Women Living Under Muslim Laws

February 13, 2016

About: Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) is an international solidarity network that provides information, support and a collective space for women whose lives are shaped, conditioned or governed by laws and customs said to derive from Islam.

For more than two decades WLUML has linked individual women and organisations. It now extends to more than 70 countries ranging from South Africa to Uzbekistan, Senegal to Indonesia and Brazil to France. It links:

women living in countries or states where Islam is the state religion, secular states with Muslim majorities as well as those from Muslim communities governed by minority religious laws;
women in secular states where political groups are demanding religious laws;
women in migrant Muslim communities in Europe, the Americas, and around the world;
non-Muslim women who may have Muslim laws applied to them directly or through their children;
women born into Muslim communities/families who are automatically categorized as Muslim but may not define themselves as such, either because they are not believers or because they choose not to identify themselves in religious terms, preferring to prioritise other aspects of their identity such as political ideology, profession, sexual orientation or others.

Our name challenges the myth of one, homogenous ‘Muslim world’. This deliberately created myth fails to reflect that: a) laws said to be Muslim vary from one context to another and, b) the laws that determine our lives are from diverse sources: religious, customary, colonial and secular. We are governed simultaneously by many different laws: laws recognised by the state (codified and un-codified) and informal laws such as customary practices which vary according to the cultural, social and political context.

Aims and focus: The network aims to strengthen women’s individual and collective struggles for equality and their rights, especially in Muslim contexts. It achieves this by:

Breaking the isolation in which women wage their struggles by creating and reinforcing linkages between women within Muslim countries and communities, and with global feminist and progressive groups;
Sharing information and analysis that helps demystify the diverse sources of control over women’s lives, and the strategies and experiences of challenging all means of control.

WLUML’s current focus is on the critical issues identified as our priorities for collective analysis and action:

Peace-Building and Resisting the Impact of Militarisation
Preserving Multiple Identities and Exposing Fundamentalisms
Widening Debate about Women’s Bodily Autonomy
Promoting and Protecting Women’s Equality Under Laws

As a theme, violence against women cuts across all of WLUML’s projects and activities.

Contact: wluml@wluml.org

Website: www.wluml.org/

Not so Smart, the Smart City

February 13, 2016

Last week, the Modi Government announced the names of the first set of twenty cities slated to become ‘smart’. The intention of building Smart Cities was a promise contained in the pre-election manifesto of the BJP. While initially the idea was to build 100 new cities with state-of-the art technology, there is now occurred a shift in the Mission’s focus from Green Field Development to Brown Field development. This shift has taken place after the BJP being put into power. In August 2014, the Modi Government asked state governments to select existing cities in each state for development under the ‘National Sustainable Habitat and Smart City Mission’.

The Government of India (GOI) allocated Rupees 7060 crores for the Smart Cities Mission in its interim budget of 2014-15. The budget of 2015-16 had a provision of Rupees 6000 crores for the Mission and the development of 500 habitations under the National Urban Rejuvenation Mission (NURM). A government panel has approved the allocation of Rupees 2.73 crores over the next ten years for the development of 100 smart cities under the NURM.

The ‘Mission Statement and Guidelines’ for the Smart Cities Mission released by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) on June 25, 2015 identified in the Mission the following strategic components for implementation: retrofitting, redevelopment, green field development and pan-city development. The MoUD is in the process of setting up the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for the Mission. Convergence with other government schemes, are also the guidelines for the release of funds for the Mission.

However, there are key issues that need to be publicly debated and discussed — regarding the very concept of Smart Cities in general and the Smart Cities Mission, in India – that are yet to be discussed publicly by opposition political parties and within the Indian parliament. From a bare reading of the concept and thrust of the policy document, it is quite obvious that the model as conceived by the GOI will lead to non-inclusive development. Smart Cities are being seen as meeting the aspirations of only India’s educated middle class.

The focus is on the implementation of technology for providing the middle classes with the instruments of online access for the use of public services. Smart technology (ICT) based solutions will require large investments from high technology vendors identified as originating from the United States coupled with the real estate builders from India. The likes of McKinsey Global Institute and Price Waterhouse Coopers have been roped in, to prepare the reports. Needless to say these investors will demand handsome returns on their investment.

While the users of these new technologies among the middle classes will pay only in part to provide for these returns, it is the Indian poor as a whole, who will be bearing the burden of public investment promised by the Modi Government. The poor will also pay for the Smart City projects in the form of displacement. The poor will pay through the loss of their existing homes to pave the way for the implementation of new projects of redevelopment and Greenfield development.

While the users of these new technologies among the middle classes will pay only in part to access these services in return, it is the Indian poor as a whole, who will bear the burden for the public investment promised by the Modi Government. The poor will also pay for the Smart City projects in the form of displacement. The poor will pay through the loss of their existing homes to pave the way for the implementation of new projects of redevelopment and Greenfield development.

The smart cities programme envisages the implementation of projects with the help of public private partnerships (PPPs). The land to be acquired for smart projects under these will affect not only slum dwellers but also the farmers living within peri-urban areas. The dream of 24×7 water supply of the middle classes will be realised but at what kind of social cost for the poor? The crucial issue of decent living (liveability) for the urban poor needs to be central to any development, including the envisaged Smart Cities concept. The resource requirements, including energy and its associated environmental impact –costs of an instrumented automated wired city —raise concerns on the front of environmental sustainability too.

The social exclusion of citizens lacking in information technology (IT) competence and categorising them as IT uneducated is also a serious issue that needs to be tackled up front. Smart Cities in the Indian socio-economic context mean dilution of the democratic right of the poor to the city itself, this time the exclusion will be routed through technology. The technology divide can be expected to deepen further through these burgeoning smart cities.

The last decade saw the initiation of e-governance programmes as part of the municipal reform agenda. Experience indicates that the poor have remained excluded from the e-platforms, and the municipalities have had to continue with the use of manual systems of capturing data and complaints in parallel with computerised systems.

Information available on the funding strategy for smart cities suggests that Rupees 7 lakh crores will be required over the next 20 years to provide for the infrastructure. Some estimates suggest that Rupees 35,000 crores per year will be required to support the Smart Cities Mission. However, it is not clear whether this amount covers on-off investments. Obviously private sector investment will be ad hoc and will further be driven solely by a profit motive. It is however not clear as yet who will have to pay for the maintenance of this infrastructure. Without a substantial share of funding coming from either the GOI and state governments, can we expect urban local bodies in poor financial health to pay for the maintenance of technology based infrastructure of Smart Cities into which the Modi Government plans to lock-in a huge amount of public investment?

Foreign and private capital will be mainly targeting investments that have a higher rate of return, and the expansion of public services to be implemented in a universal service framework will not come into existence. The guidelines and notes released do not provide information on this aspect at all.

Delivering good governance to all –Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas —implies that the government needs to pursue a universal approach on the providing of public services. If the Smart Cities by design are not targeted to undo the un-smart expansion of real estate into the wetlands and commons that served the cities’ drainage needs, it would not be incorrect to presume that we should be ready to face more urban (manmade) disasters of the likes of the Chennai floods (and earlier Mumbai, 2005) and the accompanying misery that these brought to their residents. All the cities, big and small, face the challenge of having to prepare themselves in advance to face extreme weather conditions that are expected to multiply.

Wireless technologies, sensor networks and digital (surveillance) will not make cities smart and sustainable. What Chennai saw in respect of the flooding of its own international airport will be repeated if we are not willing to undo un-smart expansion of the cities driven by corporate greed. Let us remember that the Chennai floods did not spare even the office of Infosys. How we can expect the IT infrastructure to be spared in Smart Cities?

If we are not willing to act against the big offenders among the high tech companies and real estate developers in respect of encroaching on the urban commons (land), then surely as a nation and its people we must discuss the Smart Cities mission threadbare, before-hand.

The Modi Government must be made to rethink the focus and emphasis behind this Mission of city development. While it appears that soot-boot ki sarkar wants to help its friends among the corporates, the opposition has a task cut out for itself. Opposition parties need to expose the undemocratic design of Smart cities. They should not allow the Modi Government to hide behind its self-acclaimed tag of smart governance. The process of development of Smart Cities is neither participatory nor transparent. It is an undemocratic project which needs to be opposed, tooth and nail.

(The author is the Convener National Working Group on Patent Laws; his email is dinesh.abrol@gmail.com)

MuslimGirl

February 13, 2016

ABOUT:
When you first heard our name “MuslimGirl,” one of two things probably happened.

If you’re a Muslim, you were like, “Yes, finally — that’s me!”

If you’re not a Muslim, you might have flinched and thought something along the lines of, “Ugh, not these people…”

And that’s why we’re here.

We’re normalizing the word “Muslim” for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. MuslimGirl.net was launched from the bedroom of a high school girl that was fed up with the misleading misconceptions surrounding Islam — the way the news coverage and media outlets kept skewing the image of Muslims into a nasty one; the mistrust, racism, and flat-out hatred that the inaccuracies flamed; the muting of young Muslim voices from mainstream society; and the resulting disillusionment that young Muslims suffer about their religion in the tornado of it all.

We at MuslimGirl are taking back the narrative. We use our own voices to speak up for ourselves. We are raising the place of Muslim women in mainstream society. We are drawing awareness to the Qur’an’s message of gender equality and Islam’s principle of peace. We are paving the way towards a world in which every woman can raise her head without fear of being attacked for her gender or beliefs.

We write articles that relate to young modern women all over the globe and kickstart an open honest dialogue about Islam in today’s society. Here at MuslimGirl we like to talk about things that might be a little too embarrassing for mom, to bridge the gap between different religions through the spirit of sisterhood, and to host interfaith discussion to combat growing stereotypes within our society and tackle social issues that may otherwise be shied away from.

The MuslimGirl Clique is a global society of talented and driven Muslim women that are revolutionizing the way Islam is delivered the world over. The members of MGC are movers and shakers that are dedicated to exemplifying the ideals and principles of being a modern Muslim woman. They represent an international sorority of like-minded young innovators that are committed to combatting stereotypes and changing the view of Muslims as we know it. Their lives are a testament to the strength and power of our generation. MuslimGirl may personally extend an invitation for membership, otherwise there are currently three ways to be a part of the clique:

Contact: amani@muslimgirl.net

Website: http://muslimgirl.net/

The MuslimGirl: ‘Pam Geller wanted us to draw Mohammed so we did’: http://muslimgirl.net/12016/dm2015/

NY’s Public Theater cancels Palestinian production, ‘The Siege,’ it agreed to stage in May

February 13, 2016

Courtesy: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/nys-public-theater-cancels-palestinian-production-the-siege-it-was-to-stage-for-may/

This is tragic news. The Public Theater is slamming the door on Palestinian artists. The US Friends of the Jenin Freedom Theatre in Palestine made this announcement today:

A message from the US Friends of The Jenin Freedom Theatre regarding the plans to present The Siege in partnership with the Public Theater:

It is with deep regret that we announce that the Public Theater has decided not to proceed with the plans to showcase The Freedom Theatre’s The Siege in May, 2016.

Regardless of the difficulties, we intend to present this play to the US public. We are disappointed, but we are working to find another comparable venue for the play in the fall of 2017.

Thank you,
Friends of The Jenin Freedom Theatre
Constancia, Inea, Kathy, Felice, Yoram, Noelle, Liz, Jen, Josh, Margo, Terry, Dorothy, Dana, Lisa, Shaina, Linda, Gary

The production had already been postponed one year at the request of the Public, but with a promise to put it on this year. It was never on the official schedule; and the decision came down in recent days. I am told that Oskar Eustis, the trailblazing artistic director at the Public, was behind the show all the way. But evidently intense pressure came to bear on the Public Theater board, ala the “Death of Klinghoffer” pressures that came to bear on the Metropolitan Opera over that production, which went off in 2014 but with such opposition that the Metropolitan may well rue that decision. The Public didn’t want to take that chance, evidently.

Here is a description of the Siege, a play about resistance. Account from the International Solidarity Movement:

Inspired by the true story of a group of freedom fighters, now exiled across Europe and Gaza, The Siege tells of a moment in history that took place during the height of the second intifada in 2002. The Israeli army had surrounded Bethlehem from the air and on land with snipers, helicopters and tanks, blocking all individuals and goods from coming in or out. For 39 days, people were living under curfew and on rations, with their supply of water cut and little access to electricity. Along with hundreds of other Palestinians, monks, nuns and ten activists from the International Solidarity Movement, these five freedom fighters took refuge in the Church of the Nativity, one of the holiest sites in the world.

The play gives some insight into what it was like to be trapped inside the church, surviving on so little, with the smell of decaying dead bodies in the building, shot by Israeli snipers. It brings out the hard choice they were faced with between surrendering or resisting until the end. However, no matter what they chose, they were given no other option than to leave behind their family and homeland for ever, as all the freedom fighters – in reality 39 – were deported and have not been able to come back since.

We’ll be following this story, which is so reminiscent of the New York Theatre Workshop’s cancellation of My Name Is Rachel Corrie in 2006. Yes, ten years ago, and I keep saying things are thawing. Not in the belly of the beast. What an insult and rebuke to Palestinian artists. More to come.

A Stormy Relationship: Manto and the Progressives

February 13, 2016

Extracted from ‘The Progressive’, Introduction to Saadat Hasan Manto, The Armchair Revolutionary and Other Sketches, translated by Khalid Hasan, Prologue by Nandita Das, LeftWord, pp. 231, Rs 325.

The first major rift between the leadership of the Progressive Writers’ Association (PWA) and Manto took place after the publication of Manto’s 1942 story Bu, which was famously charged with obscenity by the colonial government along with Ismat Chughtai’s Lihaaf (The Quilt). In the joint trial that followed, a defiant Manto and Chughtai refused to apologize, but were eventually acquitted. Despite the fact that Bu was published in Adab-e Lateef, a progressive magazine edited by Ahmad NadeemQasmi (who was also one of the co-accused in the trial), the story seems to have irked some among the leadership of the PWA, especially Sajjad Zaheer, who thought that “the portrayal of the sexual perversions of a satisfied member of the middle class, no matter how much reality it is based on, is a waste of the writer’s and the reader’s time.” Consequently Zaheer, along with Dr. Abdul Aleem, drafted a resolution against obscenity, which was presented at the PWA conference held in Hyderabad in 1945. The resolution was also meant to warn other writers against the trend of anti-progressive anarchist-conservatism emerging within European literature, which Zaheer felt was unduly influencing the writers of the PWA.

For an organization that had its roots in Angaare(Embers) — a collection of short stories that itself faced the charges of obscenity — this was a strange development. Fortunately for the PWA, the resolution, which the leadership had expected to be passed without fuss, was scuttled in a dramatic fashion by Maulana Hasrat Mohani, a PWA stalwart as well as elder. The Maulana pointed out that the obvious problem with the resolution lay in the fact that obscenity was impossible to define, and that the vast majority of Urdu and Farsi poetry could easily be considered obscene by some. He proposed instead that the resolution include language endorsing sophisticated eroticism (lateefhavasnaaki). The intervention had the desired effect, and the resolution was withdrawn in its entirety.

While this is pointed to as evidence of the PWA’s inability to deal with issues of gender and sexuality, the story of this resolution highlights the crucial point that far from being a monolithic organization, the PWA often represented a heterogeneity of opinions on key issues. Rather than seeing the issue in a way that pits Manto and Ismatagainst the PWA, one can read it as reflecting the growing pains of a young but dynamic movement. What the Hyderabad conference also highlighted were differences between the positions of certain doctrinaire figures in the PWA’s leadership (such as SajjadZaheer and SardarJafri) and those of others such as MaulanaHasratMohani.

It is also worth noting that relations between Manto and the Progressives did not sour in the aftermath of this debate within the PWA. In fact, when Manto left Bombay for Lahore after the Partition, he handed the manuscript of a collection of his short stories, Chughad, to Kutub Publishers, and wrote to Sardar Jafri requesting that he write a foreword for it, adding that “whatever you write will be acceptable to me.” In response, Jafri wrote: “I will be very happy to write the foreword, though your book needs none, and certainly not one by me. You know that our literary outlooks differ considerably, but despite this I respect you a lot and harbor great hopes for your work.” Manto wrote back saying that, in that case, it was best to let the book come out without any foreword. However, by the time his letter reached Bombay, the book had already been published along with what proved to be an ill-conceived foreword by Jafri.

On the one hand, Jafri’s foreword reflected his evident respect for Manto’s work: “Manto’s craft is a jewel that sparkles on the tip of his pen. He paints vivid pictures of those characters whose humanity has been snatched from them by the capitalist rule, who have been turned into savages by a society that is founded on the principle of loot. Manto looks into the depths of their souls and sees the human heart beating within.” However, Jafri in a strange turn of affairs also seems to have decided that this foreword was an appropriate place to advance a critique of Manto. According to Jafri, the problem with Manto was that although he clearly loved humanity, was keenly aware of the wretchedness of society, and had shown the ability to launch a strident critique against the capitalist system, his fixation with protagonists who were either broken by the system or perverted by it (or both) rather than those who had taken the path of struggle and resistance in order to recover their lost humanity kept him from being a true progressive.

This was however not a categorical indictment of Manto. Jafri felt that despite these “shortcomings,” Manto’s current point of view was not too far removed from a revolutionary one. Manto had occupied this position as a young writer, and a return to it was eminently possible. Jafri concluded with the following declaration: “Today, the masses are on the road to revolution. Their enemy is right in front of their eyes. The demon of capitalism is on its way out. This caravan of people, its entire army calls out to SaadatHasanManto: Bring the sharpness of your pen, the loftiness of your thinking, and the intensity of your emotions. You are ours, and there is no place for you in the entire world, except among our ranks.”

Jafri’s critique — the idea that Manto’s stories had become too focused on the pathological aspects of society without any redeeming characters or story-lines to alleviate their overall pessimism — was neither odd nor unexpected, coming from a leading member of a movement organized around the principle of “life-affirming art.” It was also not the first time that Manto had faced such charges. The problem was with the choice of platform. The foreword to Manto’s book, moreover one whichJafri had been invited to write by the author, was hardly the place to articulate it. Manto rightfully felt blind-sided as well as slighted by Jafri. The timing and context of the critique was also unfortunate, coming as it did at a time when Manto was already struggling with feelings of loss, alienation and despair. It is hardly surprising, then, that he should have reacted strongly to it. Manto later excised the foreword from the 1950 edition of Chughad(published in Pakistan), and in its place wrote a scornful critique of what he saw as the confused and hurtful actions of the “so-called Progressives.” This essay is usually anthologized under a phrase Manto used to describe Jafri’s act: Taraqqi Pasand Socha Nahin Karte (Progressives do not Think).

Despite all this, Manto remained close to several key members of the PWA in Lahore in the period following independence. The only consistent job he had as a writer in this early period in Pakistan was for Imroze, a leftist Urdu daily edited by Faiz Ahmed Faiz. He was a frequent visitor at the office of Savera, another key progressive publication. His closest friends at the time, such as Ahmad NadeemQasmi and Ahmad Rahi, were significant Progressives. The first short stories that Manto wrote after his initial period of introspection following the move to Lahore were published in PWA journals: Khol Do (Open It) in Naqush, which was edited by Ahmed NadeemQasmi, and ThandaGosht in Javed, edited by Arif Abdul Mateen and published by ChoudhryNazeer Ahmad. Naqushwas consequently slapped with a several month long ban, and the charge of obscenity against ThandaGosht by the Punjab government swept up Arif Abdul Mateen and Nazeer Ahmad along with Manto. During the trial Faiz and other Progressives appeared as witnesses for the defense on Manto’s behalf.^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Even though Faiz unambiguously rejected the charge of obscenity leveled at Manto’s story, his testimony can be seen as less than full-throated. Some argue that Faiz was responding to the PWA call for Manto’s boycott issued during the 1949 conference. One can only speculate about this, but there are two factors that make one question this reading. One, Faiz was not the sort to abide by the PWA’s pronouncements in such matters; he faced his own share of censure during this period for holding independent opinions. Two, Manto himself writes about the fact that the trial was essentially an endeavour to go after Javed, a leftist publication. By Manto’s own account, Faiz tried hard at the meeting of the Press Advisory Board to dissuade the state from bringing a case against Thanda Gosht, but failed. Further, in Manto’s recollection of the trial, there’s never any sense that he felt betrayed by Faiz.

Attack on JNUSU and Left Built on Lies

February 13, 2016

Courtesy: http://newsclick.in/india/attack-jnusu-and-left-built-lies

In an unprecedented move, today morning (February 12, 2016) Kanhaiya Kumar, the president of the JNU students' union and an activist of AISF, was arrested by police in plain clothes, charged with sedition and conspiracy, and sent to custody for three days. The case was filed over holding of an event against hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. The move came as a shock for many as the JNU students union had come out with a statement criticizing the slogans raised in the event. It had explicitly mentioned that their protest was against the cancelling of the event by administration under the pressure created by the ABVP. The arrest has drawn criticism from various progressive groups and individuals. The left organisations and parties have criticised the slogans raised by a group of students but have also condemned the arrest in strong words. They pointed out that the entire propaganda by the right wing is to malign the left forces in the country and is built on lies. While this report was being written, more than thousand students were marching inside the JNU seeking immediate release of the JNUSU President. A source in the administration says that the newly appointed VC, and the Registrar have given a written authorisation to the Delhi Police to enter and take any action they want in the campus.

The CPI (M) in a statement issued on behalf of the Polit Bureau condemned the arrest and demanded his immediate release. The statement said that, “an isolated incident, which does not reflect the opinion of the vast majority of the students, is now being blatantly used as an excuse to clamp down on the progressive and democratic student movement. This has been a long harboured design of the RSS and its camp followers. This anti-democratic authoritarian attack on JNU campus, seen in the light of State sponsored efforts by the BJP central government to silence dissent in premier educational institutions, has serious implications.” The General Secretary of the CPI (M) Sitaram Yechury also compared the times to that of emergency and said in a tweet that, “Police on campus, arrests and picking up students from hostels. This had last happened during Emergency.”

The deans of various departments of the university and the JNUTA have also come out in defense of the student’s community. The deans in a statement issued have said that, “As he belongs to the All India Students’ Federation, his views and political associations are well-known, and to accuse him of sedition is beyond the bounds of credibility. The only previous occasion when the President of the JNUSU had been arrested was during the Emergency of 1975-77, and the present situation on the campus brings back memories of the Emergency days.” The JNUTA extended support to the JNUSU and said that , “ The teachers of JNU have always stood for upholding the Constitution of India and values enshrined therein and are opposed to any unconstitutional activity in the campus or outside. This very sentiment makes us express our strong opposition to attempts to use the law and the police to suppress democratic dissent and conduct a witch-hunt on our campus. The fact that the JNU Students Union (JNUSU) President is the first to be arrested establishes it. The JNUTA, following its Emergency Meeting, expresses its deep concern on the recent developments on our campus. The teachers of the University condemn the massive police presence and the attempt to escalate tensions.”

The former JNU students who had been arrested during emergency have issued a statement condemning the act of arrest. The statement read, “Coming in the wake of the dastardly conspiracy of connivance and blatant discrimination that forced Rohit Vemula to take his own life, the storming of the hostels and the arrest of the president of JNUSU are signs of the imposition of an undeclared emergency that need to be opposed, confronted and defeated.”

The events preceding the arrest could be closely compared to that of Hyderabad Central University. After a complaint lodged by BJP law maker Mahesh Giri and ABVP, the case was registered yesterday under Section of 124 A (sedition) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC against unknown persons at Vasant Kunj (North) Police station. Early morning the Home Minister took matters in his hand and said that, “If anyone raises anti-India slogans, tries to raise questions on country's unity and integrity, they will not be spared. Stringent action will be taken against them. “He was closely followed by MHRD minister Smriti Irani who is known for writing 5 letters to UoH asking them to take action of research scholar Rohith Vemula. Such interventions by the ministers are politically motivated and are attack on the autonomy of the insitutions.

Kumar, a third year student of PhD had won elections after an electrifying speech by securing 1029 votes. He is known for his oratory skills and staunch logical critique of the right wing forces. In a event yesterday, he was vocal about the negligible involvement of the RSS in the freedom struggle. He pointed out that the JNU students community does not need the certificate of being nationalist by organizations like RSS and ABVP which have not participated in the freedom movement and do not believe in the constitution.

References:
1. No, the slogans of the JNU students don't count as sedition under the law http://scroll.in/article/803522/no-what-the-jnu-students-did-doesnt-count-as-sedition-under-the-law
2. Freedom of speech at JNU: Is there really any difference between sedition and blasphemy? http://scroll.in/article/803511/freedom-of-speech-at-jnu-is-there-really-any-difference-between-sedition-and-blasphemy
3. Anti-national? Not my son, says mother http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160213/jsp/frontpage/story_69039.jsp#.Vr7pyEDk8cA
4. Do not disagree: JNU arrests over Afzal Guru event are ill-judged, threatens basic rights http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/afzal-guru-film-jnu-student-protest-do-not-disagree/
5. JNU storm intensifies, students accuse Centre of political vendettahttps://sabrangindia.in/node/4296/edit http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/students-accuse-govt-of-vendetta-as-jnu-storm-intensifies/story-R1HHVXgCsg8ClxJgtB1etK.html
6. The problem with JNU: Too left for liberals, too liberal for leftists http://scroll.in/article/803517/the-problem-with-jnu-too-left-for-liberals-too-liberal-for-leftists

The Criticality of the Right to Dissent

February 13, 2016

Text of the annual Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture organised by the Editors Guild of India in Delhi on February 12, 2016

I begin on a self-indulgent note. “How is Amartya?” asked my uncle Shidhu (Jyotirmoy Sengupta) — cousin of my father — in a letter written from Burdwan Jail, on August 22 of 1934, before I was one. He complained about the name “Amartya”, given to me by Rabindranath Tagore, and argued that the great Tagore had “completely lost his mind in his old age” to choose such a “tooth-breaking name” for a tiny child. Jyotirmoy was in jail for his efforts to end the British Raj. He was moved from prison to prison — Dhaka Jail, Alipur Central Jail, Burdwan Jail, Midnapur Central Jail. There were other uncles and cousins of mine who were going through similar experiences in other British Indian prisons.

Jyotirmoy himself came to a sad end, dying of tuberculosis, related to undernourishment in the prisons. As a young boy I was lucky to have a few conversations with him, and felt very inspired by what he said and wrote. He was committed to help remove “the unfreedoms heaped on us by our rulers.”

How happy would Jyotirmoy have been to be in today’s India, with the Raj dead and gone, and with no unfreedoms imposed on us by the colonial masters? But — and here is the rub — have these unfreedoms really ended? The penal codes legislated by the imperial rulers still govern important parts of our life. Of these, Section 377 of the code, which criminalises gay sex, is perhaps the most talked about, but happily a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is re-examining it.

It is, however, often overlooked that the putting on a pedestal of the sentiments of any religious group — often very loosely defined — is another remnant of British law, primarily Section 295(A) of the penal code introduced in 1927. A person can be threatened with jail sentence for hurting the religious sentiments of another, however personal — and however bizarrely delicate — that portrayed sentiment might be.

The Indian Constitution, despite claims to the contrary, does not have any such imposition. In a judgment on March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court in fact gave priority to the fundamental right of the people to express themselves, as enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution’s insistence on “public order, decency or morality” is a far cry from what the organised political activists try to impose by hard-hitting kick-boxing, allegedly guided by delicate sentiments. The Constitution does not have anything against anyone eating beef, or storing it in a refrigerator, even if some cow-venerators are offended by other people’s food habits.

The realm of delicate sentiments seems to extend amazingly far. Murders have occurred on grounds of hurt sentiments from other people’s private eating. Children have been denied the nourishment of eggs in school meals in parts of India for the priority of vegetarian sentiments of powerful groups. And seriously researched works of leading international scholars have been forced to be pulped by scared publishers, threatened to be imprisoned for the offence of allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

Journalists often receive threats — or worse — for violating the imposed norms of vigilante groups. The Indian media has a good record of standing up against intimidation, but freedom of speech and reporting need more social support.

To see in all this the evidence of an “intolerant India” is just as serious a mistake as taking the harassment of people for particular social behaviour to be a constitutional mandate. Most Indians, including most people who are classified as Hindu (including this writer), have no difficulty in accepting variations in food habits among different groups (and even among Hindus). And they are ready to give their children the nourishment of eggs if they so choose (and if they can afford them).

And Hindus have been familiar with, and tolerant of, arguments about religious beliefs for more than 3,000 years (“Who knows then, whence it first came into being? … Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not,” Rigveda, Mandala X, Verse 129). It is a serious insult to Indians — and to Hindus in general — to attribute to them the strange claims of a small but well organised political group, who are ready to jump on others for violations of norms of behaviour that the group wants to propagate, armed with beliefs and sentiments that have to be protected from sunlight.

The silencing of dissent, and the generating of fear in the minds of people violate the demands of personal liberty, but also make it very much harder to have a dialogue-based democratic society. The problem is not that Indians have turned intolerant. In fact, quite the contrary. We have been too tolerant even of intolerance. When some people — often members of a minority (in religion or community or scholarship) — are attacked by organised detractors, they need our support. This is not happening adequately right now. And it did not happen adequately earlier as well.

In fact, this phenomenon of intolerance of dissent and of heterodox behaviour did not start with the present government, though it has added substantially to the restrictions already there. M.F. Husain, one of the leading painters of India, was hounded out of his country by relentless persecution led by a small organised group, and he did not get the kind of thundering support that he could have justly expected.

In that ghastly event at least the Indian government was not directly involved (though it certainly could — and should — have done much more to protect him). The government’s complicity was, however, much more direct when India became the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

So what should we do, as citizens of India who support freedom and liberty? First, we should move away from blaming the Indian Constitution for what it does not say. Second, we should not allow colonial penal codes that impose unfreedoms to remain unchallenged. Third, we should not tolerate the intolerance that undermines our democracy, that impoverishes the lives of many Indians, and that facilitates a culture of impunity of tormentors. Fourth, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have good reason to examine comprehensively whether India is not being led seriously astray by the continuation of the rules of the Raj, which we fought so hard to end.

In particular, there is need for judicial scrutiny of the use that organised tormentors make of an imagined entitlement of “not to be offended” (an alleged entitlement that does not seem to exist in this particular form in any other country). Fifth, if some states, under the influence of sectarian groups want to extend these unfreedoms through local legislation (for example, banning particular food), the courts surely have to examine the compatibility of these legislation with the fundamental rights of people, including the right to speech and to personal liberties.

As Indians, we have reason to be proud of our tradition of tolerance and plurality, but we have to work hard to preserve it. The courts have to do their duty (as they are doing — but more is needed), and we have to do ours (indeed much more is surely needed). Vigilance has been long recognised to be the price of freedom.

(Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and professor of economics and philosophy at Harvard University)

Slaves shall be henceforward and forever free

February 12, 2016

“Emancipation of the slaves, proclamed [sic],” J. Waeschle, 1862 Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
As president of the United States, in the midst of the Civil War President Abraham Lincoln issued this proclamation – the Emancipation Proclamation- that signalled freedom from slavery

Two hundred and ten years ago, on February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born. He was the 16^th President of the United States, between 1861-1865. Regarded as one of the great persons to hold this office, he has become something of a legend, undoubtedly greater for his having been the first President to be assassinated while in office. Six foot four in height, though not an abolitionist, he regarded slavery as evil.

Prior to his election as President, seven Southern states had seceded from the Union. In his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln reached out to the South by telling them he had no intention of changing slavery as it existed; but he held firm to the ideal that the Union be forever preserved and indissoluble.

Southern states formed their own Confederate Union, claiming Fort Summer in Charleston. This was the first hostile act of the Civil War. Lincoln ordered supplies sent by sea to support Fort Sumter, but within two days the Confederates began their siege of the fort, and it surrendered. North and South, the border was drawn. States with the Union were asked by Lincoln to send 75,000 men even as he established a blockade of all ports with the Confederates. Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland remained in the Union, while Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the Confederacy.

As he led the Union through the Civil War, Lincoln enjoyed vast powers. The battle was not swift; the Battle of Bull Run in Virginia, where the Confederates trounced Union Army. To quote, “the struggle for the heart and soul of a nation would weigh heavily on the shoulders of this Commander and Chief.”

It was in the September of 1862 that the Union Army won a small victory at Antietam in Maryland. Lincoln used this event to make one of his most important decisions. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that slaves residing in rebellious states "be then, henceforward and forever free." This would become effective January 1, 1863.

Strategically, the Emancipation Proclamation was aimed only at those states at war with the Union, and did not affect slave-holding border states that did not join the Confederacy. More than an attempt to free the slaves, it was an attempt to re-join the country.
The Proclamation was an important factor in turning the tide of the war. Not only did freeing the slaves deprive the South of manpower, but in the neighbourhood of 186,000 former slaves joined the Union Army. Europe’s perspective on the War altered, from being about politics to being about principle. Earlier defeats had tempted both Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy; but the Proclamation made them reconsider.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the Confederate States that were still rebelling.

The Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863

A Transcription of the Text
By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labour faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

Source: United States National Archive and Records. – http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

1...2,6022,6032,604...2,697 Page 2,603 of 2,697

Women Living Under Muslim Laws

Not so Smart, the Smart City

MuslimGirl

NY’s Public Theater cancels Palestinian production, ‘The Siege,’ it agreed to stage in May

A Stormy Relationship: Manto and the Progressives

Attack on JNUSU and Left Built on Lies

The Criticality of the Right to Dissent

Slaves shall be henceforward and forever free

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT