharia councils, mediation and arbitration systems undermine access to justice, and indeed undermine the Constitution by endorsing the existence of parallel legal systems.

2.The panel:  Although some of those appointed to the panel come from judicial and family/children law backgrounds, two Islamic ‘scholars’ have been appointed as advisers to the chair, Mona Siddiqui who is herself a theologian. This is cause for alarm: the government has constituted a panel more suited to a discussion of theology than one which serves the needs of victims and is capable of investigating the full range of harms caused by Sharia councils and tribunals, particularly for women.

The inquiry panel should be an impartial Judge-led investigation into the entire spectrum of human rights violations caused by the existence and functioning of Sharia councils and tribunals. It should be clearly framed as a human rights investigation not a theological one.

3 a) Competencies of Advisers to the panel: The inquiry should be properly advised by women’s rights advocates and legal experts in British and foreign laws and international human rights covenants. Advisers to the panel need to have a track record of respecting and protecting human rights, particularly those of women. They need to understand the impacts of informal justice and parallel legal systems on women (and indeed on minorities). They need to be conversant with existing laws regarding, for instance, the recognition of civil divorce in many jurisdictions; and be able to find appropriate experts to give evidence to the panel.  They also need to be able to assist the panel to investigate transnational fundamentalist networks in promoting Sharia law in different countries and their role in Britain. They need to be fearless in looking for evidence even if it implicates powerful interests.

3 b) Imams are not the right advisers: Theologians and religious scholars simply do not have the requisite skills or knowledge of existing legal practice and constitutional issues. Knowledge of theology is simply not the same as knowledge of the law either in Britain or elsewhere.

The government should be wary of replicating the most problematic aspects of multiculturalism in the constitution of the review. Many legal academics in Britain promote legal pluralism, which they see as community-based law. This anthropological and theological approach to law tends to ignore statutory law and evolving case law in countries that have Sharia or Muslim personal laws. The Law Society took this approach with its practice note on ‘Sharia Compliant Wills’. It   advised solicitors to ‘ask an Imam’ when drawing up a will. As you may recall, the Law Society was forced to withdraw their guidance because it was not only legally discriminatory but dangerously negligent. The government must not repeat the mistakes of the Law Society.

3 c) Imams/ Scholars cannot investigate themselves: Both ‘scholars’ advising the panel are on Imams Online. The terms of reference state that ‘the role of particular groups and Islamic authorities in England and Wales’ should be examined. The inquiry should not be deterred from investigating a particular platform because they are advisers to the panel. Nor can the inquiry be seen as impartial if it is charged with investigating itself. We are aware of extremely problematic positions taken by scholars on Imams Online on a range of issues that should certainly concern the inquiry.

4) Issues before the inquiry: It is vital for the inquiry to include examinations of whether violations of human rights are condoned or even promoted by Sharia bodies. Some examples are: women's testimony being worth half that of a man's, marital rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse, the age of consent, guardianship, forced marriage, honour based violence, ritual abuse, child custody and child protection, polygamy, divorce, sexuality, inter-religious relationships, female dress codes and abortion. Broader issues such as the treatment of religious minorities including minority sects in Islam, decisions pertaining to apostasy and blasphemy must also be examined to understand the full range of threats faced by people affected by religious laws, and indeed, by the State promoting these laws.

The reasons why Sharia councils and other religious arbitration bodies have operated with impunity need to be carefully examined. The inquiry should be able to summon witnesses who will give evidence of whether local councils, police, or departments of government have developed working relations with Sharia councils and whether these relationships have undermined the protection principle laid out in key legislation on discrimination and the rights of women and children and/or shielded  them from adequate scrutiny. Has the goal of preventing violent extremism actually led to strengthening relations with fundamentalist networks and individuals?

5) Implications for the scope and impartiality of the inquiry: The terms of reference and composition of the panel amount to an acceptance of a theological basis for laws for citizens from minority communities.
Furthermore, they evidence a capitulation to religious and conservative forces who wish to ensure that the needs and identity of minority women are addressed only through the prism of conservative religious values of which they are the sole arbiters. In effect, rather than being treated as independent persons with citizenship and human rights, minority women are regarded as members of their so-called religious communities who are assumed to be subjected to religious codes. As we understand it, the review was meant to be, not about religious or theological issues categorised as either ‘moderate’ or ‘extreme’ but an examination of women’s access to rights and justice. It is patronising if not racist to fob off minority women with so-called religious experts who are self-serving and who wish to legitimate Sharia laws as a form of governance in family and private matters. Even if some women appear to want this, we cannot stand by and watch the State being complicit in underwriting second-rate systems of justice, whereby minority women are treated as unequal before the law.

Our fear is that in these circumstances, many vulnerable women simply will not want to give their testimony before theologians who legitimate and justify the very idea of Sharia laws on the grounds that it is integral to their ‘Muslim identity’.  Indeed, the panel is set up much like the Sharia ‘courts’ themselves.

By making these religious appointments, the government has lost a vital opportunity to examine the discriminatory nature of not only Sharia councils but all forms of religious arbitration fora including the Batei Din. Our fear is that in these circumstances, many vulnerable women simply will not want to give their testimony before theologians who legitimate and justify the very idea of Sharia laws on the grounds that it is integral to their ‘Muslim identity’.  Indeed, the panel is set up much like the Sharia ‘courts’ themselves.

The makeup of the review panel betrays a complete absence of representation of the voices of the victims themselves and of women’s human rights organisations that have first hand experience of the human rights violations that take place in Sharia councils and other religious arbitration fora. We see and applaud the consideration given to victims of injustice in the context of other government reviews and inquiries such as those established to examine historic child abuse cases and the Hillsborough disaster. We would have expected the same care and consideration to be given to the victims of Sharia councils.

Black and minority women deserve the right to have a review that is led by a Judge and aided by human rights and women’s rights experts including those from across the world who have confronted religious personal laws and jurisdictional challenges in the furtherance of human rights.

6) Our Demands:

For the above-mentioned reasons, we call on the government to:

  1. Ensure that the terms of reference are broad enough to have a thorough inquiry into the full range of human rights concerns raised by Sharia councils and tribunals.
  2. Appoint a Judge to head the inquiry with the powers to compel witnesses to appear before it. The inquiry panel should be an impartial investigation into the entire spectrum of human rights violations caused by the existence and functioning of Sharia councils and tribunals.
  3. Drop the inappropriate theological approach, and appoint experts with knowledge of women’s human rights, those who can properly and independently examine how Sharia systems of arbitration in family matters contravene key human rights principles of equality before the law, duty of care, due diligence and the rule of law. The inquiry must be clearly framed as a human rights investigation not a theological one.

The law and not religion is the key basis for securing justice for all citizens. We urge you to do the right thing to ensure that the same principles of human rights, equality before the law, duty of care, due diligence and the rule of law are applicable to all British citizens.

Signed
Diana Nammi, Director of Iranian Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, UK
Elham Manea, Academic and Author of "Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK", Switzerland
Gina Khan, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Gita Sahgal, Director of Centre for Secular Space, UK
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson of One Law for All, UK
Nasreen Rehman, Co-Founder and Chair of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, UK
Pragna Patel, Director of Southall Black Sisters, UK
Rayhana Sultan, Spokesperson of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK
Yasmin Rehman, Centre for Secular Space Board Member, UK

UK Organisations
Andree Duguy, Women in Black (London), UK
Ashiana Network, UK
Basira, British Arabs for Universal Women's Rights, UK
Centre for Secular Space, UK
Community Women's Blog, UK
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK
Coventry Women’s Voices, UK
Culture Project, UK
Denise McDowell, Director of Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, UK
Dianne Whitfield, Chief Officer of Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, and Co-Chair of Rape Crisis England and Wales, UK
EileenRose McFadden, Case Manager of Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK
End Violence Against Women Coalition, UK
Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women's Discrimination in Iran, UK
European College of Law, UK
Federation of Iranian Refugees, UK
Fitnah – Movement for Women's Liberation, UK
Gona Saed, Director of Kurdish Secular Center, UK
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project, UK
IC Change
Iran Solidarity, UK
Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, UK
Jeena, UK
Jo Todd, Chief Executive Officer of Respect, UK
Karen Ingala Smith, CEO of NIA, UK
Karma Nirvana, UK
Kurdish and Middle Eastern Women's Organisation, UK
Kurdish Secular Center, UK
Lisa-Marie Taylor, Chair of Feminism in London, UK
London Black Women’s Project, UK
Manchester Women’s Aid, UK
Mersedeh Ghaedi, Former Political Prisoner and London Spokesperson for Iran Tribunal, UK
Million Women Rise, UK
Nari Diganta: Women in Movement for Equal Rights, Social Justice, and Secularism, UK
National Secular Society, UK
Nira Yuval-Davis, Professor and Director of the Centre for Research on Migration, Refugees and Belonging The University of east London, UK
One Law for All, UK
Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, UK
Prashanta Bhushon Barua, Director of Studies & Head of Laws of European College of Law, UK
Priya Chopra, Chief Executive of Saheli, UK 
Rani Bilkhu, Founder of Jeena, UK
Respect, UK
Rumana Hashem, Founder of Community Women's Blog and Advisor to Nari Diganta, UK
Safety4Sisters North West, UK
Sarah Ager, Interfaith Activist and Curator of Interfaith Ramadan, UK
Sarah Green, Co-Director of End Violence Against Women Coalition, UK
Sarah Peace, Fireproof Library, UK
Sarbjit Ganger, Director of Asian Women's Resource Centre, UK
Sawsan Salim, Director of Kurdish and Middle Eastern Women's Organisation, UK
Secularism Is A Women's Issue
Shakti Women’s Aid, UK
Shaminder Ubhi, Director of Ashiana Network, UK
Sophie Walker, Women’s Equality Party, UK
Southall Black Sisters, UK
Tehmina Kazi, Director of Media, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, UK
Umme Imam, Executive Director of The Angelou Centre, UK
Welsh Women’s Aid, UK
Women Asylum Seekers Together, UK
Women in Black (London), UK
Women’s Resource Centre, UK
Women's Voices Manchester, UK

Individuals
Adele Wilde-Blavatasky, Writer and Activist, UK
Ahlam Akram, Founder Director of Basira, British Arabs for Universal Women's Rights, UK
Aisha K. Gill, Professor at University of Roehampton, UK
Amanda Sebestyen, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Beatrix Campbell, Writer, UK
Caroline Criardo-Perez, Writer and Campaigner, UK
Davina James-Hanman, VAWG Consultant, UK
Deeyah Khan, Filmmaker & CEO of Fuuse, UK
Geraldine Brady, Women’s Rights Campaigner, UK
Hana Chelache, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain Activist, UK
Harriet Wistrich, Human Rights Lawyer and Founder of Centre for Women's Justice, UK
Heather Harvey, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Iman Kouchouk, Feminist, UK
Iram Ramzan, Journalist, UK
Jasvinder Sanghera, CBE and Founder of Karma Nirvana, UK
Joan Smith, Writer, UK
Joanne Payton, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Jocelynne A. Scutt, Barrister & Human Rights Lawyer, UK
Judy Audaer, Council Member of the National Secular Society, UK
Julia Pascal, Playwright, UK
Julian Norman, Feminism in London, UK
Julie Bindel, Justice for Women and the Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize, UK
Juyel Raaj, Editor of Bricklane, Journalist and Blogger, UK
Kalwinder Sandhu, Member of Coventry Women’s Voices, UK
Kate Smurthwaite, Comedian and Activist, UK
Lejla Kuric, Writer and Human Rights Activist, UK
Mala Sarker, Migrant Women's Rights Activist, UK
Mandy Sanghera, Human Rights Activist, UK
Mariz Tadros, Institute of Development Studies at University of Sussex, UK
Mary-Ann Stephenson, Women's Rights Campaigner, UK
Muna Adil, Journalist, UK
Nahla Mahmoud, Human Rights Campaigner, UK
Nazira Mehmari, Advice Co-ordinator of Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, UK
Neda Barzegar-Befroei, Junior Doctor and Activist, IKWRO Survivor Ambassador, UK
Piya Mayenin, Women's Rights Campaigner and Solicitor, UK
Rahila Gupta, Writer, UK
Ranjit Kaur, Lawyer and Human Rights Campaigner, UK
Razia Begum, Vice President of Nari Diganta, UK
Ritu Mahendru, Anti-fundamentalist and anti-racist Feminist, UK
Safiya Alfaris, Women's Rights and Muslim Reform Campaigner, UK
Sara Browne, Campaign Officer of Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, UK
Shaheen Hashmat, Writer and Activist, UK
Sukhwant Dhaliwal; anti-racist and women’s rights campaigner and founder of Feminst Dissent
Tahirih Danesh, Human Rights Researcher, UK
Vivienne Hayes, MBE, CEO of Women’s Resource Centre, UK
Zoe Fairbairns, Writer, UK

 International
Afsaneh Vahdat, Spokesperson of Children First Now, Sweden
Amel Grami, Professor at the University of Tunis, Tunisia
Anissa Helie, Professor at John Jay College, US
Anne Flitcraft, MD, Associate Professor Medicine at University of Connecticut (retired), US
Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-President of Freedom From Religion Foundation, US
Annie Sugier, President of Ligue du Droit International des Femmes, France
Asra Q. Nomani, Cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement, US
Association pour la mixité, l'égalité et la laicité en Algérie
Association Protagora, Croatia
Ateizm Dernegi, Turkey
Ayesha Imam, Executive Director of BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights, Nigeria
Bader Sayeed, Founder and President of Roshni, India
Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Canada
Centro Interculturale delle donne di Trama di Terre, Italy
Djemila Benhabib, Author, Canada
Eiynah, Ex Muslim Blogger, Illustrator and Podcaster, Canada
Euromed Feminist Initiative IFE-EFI, France
Evelyne Abitbol, Executive Director and Co-founder of Raif Badawi Foundation for Freedom, Canada
Faizun Zackariya, Researcher and Activist, Sri Lanka
Farideh Arman, Activist of women's rights organisation Kvinnorättsförbundet, Sweden
Fatou Sow, Researcher in Sociology, Senegal
Fauzia Ilyas, Founder/President of Atheist & Agnostic Alliance Pakistan, Pakistan
Femmes solidaires, France
Firoozeh Bazrafkan, Image and Performance Artist, Denmark
Freedom From Religion Foundation, US
Hala Arafa, Egyptian-American Journalist, US
Hameeda Hossain, Human Rights Advocate, Bangladesh
Hasina Khan, Feminist Activist of Bebaak Collective, India
Helen O'Shea, Secretary of Atheist Ireland, Ireland
Hilda Saeed, Shirkat Gah Pakistan and Women's Action Forum, Pakistan
Homa Arjomand, Coordinator of The International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, Canada
Italian Feminist Magazine Marea, Italy
Jaleh Tavakoli, Blogger & Free Iran, Denmark
Jane Donnelly, Human Rights Officer of Atheist Ireland, Ireland
Khushi Kabir, Rights Activist, Bangladesh
Kuljit Kaur, Women's  Rights Campaigner, India
Kumudini Samuel, Women and Media Collective, Sri Lanka
Lalia Ducos,  Head of Women's Initiative for Citizenship and Universals Rights, France
Laura Guidetti, Italian Feminist Magazine Marea, Italy
Lila Ghobadi, Writer & Documentary maker, US
Lilian Halls-French, Co-President of Euromed Feminist Initiative IFE-EFI, France
Linda Weil-Curiel, Lawyer, France
Madhu Mehra, Partners for Law in Development, India
Maria Hagberg, Author and Member of Femmes Solidaires Secular Network, World Women's Conference  and UN Women, Sweden
Marieme Helie Lucas, Coordinator of Secularism Is A Women's Issue, Algeria/France
Mary Devery, Women's Rights Activist and Member of Terre des Femmes, Germany
Meredith Tax, Writer, Centre for Secular Space, US
Michèle Vianès, Présidente de Regards de femmes, France
Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson of International Committees against Stoning and Execution, Germany/Iran
Nada Peratovic, Founder and President of Center for Civil Courage, Croatia
Nadia El Fani, Tunisian Filmmaker, France
Nawal El Saadawi, Writer, Egypt
Nayantara Sahgal, Writer and Campaigner for Secularism, India
Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay, President and Co Founder of Stop Child Executions and The Nazanin Foundation, Canada
Nushin Arbabzadah, Writer, US
Ophelia Benson, Writer and Blogger, US
Partners for Law in Development, India
Raheel Raza, President of Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Canada
Rassemblement Algérien des Femmes Démocrates, Algeria
Regards de femmes, France
Rina Nissim, Espace Femmes International, Switzerland
Robyn E. Blumner, President & CEO of Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science and CEO of Center for Inquiry, US
Safia Lebdi, Women's Rights Activist, France
Sally Armstrong, Journalist, Canada
Sara Huassain, Advocate, Supreme Court, Bnagladesh
Sara Mohammad, Chairwomen for Never Forget Pela and Fadime Organisation, Sweden
Sarah Haider, Co-founder and Director of Outreach and Development, Ex-Muslims of North America, USA
Sheba Georg, Director, SAHR WARU: Women’s Action and Eesource Unit, Gujarat, India
Shelley Segal, Singer and Songwriter, Australia
Shirin Bahrami, Chair of Intergration i Malmö, Sweden
Soad Baba Aissa, Militante Féministe, France
Soraya L. Chemaly, Writer, US
South Asia Citizens Web, India
Stasa Zajovic, Founder of Belgrade Women In Black, Serbia
Sultana Kamal, Lawyer and Human Rights Activist, Bangladesh
Susan Saberi, Chair of Iranian Refugee Council's Federation Women's Section, Sweden
Tahira Abdullah, Human Rights Defender, Women's & Minority Rights Activist, Pakistan
The International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, Canada
Vahida Nainar, Founder-Director of Women’s Research and Action Group, India
Women in Black, Belgrade, Serbia
Zari Asli, Friends of Women in the Middle East Society, Canada
Zazi Sadou, Co- Founder of Rassemblement   Algérien des Femmes Démocrates, France
Zehra Pala, Editor/President of Ateizm Dernegi, Turkey

Pragna Patel is Director of  Southall Black Sisters  and a founding member of  Women Against Fundamentalism. She has written extensively on race, gender and religion. Her publications include  ‘Citizenship: Whose Rights?’ in Women and Citizenship in Europe: Borders, Rights and Duties, ed. A. Ward et al. (Trentham Books), the ‘The Time Has Come … Asian Women in Struggle’ in Black British Feminism – A Reader, ed. H. S. Mirza (Taylor & Francis), several essays in From homebreakers to jailbreakers 2003 ed. R. Gupta (Zed Books). Listen to her TEDX talk on Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. 

This article was first published on openDemocracy.

प्रिय गोरक्षकों ब्रश करने, च्यूंग गम चबाने और टी-20 देखने से पहले गोमाता के बारे में सोच लो

By
-
0

गोरक्षकों के नाम खुली चिट्ठी

 
प्रिय गोरक्षकों,

मैं जानता हूं कि आजकल आप लोग ताकत के नशे में चूर हैं। 2014 में सत्ता परिवर्तन के साथ ही आप लोग और मजबूत हो गए हैं। मैं यह भी समझता हूं कि आप लोगों में अचानक यह उबाल अचानक नहीं आया है। इसके पीछे आपकी लंबी भावनात्मक कसमसाहट रही है। आप मानते हैं कि जिसने भी आपकी गोमाता का अपमान किया हो। उसे प्रताड़ित किया हो मारा हो, उसे दंडित किया जाए। मैं इस बात को समझता हूं कि आप ऐसे लोगों को सबक सिखाने के अभियान पर निकले हैं।

मेरा इरादा आपको कोई लेक्चर देने का नहीं है। न मैं आपकी हिप्पोक्रेसी का मजाक उड़ाना चाहता हूं। एक तरफ तो आप पवित्र गाय की रक्षा के लिए दलितों और मुसलमानों को मार रहे हैं तो दूसरी ओर आपकी सरकार पिंक रेव्यूलेशन को बढ़ावा देकर भारत को सबसे बड़ा मांस निर्यातक देश बनाना चाहती है। लेकिन हमारे पास कुछ ऐसे सवाल हैं, जिनका आपको जवाब देने की जरूरत नहीं है। ये सवाल आप अपने आप से पूछें।

सबसे पहले अपने डेली रूटीन से शुरू करें।
सुबह उठकर आप जिस टूथपेस्ट का इस्तेमाल करते हैं तो क्या सुनिश्चित कर लेते हैं कि इसमें ग्लीसिरिन न हो। वो ग्लीसिरिन जो आपकी पवित्र गाय से न बनी हो। आप जो ग्लीसिरिन इस्तेमाल कर रहे हैं उसमें गाय की चर्बी न हो। 

मैन्यूफैक्चरर्स यह दावा कर सकते हैं यह ग्लीसिरिन पेड़-पौधे(सोयाबीन या पाम) से बनी है लेकिन यह आप कैसे पक्का करेंगे कि वे मुनाफा कमाने के लिए चर्बी का इस्तेमाल नहीं करेंगे। क्योंकि पेड़ –पौधे से बनी ग्लीसिरिन ज्यादा महंगी होती है।

क्या आपने पता किया है कि आप जो माउथवाश, सेविंग क्रीम, च्यूंगगम, हेयर क्रीम, शैंपू, कंडीशनर, मायस्चराइजर आदि का इस्तेमाल करते हैं वह गाय से न निकला हो। दरअसल पेंथोनोल, अमीनो, एसिड या विटामीन बी या तो जानवरों से हासिल होता है या पौधों से। इसलिए इन चीजों को इस्तेमाल करने से पहले इसकी पड़ताल कर लें कि इनके स्त्रोत क्या हैं। कपड़ों को नरम करने के लिए जो चीज इस्तेमाल की जाती है इसमें सूखी चर्बी यानी डिमिथाइल अमोनियम क्लोराइड मिली होती है। इसका स्त्रोत क्या है।

ब्रश कर लिया आपने। अब चाय पीने की बारी है। लेकिन रुकिये, तय कर लीजिये कि जो चीनी आप इसमें इस्तेमाल करेंगे उसे गाय की हड्डी से तो साफ नहीं किया गया है।

अब नाश्ते की बात आती है। क्या लेना पसंद करेंगे। छोले-पूड़ी। लेकिन पहले यह तय करें कि जिस रिफाइंड तेल में पूड़ी तली जाएगी, उसमें चर्बी कि मिलावट न हो। आपकी जानकारी के लिए बता दें कि जिस देशभक्त सरकार को आपने उत्साह से चुना है उसने चर्बी की मिलावट पर 32 साल पहले इंदिरा गांधी सरकार में लगा बैन हटा दिया है। उस दौरान वनस्पति तेल में चर्बी की मिलावट की बात आई थी।

अब ड्राइंग रूम की ओर रुख करते हैं। आपके ड्राइंग रूम में जो बेहतरीन सोफा रखा है उसमे जानवरों से बने उत्पादों का इस्तेमाल किया गया हो। जिस ग्लू से प्लाइवुड को साटते हैं या इसे लेमिनेट करते हैं, वह जानवरों की हड्डियों से बना हो सकता है। जी हां, यह जानवरों की हड्डियों, टिश्यू, खाल को उबाल कर बनाया जाता है। यानी गाय, भैंसों और सूअर की हड्डियों से। यह ठीक है कि आजकल सिथेंटिक ग्लू भी उपलब्ध है। लेकिन यह कैसे पता करेंगे कि आपके फर्नीचर में कौन सा ग्लू इस्तेमाल हुआ है।
अब सफर की बात करते हैं। आप कार, बाइक या बस से सफर करते होंगे। लेकिन टायर बनाने वाली कंपनियां इसके निर्माण में स्टेरिक एसिड का इस्तेमाल करती हैं। उबड़-खाबड़ सड़कों पर यह टायर को  अपने शेप में रखने में मदद करता है। स्टेरिक एसिड का इस्तेमाल कॉस्मेटिक, मोमबत्तियों, ल्यूब्रीकेंट्स, डियोडरेंट, क्रीम और फ्लेवरिंग एजेंट्स में इस्तेमाल किया जाता है।

शॉपिंग में आप प्लास्टिक की थैलियों का इस्तेमाल करते हैं। लेकिन इसमें स्लीप एजेंट्स का इस्तेमाल होता है, जो प्लास्टिक को स्मूद बनाता है ताकि यह रगड़ न खाए। या स्लीप एजेंट चर्बी से ही बनते हैं। हालांकि पॉलिमर्स पेट्रोलियम से बनते हैं। लेकिन प्लास्टिक मैन्यूफैक्चर्स अक्सर इसकी क्वालिटी बढ़ाने के लिए जानवरों से बनाई चीजों का इसमें इस्तेमाल करते हैं। कच्चे पॉलिमर की प्रोसेसिंग में भी इसका इस्तेमाल होता है। स्लीप एजेंट के लिए पेड़-पौधे का इस्तेमाल होता है लेकिन आप कैसे तय करेंगे कि मल्टीनेशनल कंपनियां इसका ही इस्तेमाल कर रही हैं। क्या वे महंगा कच्चा माल का इस्तेमाल कर अपना सामान महंगा करने का जोखिम उठाएंगी। क्या वे सिर्फ आपकी भावनाओं का सम्मान करने के लिए पेड़-पौधे से बने महंगे कच्चे माल का इस्तेमाल करेंगी।

अब आपके मुख्य काम की बात करते हैं। जैसे दलित, मुस्लमों और महिलाओं की पिटाई करना। लेकिन यह निश्चित कर लें कि पिटाई की चक्कर में आप चोट न खा बैठें। लेकिन अगर चोट लग भी गई है और आपको कैप्सूल की जरूरत पड़े तो इस्तेमाल करने से पहले सोचिएगा। क्योंकि कैप्सूल का खोल एनिमल प्रोटीन से बना होता है। कैप्सूल जिलेटिन से बनाए जाते हैं। जिलेटिन गाय की खाल, लिगामेंट्स (हड्डियों का जोड़), हडडियां, और नसों को उबाल कर बनाया जाता है। अगर आपको स्टिच लगाने की जरूरत पड़े तो जिस धागे का इस्तेमाल किया जाता है वह गायों की आंतों से बनी होती हैं। पश्चिमी देशों ने अब संक्रमण और मेड काउ डिजीज जैसी बीमारी से बचने के लिए आंतों से बने सर्जिकल धागे का इस्तेमाल बंद कर दिया है। लेकिन भारत में यह निश्चित नहीं है कि इस धागे का इस्तेमाल न हो।

क्या आप जानते हैं कि जो दवा आप ले रहे हैं उसमें गाय, भैंस या सूअर के अंगों का इस्तेमाल हुआ है। अगर आप हाई ब्लड प्रेशर या हाइपरटेंशन के शिकार हैं तो डॉक्टरों के कहने पर आपको हेपारिन लेना पड़ सकता है। हेपारिन खून को पतला करने का काम करता है। लेकिन क्या आपको पता है कि यह कैसे बनता है। यह बनाया जाता है गाय के फेफड़ों और सूअरों की आंत से। अगर डाइबिटीज के मरीज हैं और इंसुलिन का इस्तेमाल कर रहे हैं तो सूअरों के पैंक्रियाज से बनाया जाता है। बहुत सारे वैकसीन चिकन का भ्रूण से बनाए जाते हैं। या फिर गिनी पिग के सीरम या भ्रूण से।

अरे, आप तो परेशान हो गए। मन हल्का करने के लिए आइए आईपीएल का कोई मैच देख लेते हैं। लेकिन जरा रुकिये जो गेंद इसमें इस्तेमाल होती है, उसकी लेदर गाय की खाल या बछड़े की खाल से तैयार होती है। कुछ ज्यादा ही परेशान हो गए। टेंशन हटाने के लिए सिगरेट पीना चाहें तो पी सकते हैं। लेकिन यहां भी मुसीबत है। सिगरेट  के फिल्टर वाली रूई में सूअर के खून का इस्तेमाल होता है। खैर, इससे आपको कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ेगा क्योंकि आप तो मुसलमान नहीं है। लेकिन अगर गुटखा खाते हों तो सावधान हो जाइए। गुटखे में जो सस्ती सुपारी इस्तेमाल होती है, वो जानवरों की खाल साफ करने के बाद छोड़ी गई होती है। जाहिर है दो रुपये में आप क्या उम्मीद कर सकते हैं। फ्रेश सुपारी की उम्मीद कर रहे हैं। जरा गुटखा बनाने वाली कंपनियों के एड्रेस देखें। ज्यादातर के पते कानपुर के हैं। क्या देश में सबसे अधिक टैनरीज यहीं नहीं है। सोच लीजिये सस्ता गुटखा बनाने वाली कंपनियों के लिए सस्ती सुपारी कहां से आती होगी। चलिए, छोड़िये। जो जेली बीन्स और कैंडी आप अपने बच्चों के लिए ले जाते हैं। क्या वे शाकाहारी होती हैं। जरा चेक करिए। ज्यादातर जेली बीन्स और कैंडी में जानवरों की हड्डी का इस्तेमाल होता है। आपकी महिलाएं जो लिपिस्टक इस्तेमाल करती हैं वे सूअर की चर्बी से बनी होती हैं। और गाय की चर्बी का इस्तेमाल योगर्ट, आइसक्रीम और आई शेडो में भी होता है।

मैं ऐसे सैकड़ों प्रोडक्ट का नाम गिना सकता हूं। जिनमें गाय या चर्बी का इस्तेमाल होता है। लेकिन मेरा मानना है कि मैंने अपनी बात साफ कर दी है। ये केवल दलित और मुस्लिम ही नहीं है जो आपका धर्म भ्रष्ट कर रहे हैं। कॉरपोरेट दुनिया जो कर रही है वो आप सोच भी नहीं सकते। इसलिए उन गरीबों पर हमला कर क्या होगा, जो मरे हुए जानवरों की खाल निकालने का काम रोजी-रोटी के लिए करते हैं। ये तो एजेंट हैं, जो कंपनियों को इस तरह का माल सप्लाई करते हैं। कंपनियां जानवरों की खाल, हड्डियों और चर्बी का इस्तेमाल कर सामान बनाती हैं और मुनाफा कमाने के लिए आपको बेचती है। असली धंधा तो कॉरपोरेट कंपनियां कर रही हैं। लेकिन क्या आप उन पर हमला करने की सोच भी सकते हैं। क्या आप उन कंपनियों की ओर से बनाई जाने वाले सारे प्रोडक्ट इस्तेमाल करना बंद कर देंगे।

आप कह सकते हैं कि आप तो सिर्फ बीफ खाना रोकना चाहते हैं। लेकिन गायों की हड्डियों, आंतों, खुरों और खालों और चर्बी का क्या करेंगे, जिनका इस्तेमाल कर कंपनियां अपने प्रोडक्ट बेचती हैं।

इसलिए क्या मैं आपसे यह उम्मीद कर सकता हूं कि आप जियो और जीने दो का सिद्धांत का पालन करेंगे। इस दुनिया में हर किसी के लिए जगह है। क्या आप अपनी सांप्रदायिक सनक से बरसों से चले आ रहे आपसी संबंधों को खत्म नहीं कर रहे हैं।
नफरत करना छोड़िए। अपने पड़ोसियों से प्रेम कीजिये। उन दोस्तों के प्रति उदार हों जो आपके समुदाय के नहीं हैं। अपने देशवासियों से प्रेम कीजिये।

हां, जाते-जाते एक बात और। खुशी में कभी पटाखे न चलाएं। पर्यावरण की बेहतरी के लिहाज से ऐसा नहीं कह रहा हूं। दरअसल पटाखों को मेटल पाउडर से कोट करने के लिए जिस एल्यूमीनियम और आयरन की जरूरत होती है उसमें स्टेरिक एसिड का इस्तेमाल होता है और यह आपको फिर बताने की जरूरत है कि यह एसिड कैसे बनता है।  

फरहान रहमान झारखंड सेंट्रल यूनिवर्सिटी में रिसर्च स्कॉलर हैं।

[1] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/gujarat-violence-in-saurashtra-kills-policeman-dalit-youth-commits-suicide-2924408/  
[2] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-on-top-in-exporting-beef/article7519487.ece
[3] http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html
[4] http://newlynatural.com/blog/2009/07/animal-glycerin-vs-veggie-glycerin/
[5] http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faqingredients.htm
[6] http://gentleworld.org/hidden-animal-fats/
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/sugar-vegan-bone-char-yikes_n_6391496
[8] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/amid-beef-row-buffalo-tallow-export-booms/article7938266.ece
[9] http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/animal-ingredients-list/
[10] https://www.britannica.com/technology/adhesive
[11] http://roogirl.com/20-everyday-items-that-contain-animal-ingredients/
[12] http://myplasticfreelife.com/2010/08/is-there-animal-fat-in-your-plastic-bag/
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_(pharmacy
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catgut_suture
[15] http://naturallysavvy.com/live/10-most-common-and-kinda-gross-animal-ingredients-found-in-prescription-medications
[16] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/03/13/174205188/is-your-medicine-vegan-probably-not
[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heparin
[18] http://scroll.in/article/759544/why-only-outrage-against-beef-cricket-balls-shoes-tablas-contain-cow-parts-too
[19] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/Cigarette-filters-have-pigs-blood/articleshow/5742789.cms
[20] http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/cosmetic-ingredients/
[21]http://www.alternet.org/story/145144/ice_cream_has_meat_in_it_7_'vegetarian'_foods_that_actually_contain_meat_products
[22] http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/whats-behind-that-glass-of-milk/article4675921.ece
 

Despite Hindutva twists, it’s clear that the Indus Valley flowered before the Vedas were composed

By
-
0

Ashutosh Gowariker's 'Mohenjo Daro' will be closely watched to establish what position he takes on this politically sensitive matter.


Image:  Disney India

I have known Ashutosh Gowariker for a long time, but the last proper conversation we had happened over a decade ago, on the sidelines of a seminar marking the 400th death anniversary of Emperor Akbar. Gowariker was then researching Jodhaa Akbar, a movie that drew extensively from the recorded history of the Mughal emperor’s life and blending that with an invented romance between him and his Rajput wife. Having witnessed how eager the filmmaker was to comprehend the historical background of the Mughal epoch, I’m sure the consultations he had with leading Indus civilisation scholars in the process of making his latest blockbuster, Mohenjo Daro, went far beyond the usual lip service. The material we have on the film so far, a trailer and some songs, give evidence of serious research. The sets simulate baked brick and streets arranged in a grid. We see bullock carts with solid wooden wheels traversing Mohenjo Daro’s wide lanes. Cotton fabrics, some dyed with indigo, are worn by the characters and sold in the marketplace.

We know so little about the era, however, that imagination had to take precedence over veracity in the film’s creation. The trailer shows the protagonist, played by Hrithik Roshan, staring at a monumental stone figure comparable in size with those commissioned by Egypt’s self-aggrandising pharaohs. It is extremely unlikely that any sculpture on that scale was produced in the Indus civilisation. The sculpted artefacts found by archaeologists are puny and of indifferent quality. Filmmakers are, of course, entitled to take liberties with facts in the service of fiction, and slant stories in a direction of their choosing. When Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth portrayed Catholics as sweaty fanatics or treacherous plotters and their Protestant adversaries as rational patriots, nobody in Britain or Europe cared overmuch. But history is so fiercely contested in India that Mohenjo Daro is bound to be scrutinised for the position it takes on a number of controversies, especially the crucial question: what relationship, if any, did the citizens of the Indus culture have with the Vedic people?

The teaser of the film consists of a series of "befores": Before the British Raj, before the Mughals, before Christ, before Alexander, before Buddha, there was Mohenjo Daro, it says. But all those befores take us back only 2,500 years, leaving 1,500 still blank . The way to fill that gap would be to add, "Before the Vedas", but that would invite right-wing protests and calls for a ban.
 

The case of the horse

In one shot from the trailer, Roshan is confronted by four rearing stallions. The placing of horses in India in 2016 BCE is bound to please ideologues on the right, for the horse causes a nearly insurmountable problem for those who insist the populations of the Indus culture spoke Sanskrit and were descended from people who composed the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is full of horses. Horses are ridden into battle and sacrificed in great yagnas. Unfortunately, no horses appear in India’s visual and archaeological until around 2000 BC. One little sculpture from Mohenjo Daro looks a bit like a horse, but nobody can make a definitive identification because the piece is severely damaged. If the Vedic people built the cities of the Indus culture, why did they keep mentioning the horse in their hymns but never depict them alongside elephants, bulls, rhinoceros and other fauna on the beautiful stone, terracotta and metal seals they manufactured, of which over 3,500 have been found by archaeologists?

The conventional historian’s view is that the horse was first domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes between 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. Among the first people to ride the horse were speakers of Proto-Indo-European, the mother language of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and dozens of modern tongues. Descendants of these people spread across the continents, taking their language as well as the horse to regions from West Europe to South Asia. The exact role migration played as opposed to cultural diffusion in the spread of language and horse domestication remains an open question.

In discussing the role of the horse in Mohenjo Daro and its sister cities, we are left with two possibilities. First, that the domesticated horse was introduced to India after the peak of the Indus civilisation had passed, in which case that civilisation was not Vedic. Second, that horses and chariots existed in Harappan sites for over 1,000 years without leaving any archaeological or iconographic trace. Which seems the likelier story?
 

The case of Sanskrit

The language of the Vedas creates an even tougher obstacle than the issue of the horse. Two hundred and twenty years ago, on February 2, 1786, a judge and polyglot named William Jones delivered his third annual discourse in Calcutta to an organisation of learning he had founded, named the Asiatic Society. In the process, he created the discipline of comparative linguistics and the idea of an Indo-European language family. Here’s the most famous passage of the talk:

“The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit, and the old Persian might be added to this family.”

In the decades after Jones’ revolutionary thesis, linguists have tried to reconstruct the lost tongue from which so many of the world’s major languages have sprung, while also hypothesising about the region where that originary language was first spoken. They do this by finding words that are common to many of the descendant languages, words like father, pater and pitar/pita, which emerge from the same root. There are dozens of such words shared by Indo-European languages, one of which is the term for horse, which is áśvaḥ in Sanskrit, aspa in Old Iranian, hippos in ancient Greek, equus in Latin, and ašvà in Lithuanian (meaning "mare"). There are no common Indo-European words for elephant, camel, rhinoceros, lion, tiger, monkey, banyan and bamboo, but shared words do exist for wolf, otter, polecat, deer, rabbit, sheep, goat, pig, beech, pine, birch, and willow. Based on such evidence, linguists have made the case for a temperate homeland for the Proto-Indo-European language. Had the Indo-European family originated in India with Vedic Sanskrit, it seems likely that sub-tropical flora and fauna would form an important part of the common substrate of Indo-European words, but instead such words tend to be unique to Sanskrit and Indian languages deriving from it, and are sometimes loans from Dravidian languages. The inescapable conclusion is that the ancestor languages of Sanskrit, from Proto-Indo-European to Indo-Iranian, were spoken outside the subcontinent, and probably came to India during the declining years of the Indus Civilisation.
 

The case of the gods

The ancient language closest to Vedic Sanskrit is that of the Avesta, the religious text of the Zoroastrians. There are startling commonalities between the two faiths. Both the Rig Veda and the Avesta speak of a nourishing and possibly intoxicating drink that was consumed ritually. It is called soma in the Vedas, and haoma in Iranian texts.

Indian texts speak of two related groups of supernatural beings, the devas and the asuras. The former are gods while the latter usually play the role of villains. In Iran, the situation is reversed, with the ahuras being divine and the daevas nasty entities. The reversal is easily explained if one imagines a group of speakers of the Indo-Iranian parent tongue placing devas and asuras on more or less equal footing. They split up at one stage and the people who went on to compose the Avesta shifted the balance in favour of ahuras, while the composers of Vedic hymns preferred devas. If, on the other hand, one imagines Sanskrit travelling to Iran from India with the devas already defined as gods in opposition to the asuras, it isn’t easy to explain why the Iranians would then reverse the order completely.
 

Occam’s Razor

Occam’s Razor demands that if there are two valid explanations of a phenomenon, we ought to choose the simpler one. Not only is the Out of India thesis (the idea that Sanskrit is completely indigenous to India and the root of all Indo-European languages) incapable of explaining a number of linguistic, archaeological and iconographic issues related to the Indus civilisation and to the Indo-European language family, attempts to craft such an explanation involve incredible contortions. Why choose such convolutions when the simple explanation of the development of horse riding and of Proto-Indo-European, the entry of Sanskrit into India after 2000 BC, and the subsequent composition of Vedic hymns, satisfies observable facts?

The answer lies, of course, in Hindutva ideology. The Out of India thesis originated with Hindu nationalists such as Savarkar and Golwalkar. They needed Hinduism to be entirely indigenous in order to label Christianity and Islam inauthentic foreign imports. The left, conversely, is eager to highlight foreign origins in order to undercut the idea of one authentic national religion. Both sides play an ideological game, but in this case the left has most of the facts on its side.

Hindutvavadis attempt to hide the gaping holes in their thesis by throwing out familiar accusations of racism and imperialism, but it is unclear why imperialists would have such a fondness for the grasslands of Ukraine and Kazakhstan and the regions near the Black Sea that they would twist evidence to place the origins of horse domestication and the Indo-European language group in those lands.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

दीपा कर्मकार., ध्यानचंद : भारत में जातिवाद खत्म !

By
-
0

शुक्रिया बीबीसी, नवभारत टाइम्स, एनडीटीवी, प्रभात खबर, नई दुनिया….. आप दीपा कर्मकार को अब उसके सही नाम का हक दे रहे हैं.

शुक्रिया Mahendra Yadav आपके इस अभियान के लिए. आपकी मुहिम के बाद कई जगह सुधार दिख रहा है.

करमाकर नहीं

कर्मकार!

दीपा कर्मकार.

त्रिपुरा के बंगाली परिवार में जन्मी भारत की बेटी दीपा कर्मकार.


 
हिंदी चैनलों और अखबारों के ब्राह्मणवाद का यह आलम है कि दीपा कर्मकार का नाम तक गलत लिख रहे हैं.

कर्मकार बोलते शर्म महसूस हो रही है. करमाकर या कर्माकर लिख रहे हैं.

क्योंकि दीपा कर्मकार त्रिपुरा की OBC हैं.

“हिंदी चैनलों और अखबारों के ब्राह्मणवाद का यह आलम है कि दीपा कर्मकार का नाम तक गलत लिख रहे हैं.

कर्मकार बोलते शर्म महसूस हो रही है. करमाकर या कर्माकर लिख रहे हैं.

क्योंकि दीपा कर्मकार त्रिपुरा की OBC हैं.”

जिस ध्यानचंद सिंह कुशवाहा ने भारत को सबसे ज्यादा तीन ओलंपिक गोल्ड मेडल दिलाए (1928, 32, 36) उन्हें भारत रत्न नहीं मिला है. पद्म विभूषण तक नहीं मिला जो रजत शर्मा को मिल चुका है.
ध्यानचंद को सम्मानित करने का मामला पद्म भूषण पर ठहर गया…. ओलंपिक में ऐसे देश की झोली खाली है, तो क्या आश्चर्य.

सोचिए, पेप्सी विक्रेता तेंडुलकर को भारत रत्न और दुनिया के महानतम हॉकी खिलाड़ी ध्यानचंद को पद्म भूषण! पद्म विभूषण भी नहीं!

भारत में जातिवाद खत्म हो चुका है!

मध्य प्रदेश के सागर शहर में रह रही ध्यानचंद की बेटी राजकुमारी कुशवाहा से पूछिए इस बात का कितना दर्द है उन्हें. ब्रिटेन की संसद ने ध्यानचंद का सम्मान किया, पर देश ने उन्हें भारत रत्न नहीं दिया.
ध्यानचंद लिखें या ध्यानचंद सिंह कुशवाहा या ध्यानचंद कुशवाहा चंद्रवंशीय क्षत्रीय…. क्या फर्क पड़ता है? भूल जाइए कि वह किस जाति का था.

मुद्दे की बात यह है कि वह भारतीय खेल इतिहास का महानतम खिलाड़ी था, उसने भारत को तीन ओलंपिक गोल्ड मेडल दिलाए, वह हॉकी का जादूगर था और भारत रत्न तो छोड़िए, उसे पद्म विभूषण भी नहीं दिया
गया.

देश ध्यानचंद की बेटी राजकुमारी कुशवाहा को मुंह दिखाने के काबिल नहीं है.

किस किस को दे दिया भारत रत्न. एक हमारे प्रिय दद्दा को नहीं दिया.

जो देश पाखंडी रविशंकर को, जिसे पर्यावरण कानून तोड़ने के जुर्म में सजा हुई है, उसे पद्म विभूषण देता हो और हॉकी के जादूगर ध्यानचंद को उससे कमतर पद्म भूषण…. उस देश को मेडल के लिए तरसना ही होगा.

 

Indian Population Growth Less Dependent On Religion, More On Development

By
-
0

Fertility rates in India are more closely related to education levels and the socio-economic development within a state, than to religious beliefs, according to an IndiaSpend analysis of government data and research evidence.


 
The evidence we analyze shows that richer families, states with better health facilities and higher female literacy have lower fertility rates in India. Globally, there is little evidence to link religion and fertility rates, with poorer, conflict-ridden states and countries with lower female empowerment reporting higher population growth rates.
 
When the office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India released fertility rates for the Indian population last year, the conversation was hijacked by the difference in population growth rates across religions. Several newspapers emphasized that the data showed that Muslim women had higher fertility rates than non-Muslims, and that thepercentage of Muslims in the population was steadily growing.

 

 
The numbers showed that the proportion of Muslims in India had grown to 14.2% of the total population in 2011, up from 13.4% in 2001, while the proportion of Hindus had reduced to 79.8% from 80.5%. The percentage of Christians and Jains did not significantly change at 2.3% and 0.4%, respectively, while the proportion of Buddhists decreased from 0.8% to 0.7%, and that of Sikhs reduced from 1.9% to 1.7%.
 
This implicit suggestion that Muslims have more children than other religious communities, missed data that shows how population growth rates and the Total Fertility Rate (TFR)–or the average number of children a woman has over her childbearing years–vary widely between India’s states. The TFR seems more closely related to per capita income, healthcare and other basic facilities in that state.
 
Development and fertility: The case of Kerala and UP
 
Compare, for instance, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh (UP). In 2011, the TFR of Uttar Pradesh, at 3.3, was higher than the Indian average of 2.4, and higher than the TFR in Kerala, at 1.8, according to census data. The Muslim population in Uttar Pradesh increased 25.19%, while the Muslim population in Kerala increased 12.83% between 2001 and 2011. Over the same period, the Hindu population increased 18.9% in Uttar Pradesh and 2.8% in Kerala.
 
The higher growth rates of Muslims in northern states are “more or less part of a northern culture than a Muslim culture”, N.C. Saxena, the former secretary of the Planning Commission of India, said in an interview to The Wire, a nonprofit journalism portal . This is in sync with higher average TFRs in northern and central states, such as UP (3.3), Bihar (3.5), Chhattisgarh (2.7), and Madhya Pradesh (2.9), as compared to southern states like Andhra Pradesh (1.8), Karnataka (1.9), Kerala (1.8), and Tamil Nadu (1.7), according to 2011 census data.
 
The states with the highest fertility rates in India are all in north and central India – Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan (TFR 2.9), Jharkhand (2.8), and Chhattisgarh.
 
These overall fertility rates seem more related to the state’s development. For instance, Kerala has a literacy rate of 93.9%, compared to 69.7% in Uttar Pradesh in 2011. In the same year, 99.7% of mothers in Kerala received medical attention at delivery compared to 48.4% of mothers in Uttar Pradesh. 74.9% of women were above the age of 21 in Kerala at marriage, compared to only 47.6% in Uttar Pradesh.
 
Another way to interpret population growth rates is through the difference in poor and rich states. Empowered Action Group (EAG) states, which include the poorest in India–Rajasthan, UP, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh–have higher population growth. Between 2001 and 2011, the population of EAG states grew at a rate of 21%, compared to 15% for the rest of India.  Still, decadal population growth rates in even EAG states have fallen when compared to the decadal growth rate of 24.99% between 1991 and 2001.
 
 

 
Still, there are within-state differences in TFR between religious groups. In 2005-2006, according to data from the third National Family Health Survey, UP had a TFR of 3.3, higher than the all-India average of 2.4. Kerala had a TFR of 1.93. In 2005-2006, Muslims in Kerala had a TFR of 2.46, higher than the TFR of Hindus in Kerala, at 1.53. But the Muslim TFR in Kerala was lower than the Hindu TFR in Uttar Pradesh, at 3.73. The TFR of Muslims in UP was 4.33.
 
One reason for the higher Muslim fertility within a state, could be because of wealth-related factors.
 
Survey information showed that families in the lower wealth quintiles have more children than richer families. For instance, in Bihar, women in the lowest wealth quintile have a TFR of 5.08 while women in the highest quintile have a TFR of 2.12. The same holds true for a richer state, like Maharashtra, where the lowest wealth quintile has a TFR of 2.78, compared to the richest wealth quintile with a TFR of 1.74.
 
On average, Muslims across India are poorer than Hindus across India, with an average monthly household per capita expenditure of Rs 833, compared to Rs 888 for Hindus, Rs 1,296 for Christians and Rs 1,498 for Sikhs, according to a 2013 National Sample Survey report, based on data from 2009-2010.
 
Researcher Sriya Iyer, a professor at the University of Cambridge, said that religion does not have a statistically significant effect on fertility if other factors such as “access to education (quantity and quality), income, whether couples have help with childcare or not, local health care provision (quantity and quality) that lowers infant mortality and hence increases child survival, and the degree of urbanisation of the community” are taken into account. Further, her 2002 study in a Karnataka taluka (an administrative sub-division of a district) found that both Hindus and Muslims had more children than Christians, but she argued that religion affects fertility and contraception through other socio-economic factors, such as a family’s decision to educate its children, rather than through the ideological tenets of a religion.
 
Socio-economic factors affect the fertility of religious groups in different ways. For instance, higher education for women, and secondary education for men, lowers the fertility of Muslims but not of Hindus or Christians, the study reported, suggesting that family planning programs might have to be designed keeping in mind these differences.
 
Further, Iyer said, evidence from India showed that, over the long term, “TFRs between religious groups are projected to converge, as women from all religious communities are having fewer children today than their mothers or grandmothers”.
 
 

 
Indian women have more children than counterparts in many Muslim countries
 
There is little evidence internationally of the correlation between religion and fertility rates.
 
For instance, according to World Bank data, in 2014, Bangladesh, India’s Muslim-majority neighbor, had a TFR of 2.2. Iran, another Muslim country, has a TFR of 1.7, below replacement level, which means the current population cannot be replaced at the prevailing population growth rate.
 
Similarly, Malaysia and Indonesia, both Muslim-majority countries, have fertility rates of 1.9 and 2.5, respectively. Other Muslim-majority countries, such as Saudi Arabia (2.8), and Egypt (3.3), have higher fertility rates. The Hindu and the Muslim populations in Pakistanhave the same total fertility rate – 3.2 – according to data from the Pew Research Center.
 
Another neighboring country, Sri Lanka, with a Buddhist majority, had a TFR of 2.1 in 2014. Its Buddhist population had a TFR of 2.2 between 2010 and 2015, while both Hindus and Muslims had a higher TFR at 2.3 and 2.8, respectively.
 
 

 
Fertility related to several socio-economic factors, including female empowerment
 
Fertility rates also depend on a number of factors unrelated to religious group. For instance, socioeconomic-factors, education, modernization, access to contraceptives, and state policies for development, all affect fertility, according to P. Arokiasamy, the head of the department of development studies, at Mumbai-based International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS).
 
In addition, population growth rates also depend on other factors such as work opportunities for women, access to contraception, age at marriage, and decision making power within the household. For instance, a meta-analysis of studies, published in 2014, found a positive correlation between women’s empowerment and lower fertility, longer birth intervals, and lower rates of unintended pregnancy.
 
Population growth rates falling in India, Muslim growth rate falling faster than Hindu rate.
 
Population projections by the Pew Research Center, a US-based think tank, estimates that by the year 2050, Muslims will make up 18.4% of India’s population, the largest population of Muslims in any county in the world. But India’s Hindu population will still be larger than the total Muslim population of India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Bangladesh, five countries with the largest Muslim population in the world.
 
Overall, population growth is slowing down in India and the decadal growth rate fell from 21.54% between 1991 and 2001 to 17.64% between 2001 and 2011, which is in line with global trends that show that population growth rates fall as a country becomes more developed and literate.
 
In India, the Muslim growth rate is falling faster than the growth rate of Hindus.
 
The decadal population growth rate of Muslims fell 4.9 percentage points from 29.5% in 2001 to 24.6% in 2011, while that of Hindus fell 3.5 percentage points, from 20.3% to 16.8%.  In 2001, 65.1% of all Hindus, above the age of 7 years, were literate, while 59.1% of Muslims were literate, according to census data. In 2011, the percentage of literate Hindus rose to 73.3%, while that of Muslims increased to 68.5%.
 
Fertility rates of populations that have higher fertility, such as low-income families and Muslims, are falling faster than other groups, as methods of contraception and education spread to these groups, explained Arokiasamy of IIPS.
 
(Shah, a freelance journalist, is a graduate of the Global Human Development program at Georgetown University, USA).  
 
Courtesy: IndiaSpend.com
 

A new CAG report puts a number to how much Reliance Industries owes the exchequer: $1.6 billion

By
-
0

The figure relates to 'excess cost recovery' from the KG-D6 block of the Krishna-Godavari gas basin.

The Krishna-Godavari gas basin controversy now has some numbers to go by – the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India has pegged “excess cost recovery” from the KG-D6 gas block operated by Reliance Industries Limited at $1,547.85 million or Rs 9307.22 crore.

The numbers have been mentioned in a chapter of the CAG report released on August 2. Most of the statements made in the chapter are a summary of the findings from 2011-'12 and 2014, wrapped up thus:

“The total financial impact of excess cost recovery during 2012-‘14 (the years for which audits were conducted for the report in question) on account of the earlier audit findings was $1547.85 million.”

That’s a roundabout way of putting things across. Straight up: Reliance Industries Limited owes the exchequer close to $1.6 billion.
 

What is ‘cost recovery’?

For the uninitiated, a brief explainer would be helpful.

There are two elements here: cost petroleum and profit petroleum.

Cost petroleum allows the developer (RIL in this case) to first recover its costs by selling the gas. This appears fair since gas exploration is expensive and could dissuade a company unless it can recover the investments soonest.

This done, the private party and the government then share the remaining profit petroleum at a predetermined ratio.

Simply put, the cost petroleum is the total investment made divided by the price of gas per unit. The lower the price, the higher is the quantity of gas that the private party would have to sell to recover its costs.

If the cost petroleum is high, the profit petroleum is low. This is because the profit petroleum is calculated not by deducting the total expenditure from the total revenue made by selling gas, but by deducting the cost petroleum.
 

Where does it pinch the exchequer?

Take a look at the chart about the cumulative financial details of the KG-D6 block.

The total expenditure for this block stood at $11,057.29 million on March 31, 2014, and the total revenues were $11,231.56 million.

Reliance pegged the cost petroleum, or cost recovery, at $10,108.40 million.

The profit petroleum calculated after deducting the cost recovery came to Rs $1,123.16 million.

But the CAG audit says the cost recovery is $1,547.85 million in excess of what it should be.

The higher the cost recovery by the company, the lower the profit that goes to the exchequer.

Further, the profit-sharing is itself lop-sided: the government’s profit share is a minuscule $112.31 million, and that of RIL is $1,010.84 million.

This is because of a production sharing contract where slabs of profit-sharing are designed so that the more capital intensive the project, the lower the government’s share of profit petroleum. This flaw was pointed out in the explosive CAG report of 2011-'12. It was also reiterated by the Ashok Chawla Committee on allocation of natural resources.
 

What the CAG has said

The statements made in the report are significant on two counts.

First, the CAG had hitherto shied away from ascribing numbers to the “excess cost recovery” by RIL. This is the first time that the auditor has pinned down a specific number: $1.6 billion.

Second, the national auditor has also said unequivocally that many of the issues that had been pointed out in the earlier audits still persist.

For instance, the CAG found that non-compliance of the production sharing contract persisted, and costs were being recovered by the operator – RIL – in spite of being clearly disallowed or simply not approved by the management committee that approves these numbers.

The audit also found instances of non-compliance of directives issued by the petroleum and natural gas ministry, and also those of instructions that were sent out by the directorate-general of hydrocarbons under whose ambit the exploration and production of natural gas is carried out.

The CAG dwelt on three expenditure heads. The first pertained to four gas discoveries (named D29, D30, D31 and D34). There were questions of relinquishing these over valid technical grounds. What the CAG found was that the operator – RIL – recovered costs from the D31 discovery even though it should have been disallowed.

Moreover, RIL did not maintain separate records for each discovery. The CAG report said that RIL did confirm the relinquishment of D31, and pointed out that the cost recovery would now need to be reworked and reversed.

Overall, RIL was yet to give up an area of 831.88 sq km, contrary to the ministry’s directives. But since RIL had paid fees of $3.32 million for this, the CAG report called for it to be adjusted.

In another instance, the CAG found that RIL had charged $4 million for services that were not utilised. This service (called drill stem test, or DST) was carried out in other blocks/areas, but the cost recovery was allocated to the KG-DWN-98/3 block (better known as the KG-D6 block). The third was about additional cost recovery of $10.12 million that were attributed to rig standby charges even though its upgradation could well have been done earlier.

The company has so far not responded to requests from this reporter for comment about the findings of the CAG.
 

Does this report change things?

In terms of numbers, not much really. Most of it is only a reiteration of the two earlier audits, with the only palpable difference being the ascribing of a figure to the “excess cost recovery”.

The most significant part of the report is a word of caution about a subject that is indirectly related to the cost recovery.

The CAG audit has remarked that if the independent report on the verification of allegations made by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation is accepted, then the financials of the game would change adversely against RIL.

The report in question is that of a consultant called DeGolyer & MacNaughton, which submitted its findings on the dispute in November 2015. The D&M report itself was a fallout of a Delhi High Court directive that an independent panel should be constituted (with the consensus of both ONGC and RIL).

The D&M report had stated that 11.122 billion cubic metres of natural gas had “migrated” from ONGC’s 98/2 area to the adjoining KG-D6 block of RIL. The volume of the gas belonging to ONGC was $1.7 billion (Rs 11,055 crore).

If the Shah panel goes by the D&M report and the ministry accepts it as well, then all the numbers will go haywire with retrospective effect since April 2009 when production from the KG basin commenced.

RIL would be more worried about the Shah panel’s words than the CAG’s numbers.

Subir Ghosh is a Bengaluru-based journalist and researcher.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

PM’s Statement on Kashmir: Rubbing Salt on Wounds

By
-
0

By insinuating that Kashmiri youth are picking up stones at someone else's behest, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's long due statement on Kashmir has added insult to injury.

Breaking his 32-day long silence on Kashmir, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made a statement which is full of empty political rhetoric, lacking substance to address the real issue concerning political aspiration of Kashmiris.

“It is said that boys who should be holding laptops, cricket bats have been handed stones in their hands,” Modi said while addressing a rally in Madhya Pradesh’s Alirajpur district. This irresponsible and juvenile statement stereotyped Kashmiris as gullible and naïve who are ready to pick up a stone at someone’s behest.

“Every Indian loves Kashmir. The freedom that every Indian has also belongs to every Kashmiri. We want the same bright future for every youth in Kashmir,” he said. Bright future after blinding them forever with pellets! In which place other than Kashmir have the government forces killed 60 civilians, injured 6,000 and made over 300 blind in a span of 30 days, he wouldn’t bother to explain.

“Whatever Kashmiris want for betterment of their livelihood, the Centre will help. We want development for Jammu and Kashmir. Be it the J&K government under Mehbooba Mufti or the central government, we are finding solution to all problems through development,” he added. The development of pellet guns and bullets, perhaps!

For rhetorical purpose alone, Modi again invoked Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s famous words to end up saying nothing concrete how to address the Kashmir dispute politically: “There are ways, including dialogue, to resolve issues in a democracy. My government believes in Atal Bihari Vajpayee's mantra of "insaniyat, jamhuriyat and Kashmiriyat (humanity, democracy and Kashmiriyat)."

Modi’s silence over killings of 60 unarmed Kashmiris, grave pellet-and-bullet injuries to over 6,000 civilians and blinding of over 300 youths in the Kashmir Valley since July 9 is least surprising to most Kashmiris.

Modi’s silence over killings of 60 unarmed Kashmiris, grave pellet-and-bullet injuries to over 6,000 civilians and blinding of over 300 youths in the Kashmir Valley since July 9 is least surprising to most Kashmiris.

After all, it has been India’s ‘standard operating procedure’ (SOP) to speak to Kashmiris in a language of power since 1947 with a sole aim of criminalising their political struggle. In this endeavour of delegitimising Kashmiris’ struggle for the right to self-determination, understanding the language of India’s corporate-owned media and the armed forces operating in Kashmir becomes very critical.

For instance if 50,000 common Kashmiris, including women and children, will gather at a place to demonstrate peacefully for their political rights, the Indian media will use the word “miscreants” for such a huge assembly of people. Mind you, this is being done deliberately to mislead the common Indians that people in such colossal numbers have assembled at the behest of Pakistan, and, therefore, any amount of force used by government forces against them stands ‘justified’.

If everything in Kashmir is happening at Pakistan’s behest it is a telling remark on India’s own standing in Kashmir.

For the sake of an argument, if everything in Kashmir is happening at Pakistan’s behest it is a telling remark on India’s own standing in Kashmir. That is, however, another story.

Not only this, when the trigger-happy Indian paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and accountable-to-none armed forces open direct fire on peaceful and unarmed protesters, the injured are described as “stone pelters”, “miscreants”, “agitational terrorists” and “terrorist sympathisers”. This colonial language is employed by vast sections of the Indian media, especially television channels, and government forces to justify India’s colonial practices in Kashmir.

Here is an example. A statement issued by the J&K police media centre on August 8 reads: “….It is clarified that a mob of more than 2,000 miscreants assembled at main chowk Langate (north Kashmir) and started heavy stone pelting on deployment and police post Langate, due to which 38 police/security personnel were injured. While dispersing the mob, 11 miscreants were injured, most of them due to stampede out of which three of them were referred to Srinagar. The condition of all of them is stable…”

Now look at this statement carefully and focus on the choice of words. First, the police use the term “mob” for common people. Secondly, they are described as “miscreants”. Thirdly, they are then accused of “stone pelting” on deployment and police post, Langate in north Kashmir.

These are all blatant lies. The number of people participating in a demonstration is reduced by design. The people are shown as “perpetrators” and police as “victim”. Then derogatory terms are used to describe people and their actions or lack thereof. Police never comes up with solid evidence to prove that their men are indeed injured. If they are injured, they should be in the hospitals undergoing treatment. But that is not the case.

The question that arises is this: from where do the government forces gather such courage to peddle lies after lies in public domain? State’s shameless backing to violence against common people and a draconian law, which acts as a shield against persecution, are the two major factors behind this audaciousness.

When Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir and working president of the pro-autonomy National Conference (NC), was running a coalition government with the Congress from 2009 to 2014, more than 117 persons, mostly boys in their teens, were mercilessly killed by government forces during the summer mass agitation. Not a single guilty armed forces person was punished till date.

This became possible because the armed forces enjoy impunity and a license to kill in Kashmir under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, AFSPA, which is in force in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. The fact that hardly any perpetrator is punished only emboldens the armed forces to go berserk and enjoy a free run.

Even in 2008, when Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Congress were running a coalition government, more than 60 Kashmiri civilians, most of them in their teens, were killed when they were protesting against sanctioning of 99 acres of land to Amarnath Shrine Board.

Having said that, it may well be very convenient and politically very smart for the junior Abdullah to ask New Delhi whether “it has declared a war on the people in Kashmir*” at a juncture when the PDP is heading a coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir, but the fact remains that he too could not prevent civilians killings when he was at the helm of affairs in 2010.

"To blame Pakistan for the unrest or to delude ourselves into thinking this is a law and order situation is criminal. There is an extreme sense of resentment and disenchantment among the youth of the Valley and that is the basis of this unrest.” (Omar Abdullah)

On August 6, Omar Abdullah told this to India Today: “Has New Delhi declared a war on the people in Kashmir? Hundreds of young boys and girls have potentially life-changing injuries, most of them caused by pellet guns. Thousands of youngsters have sustained injuries in this unrest. To blame Pakistan for the unrest or to delude ourselves into thinking this is a law and order situation is criminal. There is an extreme sense of resentment and disenchantment among the youth of the Valley and that is the basis of this unrest.”

Indian media is at liberty to dub Omar Abdullah as “Pakistan sympathiser” for making a statement that he has made as an Opposition leader.

Look at another statement made the same day by yet another pro-India legislator Hakim Yasin, Peoples Democratic Forum (PDF) chief and MLA Khansahib Budgam, who said that the Indian forces were repeating Jallianwala Bagh massacre* in Kashmir on a daily basis.

“The way British used brute force on unarmed protesters at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919, forces in Kashmir are repeating the same in Kashmir every day. Why are unarmed protesters targeted by the forces in every nook and corner of Kashmir,” Hakim Yasin told the local media.

The Kashmir story that the corporate-owned Indian media won’t tell the ordinary Indian audiences is precisely this: Since July 9, 2016, at least 60 unarmed Kashmiris have been killed in cold blood by Indian armed forces; inflicting pellet and bullet injuries on 6,000 unarmed Kashmiris. Besides, more than 1,500 Kashmiri youth have been arrested, some in nocturnal raids for participating in demonstrations. At least 1,030 FIRs have been registered by the police for further persecution and harassment of the youth. And, the fact that Kashmiris are suffering under strict curfew and unprecedented restrictions enforced by the PDP-BJP government since July 9 along with a ban on mobile and data internet on all cellular services except the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), and with no outgoing call facility available to pre-paid mobile phone customers!

Last Friday, August 5, was Kashmir’s Bloody Friday. More than 400 Kashmiris received serious pellet-and-bullet injuries after government forces acted violently to stop people from demonstrating against the state violence across the length and breadth of Kashmir. Doctors at Srinagar’s Shri Maharaja Hari Singh (SMHS) hospital told me that at least 324 youth, hit with the pellet guns, are on the verge of losing their eyesight permanently. Doctors said that most boys have been hit in the eye which has damaged their retina beyond repair. “We have performed as many as 65 surgeries until Monday morning,” Dr Raashid Maqbool said.

Dr Ruveda Salam, a lady IAS officer from north Kashmir working as assistant commissioner at ministry of finance, government of India, could not stop herself from speaking against the state violence.

On August 3, Dr Salam took a dig at chief minister Mehbooba Mufti and her PDP by writing this on her Facebook timeline: “From wooing voters while wearing colour #green to painting #red the same valley streets, and then they question the credentials of the same religion whose symbols they used to mask their evil deeds” #hypocrisy couldn't get worse than this !”

In response to her post, she was harassed by a senior police officer who also made a misogynist remark by dubbing Dr Salam as “ignorant lady”. Police officer Harmeet Singh Mehta threatened Dr Salam of government action as if he was the PDP’s spokesperson. “Government (PDP-BJP coalition government) must take action against you (Dr Ruveda Salam) as a civil servant spreading so much venum (venom) against state. Better resign and join some separatist group.”

Following the assassination of popular tech-savvy Hizb commander Burhan Wani on July 8 under mysterious circumstances in south Kashmir’s Anantnag district, the massive Azadi rallies are being organised on a daily basis across the Kashmir Valley since. According to moderate estimates, at least 3,00,000 people had gathered in south Kashmir’s Tral, hometown of Burhan, to participate in his funeral. Such a huge assembly had already made a statement that India was losing a battle for narratives in Kashmir.

There are many in Kashmir feeling scared of India as a Hindutva project, this time led by a right-wing prime minister. Kashmiris feel under severe attack as they are victims of politics of invasion aimed at crushing their identity as Kashmiris and Kashmiri Muslims under a PDP-BJP coalition government.

There are many in Kashmir feeling scared of India as a Hindutva project, this time led by a right-wing prime minister. Kashmiris feel under severe attack as they are victims of politics of invasion aimed at crushing their identity as Kashmiris and Kashmiri Muslims under a PDP-BJP coalition government.

Even after 60 civilian killings and injuries to 6,000 Kashmiris in last 30 days, the state unit of the Hindu nationalist BJP has asked the government to deal with the current situation in the Kashmir Valley decisively and with an “iron hand”. State BJP spokesperson Virender Gupta said that there was no option for the government other than meeting the challenge posed by the “separatists and terrorists supported by Pakistan decisively and with an iron hand otherwise the situation will deteriorate further and it may not be possible to bring back normalcy in the Valley.”

At present the morale of the state police, CRPF and other security forces have gone down because of the recent happenings where lot of restrictions have been imposed on them,” Gupta told a news agency.

This is Kashmir’s story. And this Karbala is Kashmir’s ‘normalcy’ for which the Indian media obviously has no time. It will relentlessly debate cows, cow protection and cow vigilantism and how Modi beats the drums in Kenya, but will not gather moral courage to narrate Kashmir’s story with a human heart and an unbiased journalistic approach, shedding jingoistic spectacles and hyper-nationalistic binoculars. After all, India is a democracy and its image can’t be tarnished for the sake of 7.5 million Kashmiris!
 

1...2,4862,4872,488...2,697Page 2,487 of 2,697

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved