Home Blog Page 2590

My Life is Under Threat: Kanhaiya Kumar to NHRC

0

The president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) Kanhaiya Kumar has written a four-page letter to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The letter carries serious charges against the police that is required, under law, to follow due process. He has stated that the Delhi Police arrested him on February 12, 2016 from his hostel at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) without any warrant or a notice. In the letter, Kanhaiya also claims to have been under extreme mental pressure under detention even though he was not physically manhandled by the police.

Kanhaiya had been beaten brutally by men in black coats claiming to be lawyers on February 17, 2016 and had detailed his ordeal before the Court Commissioners appointed by the Supreme Court of India.


 

Dalits, Adivasis off the Radar: NDA II Budget

0

A total of Rs 75,764 crore has been denied to Dalits and Adivasis in the second full-fledged NDA II budget

The Union Budget for 2016-2017 has drastically reduced the budgetary allocation for Scheduled castes to only 7.6 per cent when the due allocated amount should be 16.8 per cent of the total.While the allocation of Rs. 500 crores under the stand-up India scheme for SC/ST entrepreneurs is a part of the budget, it is the overall allocations under SCSP (Schedule Caste Sub-Plan) TSP (Scheduled Trives Sub Plan) that are extremely poor.
 
In  a prompt analysis of the second complete budget of the BJP-led NDA II government, the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) has said that, at the promised 16.8 per cent of the total the allocated amount to the SCSP should have amounted to Rs.91,301 and at 8.6% under the TSP, the amount that should have been allocated should amount to Rs.47,300 Crs. Thus a total of Rs 75,764 crore has been denied to Dalits and Adivasis in the second full-fledged NDA II budget.The NCDHR has strongly condemned this denial in allocation.

The budget also comes at a crucial point with the University Grants Commission (UGC) has withdrawn the non-NET fellowships (that affect students from social and economically backward sections, especially Dalits, Adivasi and OBC children) and around which students across the country have been agitating : #Occupy UGC Campaign.

The budgetary blow also comes at a time when the death of Rohith Vemula a PhD student at Hyderabad University has not only led to demands for a Rohith Law but sharply focussed on institutional discrimination within institutes of higher learning in India . The underlying issue of both these instances has been the denial of mandatory funds to research scholars. In this analysis of the budget, Paul Divakar, General Secretary, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, holds the finance minister accountable when and questions, “Where is the missing Rs. 75,773 Crs? Yet another massive denial & disinterest to bridge the growing development gap.”

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar reasoned that higher education was an important instrument, to seek power and dignity for all. Hence he advocated for public education being critical for the empowerment of Dalits and the backward classes. Access to and the opening up of educational institutions for the historically excluded groups has caused a moment of rupture in history and met with a violent backlash from the dominant and entrenched communities.

The events of the previous months— cutting of non-NET fellowships, denial of fellowship money to PhD students in Hyderabad and other universities— point towards this violent backlash from the dominant community.

The Union Budget 2016-17 is another example of this violent backlash. The denial in money allocated for the purpose of higher education to be accessed by the Dalits and Adivais makes their struggle for equality an even tougher one. Additionally, it acts as violation of constitutionally mandated rights of the SC/ST community.
Of the total of Rs 897 crore allocated under UGC. 60% goes towards capital assets and another 30% towards grants-in-aid and only 8% of the funds allocated directly benefit students from the Scs and STs.

Sector Wise Analysis
If we analyse the allocation of the union budget sector wise, over 86% of the Dalit budget is spent on the Social Service, Welfare and Housing Sectors. They do not form the triggers for development except for Higher education. Without greater allocations for Agriculture and allied, rural development Schemes, Energy, Industry and Mineral, Science and Technology and communication, the overall growth of the Dalits (SCs) and Adivasis (ST) will be lopsided. Innovation is needed to design schemes for the Dalit and Adivasi, both men and women within these sectors.

Dalit Adivasi women continue to be at the margins
The budget continues to marginalise Dalit-Adivasi women by allocating a paltry 1% to Dalit women and 2% to Adivasi women without taking into account the needs, and voices of women. The schemes lack an understanding of their lived reality and is blind to the concerns of the Dalit and Adivasi women. 
 
 

JNU teachers slam Bar Council report that justifies the Patiala House attack

0

A joint statement by several faculty members challenges the “patently false” report of the Bar Council of India

Full text of the statement by the Jawaharal Nehru University faculty

In a shockingly partisan statement that blatantly misrepresents events, the Bar Council of India has issued a report that justifies the well documented attacks by a mob of lawyers on Jawaharlal Nehru University students, teachers and media at Patiala House Courts over two days (February 15 and 17, 2016) as “a reaction to the incidents, which are grave in nature and very dangerous for the country”.

The Bar Council of India Joint Secretary Ashok Kumar Pandey claimed that a large number of JNU teachers and students and others had arrived at the court in three to four buses and raised slogans and used “provocative words”. This led to the untoward incident in which “both the sides took part,” said the report, adding that “any true citizen or a lawyer of India” was supposed to react strongly to the “anti-India” slogans.

We, the undersigned faculty members of Jawaharlal Nehru University, wish to set the record straight. Nine of us reached Patiala House Court No 4 between 1 and 1.15 pm on 15th February 2016 to attend the hearing on Kanhaiya Kumar’s bail plea. The sole objective of our presence there was that when Kanhaiya Kumar was produced he would see the faces of his teachers in the courtroom. At that time, a few students and other teachers of JNU, and some members of CPI, the parent organisation of Kanhaiya’s student group, were already waiting silently outside, similarly wanting him to see friendly and familiar faces when he was produced. There were about 15 to 20 of them, hardly enough to fill four cars, let alone one bus.

Initially, we (signatories to this letter) waited on the benches outside the courtroom, along with a few journalists. After the lunch break the court clerk and stenographer invited us to come into the courtroom and we were seated there even when a few lawyers, an under-trial and a policemen, etc walked in and out of the room. We were not asked by anybody at that point to leave. About fifteen minutes later, about ten to twelve men dressed in lawyer’s clothes rushed in, shouting at us to get out. These lawyers were led by a man whom we later recognised from the media coverage the next day as Mr Vikram Singh Chauhan. At that time we did not know who any of them were. They crowded the small room and abused us, saying that JNU teachers were anti-national and “deshdrohis”, that we were all “Pakistanis” and asking us ‘what kind of antinational education do you give your students’?

We tried to reason with them not to be abusive, and said that we had a right to be in the courtroom, but they continued to heckle us as “Pakistanis”, and told us that the seats were for lawyers alone. The police kept on just watching and did not intervene to stop them. Some of us even got up and told them that they could take our chairs and we would just stand, but they started physically trying to push us out of the courtroom. Our younger male colleague, Dr Rohit, who was standing at the back, was grabbed by his collar and dragged towards the centre of the courtroom. Chauhan said “maar do isko” and began raining blows on Rohit. Women faculty close to him tried to stop him physically, but the lawyers continued hurling abuses, and some of us were pushed and jostled and touched inappropriately in the process. The attempt was clearly to intimidate and harass us into leaving the courtroom, and indeed Patiala Court premises. The police and court staff kept on watching and did not intervene to stop them.

Profs Neera Kongari, Rohit, Himanshu and Janaki Nair were pushed outside the courtroom. Most of the men dressed in lawyers’ clothes rushed out after them. Extremely abusive language was used by the lawyers.

Those of us who remained inside could hear sounds of men shouting from outside, and fearing that we would be subject to even greater physical violence, five women faculty – Profs. Ayesha Kidwai, Madhu Sahni, Nivedita Menon, Susan Viswanathan, and Chitra Harshvardhan – once again sat down. A larger contingent of policemen entered the courtroom and asked us to vacate the courtroom. Some of the aggressive lawyers came back in and although we requested the police to hold them back, they did not even ask these lawyers to leave. Instead they were allowed to enter and leave the courtroom as they wished. We asked the police to bring us orders from the magistrate asking us to clear the courtroom and demanded to be escorted out of the building. We were told that the magistrate had given verbal orders to the police to clear the courtroom, but we insisted that we be given police protection throughout. When a contingent of policewomen arrived, it took the police 10 minutes to find a way to escort us out of the courtroom as the doorways and the courtyard was blocked by shouting lawyers. The police were forced to find another exit and led us to another ground floor exit but that was blocked too by shouting and screaming lawyers. We were led then up the stairs and at least two other stairwells were tried but we were led away as the police was unsure that they could get us out safely.

Other lawyers who passed us on the corridor kept up the threatening tone, saying we should all be sent to Pakistan. Finally, a safe exit into the ground floor shed where the notary publics sit, was found. The police escorted us to the gate and bundled five of us into autorickshaws as they feared that we would be assaulted even if were to walk to our cars parked in the parking lot.

JNU faculty who had been pushed outside the courtroom were completely silent, and they noted that the lawyers led by Chauhan, when finally obstructed by the police, sent in two women lawyers who also shouted abuse at the JNU faculty assembled in the courtroom. A few minutes later all the lawyers rushed out of the courtroom saying “nikal gaye” and began beating up every young person assuming they were JNU students, including a very young couple.

Later media coverage confirmed that students and the media people, as well as a CPI member, were assaulted by the mob outside.

Kanhaiya Kumar was not produced in court on that day, and when he was produced on the 17th, only one JNU faculty member was present, Prof Himanshu; in fact we were asked by Kanhaiya’s lawyers to stay away so that our presence would not create the opportunity for further violence. It was on that day, when no faculty was present, and only the same handful of JNU students and CPI activists, that Kanhaiya was physically assaulted and the media terrorised and beaten up for the second time by the same lawyers in full view of a passive police force.

So the claim of provocative slogans from “3 to 4 busloads” of JNU people rousing lawyers to physical assault is patently false.

The Bar Council report surprisingly fails to mention two crucial bits of evidence:

  1. The WhatsApp message in Hindi that was circulated over February 14-15, that clearly mobilised for the attack. The message, snapshots of which are freely available in the media, calls upon all recipients to assemble in large numbers at Patiala House on Monday 15th to “peacefully and legally” “produce befitting consequences” (anjaam tak pahunchana) for the traitors who have been conspiring in Ganga Dhaba (JNU) and,
  2. The sting operation by India Today that reveals Vikram Singh Chauhan and others boasting about their violent assaults on Kanhiaya and others.

From the transcript of the deposition of Kanhaiya Kumar to the Supreme Court judges’ panel after the attack on him the second day, made public on February 27th by CNN-IBN, it is also clear that the registrar general of the high court had been present at the time, and had asked Jatin Narwal, DCP, New Delhi, “to catch the guy” whom Kanhaiya identified as his attacker, but he failed to do so. When the DCP claims at one point that he was not in the room when Kanhaiya was attacked, the registrar again intervenes, saying “No sir, he was inside the room along with 10-12 officers.” (Transcript available in The Indian Express of February 28, 2016).

It is shocking that the Bar Council of India should produce such a patently false account of events that exactly matches the claims of Vikram Singh Chauhan and BJP MLA OP Sharma who led the violent mob. Even more appalling is the fact that a body that represents practising lawyers should justify physical violence on the grounds that anti-India slogans were raised, which is any case, a blatant lie.

Is the legal community now going to subvert due process and rule of law and take matters into their own hands whenever they feel their sentiments are hurt? This is particularly paradoxical given Vikram Singh Chauhan’s recent interview to The Hindu (February 27, 2016) in which he says the media has “already found him guilty”, for it seems BCI not only justifies Kanhaiya’s being “found guilty” by self-proclaimed nationalist lawyers, even before he is produced in court, but also their attack on him on the basis of their perception.

Chitra Harshvardhan
Himanshu
Ayesha Kidwai
Neera Kongari
Nivedita Menon
Janaki Nair
Rohit
Madhu Sahni
Susan Visvanathan

Photo Credit: VictorVibhu/Twitter

A Farmer’s Budget but where is the Minimum Support Price?

0

The budget vowed to double farmer income by 2020, but was silent on the National Commission on Farmers recommendation of a minimum support price (MSP)–the price at which the state buys crops from farmers–of 50% above agricultural production costs. Except for rabi pulses during 2008-09 and 2013-14, the MSP for foodgrains has not increased substantially over four years.


 
Continuing the poetic trend seen in budget speeches, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley started with these lines, signalling the fiscal path of his government towards budget management during a global slowdown and farm distress at home.

With agriculture growth contracting 1% in the October to December quarter of 2015 and growing only 1.1% in the financial year 2015-16 (advance estimate, obtained by extrapolation of latest available data); back-to-back droughts, the worst in 30 years; and winter (rabi) crop sowing dropping below 60 million hectares, the worst in four years; and a few thousand farmers committing suicide in 2015—Jaitley, 63, kept his budget for 2016-17 focused on the 834 million people who live in rural India.

 In addition, rural workers’ wages (inflation adjusted) declined for the first time in half a century, Jawaharlal Nehru University economist Himanshu wrote in the Indian Express.

 Jaitley’s budget has nine pillars: Agriculture, rural development, health, education and jobs, infrastructure, financial reforms, governance and ease of doing business, prudent fiscal management, and tax-administration reforms.

 With the rural-focus explicit, stockmarkets (BSE Sensex) tanked 2% during the speech and then recovered, as Jaitley laid out accelerated reforms in tax compliance and administration, especially for small and medium enterprises, and closed 0.66% below.
 

 
Jaitley’s aim–to double farmer income by 2020–is very tough
Jaitley set aside the most money ever for agriculture and farmer welfare: Rs 47,912 crore ($7 billion), a rise of 84% from Rs 25,988 ($4 billion) last year. This includes Rs 6,000 crore for groundwater management, Rs 12,500 crore for irrigation and Rs 5,500 crore for crop insurance.
Changing irrigation, insurance and groundwater-use patterns will not be easy.

Only 34% of India’s farmland is irrigated, despite more than Rs two lakh crore spent over 65 years, as we reported, and no more than 15% of 138 million farmers (2010-11 Agriculture Census), or 20 million, have crop insurance, although no more than 10% (12.5 million) actually received insurance benefits.

As for groundwater, levels in India are now more critical than anywhere else on earth, IndiaSpend reported. More than half of India now faces what is called “high” to “extremely high” water stress, most across the fertile Ganga-Brahmaputra basin, as this graphic indicates.

The budget vowed to double farmer income by 2020, but was silent on the National Commission on Farmers recommendation of a minimum support price (MSP)–the price at which the state buys crops from farmers–of 50% above agricultural production costs. Except for rabi pulses during 2008-09 and 2013-14, the MSP for foodgrains has not increased substantially over four years.

Courtesy: www.indiaspend.com
 

Arrogance Personified: MHRD Minister Smriti Irani forces AMU VC to Quit Delegation

0


 
The arrogance and uncouth behaviour of minister for HRD Minister in the Modi government, Smriti Irani surfaced yet again, recently when she humiliated and insulted Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Zameeruddin Shah when a joint delegation met her last month. The delegation included Kerala chief minister, Oommen Chandy other ministers and members of parliament (MPs) from the state along with Shah seeking support for the setting up of the AMU Centre in Malappuram which is not progressing as planned. According to a reliable source, she told them bluntly, “This [Mallapuram] centre and other AMU centres were established without any legal sanction; hence they all will be closed down.” Sabrangindia.in has confirmed that Irani even went to the extent of telling the VC to leave her room!
 
The meeting began badly. When the delegation headed by the Kerala chief minister Chandy met the HRD minister in her office in Delhi on January 8, 2016 seeking her support, she started with, “How could you start a centre like this?…What authority does the VC have to take such an action. We are not going to give money.” She then went on to say, “There was no need for the AMU centres. I am going to close them down. We will not give any grant for this purpose.”

To this, the Kerala CM painstakingly explained to her how the Kerala government had allocated 345 acres of precious land in Perinthalmanna taluka of Malappuram for this purpose on the understanding that a full-fledged AMU centre will function there with a grant from the Centre. “Take it back!” the HRD minister thundered.

While this unpleasant discussion was on between the HRD minister and the Kerala CM-led delegation, the AMU vice chancellor Lt. Gen (retd) Zameeruddin Shah entered the room. Irani then excelled herself. Turning on him, she said, “Why have you come?” He politely replied, “Ma’am, I have come at the invitation of the Kerala Chief Minister.”

She shot back in anger: “Who pays your salary? The Kerala CM or the HRD Ministry? Go back and sit in your room!” The VC was forced to leave in these humiliating circumstances while a stunned CM and his delegation looked on in utter disbelief, but remained silent.

There was a second meeting between the HRD minister and the Kerala CM at Trivandrum on January 14, 2016. Before the second meeting, a BJP delegation had visited the AMU centre at Malappuram. During the second meeting, the HRD minister repeated what she had said in Delhi but also said, “We will not give you anything extra!” This, in reality means that while the minister and her government have no immediate plan to close down the AMU centres it will allow it to meet a natural death. She has also unilaterally refused to allow an AMU school to function at the centre.

It was in 2010 that the AMU had taken a decision to open five off-campus centres, one each at Murshidabad, Malappuram, Kishanganj, Bhopal and Pune, which all were to be fully functional by 2020. Out of these, only the first three are partially functioning but without any school which would greatly add to their charm as students passing out from AMU schools have a 50 percent quota in AMU faculties and colleges. The HRD minister’s rejection of approving schools for these centres is designed to rob them of their appeal for the local people to send their children here, where these centre are established.

The crude and unacceptable behaviour of a central minister is not the first time that anyone to do with AMU — be it student or vice chancellor – has experienced. Earlier a delegation of women students from AMU were also insulted by Irani.

The posturing of the current HRD minister – as if the AMU VC took a unilateral decision to establish these centres—belies facts. In fact, these centres were part of the Union government’s scheme for the educational uplift of the Muslim community in the wake of the alarming Sachar Committee report of 2006. The academic and executive councils approved this scheme which was finally okayed in May 2010 by the then President of India who is the Visitor of the university. Before the establishment of these centres, the Union government engaged the Educational Consultants India Ltd (EDCIL), a public sector company, which prepared the project report after which UGC released funds.

The Malappuram centre was established in 2010. Its projected growth for the year 2015 was 13,000 students and 13 faculties but even now it is offering only three courses, viz., MBA, BEd and LLB which are attended by only 400 students . The Murshidabad centre too is offering only these three courses while the Kishangarh centre is offering only BEd course.

In addition to offering free land for the Malappuram centre, the Kerala government had also built the infrastructure for the campus while funds for the buildings were released by the UGC. The current condition of the Malappuram centre is that it has a very small number of students and is offering only a few courses which means that the centre could die a natural death in a few years’ if some funds were not injected for a wider variety of courses to attract more students. It was in this context that the Kerala CM and MPs had initiated discussions with Irani.

The present Modi government has clearly made AMU a special target, even contesting its minority status in a matter pending in the Supreme Court. Incidentally, Zameeruddin Shah, who was then Lt General in the Indian Army had headed the Army deployed when the Gujarat carnage broke out in 2002.

Back in December 24, 2011, the then HRD Minister Kapil Sibal, while inaugurating the Malappuram Centre, had assured adequate funds for its future plans and development. In reply to a demand made by the Kerala chief minister in his presidential address at a function of the centre, Sibal had said, “Paise ki zaroorat hai to, hamaari taraf se koi kamee nahi hogi” (If money is needed, there will be no dearth of funds from our side).

[This report of Sabrangindia.in is based on an initial report by Zafarul-Islam Khan, editor of The Milli Gazette, New Delhi; this magazine will carry the report in its forthcoming issue of the magazine, March 1-15, 2016)

Image: livemint.com