इस सप्ताह बाल श्रम (प्रतिबंधन एवं विनियमन) अधिनियम,2012 राज्य सभा में पास हो गया. लोकसभा में पास होने के बाद इस कानून को अमली जामा पहनाने के लिए इसके नियम बनाये जायेंगे और यह एक कानून बन जाएगा. इस कानून में कुछ बदलाव सकारात्मक हैं जैसे इसके अंतर्गत बालश्रम रखने को एक संज्ञेय अपराध बनाया गया है तथा इसके लिए अधिक सजा और जुर्माने और सजा का प्रावधान किया गया है जो सराहनीय है.
संवैधानिक विरोधभास
इस संशोधन से पहले १४ साल तक के बच्चों से केवल खतनाक व्यवसायों में मजदूरी कराने पर प्रतिबन्ध था. खतरनाक और गैर खतरनाक व्यवसायों का ये फर्क काफी विवादित था. बाल अधिकार संगठनो का मानना है कि किसी भी तरह की मजदूरी बच्चों के विकास में बाधक है इसलिए हर व्यवसाय बच्चों के लिए खतरनाक और हानिकारक है . पर भारत सरकार की सोच कुछ अलग थी और इसी सोच ने एक सवंधानिक संकट खड़ा कर दिया था . एक तरफ तो शिक्षा के मौलिक अधिकार के अनुसार १४ साल से कम के सभी बच्चों को शिक्षा का मौलिक अधिकार है और हर बच्चे को स्कूल में होना चाहिए. दूसरी बाल श्रम से सम्बंधित पूर्व कानून इसी आयु वर्ग के बच्चों से कुछ व्यवसायों में काम कराने की इजाज़त देता था . अब यह कैसे संभव है कि बच्चा स्कूल में भी दाखिल हो और काम पर भी जाये ? इसी तरह के अंतरद्वंद जे जे एक्ट और बाल श्रम कानून में भी थे. इस संशोधन में इस तरह के कुछ विरोधाभासों को ख़त्म करने की कोशिश की गयी है पर कई अभी भी बाकी है.
आर्थिक प्रगति और बाल श्रम
यह संशोधन भारत को कुछ अन्य शर्मनाक स्थितियों से बचाने में भी मदद करेगा. पिछले कई सालो से भारत एक तरफ तो अपनी आर्थिक प्रगति और ८% विकास दर का ढिंढोरा पीटता आ रहा है और दूसरी तरफ अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मंचो पर यह रोना रो रहा है कि हम एक गरीब देश है. हमारे पास बाल श्रम ख़त्म करने के लिए प्रयाप्त साधन नहीं है और हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था बच्चों की मजदूरी के बिना नहीं चल सकती. आज तक भारत ने संयुक्त राष्ट्र बाल अधिकार समझोते की धारा ३२ पर सहमती नहीं दी है, जिसमे वादा किया गया है कि सभी देश बाल मजदूरी को जड़ से ख़त्म करेंगे. अपने देश के बच्चों के प्रति भारत जैसे अग्रणी राष्ट्र का यह रवैया शर्मनाक था. इस सशोधन के बाद हम कहने को तो कह ही सकते हैं कि हम बच्चों के अधिकारों को पूरा करने के लिए प्रतिबद्ध हैं.
अपवाद
इस अधिनियम में संशोधन के बाद १४ वर्ष से कम के बच्चों से किसी भी व्यवसाय में मजदूरी करवाने पर पूरी तरह प्रतिबन्ध लगाने का दावा किया जा रहा है. बहुत अच्छी बात है कि बच्चो से कोई काम नहीं कराया जाएगा. परन्तु इसमें एक पेंच है. इसमें एक अपवाद रखा गया है कि अगर वह अपने ही घर पर काम करती या करता है और वह उसके स्कूल जाने में बाधक नहीं बनता तो इसकी अनुमति है. प्रश्न यह उठता है कि क्या ऐसा संभव है. अगर बच्चा घर पर काम करेगी/गा और काम स्कूल में बाधक नहीं बनेगा. क्या यह व्यवाहरिक है? बच्चों की घर पर काम में व्यस्तता उनके स्कूल के छुटने/ड्राप आउट का एक सबसे बड़ा कारण है. कानून बनाने वालो का कहना है कि घर में बाल क्ष्रम की इज़ाज़त तो अपवाद है और इसमें मात्र छोटी सी संख्या आती है. वास्तविकता कुछ और है. वैश्वीकरण के इस दौर में अधिकतर उत्पादन अनौपचारिक क्षेत्र में होता है. इस अनौपचारिक क्षेत्र में होने वाले उत्पादन का एक बड़ा भाग घरो में होने वाले काम से होता है. और आने वाले समय में इसके अनुपात के घटने की कोई संभावना नहीं है बल्कि उदारवाद के इस दौर में घरो पर होने वालो कामो का प्रतिशत बढ़ने ही वाला है. सच्चाई तो यह है कि यह अपवाद एक बड़ी संख्या में बाल क्ष्रम को कानूनी मान्यता है.
बाल श्रम बनाम बाल विकास
कानून बनाने वालों की बात मान भी लें कि केवल स्कूल के बाद बच्चों को काम करने की इजाज़त होगी तो इसका आशय क्या है. बच्चा दिन के उपलब्ध सोलह घंटो में से आठ घंटे स्कूल जायेगा, दो तीन घंटे खाने और दिन के आवश्यक कामो में लगाएगा /लगाएगी और चार घंटे काम में लगाएगा/गी. ऐसे में क्या हम उस पर 8 घंटे के स्कूल और चार घंटे के काम का दुगना बोझ नहीं डाल रहे. ऐसे में खेलने , स्कूल के काम और आराम का वक्त कहाँ है. क्या बच्चे के विकास के लिए खेलने और आराम करने की जरूरत नहीं है?
जातिप्रथा का सुदृढ़ीकरण
कानून बनाने वालो का इस अपवाद के पीछे एक औचित्य यह है कि इससे उसे अपने पारंपरिक कामों को सीखने का मौका मिलेगा. यानी कुम्हार के बच्चे को केवल कुम्हार का काम सीखने का अवसर मिलेगा और लौहार के बच्चे को केवल लौहार का. क्या इसमें डॉक्टर या वकील के बच्चे के लिए कुम्हार या लौहार का काम सीखने की सम्भावनाये है? वह तो डॉक्टर या वकील ही बनेगा/गी.
क्या यह हमारी स्थापित जाती व्यवस्था को बढाने का औजार नहीं है. क्या इससे समाज में व्याप्त असमानताओ को बढ़ावा नहीं मिलेगा?
खतरनाक व्यवसायों की सूची
नए कानून में १४ से १८ वर्ष तक के बच्चों से खतरनाक व्यवसायों में काम कराने पर रोक लगा दी गयी है. हालाँकि बाल अधिकार कार्यकर्ताओं एवं संगठनो का मानना है कि १८ से कम हर व्यक्ति बच्चा है और इस तरह का प्रावधान बाल अधिकार विरोधी है. कुछ समय के लिए अगर यह तर्क को किनारे भी रख दें तो प्रश्न यह उठता है कि पूर्व कानून में खतरनाक व्यवसायों की जो व्यापक सूची थी उसे नए कानून में क्यों हटा दिया गया. यह सूची पिछले तीन दशकों के जद्दोजहद के बाद बनी थी और इसे नए कानून में भी कायम रहना चाहिए.
कानून लागू करने में चुनौतियाँ
हम सभी जानते है कि कानून होना एक बात है और उसका क्रियान्वन दूसरी बात. माना कि बाल मजदूरी के खिलाफ पुराने कानून में कुछ खामियां थी पर ज्यादा समस्या उसके लागू करने में नज़र आती है. ये कानून सन १९८६ से लागू हुआ था और लगभग पिछले तीस सालों में पुरे देश में इसके अंतर्गत चालीस हज़ार केस दर्ज किये गए. इनमे से मात्र ४७०० को सजा हो सकी और उसमे भी अधिकतर सजाएँ १०० या २०० रूपये के मामूली जुर्माने की थी. बाल मजदूरी के सरकारी गैर सरकारी आंकड़े लाखों करोडो में हैं और उसके मुकाबले में कानून तोड़ने वालों को मिलने वाली सजा ना के बराबर रही है. कानून के क्रियान्वन का यही हाल रहा तो नया कानून भी बस किताबों में ही रह जायेगा.
क्षमतावर्धन और उन्मुखीकरण
कानून के पालन के लिए कानून को लागू करने वाली संस्थाओं सशक्त करना, उनका क्षमतावर्धन और उन्मुखीकरण बहुत जरूरी है. उदहारण के तौर पर कुछ समय पहले दिल्ली जैसे बड़े शहर में मात्र २२ लेबर इंस्पेक्टर थे जिन पर बालमजदूरी के साथ साथ श्रम से सम्बंधित सात अन्य कानूनों के क्रियान्वन की जिम्मेदारी थी. स्थिति अगर ऐसी ही रही तो नए कानून के आने के बाद भी हालात में शायद ही कोई बदलाव आये. श्रम विभाग के साथ साथ पुलिस का उन्मुखीकरण और उन्हें सवेंदनशील बनाना भी जरूरी है ताकि बच्चों को बालश्रम से छूटने के बाद थानों और न्यायालयों में फिर से पीड़ित न होना पड़े. अक्सर बाल मजदूरों को मुक्त कराने के अभियान कुछ इस तरह चलाये जाते हैं कि अपराधी बच्चों से काम कराने वाले न होकर खुद बच्चे ही हों.
समेकित बाल सरंक्षण कार्यक्रम ( ICPS) के अंतर्गत हर जिले मे बाल सुरक्षा समितियां और हर थाने में किशोर कल्याण पदाधिकारी की नियुक्ति अनिवार्य है पर देश के अधिकतर जिलों और थानों में या तो ये समितियां बनी ही नहीं है या उनका अस्तित्व सिर्फ कागजों तक ही सीमित है. जिले स्तर पर बाल कल्याण समितियां और राज्य स्तर पर बाल सरंक्षण आयोगों कि भी इस कानून को लागू करने के और बच्चों की सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित करने में एक अहम् भूमिका है. पर देश के कई जिलों और राज्यों में ये संस्थाएं गठित ही नहीं की गयी हैं. आज भी देश के चौदह राज्यों में बाल सुरक्षा आयोग का गठन नहीं हुआ है ओर लगभग २५० जिलों में बाल कल्याण समिति का गठन नहीं हुआ है. बहुत से जिलो में बाल कल्याण समितियां ओर जे जे बोर्ड केवल कागजों पर है ओर ऐसे लोगों से भरी पड़ी है जिन्हें बाल अधिकारों से कोई वास्ता नहीं है. ऐसी ख़बरें अक्सर आती है कि जे जे बोर्ड, बाल विकास समिति या किसी सरकारी अफसर के घर पर बाल मजदूर रखने और उसके साथ यौन शोषण की घटना सामने आई है. है. आये दिन सरकारी मुलाज़िमों और पढ़े लिखे तबके के लोगों के यहाँ बाल मजदूरी और उनके साथ होने वाले दुराचारों की घटनाएँ सामने आती रहती है . अगर बाल मजदूरी पर बने इस नए कानून को सही मायनों में लागू करना है तो बाल सुरक्षा के लिए बने संवेधानिक संस्थाओं को कारगर ढंग से काम करना होगा.
समस्या का सही सही आकलन
इस कानून को प्रभावी बनाने में दूसरी बड़ी चुनौती इस समस्या के आकार को ठीक ठीक नापने की है अर्थात ये पता लगाने की है कि आखिर बाल मजदूरों की संख्या कितनी है. जब तक समस्या के आकार का पता नहीं होगा उसके हल के लिए योजना बनाना संभव नहीं है . २००१ की जनगणना के अनुसार बाल मजदूरों की संख्या १२ करोड़ ६० लाख (केवल प्रतिबंधित व्यवसायों में) थी जो २०११ की जनगणना में भी लगभग उतनी ही है. यह बात सर्वविदित है कि लाखों ऐसे बच्चे है जिनका नाम स्कूल में दर्ज़ है (और वह बाल श्रमिकों की गणना में नहीं आते ) पर वो स्कूल न जाकर विभिन्न किस्म के व्यवसायों में लगे है . कृषि क्षेत्र में बड़ी संख्या में बच्चे लगे है पर उनकी कोई गिनती नहीं है. सरकारी आंकडो को गैर सरकारी आंकड़े लगातार चुनौती देते रहेते है और उनके हिसाब से बाल मजदूरों की संख्या तीन से छह करोड़ तक की है. यह ज़रूरी है कि सरकार बाल मजदूरों की संख्या का सही सही पता लगाये और उसके अनुसार योजना बनाये. बाल मजदूरी पुनर्वास के लिए एन.सी.एल.पी (NCLP) जैसे कुछ आधे अधूरे कार्यक्रम चलाये जा रहे हैं वह भी बहुत छोटे स्तर पर. अगर सरकारी आंकड़ो को भी माने तो बाल मजदूरों की संख्या १.२ करोड़ है और उनके पुनर्वास के लिए चल रहा कार्यक्रम मात्र छह लाख बच्चों के लिए है. ज़ाहिर है इस तरह के कार्यक्रमों के बूते इस समस्या को दूर नहीं किया जा सकता.
राजनैतिक इच्छाशक्ति और संसाधन
बाल श्रम को जड़ से दूर करने के लिए जरूरी है इनके पुनर्वास के लिए पर्याप्त कार्यक्रम हो और हर बच्चे के लिए गुणवत्ता पूर्ण शिक्षा के अवसर उपलब्ध हो ताकि उसे बाल मजदूर बनने से रोका जा सके. साथ ही परिवार के बड़े सदस्यों के लिए उचित मजदूरी वाले रोज़गार उपलब्ध हो जिससे वो अपने परिवार के भरण पोषण की जिम्मेदारी निभा सके और परिवार चलाने के लिए बच्चों की मजदूरी पर निर्भर न रहे. इसके लिए जरूरी है कि एक तरफ तो कानून को लागू करने के लिए आवश्यक आधारभूत ढांचा उपलब्ध हो और दूसरी तरफ शिक्षा और रोज़गार के प्रयाप्त अवसर मौजूद हो. इन दोनों ही के लिए जरूरी है की सरकार बजट में प्रयाप्त प्रावधान करे. कानून में बदलाव करके सरकार ने बाल मजदूरी को खत्म करने की मंशा तो दिखाई है पर अब और जरूरी है कि सरकार इस कानून को लागू करने के लिए राजनैतिक इच्छाशक्ति दिखाए और बच्चों के प्रति अपनी जिम्मेदारी को पूरा करे.
(लेखक डेवलेपमेंट प्रोफेश्नल के रूप में कार्यरत हैं और पिछले कई सालों से बाल अधिकारों के क्षेत्र में काम कर रहे हैं।)
Retired police Neill Franklin and Michael Wood Jr. join new TRNN producer Kwame Rose and Paul Jay to discuss the recent killings of unarmed black men and police officers
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.
On Monday night at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, the face of American policing as presented by the Republican Party was Sheriff David Clarke. He's the sheriff of Milwaukee County. Here's a little bit of what he had to say there.
DAVID CLARKE: What we witnessed in Ferguson and Baltimore and Baton Rouge was a collapse of the social order. So many of the actions of the Occupy movement and Black Lives Matter transcends peaceful protest, and violates the code of conduct we rely on. I call it anarchy.
JAY: That was Sheriff David Clarke at the Republican Convention. Now joining us to discuss Sheriff Clarke, and more broadly the reaction of American policing to the recent shootings, first of all, from Baltimore is Michael Wood, Jr. He's a former sergeant for the Baltimore police department. Is now a national leader on civil-led police reform.
Also joining us from Baltimore is Neill Franklin. Neill's the executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, otherwise known as LEAP. He's a 33-year-old police veteran who led multi-jurisdictional, anti-narcotics task forces for the Maryland state police, and ran training centers for the Baltimore police department and the Maryland state police.
And also in Baltimore joining us is Kwame Rose. Kwame has been an activist. He's a defendant now in a First Amendment trial against the Baltimore sheriff department, and he's just begun as a producer at the Real News Network. Thanks so much for joining us.
Now, Neill, let me start with you. First of all, before we get started, let me show you one more clip of David Clarke being interviewed on CNN. Let's roll that.
CLARKE: First of all, this whole anti-police rhetoric is based on a lie. There is no data. And you know this. There is no data, there is no research, that proves any of that nonsense. None. Even–.
SPEAKER: You have to be more specific about what data and what nonsense you're talking about.
CLARKE: That law enforcement officers treat black males different than white males in policing in these urban centers.
SPEAKER: There is data that supports it.
CLARKE: There is not data.
JAY: So, Neill, do you think that Sheriff Clarke is speaking for a broad section of police public opinion? And what do you make of the remark?
NEILL FRANKLIN: I sure hope not, because if he were we would be in far more trouble than what we're currently in in this country regarding policing.
I don't know, maybe I've been asleep over the past few decades or whatever, but I've never known policing in this country to be anything other than treating blacks different than white. And here's my point. Historically in this country we've had a problem with policing and race. I mean, you only have to go back as far as the 1950s and '60s, and internally in policing black people couldn't even drive police cars. You know, you couldn't even get jobs in some police departments. And it's only been recent that we've been able to do that.
Internally in policing we still have a lot of racial issues and concerns, to where black embers of policing had to form their own organizations in order to feel like they were getting a fair shake, and in many cases had to sue police departments. If we're having these problems internally in policing, I mean, how can he sit there and say we're not having them in our communities, which we are? Blacks are arrested at higher rates, convicted at higher rates, and sentenced at higher rates than their white counterparts. And there's plenty of data to indicate that.
And I'll end my initial comment with this, Paul. One piece of data that needs to be collected and analyzed, which we haven't done yet, at least not to my knowledge, is the times that plainclothes black police officers are either fired upon or mistreated–but I say mainly fired upon, and in many cases, unfortunately, killed by their counterparts. New York City has had this problem. We've had it here in Baltimore City. And when–and I can't remember recently any cases involving white plainclothes officers who were killed by friendly fire. I know there are probably one or two out there. But when you compare that number to the number of black plainclothes police officers that are either fired upon, friendly fire by their counterparts compared to whites–I mean, it is a significant difference. And we need to collect that data and analyze that data. That way people cannot say that, well, it was criminal activity going on, or this person was doing this, that, and the other. It's one of your counterparts. And I guarantee that data's going to show something very important.
JAY: Are you suggesting that they actually know that they're plainclothes? Or that they're shooting at them because they're black men and they turn out to be undercover cops?
FRANKLIN: Because they're black and they turn out to be undercover cops wearing plainclothes. That's a clear indication that we in policing, unfortunately–and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all of this is intentional. It's just that we view blacks different. And not just in policing in this country, but unfortunately we as a people in this country view the black male differently. We view the black male as a danger to society, and that's because of the rhetoric that we have been fed over the past few decades in this country.
Even in the Nixon administration, John Ehrlichman spoke about this. John was one of Nixon's closest aides, and when he got out of prison for Watergate he spoke about this, that it was a plan for the Nixon administration in dealing with the Vietnam War protesters and in dealing with the civil rights movement, to vilify them by using, for instance, the war on drugs. You can't go after the protesters for the First Amendment rights, you can't go after the civil rights folks for being black anymore. So we go after them for what they do, hence the war on drugs. And we'll vilify them on late night TV. And that's what we've done in this country, and that's why we have some of the problems that we have.
JAY: And just one more quick question to you, Neill. I have heard in Baltimore the black cops in the past–and I don't know if it's still true–have been told they can't arrest white people in the more wealthy, well-to-do white neighborhoods. Is that true?
FRANKLIN: Well, I don't think you're going to see–whether you're black or white–see, when you're in policing, for the most part, the main color is blue. And we do not go into Guilford or Roland Park and police the way that we do in other parts of the city. I guarantee you, no police officer is going to take a drug dog into any of those communities and start scanning cars along the street, which is perfectly legal to do. And I guarantee you, you'll find a lot of drugs if you do that.
JAY: Michael, you were a Baltimore cop. And Baltimore is one of the police forces that's been accused of having a particularly violent and even racist culture. What do you make of the reaction of police–and maybe Clarke is a more exaggerated reaction. But does he speak for a lot of cops across the country?
MICHAEL WOOD: Well, I mean, I'm not even going to say that I speak for cops across the country. I mean, I have my own nuanced views. But Sheriff Clarke is a contradiction to his own statement within himself. The only reason he's infamous is because he's a black sheriff that's been elected in a white county, and because that's so damn rare. So why he doesn't see that as standing on the surface is preposterous.
And then to go on to say that the only people in this country that truly care about black lives are the police. It's not the victims, it's not–it's not the people that feel like they're under tyrannical pressure from an oppressive police regime. It's the cops that actually do it. The ones that retort with blue lives matter, and have disproportionate killing of black men. I don't know, why people can even take him seriously is completely preposterous. I don't even like the idea of giving his statements any credibility. There's no science, there's no data, there's no nothing that's coming out of him other than rhetoric because that's what gets him elected in a racist white neighborhood. [Say it.]
JAY: But his reaction that this is an unfair vilification of police, that they do go into very dangerous situations and that to target police as the problem is creating an atmosphere that somehow justifies these attacks on cops, what do you make of that?
WOOD: Nobody is vilifying policing in a broad perspective. They're vilifying police brutality and things like doing regressive taxation on poor communities, and the system of bail, and disproportionate killing. Nobody is going out there and saying that we are anti-police in any of these movements. What we are saying is anti-police brutality. So we're not criticizing police. We're criticizing police tactics, and the implicit bias, and the things that go through that we don't recognize and take care of how that affects communities, especially marginalized communities.
So like, what he's saying is completely without merit. It's like, he may as well be arguing that the Earth is flat. I don't know, how do you have a logical argument with somebody with such a position?
JAY: A week, week and a half before the convention, President Obama spoke about the shootings of police in Dallas. And it was a bit of a defense of the police, but also a bit of a critique of the Black Lives Matter movement, and not certainly the way Clarke did. Here's what Obama said.
BARACK OBAMA: And then we tell the police: you're a social worker. You're the parent. You're the teacher. You're the drug counselor. We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs, and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience. Don't make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind. And then we feign surprise when periodically the tensions boil over.
We know those things to be true. They've been true for a long time. We know it. Police, you know it. Protesters, you know it. You know how dangerous some of the communities where these police officers serve are. We pretend as if there's no context. These things we know to be true. And if we cannot even talk about these things, if we cannot talk honestly and openly, not just in the comfort of our own service, but with those who look different than us, or bring a different perspective, then we will never break this dangerous cycle.
In the end, it's not about finding policies that work. It's about forging consensus. And fighting cynicism. And finding the will to make change.
JAY: Kwame, how do you respond to President Obama? It's kind of the other side of the argument, or a softer delivery of the argument of Clarke's. But the, the point of, one, the police are in very difficult circumstances, I think is true. You can't, I don't know how one can argue with that, that they have to police in areas where there's long-term chronic poverty. And two, I'm interested, his last sentence. It's not about policies that work, it's about having will. How do you respond, Kwame?
KWAME ROSE: You know, I think that the President's comments were made on the assumption, and in the suggestion, that Black Lives Matter activists, as well as the police, should be willing to meet in the middle and walk away with solutions. But I think for you to make a statement like that you would have to assume that the police want to change.
And what's very, very frightening is that a lot of police officers feel a certain type of way that reflects what Sheriff Clarke said. You don't have enough police officers speaking up saying that what we have done in the past is wrong. What happened to the victims of police brutality that have led to people marching in the street, that was wrong. Not enough police officers have stood up. But what you do have is a lot of police officers standing up and saying, well, y'all shouldn't be protesting us because we're all not bad, when you won't speak up yourself against the bad individuals.
JAY: But, Kwame, I think part of what Obama's saying–although personally I don't think he actually gets to a solution that's meaningful–but he's partly chiding Black Lives Matter for not being aware enough of the difficult situation that the police are in, and that–.
But I think there's another piece to this which Obama doesn't say, which is that it's the police, police within the set of a legal framework, that reinforces the chronic poverty that creates such a dangerous situation. And when, at the end when he says it's not about policies that work, it's about just having the will, well, no. It is about policies in whose interest. And if you have economic policies that don't do anything to alleviate the poverty, then this is just a question of some psychological hangup everybody has, and if they could just get over it.
ROSE: Yeah, exactly. I mean, in areas that are predominantly black and poverty is predominant in those areas, you have a lot of police officers. So the root cause is not the fact that they're police officers. The root cause, ultimately, is the fact that there's not opportunity, economic investment, or education investment in those areas. Police are just sent there as kind of the scapegoat to basically babysit poor black people.
And so, I don't think Obama ever addresses the fact that you have to have effective solutions and ulterior methods of investment into these communities, which ultimately will limit police violence, police brutality. Because the more opportunity individuals inside of communities where poverty is high, the more opportunity is presented to those individuals, the less crime actually happens, the less of a need there is for police.
JAY: Neill, you've done training–and I'm not suggesting you did, necessarily, what I'm about to say. But when you go to boot camp for the army, for the Marines, we've interviewed soldiers who have been through this. One of the things you get trained to do is, obviously, be willing to live with killing people. You're going to go into a war zone and you're going to be shot at. You're going to have to shoot back. We've–I've interviewed Marines who were in boot camp where they actually had to go through exercises where they–in returning fire, they might have to be willing to shoot women and children. And if you weren't able to, you didn't actually pass the test.
But it seems to me the, our society, and certainly the elites that have power in our society, they need and want police forces with a culture that will use force, and lethal force, if necessary, because they don't really want to do anything about the fundamental social conditions. So you gotta, you gotta contain it.
We had someone working at the Real News whose father was a cop, and we had this discussion with him once. And he said, you know, you've got a choice. You want your police forces to hand out flowers, or you want them to be a hammer? And it's pretty clear we're being told to be the hammer. So I mean–the culture of this use of force that, yes, sometimes goes too far–but the culture itself, isn't that what police departments are actually being asked to be?
FRANKLIN: It certainly appears that way. Now, in training, you know, unlike what you explained, we teach from a defense posture, not an offensive posture. So even, even our, some of our courses, like defensive tactics–so it's about defense, primarily, not so much about offense.
But the things that we're seeing–and this is even related to the policy piece–and what we're asking our police officers to do is culturally putting them in a place of being offensive. Of taking a posture of, which appears to be, I'm going to shoot first. You know, my life is more important, so I'm going to be offensive in order to survive. But that's not, at least where I was in training and what I was doing with the Maryland state police and Baltimore City, again, we were teaching folks how to make good judgment decisions. And we were integrating them, doing our best to integrate them with the community. Because we were bringing so many people from outside of the community, which is also extremely important.
But let me end with this: that that policy piece, when you referred to the president, you know, him saying it's not about so much about the policy. It's about the will for consensus and to work. The policy is central to this, because the policies regarding economics and dire conditions within poor communities–economics, health, education, and that whole long list of policies–including policies like the war on drugs drug prohibition that creates this conflict among the citizens who are poor and trying to make money by selling drugs and becoming a member of this crew or that crew or that gang, which leads to conflict and shootings and then retaliation from there. Making our communities more dangerous.
It is so much about all of these policies that separate us, preventing the consensus from occurring, and literally draining the will out of people to move in a better direction and position. So it is so much about policy, I say first and foremost, before we can get to a place of consensus-building and instilling the will in people to move in the right direction on all sides of this.
JAY: Michael, I talked to a friend of ours, a cop. He's very progressive politically. I believe he would have voted for Bernie Sanders. He's against NAFTA, he's against inequality, he would support all kinds of reforms that would weaken the concentration of ownership and power of the billionaire class, and so on. On issue after issue he would be very progressive internationally, against the Iraq War, so on and so on.
But he–and he's still an active cop. He was feeling very defensive about the critique coming from Black Lives Matter, from the point of view that it is about the social conditions. It is about the chronic poverty. It's about who runs the society and who has real power. And to have so much focus on the police as the enemy, which in his opinion was happening in the city he's in. That was unfair, and it was kind of, you know–he was even arguing that the number, you know, with the number of cases police have to deal with every year, you know, the tens of thousands of cases, that the number of people that get shot or killed is actually a small number. The number of killings that we've seen that seem completely unjustified, these killings that we see on videotape from time to time, while completely unacceptable, he would argue, is still a rather small number.
And even he's feeling defensive about this sort of broad–what he sees attack on cops. What do you make of that?
WOOD: Well, the first thing I have to make of that, Paul, is that there's about 50 things in there to unpack. And I'm never going to be able to do that in this quick snippet of an answer, here.
But I have to go back real quick to what President Obama said. I didn't hear that before, and I found that really striking. His statement to keep those neighborhoods in check sounds a hell of a lot like bring them to heel. I don't see the difference in that. And then he's acting like we should–the answer is to protect the cops more, instead of actually solving the problems that make a dangerous community. That doesn't make any sense. And the policy issue–I am not the only scholar that works on policy issue day in and day out on how to solve these problems. There's tons of scholars working on policy issues.
And like Neill was just saying, the drug war is a primary one. It's what got us into this problem, so it takes policy to get us out. As a manager one thing that I say is I'm concerned with human behaviors. So I can't control what people think. I'm not going to be able to solve racism, and I'm not going to be able to change our culture, but I am going to be able to put in policies that regulate and put checks and balances on what is implicit bias and human nature and things like that that we have to address.
This other officer–. There's a saying that when your paycheck depends on it, like, your willful ignorance is hard to break, and your cognitive dissonance. And maybe there's a level of Stockholm syndrome, because officers are getting pressure from command to do these type of things. They're being told from somebody to go into these communities and be an occupying force to lock somebody up for the very same thing that President Obama doesn't change the policies to fix that he did himself. So he's locking up tons of black males through policies that make that officer the enemy.
So he has to understand that it feels odd, and he has power on the streets, but he's no more than a pawn in this system. The problem is is that that pawn has incredible amounts of power. So when they are acting out that power, our oath and what makes us heroes and courageous is to stand up for what is right for those neighborhoods, to protect those neighborhoods. And that's protection from policy, that we've got to look inside ourselves and take a real moral stand on what we think service means.
JAY: Kwame, similar question to you. Do you think there's some validity that amongst black activists there is too much focus on police and not enough focus on the bigger, systemic issues that create such a police force?
ROSE: No, I mean, I actually think that in a large part the rest of society kind of limits the Black Lives Matter movement, or those who believe in Black Lives Matter, to just police brutality. And from what I've experienced in meeting hundreds of people from across the country and having thousands of conversations in the last year and a half is that there are multiple people doing–trying to solve the problem multiple ways on different levels. There's people tackling the issue of lead paint poisoning in the inner cities. People who are working on the educational front. So people who are working for, who work for a [developing] front.
Because I don't think that police brutality is just the root cause of the problems and living conditions of black people in this country. And I don't think that Black Lives Matter–that is what got us into the street to protest, that is what the media talks about–but it's not the one focus of Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter as a movement, it's not a monolithic movement.
So even if you have individuals gathered for protesting the death of Philando Castile, it's also about protesting the neighborhood protesting the living conditions in which he might have grown up in. You know, Freddie Gray had a long rap sheet. He was killed by the police. But his long rap sheet was because he wasn't afforded the same opportunity to go to, to have adequate education, adequate health, adequate access to being able to live and go to work from 9-5.
And so I think that, no, I don't think that we're all just focusing on police brutality. I just think that the other actions of other activists just don't get as much attention.
JAY: All right. Well, this clearly is just the beginning of the conversation, and I hope to have all three of you back soon. Thanks for joining us.
And thank you for joining us on the Real news Network.
DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
Many people these days are asking whether Islam and Muslims belong to Germany. In her recent book "Being German, Becoming Muslim", the Turkish anthropologist Esra Ozyurek provides an answer. Her results are more than clear. Interview by Emran Feroz
There has been a marked increase in people migrating to Germany from Muslim-majority countries in recent years. Since the events of last New Year's Eve in Cologne, prejudice towards them has also been on the rise, coupled with a surge in Islamophobia. There is a widespread view that Islamic attitudes are not compatible with so-called Western values. Why is this fear so dominant? Hasn′t Islam been a part of Germany for ages?
Esra Ozyurek: Here we seen the fear of the unknown overlaid with racist tendencies. Islamophobia is one aspect of the fear and hatred of what is other. When it comes to the fear of refugees, for instance, I believe Islamophobia is only part of the package. These newcomers are feared and hated simply because they are different. They are vulnerable and they have nowhere else to go.
Muslims have been part of Germany for ages, living peacefully, contributing to German society and the economy. I find it remarkable how, time and again, Islam is depicted as a very recent arrival in Germany, which has caught people by surprise. No dictionary definition exists, either for Islamic values or Western ones. Both are vaguely defined sets of values, which have been seen to mean different things at different times.
As in many other European countries, Islam is one of the religions that is seeing the most growth in Germany. This has been going on for many years and not just through immigration, but by conversion too. Why then do so many Germans still consider Islam alien and threatening?
Ozyurek: I see conversions to Islam as a result of healthy integration and co-existence. As Muslims become better integrated into society, they have more meaningful relations with non-Muslims. Some of these relations lead to conversions. Similarly a larger number of Muslims embrace more secular ways of living. Until the recent refugee conversions, Muslim conversions to Christianity were smaller in number. But there are many more Muslims who have embraced lifestyles where religion plays no role. Germans have been converting to Islam for more than one hundred years. It is only recently that converts to Islam have been seen as a threat. It has to do with how Islam and Muslims are perceived.
A vexed question: "Down the years, German Muslims have consistently revisited the concept of an authentic German Muslim identity. The imagined constellation has changed over time. There are so many different ways in which what is considered Muslim is also German. The two are in a constant state of intersection and transformation – rather like a kaleidoscope," says Ozyurek
Despite Islam′s negative image, especially in the media, many Germans do embrace the religion. They often adopt Islamic names, change their lives completely and allow Islam to become part of their identity. What is it, do you think, that attracts them to Islam?
Ozyurek: What I found in my studies – and what I have seen repeatedly in the work of others' – is that almost all conversions to Islam are initiated by a deep and meaningful relationship with a Muslim. This person may be a neighbour, a school friend, a colleague or a partner. What I found really interesting is that the Muslim who is the source of inspiration is not always religious. Most initial encounters take place in non-Islamic places, such as night clubs, bars, student accommodation, but also more neutral places such as schools and workplaces. Some peoples′ hearts open up to Islam through this interaction. When I asked them what they found attractive about Islam, all I got was a post-conversion narrative. And these narratives have their specific characteristics. People learn how to present these narratives.
They would tell me diverse reasons for their conversion. Some talked about being religious as a Christian but found that it wasn′t embracing enough. For others, Islam was the first religion they had a real encounter with. Yet all religions have the power to touch people's hearts and give them meaning. I concluded that it isn′t really possible to understand why anyone converts to a particular religion. It is just like trying to explain why we fall in love with one person and not with another. We can try to give an explanation, but each attempt would be just as meaningful or meaningless as the next. Indeed, I have also interviewed converts to Judaism – the reasons they gave were really quite similar.
At the moment, we are seeing the rise of right-winged political movements all over Europe. In Germany, the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany, like many other conservative politicians, is repeatedly arguing that Islam cannot be considered as a part of Germany. Besides, adherents to the movement also claim that you cannot be German and a Muslim. What does "German identity" mean these days?
Ozyurek: I guess there′s only one thing we can tell them: it is too late! Islam is an important part of German society, no matter what they want to think. As I have already mentioned, Muslim, German or Western identity – they are all so much more than a single fixed definition. They allow for a multitude of different lifestyles and ideologies and, what′s more, there are so many ways in which they can and do intersect. Down the years, German Muslims have consistently revisited the concept of an authentic German Muslim identity. The imagined constellation has changed over time. During the 1920s, German Muslims saw themselves as being closely related to the German Enlightenment. In the 1930s, with the emergence of National Socialism, they emphasised how important cleanliness was both ideologies. Later in the 1960s and 70s, Sufism seemed to tally with the era′s emphasis on youth culture. There are so many different ways in which what is considered Muslim is also German. The two are in a constant state of intersection and transformation – rather like a kaleidoscope.
In your book, you point out that many East Germans converted to Islam after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It seems that these people were searching for some kind of new identity and new ideology after the collapse of Communism. To what extent is this true?
Ozyurek: I would not want to give the impression that tens of thousands of East Germans converted to Islam. I have a strong sense that there are more converts in West Germany. But, for the East Germans who converted to Islam soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Islam did give them a new identity that helped them move away from being "Ossies". Interestingly, today there are a good number of Sufi lodges in eastern Germany. But they display a different dynamic to that of the established Sunni communities. They live isolated lives away from the stigmatised Sunni Muslims.
For a couple of years now, hardcore Salafists such as Pierre Vogel, among others, have become the face of German conversion. Some of them are well-known for their extremist views which one finds throughout social media. At the same time, we see many young Muslims cheering for them. Why is this happening and why does the media only focus on this type of convert?
Ozyurek: Most likely because most converts are introverts who are occupied with their own spiritual growth. I have met hundreds of converts and there′s nothing sensational about them. They spend most of their time with themselves, with reading, learning and reflecting. A handful of others like Pierre Vogel are attractive for many reasons. Firstly, a great part of the Islamic scene in Germany is still in Turkish or Arabic.Young Muslims growing up in Germany don′t feel any connection with imams who are sent from Turkey. Many find these communities old, divorced from their issues and too strict about rules without explaining why. Pierre Vogel talks German, he has a good grasp of German youth culture and he is always on the Internet. The Salafist movement he represents is of course exclusive in many regards, but it is surprisingly open to Muslims coming from all social backgrounds. It is non-hierarchical, accepting of people who embrace their basic principles and presents a very clear world view.
How will Muslims, be they migrants or converts, continue to transform German society in the years to come? Ozyurek: The post-World War II Germany that exists today has been heavily shaped by Muslims. Muslims rebuilt the war-torn country and today they are an indispensable part of the urban culture, in particular. Many aspects of youth culture in Germany – fashion, food, music and many others – have been heavily shaped by those Muslims who arrived in Germany from the 1960s onwards. It is impossible to imagine major German cities without practising and non-practising Muslims. The Muslim communities will continue to be subject to multiple influences, global and local, as will German society. At this point I do not expect a dramatic change. Despite what the right-wing politicians say, the presence of Muslims in Germany has already achieved a more or less happy equilibrium. Germany is already part Muslim, Muslims are already German.
Kandhamal is not a new subject to me. Countercurrents.org had published an article on 2nd November 2003 by Angana Chatterjee “Orissa: A Gujarat In The making”. It was five years before the worst communal violence against Christians in modern India happened in Kandhamal in 2008 in which 93 people were killed, over 350 churches and worship places which belonged to the Adivasi Christians and Dalit Christians were destroyed, around 6,500 houses were burnt or demolished, over 40 women were subjected to rape, molestation and humiliation and several educational, social service and health institutions were destroyed and looted. More than 56,000 people were displaced.
After the dreaded thing happened Countercurrents.org had published dozens of articles including fact finding reports, analyses, opinions and on the ground reports.
I had visited Kandhamal in 2015 and extensively reported about the current situation in Kandhamal. I interviewed a dozen widows of Kandhamal violence. While interviewing them they looked upon me as someone who could bring them some succour to the pathetic situation they are in. Many of them are facing intimidation from Hindutva forces and can’t return to their villages. Most of them were living in different parts of India as house maids, tailors and doing other odd jobs to sustain their ruined families. Little did they know that an insignificant journalist like me could do very little for them. The hope in their eyes really shook me. Still I kept my calm and kept on doing my ‘job’. I visited ruined houses, visited a house where an old woman was burnt alive, visited a church that became a cow shed. I marched with thousands of victims in Raikia, the nerve centre of violence and heartland of RSS/Sangh Parivar in Kandhamal. I saw the collective defiance and courage of the victims who in spite of all the hardships and government apathy, came together and formed a movement for communal harmony. Marching with the masses I was convinced that the RSS/Sangh Parivar elements will never be able to repeat a 2008 again in Kandhamal.
On 19th of this month I was among the audience at K.P. Kesava Menon hall in Calicut, watching K.P Sasi’s documentary “Voices From The Ruins: Kandhamal in Search of Justice”. Sasi being a good friend of mine I had heard stories about Kandhamal from him too. I had seen the rushes of the film, a roughly edited version too. I also knew the pain and hardships that he went through in making this film. While I sat in the dark and went through the visuals that played before me on the screen I was re-living the Kandhamal violence once again. As the tales of the naked horrors of the violence, the helplessness of the victims, the courage of many Hindus who saved many Christian lives risking their own lives, the government and judicial apathy in delivering justice and finally the hope of building a resilient India that will defeat the nefarious designs of the communal forces through religious harmony overwhelmed me with emotions and I cried.
Soon after the screening I was called upon to the stage to give my reactions about the film. I wiped my tears off and went on to the stage. Still I could not stop my tears. I was embarrassed. Through my tears I told the audience it is through emotions that revolutionary actions are born. Sasi’s film was able to evoke emotion about an incident that happened thousands of kilometers away and now it is our duty to make sure that the victims get justice.
Although I was overcome with emotion while watching Sasi’s film, it is not a tear jerker. It is a calm and composed study of the Kandhamal violence. It delves into history to show how the hate campaign by RSS/Sangh Parivar elements slowly seeped through the veins of Kandhamal. How the killing of Swami Lakshmananda by the Maoists was used by the communal forces to unleash a pogrom on Adivasi and Dalit Christians. The film shows that the violence was not a spontaneous reaction to the killing of the Swami, but a well planned orchestrated attack on the minorities. The film then analyses the justice delivery system and how it failed to deliver justice to the victims. The film ends in a note of hope by showing the robust resistance movement the victims themselves built and solidarity and support coming to the victims cutting across political spectrum.
I am not alone to overcome with emotion in Kandhamal. In 2015, I saw Brinda Karat, Polit Bureau member of Communist Party of India (Marxist) wiping her tears off after visiting seven innocent Dalit/Adivasi Christians who are lodged in Phulbani jail allegedly for killing Swami Lakshmananda. Incidentally they are the only people who are convicted and still lodged in jail in any case related to this horrific communal violence. Yes, India failed in delivering justice to these poor Adivasi/Dalits in Kandhamal. Sasi brings out this truth forcefully through his film. That may be the reason I cried after watching this film.
पिछले तेरह जून को जैसे ही ऑरलैंडो नाइट क्लब में हुई गोलीबारी की खबर सामने आई, अमेरिका के सभी मुसलमान भय से कांप उठे। हालांकि मन ही मन वे उम्मीद और दुआ कर रहे थे कि अपराधी कोई मुसलिम पहचान वाला न हो। लगभग इसी किस्म की प्रतिक्रिया मुसलमानों के बीच 2013 के बोस्टन मैराथन बमबारी और सन बर्नार्डीनो गोलीबारी की घटना के बाद हुई थी।
दरअसल, अमेरिकी मुसलमान किसी आतंकी घटना के बाद इसी तर्ज पर प्रतिक्रिया करने के आदी हो गए हैं। जब कभी इस किस्म का हमला होता है और पकड़े गए हमलावर के बारे में घोषणा होती है कि वह मुसलमान है तो अमेरिका के सभी मुसलमान इसी भाव में चले जाते हैं। मीडिया और दूसरी संस्थाएं घरेलू अतिवादियों के प्रसार के खतरों के प्रति आगाह करते हुए इस बात पर बहस करते हैं कि क्या इस्लाम हिंसा को जायज करार देता है? दूसरी ओर,राजनेता और विशेषज्ञ मुसलमान आप्रवासियों और नागरिकों की स्वतंत्रता को सीमित करने वाली नीतियों का ढोल पीटते हैं।
मीडिया के मनोविज्ञान की अध्येता के तौर मैंने देखा है कि कैसे मीडिया मुसलमान विरोधी नफरत की भावना और नीतियों को अमेरिका में हवा देता है। चूंकि बहुत कम अमेरिकी व्यक्तिगत रूप से मुसलमानों जानते हैं, इसलिए मीडिया द्वारा मुसलमानों को आतंकवादी के तौर पर चिहि्नत करना बेहद खतरनाक है, क्योंकि कई लोग यह मान लेते हैं कि सारे मुसलमान आतंकवादी होते हैं।
मीडिया की ताकत गैर-आतंकी हमलों की कवरेज के दौरान भी मुसलमानों की बहुत खराब तरीके से आलोचना की जाती है। केबल न्यूज, टेलीविजन, सिनेमा और अखबार में आतंकी मुसलमानों से संबंधित सामग्रियों के विश्लेषण से यह पता चलता है कि मुसलमानों को अमेरिकी मीडिया में हिंसक, आतंकवादी, अत्याचारी और असहिष्णु बताया जाता है। उसकी कोई सकारात्मक छवि पेश नहीं की जाती।
सामाजिक मनोवैज्ञानिकों के मुताबिक अपने से भिन्न 'बाहरी' माने जाने वाले सामाजिक समूहों के साथ संपर्क रखने से पूर्वाग्रहों को कम करने में मदद मिलती है। लेकिन अध्ययनों से पता चलता है कि जब सीधा संपर्क सीमित या न के बराबर होता है तो 'बाहरी' समूहों के साथ हमारे रवैये को तय करने में मीडिया द्वारा इन समूहों का चित्रण अपेक्षाकृत बड़ा प्रभाव डालता है।
चूंकि कुल अमेरिकी जनसंख्या में मुसलमानों की संख्या मात्र एक प्रतिशत है, इसलिए अधिकतर अमेरिकी लोगों का उनसे दैनिक आधार पर संपर्क नहीं होता। इसका सीधा मतलब यही हुआ कि मुसलमानों को देखने के उनके तरीके में मीडिया या समाचारों की बड़ी भूमिका होती है।
चंद गलत लोगों की वजह से कौन होता है बदनाम हाल के कुछ अध्ययनों में हमने पाया है कि मुसलमानों का नकारात्मक चित्रण किस कदर प्रभावी होता है। मिसाल के तौर पर, हमने एक प्रायोगिक सर्वेक्षण किया, जिसमें प्रतिभागियों को खबरों में मुसलमानों के बारे में नकारात्मक, तटस्थ और सकारात्मक चित्रण को देखने के लिए कहा गया। उसके बाद उन्हें सभी मुसलमानों के बारे में उनके अपने दृष्टिकोण और मुसलमानों को हानि पहुंचाने वाली नीतियों के प्रति उनके समर्थन से जुड़े सवालों का जवाब देने को कहा गया।
नकारात्मकता देखने वाले प्रतिभागियों के सामने 2007 में फोर्ट डिक्स पर आतंकी हमले की कोशिश से संबंधित बहस चलाने वाली खबर पेश की गई। अन्य प्रतिभागियों के मुकाबले ये प्रतिभागी मुसलमानों को उग्र और हिंसक मानने के लिए कहीं अधिक तत्पर नजर आए। यही नहीं, हम यह देख कर हैरान थे कि वे कितनी आसानी से अमेरिकी मुसलमानों के नागरिक अधिकारों तक पर प्रतिबंध लागने के पक्षधर थे- चाहे हवाई अड्डों पर उन्हें सुरक्षा जांच के लिए एक अलग पंक्ति में खड़ा रखने का मसला हो या उनके मतदान के अधिकार को सीमित करने का या फिर सरकार को उनकी निगरानी की अनुमति का मामला हो। ये प्रतिभागी मुसलिम देशों के खिलाफ सैन्य कार्रवाई के लिए भी अपेक्षाकृत अधिक पक्षधर थे। उन्होंने इस्लाम के प्रभाव को संकुचित करने की इच्छा भी जाहिर की।
यहां ध्यान देने लायक बात यह है कि इन प्रतिभागियों ने जिन नीतियों की वकालत की की, उनमें से अधिकतर 2016 के अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति चुनाव में खड़े उम्मीदवारों द्वारा मुसलमानों के बारे में प्रस्तावित नीतियों से जबर्दस्त ढंग से मेल खाते हैं।
गौरतलब है कि राजनीतिक दलों के कुछ प्रत्याशियों ने अमेरिकी मुसलमानों की निगरानी बढ़ाने, मस्जिदों को जबरन बंद करने, अमेरिकी मुसलमानों का डाटाबेस तैयार करने, धार्मिक मतों को इंगित करने वाले विशेष पहचान चिह्न रखने और मुसलिम देशों से आने वाले आप्रवासियों पर रोक लगाने की जरूरत पर बल दिया है।
यह तथ्य है कि इनमें कई प्रस्ताव असंवैधानिक हैं और अमेरिकी मुसलमानों की बेचैनी और भय कम नहीं करते। कई लोग इस बात से अच्छी तरह वाकिफ हैं कि पर्ल हार्बर पर आक्रमण के बाद जापानी मूल के अमेरिकी लोगों के साथ इसी किस्म का सलूक किया गया था।
हालांकि इस तरह का सर्वेक्षण यह कतई नहीं कहता कि मीडिया को मुसलमान पहचान वाले आतंकियों द्वारा किए गए हमलों की रिपोर्ट नहीं करना चाहिए। इसके उलट, यह अमेरिकी मुसलिम समुदाय का संतुलित चित्रण के महत्त्व को रेखांकित करता है। अमेरिकी मुसलमानों से जुड़ी सकारात्मक खबरों की भरमार है, जिसकी रिपोर्टिंग बड़े आराम से की जा सकती है।
People from the “Dalit” community block traffic in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, after four men belonging to the community were beaten while trying to skin a dead cow at Una village. Over the decade ending 2014, the average conviction rate in cases of crimes against SCs in Gujarat was 5%; in crimes against STs, it was 4.3%. The national average was 29.2% and 25.6% respectively.
As violent protests continue in the Prime Minister’s home state of Gujarat over the flogging of Dalit youth by upper-caste Hindu vigilantes, an IndiaSpend analysis reveals a conviction rate six times lower than the Indian average–over 10 years–for crimes against scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs).
In 2014 (latest available data), 3.4% of crimes against SCs in Gujarat ended in convictions, against a comparable national rate of 28.8%–that is, one conviction for every eight across the country. Against STs, that conviction rate was 1.8%, against the national average of 37.9%–that is, one conviction for every 21 across the country.
Dalit unrest began on July 11, 2016, when four Dalit youth were tied to a car and gaurakshaks, or cow protectors, took turns to flog them as a crowd watched. The crime: Skinning a dead cow. Later, the upper-caste vigilantes posted a video of the flogging on social media as a warning of sorts to others–Dalits and Muslims. The video of another attack in May has also now emerged.
The Gujarat government has arrested suspects, but the gaurakshaks’ courage appears rooted in the failures of Gujarat’s criminal-justice system in addressing crimes against the lowest of Hindu castes and tribes. A similar failure is evident in Maharashtra and Karnataka.
Over a decade, conviction rate of crimes against SCs is 5%; against STs, 4.3%
Over the decade ending 2014, the average conviction rate in cases of crimes against SCs in Gujarat was 5%; in crimes against STs, it was 4.3%. The national average was 29.2% and 25.6% respectively, according to NCRB data.
Source: National Crime Records Bureau Note: Conviction Rate = Cases convicted/Total cases (convicted + acquitted or discharged)*100
This means that suspects in 95 of 100 cases are acquitted. Over 10 years, the lowest conviction rate in crimes against SCs in Gujarat was 2.1% in 2011; against STs, it was 1.1% in 2005.
The conviction rate for all crimes registered under the Indian Penal Code nationwide was 45.1% in 2014.
“If the conviction rate is low, people who can afford a good lawyer know that they can get away with their crime,” Supreme Court lawyer Kamlesh Kumar Mishra said.
The conviction rate represents how often cases filed by the police lead to suspects being declared guilty in court.
Karnataka and Maharashtra are on par with Gujarat, with a similar 5% conviction rate for crimes against SCs/STs. In Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, about half of such cases end in conviction.
Source: National Crime Records Bureau Note: Conviction Rate = Cases convicted/Total cases (convicted + acquitted or discharged)*100
“There is discrimination at each point in the whole chain of access to justice for dalits and adivasis (as STs are called),” said Paul Divakar, Convener of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, an advocacy group, pointing to flawed chargesheets and investigations.
Mishra said it was up to the Gujarat government to implement long-pending reforms recommended by various commissions to improve convictions and try pending cases. Lower courts in Gujarat need 287 years to clear pending cases, IndiaSpendreported in December 2015.
SCs and STs endure widespread discrimination and lag the general population in education, jobs and income, we reported earlier this month. Crime against SCs/STs is also rising,IndiaSpendreported, a reflection of greater reporting of cases, and a consequence of upper-caste resentment against growing assertiveness.
“Society can now accept a Dalit crossing an upper caste area on a bicycle, but it still hasn’t accepted the idea of a Dalit riding a Royal Enfield,” Dalit writer Chandra Bhan Prasad said in this Mintinterview. “Upper castes feel threatened as Dalits now feel equal to them and even confront them.”
(Babu is a Delhi-based independent journalist and a member of 101Reporters, a pan-India network of grassroots reporters.)
Many young people are getting caught up in the Islamist scene. Why – and how can they be protected from it? Details from Arnfrid Schenk
It is 26 February 2016 when 15-year-old Safia pulls out a knife at Hanover Central Station and stabs a police officer in the neck. He survives, but is badly injured. Two months previously, the secondary school student had flown to Istanbul to join the "Islamic State". Before she was able to cross the border to Syria, her mother brought her back to Hanover. There are videos online of Safia the primary school child sitting next to the Salafist preacher Pierre Vogel, reciting Koran suras. Wearing a hijab with not a single hair visible – as an eight-year-old. Her mother brought her up that way.
On 16 April, a bomb explodes in front of a Sikh temple in Essen. During a wedding celebration. A priest and two guests are injured. The two perpetrators are 16 years old. One of them is already being watched by the state security agency, he disseminates Islamist propaganda on Facebook, calls himself "Kuffar Killer" – "Murderer of Infidels". He has a police record for bodily harm and burglary. His accomplice had taken part in Koran distribution activities organised by Islamists.
These are just the most recent examples of German youngsters who have gone off the rails and ended up in a violent Islamist milieu. The German intelligence service estimates that more than 8,600 Muslims adhere to theSalafist movement. A tiny minority, in view of the four million Muslims in the nation as a whole. But a figure that's constantly on the rise. Five years ago, there were fewer than 4,000 known members of this grouping. Some 800 of them left Germany and went as jihadists to Syria, 130 were killed, 20 of those in suicide attacks, 260 have returned. Salafists canvass in front of schools, in youth clubs, online. A particularly eager campaigner in this regard is the convert Pierre Vogel, who tours towns and cities as an open-air preacher and explains his brand of Islam in hundreds of YouTube videos.
In the clutches of the Salafists Nevertheless the question remains, why so many young people end up in the clutches of the Salafists. And: how can they be prevented from doing this?
There are many answers to the first question. "Potential answers," says Michael Kiefer. He is a scholar of Islam at the University of Osnabruck and is currently trying to find out, on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Youth, why youngsters are being radicalised. Kiefer and a colleague are conducting interviews with Islamists, their acquaintances, friends, siblings, parents.
For Michael Kiefer, Salafist groups are a collection point for the insecure, for those without opportunities, for those who feel marginalised, who don't get along at school or with their families, who are caught up in a crisis of identity. The Salafists not only lure them in with religious material, but also with the sense of being important, or part of something big – and better than the others.
On the other hand, Kiefer says, those who are radicalised despite having a good education are often motivated by a sense of righteousness, convinced that Muslims are the victims of international policy and that one must fight for their interests. It is possible that Safia falls into this category.
Salafists are fundamental Muslims aiming to establish a theocracy. For them, only Sharia law is applicable, not the constitution. All the questions of human coexistence are dealt with by the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Those who follow this code will be rewarded with paradise, while hell awaits the others.
This is not to say that all Salafists are terrorists carrying out attacks in the name of Islam or joining the Jihad in Syria. There are Salafists who simply want to lead a godly life, there are those who strive for an Islamic state, but who reject violence. But: all those who have drifted into the radical Islamist milieu had previous contact with Salafist groups.
Many of those who join the Salafists lack basic religious awareness. Salafism lures them in with simple rules, dividing up the world into good and evil. There are however still huge gaps in our knowledge of how the milieu is composed, says Kiefer. Germany had for a long time neglected to carry out any relevant research or prevention work, he adds. Most of the funds were channelled into the security agencies. That has now changed. In 2015, the Federal Ministry for Youth spent 5.8 million Euros on preventive measures against violent Islamism. That figure is set to increase to 7.5 million Euros this year.
Clenched fists and selfies for the Ummah: Salafists are fundamental Muslims aiming to establish a theocracy. For them, only Sharia law is applicable, not the constitution. All the questions of human coexistence are dealt with by the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Those who follow this code will be rewarded with paradise, while hell awaits the others
Prevention networks against Islamism Much has been done, but there is still a lack of any nationwide programmes. Several states took too long to start building up preventive networks. Much of it is still uncoordinated; there is no overall strategy or mutual exchange. There are numerous individual projects, most in urban areas, very few in rural areas – although youngsters are being radicalised there too. What is working and what is not? This is still to be clarified. Therefore, the second question – how to protect youngsters from Islamism? – still remains an open one.
Michael Kiefer can at least set the direction. "Prevention," he says, "must begin early and everyone has to work together: teachers, parents, social workers, imams, sports coaches. They all have to talk to each other, as soon as they notice something about a young person. This response must become institutionalised."
One who does start early is Nadim Gleitsmann. He works at Ufuq (Arabic for 'Horizon'), a Berlin association that explains Salafism to teachers and youth workers nationwide and discusses Islam and democracy with young people in workshops. Gleitsmann works in Hamburg, attending both vocational colleges and secondary schools, talking to both eighth-graders and those about to graduate from school. He comes when the teachers no longer know how to help.
When students insult girls who don't wear headscarves, calling them infidels, when they praise Osama bin Laden as a hero, or describe the Charlie Hebdo attackers as "brothers of honour". What is merely provocation and what is conviction? Gleitsmann talks to the students about Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia. He shows short films in which theologians explain how a term like "jihad" should really be understood. The students who spread radical views must be enticed away from their ringleader role, says Gleitsmann, who is himself a Muslim and former student of Islamic studies. The aim is to immunise the youngsters against the Salafist ideology. To do this, it is not imperative to talk about religion, but to focus on the question: how do we want to live?
The Federal Agency for Civic Education is also active in Islamism prevention work. It has for several months focused on YouTube videos. Its information campaign is called "Begriffswelten Islam" (The Terminology of Islam). In it, scholars of Islam explain the meaning of a Caliphate, for example. In this way, youngsters are being provided with something to counter the Salafist interpretation of Islam. To ensure the material finds its way to the young, the videos are presented by YouTube stars like LeFloid. The number of clicks – 130,000 – is promising. The agency also supports the work of Patrick Frankenberger. The political scientist is project leader for Islamism on the Internet at Jugendschutz.net. It is his job to cleanse the Internet of Islamist propaganda, including the horrific videos posted by "Islamic State". He sees videos on an almost daily basis that show people being tortured, beheaded, burned and shot at point blank range. Sometimes, as if the horror were not enough, by 12-year-old boys.
The intention is to foment hatred The IS videos are doing the rounds on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and in WhatsApp groups. And this means they are finding their way into the playgrounds of German schools. Elaborately staged, with a dramatic composition intended to horrify, the edits rhythmically timed with the music. As though made by professionals, says Frankenberger. The "justification" for the executions is supplied along with the videos; these were infidels, Jewish spies or the soldiers of Assad. The videos are horrifying to many of the youngsters, says Frankenberger. "But they can act as a pull to the potentially violent ones."
Islam scholar Michael Kiefer: ""Prevention must begin early and everyone has to work together: teachers, parents, social workers, imams, sports coaches. They all have to talk to each other, as soon as they notice something about a young person. This response must become institutionalised"
The Islamists' propaganda is not limited to gruesome videos. Photos are taken out of context: for example, images showing earthquake victims from Tibet, with the accompanying caption – "Here we see how Muslims in Burma are being slaughtered." The intention is to foment hatred. In many videos, the militant jihad is presented as a great adventure, the fighters from Germany cast as heroes, the "Islamic State" portrayed as nothing less than a paradise nation.
The Islamists' Internet propaganda is primarily aimed at young people. They publish videos of digitally manipulated computer games, for example Call of Duty is Call of Jihad, the player shown fights as a jihadist and carries out attacks. Or SpongeBob calls for the destruction of Israel.
Frankenberger and his colleagues found Islamist propaganda in over a thousand cases. They then approach the platform operators to get the films deleted. Anything that contravenes youth media protection laws must be deleted and this includes incitement, the depiction of violence and the glorification of war.
Thomas Mucke, an educator and political scientist, works with those who have slipped through the still-wide meshing of the prevention net. With Syria returnees. Mucke is one of the directors of the Berlin Violence Prevention Network (VPN). As well as running advice centres in several states, VPN also focuses on "de-radicalisation within the penal system", in prisons in Berlin, Hessen and Lower Saxony among others.
"Those who return are unsure," says Mucke. They asked questions: "In Syria Muslims kill Muslims. Was that Islamic, what I experienced there?" One returnee from Syria uttered the sentence "I'd rather be in prison in Germany than free in Syria."
The doubts of the returnees provide Mucke with starting points for his work. "We help them to reactivate their minds," he says. "In Islamist circles only one thing counts: follow, don't ask. They've surrendered their sense of reason."
De-radicalisation in prison as preventive work He meets up with them once a week, the easier cases in a group, the tougher cases in one-to-one sessions. Muslim colleagues do the preparatory work in advance. They attempt to establish trust. They talk about religion, demonstrate that the Islamists' point of view is not the only one and not the right one. "You have to make it clear to them that Islam has its place in society," says Mucke, "but Islamism does not." Mucke and his colleagues also work with the youngsters after they've been released, helping them to find an apprenticeship. De-radicalisation in prison is also preventive work. The danger of relapse is always there, as prisons have for a long while been the favoured recruiting ground of radical Salafists.
Prevention can give no guarantees. And it requires time. This was most evident recently in North Rhine-Westphalia: one of the two bombers from Essen had been involved in a voluntary opt-out programme for more than a year. A call to the Interior Ministry yields the information that the state government nevertheless plans to continue developing the programme. After all, what's the alternative?
The example of the most prominent German Salafist preacher Pierre Vogel shows just how complex it is to gauge the dynamic within the milieu. Even though Vogel routinely distances himself from terrorism in his public appearances – for many young people he is a route into Islamism. In view of this, it seems bizarre that he is himself now considered a target by Islamists: in the latest edition of the English-language IS propaganda magazine he described as an apostate. The title of the article: ″Kill the imam of the infidels of the West″. Vogel had described the attacks in Paris and Brussels as a sin. As he routinely does.
Protesters from the northeast stage demonstrations in Delhi against human rights violations under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. The year 2015-16 saw least number of cases resolved in the last four years.
No more than five human-rights complaints—four in Jammu and Kashmir, one in Tripura—under a controversial law that provides immunity to armed forces from prosecution were judged in 2015-16, a 93% fall over the average of three preceding years, according to new government data submitted to parliament on July 21, 2016.
An average of 69 cases registered under the 58-year-old Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) were heard–“disposed” to use government parlance—over the three preceding years, the Lok Sabha, parliament’s lower house, was told. Up to 82 complaints were heard in 2012-13, which dropped to 75 in 2013-14 and 49 in 2014-15.
Note: Includes cases disposed under the ‘Defence Force Category’ as well as the “Para Military Force Category’ as specified in the answer in Lok Sabha
Four of the five cases adjudged this year were from Jammu and Kashmir, following the pattern of the preceding three years, when 105 of 186—or 57% of the total—cases disposed were from the state.
The government did not provide details of cases, victims and AFSPA violations and said it did not intend to withdraw the Act from the northeast or J&K.
Recent discussions in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of parliament) revolved around the abolition of AFSPA, promulgated in 1958 and extended to J&K in 1990. The law is now in force across some regions of J&K, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, and all of Assam—where it was first imposed—and Nagaland.
The July 21, 2016, debate urged the government to send an all-party delegation to Kashmir to address mass unrest that has claimed 45 lives.
The Delhi and Gauhati High Courts have previously held that was not violative of fundamental rights. But the Supreme Court said in July 2016 that the armed forces cannot escape accountability, ruling that “over 1,500 cases of alleged fake encounters in Manipur, over the last 20 years, must be investigated”.
Amnesty International, a human-rights advocacy, has said the law contravenes international laws and United Nations humanitarian laws. Amnesty also said the AFSPA violates Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which gives right to effective remedy to citizens.
In J&K, about 43,000 people—including suspected militants, civilians and security forces—have been killed between 1990 and 2011, according to another Amnesty report quoted inDNA, a newspaper.
Tripura has withdrawn the Act from a limited region of the state.
Note: All figures in this story have been rounded off.