SC should help remove ambiguities on secularism in practice: Hamid Ansari

April 3, 2016

This is the full text of Vice President M. Hamid Ansari's speech at the 16th Convocation of University of Jammu on Saturday (April 2, 2016).

This is indeed a special occasion. The university is honouring one the most eminent sons of the State of Jammu & Kashmir whose achievement is but a rarity and worthy of celebration. After all, it is only the chosen few in the calling of law who climb the ladder to the very top in the highest court of the Republic to join the galaxy of men who have presided over the Supreme Court of India.

Our founding fathers gave us a Constitution that encapsulates in its text the ideals and values of People of India. The first among these is Justice and, as John Rawls put it, "rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests". To ensure this, Article 32 of the Constitution gives us the right to move the Supreme Court which has the power to take corrective measures for the enforcement of these rights. A similar power is conferred, within their area of competence, on the High Courts, under Article 226.

From this emanates the centrality of the judiciary in securing for citizens the rights bestowed by the Constitution. In our own times, as an eminent judge elsewhere noted some years back, "people increasingly turn to the judiciary hoping it can solve pressing social problems".

An essential concomitant of this is accessibility of the judiciary; another is affordability; a third is the confidence that justice will be dispensed speedily. The latter is contingent not only on the technicalities of the law but also on the unstated major premise underlying the thought process. It is said that the judiciary is above but not beyond the issues of the day. "We may try," said the American judge Cardozo, "to see things as objectively as we please; none the less, we can never see them with any eyes except our own."

And yet, he continued, "the training of the judge, if coupled with what is styled the judicial temperament, will help to broaden the group to which his subconscious loyalties are due". Hence arises the need "of constant checking and testing of philosophy by justice and of justice by philosophy". To this may be added Lord Bingham’s caution about the need for judges to "neutralise any extraneous considerations which might bias their judgement", or else decline to make the decision in question.

Judge Albie Sachs of South Africa expressed the needed balance differently. The required approach is "neither purely libertarian one, nor simply communitarian. It was dignitarian. Respect for human dignity united the right to be autonomous with the need to recognise that we all live in communities".

This is precisely what is prescribed in the last part of the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The operative principles arefraternity, dignity, and unity to be sought through Justice, Liberty and Equality.

One of the matters in the societal domain that figure prominently in public discourse relate to the constitutional ideal of India being a ‘secular’ republic having a "composite culture". The former expression is in the Preamble and the latter in Article 51A(f).

Any discussion of these constitutional values has to be premised on the existential reality of our society. It is characterised by heterogeneity; a population of 1.3 billion comprising of over 4,635 communities 78 percent of whom are not only linguistic and cultural but social categories. Religious minorities constitute 19.4 percent of the total. The poet Pandit Kailash Narain Kaul Bedil Dehlavi expressed it finely in a couplet:

Ilahi lutf kya aata jo sub mai-khwar hi hote
Teri dunya ki raonaq barh gai sheikh o barahman se

Our democratic polity and its secular State structure were put in place in full awareness of this plurality. There was no suggestion to erase identities and homogenise them.

Political scientists and sociologists have written a good deal on the Indian perception of secularism. The three generally accepted characteristics of a secular state, namely liberty to practice religion, equality between religions as far as state practice is concerned, and neutrality or a fence of separation between the state and religion, have been invoked but "their application has been contradictory and has led to major anomalies". Commenting on the debate on secularism, Amartya Sen observed that "secularism is basically a demand for symmetric political treatment of different religious communities" but that leaves open "the choice between the forms that symmetry can legitimately take"; he added that "there is a real difference between achieving symmetry through the sum-total of the collective intolerances of the different communities rather than through the union of their respective tolerances". Very recently, Soli Sorabjee has reminded us of theEmmanuel v. State of Kerala and of Justice Chinappa Reddy’s remarks on the subject of tolerance.

The challenge, then, is to reduce if not eliminate these anomalies.

This leads us to the question: how has the Indian Sate, in principle and practice, given shape to the essential ingredients of the secular principle and composite culture?

Apart from the principles enshrined in the constitutional text and policy pronouncements of public figures, often nuanced to suit the occasion, judicial pronouncements shed useful light on the matter.

The Basic Structure doctrine relating to our Constitution is now settled law.9 One of its ingredients is secularism. This is accepted in principle by most segments of opinion (barring advocates of some version of theocracy). It is more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance; it is a positive concept of equal treatment. Its most emphatic assertion in a pronouncement came in the set of judgements in the Bommai case:

"Secularism has both positive and negative contents. The Constitution struck a balance between temporal parts confining it to the person professing a particular religious faith or belief and allows him to practice profess and propagate his religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The positive part of secularism has been entrusted to the State to regulate by law or by an executive order. The State is prohibited to patronise any particular religion as State religion and is enjoined to observe neutrality. The State strikes a balance to ensue an atmosphere of full faith and confidence among its people to realise full growth of personality and to make him a rational being on secular lines, to improve individual excellence, regional growth, progress and national integrity… Religious tolerance and fraternity are basic features and postulates of the Constitution as a scheme for national integration and sectional or religious unity. Programmes or principles evolved by political parties based on religion amount to recognizing religion as a part of the political governance which the Constitution expressly prohibits. It violates the basic features of the Constitution. Positive secularism negates such a policy and any action in furtherance thereof would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution."

The principle so laid down is emphatic. Despite its clarity, however, different interpretations were placed on it and "there is no real consensus within the Court on what secularism entails". It has been opined that what the Court said is different from what it did. Observers have noted that subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court have "effectively vindicated the profoundly anti-secular vision of secularism" of some quarters. For this reason, it has been argued "whether a more complete separation of religion and politics might not better serve Indian democracy".

The difficulty lies in delineating, for purposes of public policy and practice, the line that separates them from religion. For this religion per se, and each individual religion figuring in the discourse, has to be defined in terms of its stated tenets. The ‘way of life’ argument, used in philosophical texts and some judicial pronouncements, does not help the process of identifying common principles of equity in a multi-religious society. Since a wall of separation is not possible under Indian conditions, the challenge is to develop a formula for equidistance and minimum involvement. For this purpose, principles of faith need to be segregated from contours of culture since a conflation of the two obfuscates the boundaries of both and creates space to equivocalness. Furthermore, such an argument could be availed of by other faiths in the land since all claim a cultural sphere and a historical justification for it.

Within the same ambit, but distinct from it, is the constitutional principle of equality of status and opportunity, amplified through Articles 14, 15, and 16. This equality has to be substantive rather than merely formal and has to be given shape through requisite measures of affirmative action needed in each case so that the journey on the path to development has a common starting point. The Kundu Report on Diversity Index in 2008 had drawn attention to the "Inequality Traps" that prevent the marginalised and work in favour of the dominant groups in a society and had concluded that "unequal economic opportunities lead to unequal outcomes which in turn lead to unequal access to political power. This creates a vicious circle since unequal power structure determines the nature and functioning of the institutions and their policies. All these result in persistence of initial conditions".

III

The same absence of homogeneity holds good for "composite culture". The freedom movement recognised this existential reality of immense diversity on the ground. The Bommai judgement said that ‘this cultural heritage in India shaped that people of all religious faiths, living in different parts of the country are to tolerate each other’s religious faiths or beliefs and each religion made its contribution to enrich the composite Indian culture as a happy blend or synthesis.’16 Thus secularism and composite culture are two sides of the same coin. A historian has analysed it in some detail:

"The social and cultural life in India incorporated within it a multi-regional and multi-religious form and content. This interpretation of cultural influences was neither uniform nor equally intense in all regions. Yet their presence is marked all over. As a result, although historically cultural transactions and social negotiations embraced the entire subcontinent, they led to variety and plurality rather than to homogeneity. In almost all realms of cultural production – music, drama, painting, architecture, and so on – as well as religion, different influences made their mark, imparting to them a composite character. As a result, historically India developed as a colourful cultural mosaic and not as the manifestation of cultural practices inspired by a single source. The dynamism of Indian culture is derived from this diversity, which moulded the cultural practices of the people. It is in this sense that culture was embedded in national identity."

Furthermore, and to revert to the same author,

"The cultural implication of this historical process is not limited to diversity and plurality at the national level, but within each region itself as well…The coming together of people of diverse cultural moorings and traditions had several cultural consequences. These have been variously conceived as synthesis, assimilation, acculturation, and eclecticism…Whether India developed as a melting pot of cultures, or only remained a salad bowl is no more the issue. The crucial question is whether Indian culture is conceived as a static phenomenon, tracing its identity to a single unchanging source, or a dynamic phenomenon, critically and creatively interrogating all that is new."

To Jawaharlal Nehru, India was a palimpsest on which many had written their contribution and none were to be disowned. The poet Ragupati Rai Firaq expressed the process in a couplet:

Sar zamin-e-Hind par aqwam-e-aalam ke Firaq
Karwaan aate gaye, Hindostan banta gaya

It is evident from the foregoing that despite the clarity of enunciation in some of the Bommai pronouncements, political perceptions have sought to interpret its intended meaning for their own purposes.

Some years back in a volume published on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of the Supreme Court, two eminent jurists had observed that "as we transit into the next millennium, the Supreme Court has a lot to reflect upon, and not least on how to protect the minorities and their ilk from the onslaught of majoritarianism". So, as an acknowledged authority on the Constitution put it, "unless the Court strives in every possible way to assure that the Constitution, the law, applies fairly to all citizens, the Court cannot be said to have fulfilled its custodial responsibility".

Is it therefore bold to expect that the Supreme Court may consider, in its wisdom, to clarify the contours within which the principles of secularism and composite culture should operate with a view to strengthen their functional modality and remove ambiguities that have crept in?
Indian secularism has been described as ameliorative whose spiritual core is incrementalism. A citizen could well hope that this incremental approach is used to enhance social cohesion and social peace.

I felicitate Chief Justice Thakur on this very happy occasion and thank the Chancellor of the University, Hon’ble Governor Narendra Vohra sahib, for inviting me today.

Jai Hind.

An Open Letter to Muslim Men from an Angry Muslim Woman

April 3, 2016

Courtesy: The Independent, UK

I recognise the irony of the fact that the first university in the world was established by a Muslim woman, yet today many are denied an education. That the Prophet Mohammed fought on horseback alongside a woman, and yet now, many are told to stay in their houses and denied the right to drive

Dear Muslim men,

I still remember the day my mother was told her life was in danger. Her right to exist on this earth was suddenly being questioned because she decided she was exhausted. Exhausted for all her sisters, mothers and daughters who are unfortunate enough to have been born with another X chromosome rather than a Y.

What were her demands? Merely a space to pray in the mosque. Despite knowing she was potentially putting herself on the line, she stood her ground to claim what has been snatched from us. This did not happen in a faraway land, but here in the UK, and the heinous crime my mother committed that warranted such a savage response was requesting her God-given rights.

Until all of society learns to respect the half of society that bears and births them, humans will remain crippled, our social ills cannot be healed. We are hurting. Exhausted. But I have hope. Because, as Al Ghosaibi says, 'when a wound is tired of crying, it starts to sing'.

She should have been smart enough to know not to ask for something that may threaten the towering, carefully constructed, religiously disguised pedestal that has cradled the male ego for centuries. The outrageous desire to pray in a mosque that has only welcomed men since its creation represented values far too Islamic for these chauvinists.

We attended a mosque meeting advertised as being 'open to the public', and were abusively shouted down as soon as my mother attempted to make a contribution. No one had yet informed us that 'the public' does not include females.

Following police involvement, we were begrudgingly afforded a small place to pray, and saw the intimidation tactics become even more pathetic: tutting, head-shaking and sneering comments followed us round every corner. We felt unsafe.

And this isn't an isolated incident. When certain Muslim Labour councillors were accused of systematically and calculatedly blocking Muslim women from becoming MPs, I wasn't surprised. I wasn't surprised at another result of relentless animosity, the opening of a woman-led mosque in Bradford, either.

There's no religious illegitimacy here. Making room for Muslim women isn't un-Islamic. And I haven't been pushed away from my religion by sexist men in the Muslim community.

Instead, I have drawn closer to my faith. I recognise the irony of the fact that the first university in the world was established by a Muslim woman, yet today many are denied an education. That the Prophet Mohammed fought on horseback alongside a woman, and yet now, many are told to stay in their houses and denied the right to drive. That in Mecca, at God's house, I walk hand-in-hand with my husband while worshipping, but UK mosques deny me entry. That the majority of the 5,000 annual British converts to Islam are women, because they see the Quran affirming gender equality, and have realised a deeper liberation – even as a culturally asphyxiated brand of so-called Islam run by chauvinists oppresses us.

Quite simply, in being your intellectual, spiritual and social equals, we recognise the immensity of the paradox that some of you continue to propagate. Despite your fervent attempts to use mistranslations and misinterpretations of scripture and tradition to satisfy your desires, we don't believe you. We do not need strengthening, we need recognition of the different forms our strength comes in.

This is an injustice at one end of the same spectrum that groups like Isis operate on. And for those of you who do not actively enforce this injustice, by remaining complicit in the shackling of even one woman, you are shackling all of us. How can a society progress if half of it is chained?

We're desperate to pull back the paralysing grip of the lethal combination of male ego and cultural deadweight, to untangle this mess and to live how our faith truly tells us to live, relieved of our exhaustion.

Ultimately, we need you to help us reclaim Islam.

Until all of society learns to respect the half of society that bears and births them, humans will remain crippled, our social ills cannot be healed. We are hurting. Exhausted. But I have hope.

Because, as Al Ghosaibi says, 'when a wound is tired of crying, it starts to sing'.

Muslim men, you owe us our rights – and the Quran says so. Don't forget that.

Sincerely,

A Muslim woman.

(Source: The Independent)

ALERT Anti Mining Activist Beaten and Tortured n Custody in Goa

April 2, 2016

Human Rights Groups across the country have issued an appeal to express grave concern at the allegedly brutal custodial beating and torture of anti-mining activist Ravindra Velip, who has been held in custody by the Goa police since March 23. Reports indicate that he and his colleagues were arrested for participating in an anti-mining protest in Cauvrem village of South Goa where they were opposing transportation of illegal iron ore. Further media reports suggest that the human rights defenders from Cauvrem-Pirla village in Quepemtaluka were blind folded and beaten up mercilessly by inmates in judicial custody inside Sada sub-jail in Goa.

Below is a Draft Appeal that could be sent to all authorities. Addresses of local authorities are also given below:

MODEL APPEAL
(Your Organisation/Individual Letterhead)

Date:

Address:

Sir/Madam,

(A line of introducing yourself / your organisation)

We are writing to express our grave concern regarding Mr. Ravindra Velip, an anti-mining activist and human rights defender from Cauvrem-Pirla village in Quepemtaluka who was blind folded and beaten up mercilessly by inmates in judicial custody inside Sada sub-jail in Goa. The incident happened on March 23, 2016, after Mr.RavindraVelip and his colleagues were arrested for participating in an anti-mining protest in Cauvrem village of South Goa where they were opposing transportation of illegal iron ore.
Source of Information on the Incident:
Media Reports
The Human Rights Defender:

Mr. Ravindra Velip hails from a tribal community and is a resident of Cauvrem-Pirlavillagein Quepemtaluka, South Goa. He is an anti-illegal mining activist associated with the non-governmental organisation known as ‘Goa Foundation’ whose petition in the Supreme Court resulted in a two-and-a-half-year ban on mining in the state. Mr. RavindraVelip has been consistently working to expose the illegalities of mining lease holders in Cauvrem. It was due to the efforts of his group that the authorities could locate lakhs of tonnes of iron ore illegally extracted and hidden in artificial mountains under layers of mud, after the closure of mining was announced by the State Government. Mr. RavindraVelipwas instrumental in revealing the information to the mining directorate that the excess amounts of iron ore discovered by his group with the help of villagers were being systematically removed under the garb of e-auction. The situation has been turning grim due to the unmonitored movement of mineral ore in the mining belt amid claims of the government that it lacks manpower and resources to prevent illegal mining and monitor movement of trucks.

The Perpetrators:
Jail authorities,
a mining firm and
A BJP MLA masterminding the assault
Goa Mining Lobby
Date of Incident:
March 23, 2016
Place of Incident:
Sada sub-jail
Incident detail:

According to sources on March 22, 2016, Mr.RavindraVelip was arrested along with four others for participating in an anti-mining protest in Cauvrem village of South Goa. Their arrests were made under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly) and 341 (wrongful restraint) for blocking transportation of iron ore e-auctioned by the state government to a private trading company. They were remanded to judicial custody in Sada sub-jail.

Around 9 PM on Thursday March 23, 2016, when he was getting ready to move out of the Sub-Jail facility after securing bail, suddenly someone from back blindfolded him and began hitting him. He was beaten up with boots and fists. He was lifted and thrown from a height due to which hesuffered multiple fractures on his arms and suffered internal injuries. Mr. Ravindra was taken to the Goa Medical College and got medical treatment.

Anti-mining activist Mr.RavindraVelipalong with his colleagues were protesting mining operations in Cauvrem village of South Goa. They were arrested after they questioned the veracity of the iron ore consignment passing through their village. The villagers of Cauvrem are protesting against transportation of iron ore by a mining firm through their village road. The iron ore export in Goa has begun after Supreme Court lifted the ban imposed on the mining activity.
Anti-mining activists of Goa alleged that “a mining firm, a ruling BJP legislator and jail authorities were behind the attack. They filed a complaint with State Chief secretary against the jail authorities on Friday the March 25, 2016, and urged that the government should initiate proper inquiry into the incident and demanded that guilty should be punished.

Appeal:
We, therefore urge you to immediately take necessary steps to ensure that the concerned authorities in Goa:
Order an immediate, thorough, transparent, effective and impartial investigation into the above-mentioned physical assault made on the anti- mining activist and human rights defender Mr. RavindraVelip;
Ensure complete medical check-up of human rights defender Mr. RavindraVelip totally at state cost in the best medical facility available in the state to ensure that he is not suffering from any internal medical ailments;
Take immediate action on the perpetrators by arresting them and using all provisions of law to ensure that the defender is not harassed or attacked in future and provide a re-assurance of not engaging in such acts against HRDs;

Guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of human rights defender Mr. RavindraVelip and his family members from further reprisals from the perpetrators;
Ensure provision of reparation, compensation, apology to the human rights defender for the physical and psychological sufferings he has undergone and also ensure to compensate Mr. RavindraVelipfor his medical expenses incurred during his treatment and give this assurance to the NHRC of India in writing immediately and urgently;

Put an end to all acts of attack and harassment against all human rights defenders in the State of Goa to ensure that in all circumstances they carry out their activities without any hindrances;
Takes steps to conform to the provisions of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1998, especially:

Article 1, which states that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels;
Article 12.2, which provides that “"the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration”;

Recommend urgently and speedily during the pendency of this complaint the SHRC in Goa to also take necessary steps to establish a state focal point for HRDs in order to ensure that HRDs have a new protection mechanism in their own state;

Recommends urgently and speedily during the pendency of this complaint, the NHRC to convene a meeting of all state human rights institutions in the state [the SHRC, the SCW, the SCPCR, the SCM, the SIC, State Commissioner for PWDs, etc.] to ensure that a coordinated strategy is developed within the State of Goa for the protection of the rights of human rights defenders;
Recommend urgently and speedily during the pendency of this complaint the State Government of Goa in collaboration with the NHRC Focal Point on HRDs and the SHRC Goa to provide sensitization training to law enforcement and security forces on the role and activities of human rights defenders as a matter of priority, with technical advice and assistance from relevant United Nations entities, NGOs and other partners;
Recommend urgently and speedily during the pendency of this complaint, the State Government of Goa in collaboration with the SHRC Goa to publicly acknowledge the importance and legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders, i.e. anyone who, “individually and in association with others, … promote[s] and … strive[s] for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels” (art.1 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders);

More generally, ensures in all circumstances the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and with international human rights instruments ratified by India is strictly adhered to in the state of Goa.

ADDRESS

Shri A. K. Parashar
National Focal Point – Human Rights Defenders & Joint Registrar
National Human Rights Commission
Manav Adhikar Bhawan,
Block-C, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110 023
Email: hrd-nhrc@nic.in

Justice (Retd.) H L Dattu,
Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission,
Manav Adhikar Bhawan, Block-C, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi – 110 023 
Email: chairnhrc@nic.in

Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association 
Mr. Maina Kiai
Palais des NationsCH-1211 Geneva 10Switzerland
Fax: + 41 22 917 9006 
Email: freeassembly@ohchr.org info@freeassembly.net

Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises 
c/o Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14, avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland e-mail: wg-business@ohchr.org

Mr. Ajit Kumar 
Ambassador and Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations
Office and other International Organizations in GenevaTel:
+41-22-731 28 54Fax: +41-22-906 86 96
E-mail: pr.genevapmi@mea.gov.in mission.india@ties.itu.

GOA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Old Directorate of Education Building,
1st floor, 18 thJune Road, Panaji, Goa-403001
Email: sect-ghrc@nic.in

Shri R.K. Srivastava IAS
Chief Secretary Government of Goa
Email : cs-goa@nic.in

Shri T.N. Mohan IPS
Director General of Police – Goa Near Azad Maidan, 
Panaji – Goa. Email :dgpgoa@goapolice.gov.in
Superintendent of Police – Goa South
Near Azad Maidan, Panaji – Goa. Email :sps-pol.goa@nic.in
Shri SachinShinde IAS

Collector & District Magistrate – South Goa Email :cols.goa@nic.in

Suspended VC Appa Rao set to Demolish Rohith Stupa and Veliwada with Political Blessing?

April 2, 2016

Despite nationwide and international criticism of Appa Rao and the Centre’s police brutality unleashed against peacefully protesting students of the Hyderabad Central University, there appears every likelihood that the suspended VC Appa Rao with the full backing of the Centre is likely to unleash a further set of confrontations with students.

Instead of entering into collaborative discussions with students, the administration has, on March 24, 2016 at a meeting discussed how to ensure permanent presence of the police on campus and even contemplated destroying the Rohith Stupa and Veliwada constructed by students on campus in memory of Rohith and as a symbol of struggle.

The Joint Action Committee ( JAC) of students has released images of the Minutes of the Meeting that it got access to. In response the JAC has also issued a strong statement:
"University of Hyderabad that became a graveyard for Dalit students is now being converted into a military camp. These strong use of words are not an exaggeration or a political rhetoric but is supported by substantial evidences. The minutes of the VC’s meeting with the deans held on the 24th of March, which reads like a death sentence to the students of this university and the university itself, were leaked in the public domain. Our faculties who were arrested, after coming out made a statement that they felt that the jails were much more democratic than this university, this document proves them right"

"Coming to the document, it mentions that the UGC guidelines that recommend the installation of a police outpost in university campuses will be mandated in UoH. It also states that CISF, the central industrial security forces force will be instated at the earliest. The document states that “It was also felt that the university should not hesitate on the expenditure incurred on security”. It stated that the velivada and Rohith’s stupa that has been installed by the students in memory of Rohith will be removed using police and security force regardless of any consent or consideration to the students. We are again witnessing a pre-planned ploy by the university to erase the memory of Rohith so that people will forget about the injustice and stop holding the university accountable. "

Film Makers, Writers, Cultural Personalities and Activists Demand Release of Deba Ranjan Sarangi

April 1, 2016

UPDATE:
More than 500 Renowned film makers, writers ,artistes and activists have demanded the immediate release of Deba Ranjan Sarangi who was suddenly picked up on the morning of March 18 in Odisha . Some of them are Nayantara Sehgal, Arundhati Roy, Amrit Wilson, Uma Chakravarti , Sandeep Pandey Medha Patkar, Nandita Das, Konkanasen Sharma , Mallika Sarabai, Paromita Vora , Anand Patwardhan, Sandeep Pandey , Meena Kandasamy , K N Panikkar Endorsements have been also received from various parts of the world
Renowned film makers, writers and activists have demanded the immediate release of Deba Ranjan Sarangi who was suddenly picked up on the morning of March 18. Some of the signatories include Anand Patwardhan (Film Maker) Sudhir Patnaik (writer, editor) Dhirendra Panda (Human Rights Activist) K.P. Sasi (Film Maker, Human Rights Actvist) and Ajay TG (Film Maker,Human Rights Activist)

Text of the statement:

We the undersigned film makers, writers, professionals in the area of art & culture, academics, activists and social organisations are deeply shocked to hear about the arrest of independent documentary film maker, writer and human rights activist Deba Ranjan Sarangi. We strongly condemn the arrest view it as part of an overall strategy of the Indian State to curb freedom of speech, freedom of expression of artists, writers, film makers and cultural personalities. We also condemn it in the context of the overall suppression of dissent and suppression of human rights defenders in the era of strong facilitation of the forces of communalism and globalisation by the Indian State and in particular, by the Odisha government.

Deba Ranjan Sarangi was arrested on March 18, 2016, by plainclothes policemen from the Kucheipadar village of Rayagada District, Odisha. Debaranjan was in Kucheipadar to attend a funderal ceremony of one of his friend’s father. He was arrested with a non-bailable warrant issued by the court of JMFC, Kashippur in pursuance of a case registered in Tikri police station of Rayagada district in 2005, when Debaranjan was actively involved in the struggle of the Adivasis in Kashipur to protect their lands from the invasion of the bauxite mining companies.

Deba Ranjan Sarangi has been a consistent and passionate voice against injustice both within and outside Odisha. As a writer, film maker and human rights activist, he has highlighted and critiqued policies of destructive development, unbridled mining practices, displacement, police impunity, atrocities on Dalits, Adivasi issues , growth of communal fascism in Odisha, violence on women and farmers’ suicide in the context of acute agrarian.

As per the reports, Deba Ranjan Sarangi was detained at Jaraguda police station for interrogation. It is learnt that Tikiri police arrested him in an old case warrant with GR case no: 12 of 2005 under Sections 147,148 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. HRDA has been informed that the case is related to a protest and agitation against Utkal Alumunia Company in Kashipur block of Raigada district which took place in the year of 2005. During that period a non-bailable warrant was issued against the defender under section 506 of IPC which is apparently being executed now after a gap of 11 years. If the police machinery was really convinced about these fabricated cases on Deba Ranjan Saragi, there was no need to take 11 years to arrest him, since Debaranjan was active as a film maker and a writer during the entire period.

Writer and documentary film maker Deba Ranjan Sarangi who has spent his precious time for the struggles of Adivasis in Odisha is also a member of Ganantrik Adhilkar Surakya Sangathan (GASS). His films include: 1. At the Crossroads, 2. The Conflict: Whose Loss Whose Gain, 3. From hindu to Hindutva, 4. Visit to Basaguda.

We the undersigned hereby strongly reiterate that it is not possible to silence the voice of dissent, the expressions of our conscience or even the reporting of facts by intimidation, imprisonment or through fabricated cases. We remind the authorities that the arrest of Debaranjan Saragi is a clear violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 enshrined in the Indian Constitution in defense of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and human rights. Authorities have also violated the safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in various decisions regarding the arrest of an individual. Such arrests are not only undermining Indian democracy, but also the flourishing growth of all artistic creativity. Deba Ranjan has been put behind bars because he had the courage to show what he witnessed to the world through his expressions of film making, writing and speech. He is neither a Maoist nor a terrorist. We call upon the Odisha government to address the issues raised by the human rights defenders in the State of Odisha rather than imprisoning them and crushing the voices of film makers. We call upon the Odisha government to desist from such disgraceful attempts of violating the Indian Constitution and Indian democracy.

Therefore we demand the immediate release of Debaranjan Sarangi and an immediate dropping of all false charges against him. We also appeal to the civil society to circulate this information widely within your reach.

Journo Prabhat Singh Denied Bail Remanded to Judicial Custody: Bastar, Jagdalpur

April 1, 2016

Despite the illegal arrest, without appropriate warrant on March 21, independent journalist Prabhat Singh was denied bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh on March 26. After being denied release on bail, the human rights defender Mr Prabhat Singh was sent to judicial custody in Jagdalpur Central Jail, pending investigation into his case. He has been held in detention since his arrest without warrant on 21 March 2016.

Frontline Defenders an international organisation that leads advocacy for human rights defenders has issued a string statement in this regard.

Text of the statement:

Prabhat Singh is a human rights defender and journalist, reporting for Patrika newspaper on the situation in the tribal region of Bastar. During the past three months, he has been reporting on allegedly false cases brought against tribal villagers in the areas of Chhattisgarh affected by an insurgency by Maoist groups. He has also reported on harassment of and attacks on human rights defenders and journalists in the region. He has been a strong critic of the Chhattisgarh police and has played a key role in highlighting several cases of police brutality and involvement in human rights violations in the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh. Prabhat Singh has also played a vital role in organising peaceful protests and discussions devoted to the drafting and implementation of a law that would ensure the independence and security of journalists reporting from areas affected by the Maoist conflict in Bastar.

On March 26, 2016, Prabhat Singh's request for bail was denied at a court hearing at the CJM in Jagdalpur. The Court also refused an application by the police for the extension of Prabhat Singh's police custody and ordered the human rights defender to be sent to the Jagdalpur Central Jail, where he will remain in judicial custody at least until the next court session on April 13, 2016. The police will be required to report on the investigation's progress at this session, and the Court will then decide on whether to release Prabhat Singh from judicial custody. A medical report was produced before the judge during the hearing, stating that no injuries had been discovered during a prior examination of the human rights defender. Prabhat Singh opposed the report, claiming that he had never been examined by a doctor and had been forced to sign the report. The judge, however, did not take his objections into account.

During the court hearing, which was conducted amidst a heavy police presence, the human rights defender denied all the accusations against him, claiming that the cases had been opened in reprisal for his critical reporting, including his revelation of large-scale fraud at the Aadhaar facilitation centre in Geedam and the mentioned school. After the court hearing took place, Prabhat Singh was returned into custody.

On 22,March 2016, Prabhat Singh was officially charged by the CJM in Jagdalpur under section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, as well as section 292 (publication of obscene or scurrilous matter) of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly posting an “obscene message” about a senior police officer on the WhatsApp group “Bastar News”. On the same day, the human rights defender was also charged in three other cases from 2015. In two of these cases, Prabhat Singh was charged under sections 420, 120B and 35 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged fraud linked to his work at the Aadhaar Facilitation Centre in Dantewada. In the third case the human rights defender was accused of taking pictures of female students from Geedam Higher Secondary School without permission, and manhandling an examiner and demanding money from him. The charges were brought under sections 448, 385, 353, 186, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of Chhattisgarh Examination Act.

During the court hearing, which was conducted amidst a heavy police presence, the human rights defender denied all the accusations against him, claiming that the cases had been opened in reprisal for his critical reporting, including his revelation of large-scale fraud at the Aadhaar facilitation centre in Geedam and the mentioned school. After the court hearing took place, Prabhat Singh was returned into custody.

On March 21, 2016, a white-coloured Bolero car stopped in front of the office of the Patrika newspaper in Dantewada. Several policemen in plain clothes got out of it and without presenting an arrest warrant, picked Prabhat Singh up and put him in the car. The human rights defender was then taken to the Parpa Police station in Bastar, where he was detained over-night.

While in custody the human rights defender was beaten and sharp objects were used to cut his hands. Police officers also verbally abused and made death threats against him, forcing him to sign several blank pieces of paper, which allegedly were subsequently used to fabricate the medical report.

Unleashing the Mob through Hate Speech: Hallmarks of the NDA II Regime

March 31, 2016

An imperceptible nod and wave of the baton is often all it takes for a talented maestro leading an orchestra to command an unforgettable listening experience. Hate speech, in stark contrast can also be an effective signal, the public nod as it were, for carefully aimed at, bloodletting.
For cadres of men and women, trained in an ever-ready state of combative hatred and violence to rise and strike their target, the especially vitiated public discourse emanating from men and women in cabinet posts in this government, members of parliament and the faces of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that runs this government provides the much awaited green signal.
No wonder then that post May 2014, India has seen repeated instances of the lynch mob at work. Mohsin Shaikh in Pune. Mohammad Ekhlaq in Dadri now Mazlum .Ansari and Imteyaz Khan in Latehar. Each incident as it happens makes us more accepting of the hatred and venom. More immune to the lynchings.
And let us not forget that given the sanction from the executive to this violence, there is a carefully veiled but ever present impunity offered to the perpetrators. Law enforcement agencies are given the not so subtle message; simply not to conclusively act.
This piece written in July 2015 referred to one such demagogue who was master of this craft.
Ashok Singhal, one of the architects of the movements that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid died on November 17, 2015. Narendra Modi, the prime minister paid special tributes to him. "He was an institution in himself, whose life was centred around serving the nation," the PM had tweeted.
A particularly obnoxious brand of hate speech marked Ashok Singhal's public life. He was unequivocal in his utterances leaving no ground for confusion about his goal of the Hindu rashtra and he and his organisation's sanction for brute violence to achieve it.
Among the 'services rendered', was also his certificate to the post Godhra violence in Gujarat in 2002. Singhal said that the 'purging (of) villages of Islam', had the “blessings of Lord Rama.”
In the more recent context of the duplicitous stand of sanghis, now on the 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' issue –one day unleashing the mob, the next day a Bhagwat-like retraction — it becomes relevant to recall the sum total of this ignominious legacy of inciteful hate speech.
It is no wonder then, that under the current regime this manner of public discourse has not just a high level political sanction but also that it is achieving its intended maccabre objective : unleashing targeted violence against sections of the Indian population.

I do not expect there to be any outrage, comment or protest over the most recent rants of Ashok Singhal, senior RSS leader and patron of the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP), an RSS offshoot in an interview published in the July 17,2014 of The Hindustan Times daily. We have as a nation and a polity become sinisterly and compliantly accustomed and accepting of aggressive hatred spilt by the majority and hypocritically touchy and outraged by similar rantings by so-called leaders of the minority. How deep this hypocrisy of majoritarianism has spread is evident in the coverage and depiction of hate speech by our electronic media that picks and chooses what to show, how often and when. So the hate ridden rantings of an Owaisi, or a Qader Rana will be run and re-run across networks and channels but equally insidious and as or more dangerous ravings of politicians who play on the identity of the majority are glossed over, hidden and remarkably, not even commented upon.

Singhal tells us through this interview today, that he welcomes with all his heart the first RSS pracharak as Prime Minister of India but, adding the proverbial sting to the tale, says that what is truly historical and remarkable about NDA II’s victory is that this electoral win was ensured without Muslim votes or support. Barefacedly lending voice to what more sophisticated faces in government including the now maun PM would presently rather leave unsaid, Singhal gloats on the disenfranchisement of India’s largest minority during democratically conducted elections. A time-tested tactic of the octopus-like sangh that generates terror and intimidation in the public sphere by the mutterings of a Singhal and a Togadia and allows the flag bearer beneficiaries of this hate-splitting in governance, the luxuries of convenient, intermittent, silences. The Advani-Vajpayee duo in the first NDA were a fine example of this. [Though, Advani often relapsed into expressing well trained views especially after the brutal burning alive of Graham Staines and his sons (Orissa, January 1999).] NDA II has witnessed some interesting role reversals with many of the flag bearers of hate mongering now at the helm: a cabinet full of hate mongers are in the government’s driving seat. Singhal also emphasises and welcomes – undoubtedly for the reassurance of the sangh support base — all those being chosen for post of Governors are sanghis, Ram Naik or a Kesari Nath Tripathi.

There is more. Carefully laying bare the politics of the sangh and its parliamentary wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that is in power at the centre with a majority, Singhal has told us what his government’s approach will be. Under NDA II he says, Muslims will be treated as “common citizens” (one wonders if there is something derogatory intended given the caste hierarchies and constructions within sangh hirerarchy) but only if they respect “Hindu” sentiments.

Who and what is Hindu and does the sangh represent all Hindus? There is nothing to establish that the RSS and VHP and BJP are either the upholders or the sole representatives of Hinduism and Hindus. So what kind of sentiments of which kind of Hindu will be hurt? And who decides?
Given the nationwide outrage of India and Indians on December 6, 1992 and thereafter and again February 27-28, 2002 and after, it is safe to assert that a vast majority of Indians, of all castes and communities were repelled by the acts that Singhal, the sangh and the current political leadership in Delhi. The criminal and illegal act of demolition of a place of worship is and was a matter of shame for many Indians – Hindus and others – and has also been so condemned by a vast majority. Gujarat 2002 and what it meant has also been condemned and chronicled in detail to date. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Supreme Court of India have been unequivocal.

Singhal has conditions that Muslims will have to meet if they want this common decency treatment, however. For one, they must concede the Kashi and Mathura temples and accept a uniform civil code. The battle lines are clear and being drawn, temples at Mathura and Benares will be claimed not because Hindus want them or all Indians agree on this majoritarian demand but because the sangh has decided to keep these conflicts on the boil. These conflicts have and are deliberately chosen to manipulate sentiments and consolidate a section of Hindu votes by misreading and manipulating history. They are also issues that will, if politics continues predictably and non-sectarian votes do not consolidate in opposition, ensure deep divisions and conflict within which the sangh and only the sangh emerges as victor.

Singhal had a rather obnoxious take on the 2002 violence in Gujarat which his poster boy prime minister may not want repeated right now. In September-October 2002,Singhal had made a statement in Amritsar stating that, “the Gujarat experiment was successful… entire villages were purged of Islam”. This left no ambiguity as to what the intention, motive, the mens rea of the post Godhra reprisal killings was and remains. This was just weeks after the present prime minister’s shocking speech at Becaharaji, Mehsana on September 9, 2002, denigrating Islam and ridiculing the thousands displaced because of the violence when he reportedly said that “relief camps are baby producing factories”.

Another VHP veteran, the rather intimidatingly attired Acharya Giriraj Kishore died in his mid-nineties last week and he, like Singhal had a special role in the post Godhra reprisal violence that had been made to erupt all l over Gujarat in 2002. It has often bothered me that elderly men such as these are able to so carefully cultivate, carry and spew unadulterated venom, anathema to the spiritual Sadhu and venerated wise man of lived Hinduism. The reality of the globalised, modern day Hindutva-ised man, political in aim, clad in deep saffron.

Giriraj Kishore had, among other things, been given police escort by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad on the morning of February 28, 2002, to travel down to the Sola Civil hospital where the bodies of the dead and deformed Godhra victims lay. He then travelled for hours with the funeral procession to the Gota crematorium, a procession that was rowdy and aggressive, being egged on by “leaders” and their speeches. Jaideep Patel of the VHP had been directed to escort bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad. Lack of adequate policemen was the excuse given by the same police to hapless residents of Naroda and Gulberg society, areas under attack for several hours, in daylight. Singhal, Kishore and Togadia have been carefully orchestrating the minds of the mobs on the streets be it at Ayodhya or its lead up on Advani’s yatra or before, at and around Godhra as Gujarat burned in 2002. This was why, the same Ashok Singhal disagreed with Vajpayee who blamed the 2004 poll debacle on the Gujarat 2002 violence. Firmly rejecting Vajpayee’s thesis Singhal, gave an unequivocal nod of approval to, and a bizarre interpretation of, the post-Godhra killings when he spoke to trishul wielding VHP men at Kolkatta on July 3, 2004. The working President of the VHP, Ashok Singhal told an open session of the VHP at Nazrul Manch in South Kolkatta, “what happened in Gujarat after Godhra had the blessings of Lord Rama.”

There is more than a fair chance that devout followers of the Lord himself may cringe at this crass celebration of blood-letting. Meanwhile, for all us concerned at the sudden silence of another avatar of a maun prime minister, switch to the sangh, Singhal, Ram Madhav et al to understand the workings of its mind.

Forgive us Babasaheb (Ambedkar) for this travesty on the Indian Constitution….

The writer is co-editor Communalism Combat

(This was written and published on the writer’s blog on July 18, 2014 and also on kafila.org; the heading was 'To Understand the Mind of NDA II, turn to Singhal and the Sangh)

It’s A ‘Lose Lose’ Situation for most Sexual Harassment/Rape Complainants

March 31, 2016

Think Recent Articles on #Pachauri, #Tejpal Cases

The apologia for Pachauri carried by the Observer (The Guardian's sister paper), quotes him saying it is suspicious that the complainant documented thousands of his messages. “What is disturbing [is] that right from the first day over a period of about 16 months she was creating and assembling an archive of messages, which to anyone would seem very unusual,” he says. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/26/rajendra-pachauri-hits-back-harassed-female-colleague-claims?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

If a complainant of sexual violence fails to show documentary evidence, she is accused of lying – why didn't she document it all, why did she delete a WhatsApp message she claims to have sent to a friend about the violence, why is she pretending not to know how WhatsApp works, she must be lying, etc. And if she DOES meticulously document prolonged sexual harassment, why, how suspicious, why would an innocent woman document messages from her boss! For a woman complainant, it is always Lose, Lose – because she is always The Accused.

Her behaviour is always suspicious. And if the accused is a big gun who can pull strings, and get international and national papers to carry versions slanted towards him, suggesting the complainant was both 'flirtatious' and part of a 'conspiracy' by climate change sceptics/communalists/secularists etc, if legal processes like chargesheets and trials are endlessly delayed in blatant mockery of the law, well, that's life, isn't it?

The woman complainant in the Tejpal case has just written to the Editor of the Mumbai Mirror about a slanted piece full of factual errors calculated to create sympathy for the accused, with zero journalistic concern for the complainant http://kafila.org/2016/03/28/response-to-shantanu-guha-rays-mumbai-mirror-article-on-tarun-tejpal/. The Mumbai Mirror piece http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/crime/Rape-charges-against-Tarun-Tejpal-Over-2-years-on-trial-yet-to-begin/articleshow/51488993.cms does not reveal that the author has a conflict of interest; it talks of the impact of a delayed trial on the accused – but does not bother to ask how such delay affects the complainant and witnesses, and it does not reflect on the fact that the delay is caused by Tejpal himself.

Tejpal has sought and obtained a stay from the Supreme Court on grounds that he has not been provided cloned copies of the CCTV footage, accuser's mobile phone, laptop etc. He got the stay in spite of the fact that the technology for such cloning is unavailable in India – would your average accused man, were he not a man with immense pull like Tejpal, be able to get such a stay on such grounds? Yet this piece talks of Tejpal as though he were the victim, the only one facing any suffering or loss to his career and life. Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie, in her TED talk on feminism, talks of how we make women feel that "being born female they're already guilty of something." https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/ted-we-should-all-be-feminists-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-at-tedxeuston-transcript/

And in case after case of sexual harassment and rape, women complainants are treated as though they must have been guilty of something, while the achievements and exploits of the 'great men' they have accused, are narrated to us over and over.

'He is a Godman, he is being falsely accused by secularists'; 'he is a well respected secular figure, the complainant must be a stooge of the communalists'; 'he is an environmental hero, the complainant must be on the payroll of climate change sceptics'… This goes on and on, over and over again, in case after case.

It seems we can never pause and say of our friends, our heroes, our gurus, 'He is a friend, he is someone I love and respect, and while it is difficult for me to say this and while I am concerned for this person and find it difficult to imagine him as a sexual harasser or rapist, I will not accuse and defame the complainant and assume she is lying. I will face the possibility that this 'great man' might in fact be guilty.

I will not interfere with due process by gossiping/writing about how the complainant must be guilty, even if I assume the accused to be innocent till proved otherwise. I will reflect soberly on the huge traumatic costs – in terms of her health, her personal relationships, her career, her finances – of making a complaint against a powerful person.

And above all, if I am aware that in fact, this friend habitually behaves with a sense of sexual entitlement over women, especially women employees, I will not make excuses for such behaviour and will not suggest that modern women should not make a big deal about unwanted sexual contact by a boss/friend/mentor.

I will not say Boys Will Be Boys, Men Will Be Men, Great Men Will Be Great Men, and unwanted, forced sexual contact is something women will just have to learn to live with."The occasions on which people take such principled stands are indeed rare. And until such stands become the norm rather than the exception, sexual harassment and violence too will continue to remain the norm, not the exception.

(The author is Secretary, All India Progressive Women's Association, AIPWA)

1...2,5702,5712,572...2,697 Page 2,571 of 2,697