The aftermath of the communal violence in Delhi (Debi 2010) is a reality check of where we, as a country, stand in terms of the rights of victims to (1) a  fair investigation not polluted by political considerations and pressure, (2)  a prosecution system commited  to justice and truth not political goals and (3)  a judiciary which stands for the principle of satya me jayate not power me jayate which can thereby ensure punishment to those who are guilty. These questions have a more urgent relevance in the light of the decision of the Lt Governor of Delhi to play a direct role in defending the Delhi police. This was expressed in the LG  order to uphold the choice of the panel of lawyers for the prosecution in the Delhi communal violence cases,  overturning the decision of the Delhi Government.

 The LG order has a direct impact in the quest for justice for the victims of the violence. The appointment of a team led by the most trusted law officer of the central ruling  regime, the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta is way beyond the reach of the Delhi police or the LG. This is straight from the top,  to the Home Minister Amit Shah, showing the high stakes in ensuring that the judicial process goes the way the ruling regime would like it to.

The LG has referred the “ difference of opinion “  with the State Government to the President of India under Sec 239 AA (4) of the Constitution of India.

This section reads “ Provided that in the case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and his Ministers on any matter, the Lieutenant Governor shall refer it to the President for decision and act according to the decision given thereon by the President and pending such decision it shall be competent for the Lieutenant Governor in any case where the matter, in his opinion, is so urgent that it is necessary for him to take immediate action, to take such action or to give such direction in the matter as he deems necessary.”

The crucial words here are “ is so urgent” for him to take immediate action. What is the urgency? As details of chargesheets filed come into the public domain, questions are being raised about the sequence of events narrated by the Delhi police and the inconsistencies,  the self contradictions in the narration. Statements made by witnesses quoted by the police to strengthen their case often reveal the utter failure of the police to intervene in time to prevent the violence.  In addition, courts are also hearing public interest litigations which quote details of the participation of sections of the Delhi police either as direct participants in the violence or as giving encouragement to one side. Videos and photographs have been annexed with many of the petitions which provide incontrovertible evidence. Thus the police, or more correctly, the forces behind the Delhi police, require a guarantee of a team of lawyers who are committed not necessarily to uncovering the truth or to serve the interests of justice but to protect the tales being spun to conceal the truth. Most importantly, the composition of the panel is required to send a strong message to the Courts of the direct involvement and interest of the Home Ministry in this entire process.

On February 26, a petition was heard by the Delhi High Court to direct the police to file an FIR against Kapil Mishra and other BJP leaders for incitement to violence and hate speeches. It was the Solicitor General who argued against it saying that the time was not right “ the police will file FIRs at the appropriate time.” The Court rejected his plea and directed the police to file an FIR within 24 hours. The next day the judge who gave these orders was transferred ostensibly on a pending order earlier made. One can only conjecture as to the impact this may have on the courts hearing similar petitions. These are some of the probable reasons for the “urgency” clause invoked by the LG to ensure that it is the SG and his team who should represent the Delhi police in 84 of such cases.

In this context it may be useful to look back at some of the relevant recommendations made  to prevent a situation where justice is hijacked by Governments pursuing political agendas. In 2006, the then Central Government had set up the Second Administrative Reforms Commission ( ARC) which, in the next three years, submitted a series of reports.

 In its report on Public Law and Order we find these lines which seem particularly relevant/ ironic today: “ No one, not even the Home Minister in charge of the police administration and answerable to Parliament in the matter, has the power to direct the police as to how it would exercise its statutory powers, duties and discretion.”  In its report on Ethics and Governance it says  “obstruction of or perversion of justice by unduly influencing law enforcement agencies and prosecution is a common occurrence in our country… The Commission is of the view that the issue of illegal or malafide instructions by any government functionary to any police functionary should be made an offence.”

At the time, the Supreme Court coincidentally was also hearing a petition on police reforms. In its judgement in September 2006 a three member bench headed by the Chief Justice Y.K.Sabharwal directed Government to form “ State Security Commission(s)  (SSC)  to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State police and for laying down the broad policy guidelines so that the State police always acts according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country. “

Taken together  the recommendations of the ARC and the Supreme Court on those specific issues, if implemented today, could have perhaps made a difference to the direct concerns of the victims of communal violence in Delhi. But the ARC recommendations to legally prevent political interference in investigation died a silent, unmarked death. As far as the Supreme Court recommendations for the constitution of SSCs are concerned, little happened. If there had been an SSC in Delhi today could it have prevented “ undue pressure” on the Delhi police  as envisaged by the Supreme Court or at least brought the issues into the public domain, officially? Of course the problem specific to Delhi is that the police is not accountable to the Delhi Government but to the Central Home Ministry.

Institutions are as good or bad in fulfilling their mandate as those who head them. The present regime is expert in subverting the autonomy of an institution by placing pliable individuals at the helm. After the Gujarat carnage in 2002, it was the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, Justice JS Verma and his team, who dug out the truth from the mountain of lies, subterfuge, through the bullying and the intimidation,  to pinpoint the role of the then Government and the political leadership in Gujarat in the communal carnage : “There is no doubt, in the opinion of this Commission, that there was a comprehensive failure on the part of the state government to control the persistent violation of the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the people of the state.” But today, we find that after the communal violence in Delhi, there is a deafening silence from this very institution, the NHRC. Nor have we heard a word from the National Minority Commission. It is a shame that these institutions have betrayed their mandate. There is no excuse or justification. But public opinion needs to be mobilised to make them accountable.

 It is the Delhi Minority Commission which is the first and only official institution which has come out with a fact finding report which indicts the Delhi police and leaders of the central ruling regime like Kapil Mishra. It is also the first official report that names Amit Shah as one of those who had made communally provocative speeches during the Delhi elections. The Chairman of the DMC  is facing a case and threat of arrest on entirely flimsy grounds. But the report produced is an important document that challenges the official narrative. In the light of the LGs direct intervention on the issue of panel of lawyers, it is clear that it will require a big struggle to get the recommendations of the DMC implemented.

However a weakness in the DMC report is that it does not at all look at the deaths or damage suffered by members of the Hindu community. While it may be said that its mandate is to represent minorities, this is a big gap that remains in the report. Surveys done by the Delhi Solidarity Relief and Rehabilitation Committee of which I am a member  confirm what is widely known, namely that the protests against the CAA in the eight sit-in sites in north east Delhi mostly started in January and were entirely peaceful. One may entirely disagree with calls for action and Chaka jam by certain groups supporting the protests, as inappropriate at a particular point of time, but the protests remained peaceful. It was after the hate speech and incitement to violence made by Kapil Mishra on the afternoon of February 23 rd that the attacks started on the women sitting at the protest sites. This is what triggered a response from the Muslim community which led to clashes and attacks from both sides. Criminals with arms from both sides also worsened the situation. If the army had been called in at that time, the situation could have been controlled. However that was not done. On the contrary, within 24 hours the police started siding with the attacks on the minority community and it developed into a horrific one sided against the Muslim community backed by the police.

In its report to the courts, the police itself gives figures which substantiate this. There were 53 deaths of which 40 were Muslims and 13 were Hindus. Of the 473 civilians injured, 288 were Muslims and 185 were Hindus. Of shops damaged, 173 were belonged to Muslims and 42 to Hindus. 13 mosques and 6 mandirs were damaged. There are 751 FIRs registered and 200 chargesheets filed. The total arrests are 1430 as on July 13, 2020.  Earlier,  giving the breakup of 1340 of those arrested, the Delhi Police PRO stated that 700 Muslims and 630 Hindus had been arrested. He quoted these figures to show that the police was being “ even handed.” When the numbers of dead, the numbers of injured, the extent of property damaged is  overwhelmingly from one community, how is it that the arrests from that community are more than from the other side? But even these arrests are being objected to. The circular issued by the officer heading the Special Cell to all officers heading investigations to take “ due care and precaution” since “ there is a degree of resentment among the Hindu community” because of arrests of Hindu men,  is under judicial scrutiny. Again it was a senior counsel in the SG team who argued in favour of the police calling the petition challenging the circular “ highly mischievous.” The court in this case was not impressed and made strong comments about the circular. However the incident exposes the partiality in police actions.

A perusal of the chargesheets also show a clear bias. In cases where Muslims have been murdered, the invariable defence given by the police is that the violence which led to their murders by “ Hindu mobs” was “ retaliatory” in nature. For example in the chargesheet on the murders of two brothers, Hashim and Amir, the police identified members of a 125 member WhatsApp group called Kattar Hindu Ekta, who were sending the most communally incendiary messages to each other.  Only 12 of them have been charged with the murders. In the chargesheet the police virtually justifies the actions of this gang of communal criminals. “ (they) were annoyed with Muslim community due to riots in Delhi… seething with anger as many stories of Hindus being attacked by Muslims.. they wanted to teach a lesson to Muslims.”

In this chargesheet, the role of the police is also inadvertently exposed. The police did nothing while crowds of men from February 24, 2020,  roamed the area around Johripur pulia stopping people and checking if they were Muslim. If they were,  they were beaten mercilessly.  From the evening of February 24,  the chargesheet quotes the most important witness in the case, a Hindu who was stopped on his was home on February 24 by mobs shouting Jai Shri Ram. He fell and when he got up his motorbike was missing. He rushed to the police station to file a report.They asked him to come the following day. He told the police about the mobs in the area but the police did not act.  Between 4.00 pm of the February 25, to 10.30 pm on February 26, nine Muslim men were killed in the same place.

But there are no charges against the policemen responsible . The SITs set up for the investigation are headed by men of the same force. They have told the courts that they have no evidence so far of the police role is concerned. Not just the police, but the toxic communal campaign of the BJP leaders and individual leaders directly responsible for inciting the violence find no place in a single FIR or charge sheet. And now, the choice of the prosecution panel also makes it clear enough that top law officers of the country are going to be defending the indefensible. The prosecution has been chosen to present the entirely manufactured narrative which demonizes the anti-CAA protests and blames the violence on a so- called national conspiracy of jihadis, urban naxals and so on, branding all anti -CAA protests as being anti- national. Activists from JNU, Jamia and others have been arrested under the draconian UAPA to deny them bail.

The officially stated reasons for the violence are lies, the investigations are faulty, and the prosecution is chosen to fill up any gaps or weaknesses that are there in this saga of injustice.

August 5, 2020 marks one year of the wholesale destruction of democratic rights in Kashmir. What we are seeing in Delhi, in the aftermath of the violence is an extension of the use of coercive power to extinguish all dissent and protest. The legal strategy and the step taken by the Lt. Governor is part of this agenda.

(The author is senior polit bureau member of the CPI-M)

Related

Is Delhi Police hiding key information, documents of riot cases?

Over 2,000 people Brought in for violence : Delhi Minorities Panel Chief

The post Delhi violence: LG order appointing MHA picked officers way to defend the indefensible? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Imagine a posse of policemen led by a senior officer with the rank of a Deputy Superintendent raiding a home looking for evidence in a case of sedition. You would think they were looking for terrorists, or for guns and ammunition or bombs and the material that makes them.

You would be hopelessly wrong. The police were looking for a child’s slippers. The child in question was at home, a student in the sixth standard. The bewildered and terrified child dutifully answered the questions they asked: Did you lend your slippers to anyone? If so, to whom? Yes, she had lent her slippers to a friend. Why?

Because she knew her friend was poor and did not have slippers nice enough to wear on stage for a class play. Did you know what they were going to be used for? The child was puzzled. Slippers to wear of course, she wore them and returned them to me.

The child brought out the object of their interest. She watched the policemen smile at each other as they examined her slippers, turned them this way and that. Her slippers were triumphantly wrapped up and carried away by the police, a day’s duty done, India saved in the nick of time by yet another act of sedition. Bizarre? Absurd?

Insane? Welcome to the Indian version of a Kafkaesque world, a reality, not a nightmare that you can wake up from and say, oh, thank goodness, it was just a bad dream.

Something like this actually happened on the night of January 31 in the town of Bidar in North Karnataka when a child was interrogated and her slippers taken as evidence in a case of sedition filed by the Bidar police against two women, Fareeda Begum and Nazbunissa.

It all started on January 21 when the children of Class 6 and 7 in the Shaheen School in Bidar performed a skit as part of their class activity on social issues. Discussions on contemporary topics and role play by students is part of the syllabus in most schools.

The developments around CAA are a topic of discussion with a significant number of parents, particularly in minority-populated areas, taking part in the protests. Children have become part of the discussion. There is nothing surprising about this.

We could not have imagined even a decade ago that a teen would shake the world, mobilizing millions of children in the battle against climate change. Here in India, thousands of children have been deeply impacted by the CAA and the hate-filled speeches of our leaders. They watch them, hear their speeches and are filled with dread.

They also have access to platforms like YouTube and TikTok and watch the many shows by satirists and speeches and learn the slogans given by students in colleges and universities across the country against the CAA…”Azadi”.

The script for the skit performed by the children was a cut-and-paste job from material in the public domain against the CAA, NRC and NPR. It included slogans, jokes and dialogues. 

A nine-year-old girl played the role of a mother and another played the role of her son. Ultimately in the skit, the mother convinces her son that nothing will happen to them and they will not have to leave the country. In the course of the performance, the mother says, “Yesterday, the boy who was selling tea is now asking for our papers. 

 I ask him, where is he born, where are his documents, if he doesn’t show them, I will beat him with slippers…you boil and sell poisonous tea, we put the sugar of love in it. We will not show our documents.” The performance was uploaded on a social media platform by a parent who is a journalist. Within a day, a local BJP leader filed a case against the management of the school. 

The police led by the Deputy Superintendent arrived at the school and demanded the children, around seven or eight of them, aged between nine and twelve years, should be called. The children were interrogated not once but five times. In violation of child protection laws, they were intimidated by men in uniform. 

The nine-year-old who played the role of the mother was a special target. On January 26, when the rest of India was celebrating the completion of 70 years of our constitution, in Bidar, two women were arrested – Nazbunissa, the 35-year-old mother of the child actor, and Fareeda, the principal of the school. 

They were arrested on charges of sedition, on charges of propagating communal disharmony between communities and had to spend a fortnight in jail before they were released. Five others, including the Chairman of the Society who was not even present in the town, are also accused. 

It is true that it is inappropriate in a children’s performance for words such as “We will beat him with chappals” to be used even though there was no direct naming of the Prime Minister, the dialogue referring to a boy selling tea asking for documents when he could not produce his own educational qualifications was clear enough. 

 At best, the district educational authorities could have taken note and expressed their disapproval. 

In the bail order, the local court, which was given a transcript of the play, has held that there is no evidence in the play of communal disharmony or incitement of hatred against any community. 

 The court also mentions there is no evidence that the women arrested were involved since their names have not been mentioned in the FIR. 

Legal counsel for the women will surely move for cancellation of the charge of sedition in the next hearing. Perhaps it is at that stage that the police will produce their “evidence” – 

a child’s slippers! What will the argument be? That the child was wearing slippers because she was intending to actually go to Delhi to beat the PM with those slippers? Or that she wore the slippers to gesture what she would do with them? Would it have been less seditious if she had been barefoot? 

Often, we do not fully realize the enormous cost that common citizens pay in these days of hate-filled politics. Such politics also generates an utter irrationality within the system, when the desire to please the rulers spreads like a plague among all levels of the bureaucracy, leading to the most bizarre actions which even the best satirists could not dream of. 

Such is the role of the police in this Bidar case. The statements of top leaders of the ruling regime inciting hatred, senior ministers like Amit Shah issuing threats every time they speak, have a most damaging impact on society and on systems of governance that impact the day-to-day lives of citizens. 

Apart from everything are the real lives of the women accused in the case. Fareeda Begum, around 50 years old, has worked hard as an educationist and has a reputation as a strict but extremely caring teacher, helping her students get good grades. 

She has been the main breadwinner of her family, bringing up her two daughters. Nazbunissa is a widow and has just this one daughter. Eager to get her a good education, Nazbunissa left her village and started working as a domestic worker in Bidar. 

Such is the intelligence of her daughter that she got through the entrance exam of the school and did well enough to earn herself a scholarship. She is talented in other fields too, which is why her classmates chose her to enact the role of the mother in the play.

 I met the two women in Bidar jail, along with my colleagues in the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA). I also met the child and the teachers and management of the Education Society that runs the school. It was heartbreaking to see the child. 

She was in the care of her mother’s employer, a relative of one of the members of the school board. She was stoic; perhaps at this young age and through the hard times of poverty and dependence, she has learnt not to show her emotions in case it displeases those in positions of power over her and her mother. I spoke to her of inconsequential things. 

 But when I asked her whether she liked acting, her little face lit up and she said, “Oh yes, I do, I can act again if I am asked to, but now maybe I will not get that chance.” 

The school, a minority-run institution, is most impressive with a socially diverse community of 9,000 students, more than half of whom belong to non-Muslim families. It has won several state awards, most notably for its programme entitled “Academic Intensive Care Unit” where they run an intensive educational programme for dropouts between classes 10-12. Such has been the success of this programme that many of the students have gone on to college where they have got good grades. 

 I was told by local journalists that the charges against the institution were also motivated by rival educational institutions, jealous of its success and recognition as one of the best in the region. 

The hypocrisy and double standards shown up by this case are equally glaring. Just a month earlier in December, after the Ayodhya verdict in the Supreme Court, the students in a school owned by an RSS-leader, the Sri Rama Vidyakendra High School in Kalladka near Mangalore, enacted a play in which the children put up a poster of the Babri Masjid and then tore it, symbolizing the demolition of the masjid amid slogans of “Jai Shri Ram”. 

 The chief guests at the function included Kiran Bedi, the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry, who tweeted her approval, union minister Sadananda Gowda and many other state BJP leaders and ministers. The video shows the highly communal nature of the play enacting an event called grossly illegal by the Supreme Court. But no action was taken. 

A few weeks ago, the country witnessed slogans to shoot at traitors raised by the Minister of State for Finance in the Modi government. But not even an FIR was registered, not even after there were three actual incidents of shooting, clearly linked to the minister’s incitement. 

The child in Bidar may be able to overcome and forget her trauma in the happiness of being united with her mother. But we should not forget. Popular resistance to such authoritarian abominations as the Bidar case, depends on our remembering.

Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha and the article that also appeared on ndtv.com is being reproduced with her permission

The post How a child’s Slippers were used to terrorize a school: Bidar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The campaign for the Delhi election will end this evening. But the toxin of hatred being injected into the body politic by top leaders of the BJP may have serious after-effects, long after the elections are done.

If any of our neighbouring countries had used the kind of invective against minorities as the ruling party has, in a most concentrated way in the last 10 days, what would have been the reaction?

The entire basis of the CAA – to give shelter to persecuted minorities – is revealed as being entirely hypocritical when one watches and listens to the speeches of BJP leaders who have become living examples of what and who a persecutor is.

One of the aspects of concern is how it will affect women, not just in Delhi, but, in the age of instant communication, throughout India.

While the toxic campaign targets Muslim women involved in the anti- CAA protests, it also seeks to mobilize Hindu women through the extreme demonization of Muslim men.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his second term by choosing the Bill on Triple Talaq as the first priority. Muslim women had not demanded such a law.

They had petitioned the Supreme Court against instant and arbitrary Triple Talaq and won a victory with the court outlawing this cruel practice.

After the judgment there was no need for such a law, nor had it been suggested in the Supreme Court judgment. But the Modi government used Muslim women’s fight for justice as a pawn to pass a discriminatory law converting a civil matter into a criminal one. 

The campaign then was that the Modi government is the savior of Muslim women and women’s rights. 

In parliament, ruling party ministers and MPs made a great show of their concern for Muslim women. Amit Shah had said, “This (the law) is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s and my promise to Muslim women to nurture their hopes and aspirations.” 

The Prime Minister said “this is a step for gender justice.” He also tweeted “this is an occasion to salute the remarkable courage of those Muslim women who have suffered great wrongs just due to the practice of Triple Talaq. 

The abolition of Triple Talaq will contribute to women’s empowerment and give women the dignity they deserve in our society”. 

As we can see today, this government was never concerned about Muslim women and their dignity. Is it to advance their dignity that they are being described as terrorists, as anti-national, as unthinking beings controlled like puppets by their men? 

Is it to uphold gender justice that the worst kind of abuse is reserved for them? Is it a recognition of their courage that in BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, women sitting on dharna are assaulted and arrested by police so brutally that one of them is in a critical condition. 

Is this Amit Shah’s idea of “nurturing hopes and aspirations”? It is under his leadership that Shaheen Bagh has become the metaphor in the dictionary of communal hate. One may differ with the continuation of the blockade of a public road causing inconvenience to commuters. Several commentators have opined that the continuing blockade has given the BJP a lever. 

 But the truth is that the government and the police deliberately refused to have a negotiated settlement with the protesters, since it suited the BJP’s strategy in Delhi to communalise the campaign to stave off the certain defeat it faced in the polls. 

The rulers of India have created an atmosphere of such hate that their followers have actually implemented their slogans. The three terrorist acts of shooting at the protest sites are a direct result of the public exhortation by the Minister of State for Finance, Anurag Thakur, to “shoot the traitors”. 

Two of the shooters are directly related to the ideology of the Sangh Parivar, which is clear from the numerous reports of their posts on social media platforms. 

The BJP is making much of the police report that in the third incident, the shooter was a member of AAP. The Election Commission has slammed the police officer who gave a statement with “political connotations” and has removed him from election duty. 

But in spite of all their efforts, they have been unable to prove that the shooter was anything other than an ordinary member, if that, not an activist and not in any of the AAP committees. Did the police check whether he was earlier a member of the BJP? 

Equally horrifying were the speeches and statements of Parvesh Verma, twice banned for his communal speeches by the Election Commission. He virtually labeled the entire community as rapists saying they would break into homes to rape women. 

Where and how did the issue of rape come up in relation to Shaheen Bagh? It is a peaceful protest of women. They have spent nights in the cold but never has there been a single complaint of sexual harassment. 

 So what was the perverted mindset that made a quantum leap from a women’s protest to the charge that it would lead to rape? What is the impact of such speeches on women and particularly, young women? 

Sexual violence against women has seen a huge increase in India. Delhi, in particular, has become one of the most unsafe places for women. 

 It is a deliberate lie and an indirect defence of rapists, to create public opinion that the criminals belong to one specific community or that women are in danger of men belonging to a specific community. 

Such outrageous statements trivialize the horror faced by victims of rape. They also seek to divide women and their common goal of safety and security. In fact, for women in Delhi, one of the main issues is the increased violence against women and children. 

But this is not an election issue for those who care two hoots for women’s concerns. 

If anyone bought the argument put forward by Delhi BJP president Manoj Tewari – “they [the MPs] got excited because of it (Shaheen Bagh). But we (BJP) don’t support their statements” – they should think again. 

The Modi government showcased Anurag Thakur during the budget announcement and at the post-Budget press conference held by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, signaling that he had their approval. 

Similarly, Parvesh Verma, banned from campaigning in Delhi because of his communal speeches, was selected as the opening speaker in the parliamentary debate on the Presidential address. The message is clear enough. 

How blinkered are these peddlers of hate. 

In fact, India should celebrate one of the most significant social awakening of our times, the unprecedented leadership and participation of Muslim women, of all ages and classes, in struggle.

Constitution in hand, secular slogans on their lips, eager for knowledge, creative, determined, committed, they are creating history. Earlier, such mobilizations have been quite different, organised often by fundamentalists in the community as in the aftermath of the Shah Bano case decades ago. 

 In contrast, today it is the women who do not allow any fundamentalist or extremist forces within the community to use their stage and platform. 

Challenging the BJP’s sectarian steps towards the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra, it is these women-led protests that have played an important role against the government’s plan to push forward its agenda described by Amit Shah as the “chronology” of the CAA, NPR and NRC.

Almost all non-BJP governments have declared that they will not allow the NRC (National Register for Citizens), and its first stage, the NPR *(National Population Register). 

Just as in Jharkhand where the BJP suffered a humiliating defeat, it is the people of Delhi who will decide. Hopefully, their decision will be an anti-dote to the poison that threatens the health of the nation, particularly the well-being of women.

Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha. This article first appeared in NDTV.com and is being reproduced with the permission of the author

The post What About Minorities Being Persecuted In Our Country, Mr Modi? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court judgement on the Ayodhya case has brought a long-standing dispute to a legal end.

-Of course the right to demand a review is there, but whether any of the parties will exercise that right is not yet clear.

-The way the issue developed, it was obvious that the only way forward was through a judicial verdict. That verdict is now out.

There is no alternative but to accept it. But acceptance does not necessarily mean closure.

Nations, communities, people, individuals in different contexts and times get closure when in the finale, there is no feeling of deprivation or injustice.

It cannot be said that the Ayodhya judgement meets these standards. It will be accepted but it is unlikely to bring closure.

There are certain premises, quite fundamental to the final verdict, which are questionable.

But a caveat is required.

The reference to the “Hindu” side and the “Muslim” side should be seen as reference only to the parties in the suit and not referring to these parties as representing their respective communities.

We know that there are substantial sections of Hindus who are appalled by the actions which have gone on in their name.

Within the Muslim community too, there are different views. Therefore the reference is only in so far as the judgement refers to the parties in this manner.

The basic question which is troubling is that after the judgement accepts that the demolition of the mosque in 1992 and the placing of the idols in 1949 were “serious violations of the law”, why does the court reward the serious violators of the law by handing over the entire land to them?

Are there any overwhelming issues which would support such a decision? The judgement does not provide any convincing reasons.

The judgement acknowledged, though perhaps inadvertently, the political dimensions.

One of the reasons given while rejecting the Allahabad High Court judgement mandating division of the disputed land into three equal parts was that it “will not restore a lasting sense of peace and tranquility.”

Therefore, one can assume that the Supreme Court believed one of the aims of its judgement must be to “restore a lasting sense of peace and tranquility.”

This would be based more on a political assessment rather than one based on legal issues.

Till just a few days before the judgement was made public, when the Prime Minister and others appealed for calm and stated that all should accept the judgement, top leaders of the ruling regime were aggressively campaigning for the Ram temple in the precise place where the Babri Masjid once stood.

They made it clear enough that “lasting tranquility” would be elusive in a scenario other than what the judgement actually delivered.

One cannot escape the reality that there is a political dimension as a premise of this judgement which influences everything else.

The judgement was at pains to distance itself from arguments in which “faith” trumps reason.

It said “the court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence.”

It rejected the recognition of the Ram Janmasthan as a legal entity. It said if such a claim were to be accepted “the extinguishing of competing claims on land would arise not by virtue of settled legal principles, but purely on the basis of the faith and belief of devotees.”

But on this very issue the judgement appears self-contradictory.

In deciding the critical aspect of adverse possession of the disputed land, the court applied differing standards in judging claims of the opposing sides.

The mosque was built in 1528. Between 1528 and 1856 who was in possession?

The judgement says, “The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857, since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century.”

This is a rather odd conclusion. Between 1528 and 1722, the entire area was under the Mughals, after which it was under the Nawabs of Awadh.

In 1856 it was annexed by the British. The first dispute was registered subsequently.

It is self-evident that in the entire period under Muslim rule, when the land is in their possession, it is Muslims who would be praying at the mosque, what further evidence is required?

The Hindu side could not provide any evidence of exclusive possession of the outer courtyard either but this was not taken as an issue.

Thus, the issue of inequality in the standards used to judge the claims of both sides.

The judgement says “the physical structure of an Islamic mosque did not shake the faith and belief of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site” – and this becomes the reason for a sleight of hand that since the Muslims could not prove exclusive possession, in the “preponderance of probability” the Hindus continued to pray there and this therefore establishes the right of Hindus to the disputed land.

While one side is called upon to provide evidence of exclusive possession, the claims of the other side are accepted on the basis of their belief and faith regarding the birthplace of “Ram Lalla”.

It seems that regardless of the earlier distancing from the argument of faith as the basis, it is finally the belief of Hindus that weighs in their favour.

Thus, even though there was uninterrupted use of the mosque till it was demolished, the land on which it stood has been handed over to the Hindus.

In the addendum placed by one of the judges, not named, it is argued that “faith and belief of Hindus since prior to the construction of the mosque and subsequent thereto has always been that janmasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Masjid has been constructed, which faith and belief is proved by documentary evidence.”

Although only an addendum, this argument is partially reflected in the judgement leading to the handing over of the disputed land to Ram Lalla.

The land has been handed over in the name of Ram Lalla. Indian jurisprudence has this strange precedence of the deity being accepted as a juridical entity with all rights. This was introduced mainly to protect the property and land donated to the deity by big landlords.

After the land reform movements and the imposition of land ceilings, in several states this was a device used by landlords to bypass the law on land ceilings.

In this case, the recognition of the deity as a legal entity was not being challenged. However, as has been pointed out by some commentators, the legal entity of Ram Lalla came into the picture only in 1989. The case started in 1950.

Thus the entry of this legal entity so far into the proceedings was not in accordance to the law which limits interventions to within a particular time framework.

With these premises which are questionable, the use then of Article 142 to provide justice to Muslims by handing over five acres of land in Ayodhya to build a mosque is strange.

The Muslim side never asked for land. Their main plea was that the mosque and the title of the land where it stood belonged to them on the ground of possession.

Once that was rejected by the court, if indeed Article 142 was to be used, could it not have been used to immediately order a time frame to punish those responsible for the demolition of the mosque?

Those cases have been pending for the last 27 years. But there is no suggestion by the Court to expedite those cases.

Of course there are many quotable quotes and important formulations which serve the interests of secularism and may be used in the future.

The point, for example, that the judgement, in spite of referring to the ASI excavation findings, concludes that there is no proof that there was a temple underneath the mosque, nor that the structure had been destroyed to build the mosque.

In a way, this knocks the bottom out of the claim made by temple campaigners that since a Mandir was demolished to build a mosque, the historical wrong must be redressed.

The judgement also makes it clear that “the law cannot be used as a device to reach back in time and provide a legal remedy to every person who disagrees with the course which history has taken.

This also goes against the present attempts by sections of the mandir campaigners that the judgement can be used as a precedent for other sites.

The judgement also refers to basic values of secularism etc. It approvingly mentions the Protection of Religious Places of Worship Act 1991.

But there are serious issues in the judgement, some of which have been elaborated here, which cannot be overlooked.

Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha.

This was first published on ndtv.com and is being published here with the permission of the author

The post Political dimensions of Ayodhya verdict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Among his brilliant multi-faceted contributions to the building of a secular democratic India was his understanding of and his work against the subjugation of women in India. He drew its links with the system of Chaturvarna and stressed the urgent need for reform within Hindu laws. He had said during the course of the discussion on the Hindu Code Bill, "Whatever else Hindu society may adopt, it will never give up its social structures (chaturvarna) for the enslavement of the shudra and the enslavement of women. It is for this reason that law must now come to their rescue in order that society may move on."

It was he as Law Minister in the Nehru cabinet who was tasked with piloting the Hindu reform laws through parliament. This was very soon after he had completed the Herculean task of getting the Constitution of India finally adopted. 

He was attacked, reviled, abused by representatives of the Hindu orthodoxy in parliament in various political parties. At that time, even on the question of the limited reforms within Hindu laws suggested by Dr Ambedkar, the RSS and its ideologically affiliated leaders like Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, then a member of the Hindu Mahasabha, strongly opposed the reforms and also made vicious personal attacks against Ambedkar. They were in the company of many top-ranking leaders of the Congress including then President of India Rajendra Prasad and then Minister for Home Affairs, Shri Vallabhbhai Patel and others. They were also in the company of Muslim fundamentalists, some of whom, like Naziruddin Ahmed, took the lead in strongly opposing the Bill, proving once again the truth that whether Hindu or Muslim, fundamentalists and their retrograde views have everything in common, are two sides of the same coin. 

It is worth revisiting the debates of the time because there are so many aspects that resonate through the years relevant to this day and time.

The "hot" topic of discussion today, as far as women's equal rights are concerned, is the issue of Muslim Personal law reform with particular reference to the ongoing case before the Supreme Court on the issue of instant and arbitrary triple talaq. The friends of yore, the Hindu and the Muslim fundamentalists who were united on the same side in their opposition to the Hindu law reform, are arraigned on opposite sides today. However, what remains unchanged and in fact similar to both sides, is that their positions for or against instant triple talaq are determined not out of concern for women's rights to equality, but by their own sectarian agendas. In the case of the RSS and company, it sees this as a step forward to the scrapping of Muslim Personal law altogether. As far as the Muslim fundamentalists are concerned, it is a case of protecting the most retrograde patriarchal practices in the name of religion.

Shamefully, other political parties have refused to take a firm position in support of Muslim women's demand for an end to this abhorrent practice, thus lending strength to the narrow agendas of both the RSS camp and that of the Muslim fundamentalists. A party like the Trinamool Congress has backed fundamentalists in the community, with their Muslim MPs taking the lead in slogans such as religion being in danger because of the proposed reform. The highly objectionable statements of the Muslim Personal Law Board, which are an affront to democratic rights of women, are taken to be representative of the community as a whole by these parties. In fact, many other Muslim institutions have condemned this practice but these opinions are ignored.

Such positions make women's rights hostage to political opportunism and affect women of all communities. Babasaheb had fought against such opportunism. He was equally forceful in his assertion that all practices have to be judged by the rights guaranteed by the constitution. 

The main narrative of the BJP-led central government is that Muslim women have been discriminated against because they have not had the benefit of reforms, whereas Hindu women have had this advantage. It is assumed that the reform in Hindu laws is complete. This is far from the truth. There are still significant discriminations against Hindu women such as in guardianship laws, in property rights with women still being lower in the hierarchy of coparcenaries eligible to inherit ancestral property, Hindu women being discriminated in the right to agricultural land and so on. However, such reforms are not on the government's agenda precisely because their interest is not women's rights

What is required is a step by step reform in all personal laws while also strengthening the framework of secular laws that apply to all women. This is the way forward to achieve equal rights for all women within communities and also between communities.

But equally important to the promulgation of laws are their implementation. In the course of the debate on Hindu law reform, the issue of the implementation of the Sharda Act, which prohibits child marriage, came up. It was the contention of many of the anti-reform speakers that when the community did not accept a law, it was impossible to get it implemented. An example given was the non-implementation of the law against child marriages as it was held that this was in consonance with Hindu tradition.

This was enunciated earlier by the RSS Sarsanghchalak, Shri Golwalkar. In an interview given to the press in Nangal, Punjab in March, 1950, the text of which is reported on the website in his name, he expressed his opposition to the Sharda Act on grounds that it was not being implemented. In answer to a question on whether it proved beneficial, he said "Did it?..Many things spring up in society as necessity arises" and then went on to defend polygamy among Hindus, saying, "Weavers near Nagpur require hands to work for them, but cannot afford paid workers. Hence they feel polygamy is necessity for them." Later in the debate, those members of parliament allied to his ideology took the same position, opposing monogamy as the norm in the reformed Hindu laws.

At present, one of the most non-implemented laws is the Dowry Prohibition Act, even as dowry practices are rampant. It is mainly Hindu women who are victims of what are known as "dowry deaths." Often, cultural practices and traditions prevent women from walking out of a violent situation. The practice of Kanya Daan, an essential ritual in Hindu marriages, symbolizes the break expected from the young bride with her natal family. She is now the property of her husband and in laws, having been gifted to them. In fact, it is a most cruel tradition which breaks a girl's heart. She is expected to bear the torture and violence she may face, as she would otherwise be a burden to her family having broken the tradition of the Daan. 

In the last ten years, according to the National Crimes Research Bureau, there have been on average 8,000 dowry deaths every year. Dowry death is defined by Sec 304 b of the Indian Penal Code as " Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death."

By religion, most of the 80,000 victims were Hindu women. Did a single Hindutva organization, now so vocal on the issue of Muslim women's rights, ever protest, ever campaign, ever come out against this barbarity? On the contrary, these organisations have been campaigning for dilution of the laws against domestic violence, describing them as a western concept against the ethos of "Hindu culture."

The evil practice of dowry has also spread to the Muslim community. Women's organisations running legal aid cells in areas inhabited by Muslims have ample evidence of the violence Muslim women face as a result of unfulfilled dowry demands. The Muslim Personal Law Board and other such organisations are well aware of this reality. Have they declared it to be against religion? Have they ever said such practices endanger their religion? On the contrary, women have rarely found any support from them on such issues. 

It was this kind of hypocrisy that Ambedkar fought. When we remember him today, it is also important to take lessons from his courage to fight all kinds of fundamentalisms that threaten to overwhelm his legacy.

Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha. The article appeared on Ndtv.com and is being reproduced with the permission of the author. The original may be read here.

The post Modi Govt Position on Triple Talaq Determined by Sectarian Agenda Not Concern for Women’s Equality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The men, who hunted in packs, yet were not necessarily linked or even known to each other, must be sitting around somewhere bragging about what they did that night, safe and secure in the knowledge that once again, they got away with it. The police and government must be held accountable. This is criminal negligence of duty by the Karnataka government and those responsible for this must be punished. In particular, the statement of Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara in a television interview that "such things happen" and the reason is the "western" ways of youth and the way that "women dress" is utterly abhorrent. He has no right to continue in office.

Karnataka is also the state where lawmakers have been caught on camera more than once watching porno on their phones while attending the state assembly. This is also the state where right-wing vigilante groups like the Ram Sene have raided bars and beaten up young women, earning praise for their actions from political leaders. This is also the state where the notorious slogan of love jihad resulted in violence against women choosing partners for themselves with inter-community relationships in Mangalore.

The proud tradition of great social reformers of Karnataka like Basavanna who fought against caste and against gender inequality is in stark contrast to the degeneration of standards of public life which particularly impact women's security and safety. When leaders behave in a manner utterly contemptuous of and demeaning to women, the social example set is mimicked by their followers. But Bengaluru is not the only city where such incidents have occurred. Earlier there were somewhat similar incidents, though not of the same scale, in Mumbai and Delhi and other cities.

The backlash against women's assertion of autonomy has been savage and severe in India. From schools and colleges, to workplaces and public spaces of enjoyment and fun, the increasing presence of girls and young women in non-traditional roles outside the four walls of the patriarchal home challenges the asymmetric power relations between men and women. The women present on MG Road suffered the backlash of misogyny backed by sexual violence.

Every time such a dreadful incident occurs, women take a step backward, their confidence sapped. Sometimes women are forced to give up that public space. This year, according to reports, the celebrations across cities were muted. Demonetisation was a decisive factor, but it is also true that in Delhi for example, young women were wary of venturing out into public places, precisely because of their fear and apprehension of incidents such as that which occurred in Bengaluru. Campaigns by women's groups with slogans like "reclaim the night" urging women to establish their rights night and day over public spaces in the cities they live in are important messages, but entirely lost on those responsible for building the infrastructure to ensure a safe and secure environment for girls and women.

As a World Health Organization primer against sexual violence put it, "cultural and social norms are highly influential in shaping individual behavior." In India, socially conservative and fundamentalist forces, now with political patronage, seek to stem the tide of change and promote cultures which blame and shame women for the crimes committed against them, thus creating an environment of social sanction for certain acts considered "punishment" meted out to "wayward women." It is the Sita syndrome: cross the Lakshman Rekha and you become a legitimate target of male violence and ultimately get punished for it. Already the echoes of December 2012 can be heard in Bengaluru. In that year, Nirbhaya, the 23-year-old intern, victim of the most barbaric violence in Delhi, was blamed by some for being out at night with a male friend. How many times have young women victims been asked "But what were you doing there?" followed by a version of "you were asking for it." In retrograde attitudes towards women, most political parties, like the Home Minister who belongs to a Congress-led government speak, in the same voice. It was Mohan Bhagwat of the RSS who blamed the adoption of "Western cultures" for increasing crime against women; now, we have a Congress minister echoing his words.

But along with the aspect of government and police accountability, every adult citizen who was there that night and who did nothing to help the women being targeted have failed basic responsibility and humanity. In case after case, it is the indifference of society, of those present, which provides the ultimate strength to the perpetrators of violence against women. For women activists working to alter the power relations and to make India a safer place for women, the biggest hurdle is that of the active refusal of most people to get involved to prevent the violence which is occurring before their eyes. It may be a case of a student being harassed in a bus, or a working woman in her factory, or a young couple holding hands being harassed in a cinema hall: silence in the face of an obvious case of harassment provides the social environment for sexual harassers to flourish. There is no certainty of punishment for the criminal; instead, there is the certainty of impunity; there is no certainty of social and family disapproval, but on the contrary, the wearing of the mantle of masculinity by virtue of being a sexual predator, an occupation which it would seem draws many admirers. The utter hypocrisy of our society and prevalent cultures is reflected in the silence, and thereby the acquiescence, to the deteriorating situation of security and safety for women.

The answer is not to remain a silent spectator, but to stand up and be counted in the protection of women's right to live a safe life of dignity and peace.

(The author is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha.The article appeared on the author's blog on Ndtv.com ans is being published here with the permission of the author)

The post Bengaluru Molestation Exposes Its Home Minister appeared first on SabrangIndia.

     
जनवरी महीने की 17 तारीख रोहित वेमुला की पहली पुण्य‌तिथ‌ि होगी। उनकी त्रासद आत्महत्या किसी सांस्थानिक हत्या से कम नहीं थी। रोहित की आत्महत्या ने पूरे देश को हिला दिया था। गम और गुस्से की लहर पूरे देश में फैल गई थी और उनके लिए न्याय मांगने के ल‌िए लाखों लोग उठ खड़े हुए थे। रोहित के लिए देश भर में आंदोलन की मशाल लेकर चलने वालों की एक प्रमुख मांग विभ‌िन्न विश्वव‌िद्यालयों और उच्च श‌िक्षा संस्थानों में दल‌ित और आद‌िवासी छात्र-छात्राओं के साथ होने वाले भेदभाव और अत्याचार के खिलाफ बचाव और अधिकारों के लिए अलग से कानून लाने की थी। इन उच्च शिक्षा संस्थानों में अत्याचार और अन्याय की यह जो अपसंस्कृति है, उसके खिलाफ कानून लाने की मांग इस आंदोलन की प्रमुख मांग रही। एक और अहम मांग रोहित वेमुला की आत्महत्या के जिम्मेदार लोगों के ख‌िलाफ कार्रवाई थी।
 
जिन लोगों के भेदभावपूर्ण कदमों से रोहित वेमुला को खुदकुशी करनी पड़ी उनमें हैदराबाद सेंट्रल यून‌‌िवर्स‌िटी के मौजूदा वाइस चासंलर अप्पाराव शामिल हैं। रोहित की खुदकुशी के बाद केंद्र सरकार की ओर से उन्हें छुट्टी पर जाने को कहा गया था। हालांक‌ि यह कदम उन्हें सजा देने के लिए नहीं बल्क‌ि बचाने के‌ लिए उठाया गया था। मार्च में उन्हें फिर तैनात कर दिया गया।
 
इस बीच, वेमुला परिवार और खास कर रोहित की मां राध‌िका को बदनाम करने का लगातार अभ‌ियान चलाया गया। सरकारी मशीनरी का इस्तेमाल यह साब‌ित करने में क‌िया गया क‌ि रोहित वेमुला दल‌ित नहीं थे और उनकी मां ने इस बारे में झूठ बोला है। इसके लिए उनके ख‌िलाफ धोखाधड़ी का मामला बन सकता है। राध‌िका वेमुला को केंद्र सरकार के इशारे पर लगातार अभद्रता, अपमान और लांछन का शिकार बनाया जाता रहा है। लेक‌िन इस मामले पर व‌िचार करने से पहले आइए एक बार पूरे मामले के बैकग्राउंड का जायजा ले लें।
 
रोहित पर दल‌ित न होने का आरोप उनकी‌ मौत के तीन दिन के भीतर खुद तत्कालीन मानव संसाधन मंत्री स्मृत‌ि ईरानी ने अपनी बेहद आपत्त‌िजनक प्रेस कांफ्रेंस में लगाया था। यह 21 जनवरी का द‌िन था। उन्होंने खुद और अपने उन सहयोग‌ियों के कदम का बचाव क‌िया ज‌िन्होंने रोहित और उनके पांच दल‌ित साथी छात्रों के ख‌िलाफ कार्रवाई का दबाव बनाया था। इन दल‌ित छात्रों के ख‌िलाफ कार्रवाई आरएसएस के छात्र संगठन अख‌िल भारतीय विद्यार्थी परषिद की श‌िकायत के बाद की गई थी।
 
ईरानी ने अपनी प्रेस कांफ्रेंस में कहा था कि रोह‌ित वेमुला दल‌ित नहीं थे। भाजपा ने रोहित के प‌िता ( जो अपनी पत्नी से अलग हो चुके हैं)  को प्रेस कांफ्रेंस में पेश क‌िया और उनसे कहलवाया क‌ि वह ओबीसी समुदाय से आते हैं। रोहित की मौत को सात दिन भी नहीं हुए थे क‌ि उनकी मां को अपना बचाव करना पड़ा और दुनिया के सामने अपनी त्रासद‌ियों का खुलासा करना पड़ा। उन्हें यह बताना पड़ा क‌ि वह एक दलित परिवार में पैदा हुई थीं, जो आप्रवासी श्रमिकों से ताल्लुक रखता था। उन्हें एक ओबीसी परिवार ने गोद ले ल‌िया था। उन्हें अपने माता-प‌िता का कभी पता नहीं चला क्योंक‌ि वे उसे छोड़ कर काम की तलाश में आगे न‌िकल गए थे। उन्हें अपने दल‌ित होने का पता भी दल‌ितों को दी जाने वाली गाली को सुन कर पता चला। ये गाल‌ियां उस परिवार के एक बुजुर्ग देते थे, जो क‌िसी दल‌ित बच्चे को गोद लेने को कभी पचा नहीं पाए।
 
 राध‌िका वेमुला को यह बताना पड़ा कि उनकी शादी एक ओबीसी परिवार में हुई है। उन्हें दुनिया को यह भी बताना पड़ा कि उनके पति ने उन्हें छोड़ दिया था। यह त्रासदी उनके साथ उस समय घटी जब उनके बच्चे बेहद छोटे थे। इसके बाद वह फिर उस मां-बाप के पास लौट गई थीं, जिन्होंने उन्हें गोद लिया था। परिस्थितियों ने उन्हें पति का घर छोड़ने के लिए मजबूर किया था। वह अपने दोनों बच्चों के साथ अकेले रह रही थीं। उन्होंने सिलाई के जरिये मिलने वाले थोड़े पैसों से अपने बच्चों को बड़ा किया। उन्हें यह भी बताना पड़ा कि जब खराब माली हालत की वजह से बच्चों के प्राइवेट स्कूल की पढ़ाई छोड़ने के बाद उन्होंने अनुसूचित जाति का प्रमाण-पत्र हासिल किया। 
 
लेकिन सरकारी मशीनरी के पास न तो करुणा थी और न ही न्याय की भावना।  सरकारी अधिकारी पूरी ताकत से यह साबित करने में जुट गए कि रोहित वेमुला दलित नहीं थे। अधिकारियों ने 12 फरवरी को राधिका वेमुला की बीमार मां यानी रोहित वेमुला की नानी तक पहुंच कर पूछताछ की। राधिका वेमुला की मां ने बताया कि उन्होंने एक दलित लड़की गोद ली थी। राधिका वेमुला की मां ने उन परिस्थितियों के बारे में भी बताया जिनकी वजह से उन्होंने एक दलित लड़की गोद ली थी। इसके बाद दिल का दौरा पड़ने से उनका निधन हो गया। कुछ लोगों का कहना था कि रोहित वेमुला की मौत और इसके बाद लांछनाओं और अपमान का तनाव वह झेल नहीं पाईं और उन्होंने दुनिया को अलविदा कह दिया। राधिका के ससुर ने भी बाकायदा शपथपत्र भर कर कहा कि उन्हें भी अपने बेटे की शादी के वक्त बताया गया था कि उनके बेटे की होने वाली दुल्हन एक दलित है। यह सारा बयान रिकार्ड में है। इससे केंद्र की ओर से फैलाए जा रहे झूठ का पर्दाफाश हो जाता है।
 
रोहित को गैर दलित साबित करने और उनकी मां को बदनाम करने की कोशिश यहीं नहीं रुकी। ईरानी ने रिटायर्ड जस्टिस एके रुपनवाल की एक सदस्यीय जांच कमेटी का गठन किया ताकि रोहित की मौत की परिस्थितियों और इसकी साजिशकर्ताओं को पता चल सके। कमेटी को शिकायत सुनने वाली कमेटी के कामकाज की समीक्षा करनी थी इसमें सुधार के उपाय सुझाने थे। इस साल अक्टूबर में रुपनवाल कमेटी की रिपोर्ट मानव संसाधन मंत्रालय को सौंप दिया गया। लेकिन इसे सार्वजनिक नहीं किया गया। मीडिया में इसके चुनिंदा अंश लीक किए गए, जिनके मुताबिक रुपनवाल कमेटी की रिपोर्ट का चौथाई हिस्सा रोहित वेमुला की जाति बताने को समर्पित था। अगर ऐसा था तो आखिर किसके आदेश से रुपनवाल कमेटी ने रोहित की जाति की जांच की थी। रुपनवाल कमेटी में न तो रोहित वेमुला की जाति की जांच करने की योग्यता थी और न ही उसे यह अधिकार था। जाति प्रमाण पत्र खास अधिकारियों के जरिये ही जारी किए जाते हैं।
 
अगर एक क्षण को मान भी लिया जाए कि रोहित वेमुला का जाति प्रमाणपत्र गलत था तो भी रोहित की मौत से जुड़ा मामले को कैसे तोड़ा-मरोड़ा जा सकता है। जब एबीवीपी ने रोहित को निशाना बनाया, तब वाइस चासंलर ने उसे दंडित किया। उसका स्कॉलरशिप रोक दिया और वह अपनी मां को पैसे नहीं भेज सके। जब उन्हें उनके कमरे से बाहर कर दिया गया तो क्या ये सब यह सोच कर नहीं किया गया कि रोहित वेमुला दलित हैं। रोहित के खिलाफ उनकी कार्रवाइयों को इसी कसौटी पर कसा जाएगा। बाकी चीजों से कोई वास्ता नहीं। रोहित की जाति की जांच एक सुविधाजनक सरकारी सोच थी। रोहित की जाति का जांच का कोई भी नैतिक और कानूनी अधिकार नहीं बनता। हमें यह अच्छी तरह मालूम है। साथ ही में हमें यह भी जानने की जरूरत है कि रोहित वेमुला के मामले को खत्म करने के लिए सरकारी एजेंसियां किस हद तक जाने को तैयार थीं।
 
इस साल 2 नवंबर को राधिका को गुंटुर के जिलाधिकारी के दफ्तर में बुलाया गया। राधिका अपने छोटे बेटे राजा के साथ गुंटुर में ही रहती हैं। कलेक्टर खुद दलित हैं। गुंटुर के जिलाधिकारी ने ही अपने पहले की जांच के आधार पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में रोहित वेमुला की जाति के स्टेटस के बारे में सुप्रीम कोर्ट में रिपोर्ट दाखिल की थी। इसमें रोहित वेमुला के दलित होने की पुष्टि की गई थी। इसके बाद जिलाधिकारी और उनके अधिकारियों के व्यवहार के पीछे क्या दबाव था और कौन बना रहा था।
 
राधिका को जिलाधिकारी के दफ्तर में यह दूसरा बुलावा था। रुपनवाल आयोग की रिपोर्ट सौंपे जाने के बाद राधिका के छोटे बेटे राजा से जाति प्रमाण पत्र और शैक्षणिक योग्यता से जुड़े दस्तावेज मांगे गए। उसने ये जमा करा दिए। जब राधिका पिछले महीने जिलाधिकारी के दफ्तर पहुंचीं तो देखा बच्चों के पिता भी वहां मौजूद हैं। वहां दस अधिकारी मौजूद थे। राधिका से उस दफ्तर में दोपहर दो बजे से शाम पांच बजे तक लगातार तीन घंटे तक पूछताछ की गई।
कहा जा रहा है कि उनसे तमाम तरह के सवाल पूछे गए। जैसे – आपने अपने पति को क्यों छोड़ा। इस बात के क्या सबूत हैं कि आपके पति शराबी हैं और उन्होंने आपके साथ दुर्व्यवहार किया। क्या पति का घर छोड़ने के बाद आप अकेले रहती थीं या किसी के साथ। क्या आपके पास ओबसी सर्टिफिकेट है। आप झूठ क्यों बोल रही हैं कि आपके पास ओबीसी सर्टिफिकेट नहीं है। आपने अपने बेटों के जाति प्रमाण पत्र दिलाने का इंतजार क्यों किया। क्या यह सच नहीं है कि आपने सरकार की ओर अनुसूचित जाति के लोगों को दिए जाने वाले लाभ हासिल करने के लिए दलित होने का दावा किया। इस तरह के कई और सवाल किए गए।
 
राधिका वेमुला के साथ ऐसा व्यवहार किया गया। जैसे वह अपराधी हैं। उन्हें उस शख्स के सामने अपमानित किया गया, जिसने उन्हें छोड़ दिया था। उनसे बिल्कुल फिजूल के सवाल पूछे गए। उनकी पूरी जिंदगी की पड़ताल की गई। पूछताछ के दौरान न तो उन्हें पानी दिया गया और न ही वहां किसी टॉयलेट की व्यवस्था थी। 
 
राधिका की बेटी नीलिमा को भी बुलाया गया। उनसे भी तमाम तरह के सवाल पूछे गए। रोते हुए उसने अपनी मां से कहा कि सब कुछ छोड़ कर घर में बैठें। अफसर खुश थे। वे क्रूरता की किस हद तक जा सकते थे यह इसी बात से पता चलता है कि जब नीलिमा ने अपने तीन साल के बेटे को बिस्कुट खिलाने की कोशिश की तो उन्होंने कहा कि उनके दफ्तर को गंदा न किया जाए।
 
अफसरों ने खुलेआम अपने अधिकारों और पद का दुरुपयोग कर एक दलित महिला और बेटे के गम में घुल रही एक मां और उसके परिवार को जिस तरह धमकी दी। उन पर दबाव बनाया और रोब गालिब किया। क्या ऐसे में उन्हें इन पदों पर रहने का अधिकार है।  क्या इस मामले में थोड़ी भी जिम्मदारी या न्यूनतम नियम का पालन नहीं किया जाना चाहिए था। इस पूरे मामले में दिल्ली का धौंस इस कदर था कि किसी अफसर ने इस पूरी प्रक्रिया के बारे में सवाल उठाने की हिम्मत नहीं की। हर कोई चुपचाप आदेश का पालन करता रहा चाहे यह कितना भी घिनौना क्यों न हो।
इस बीच, राधिका वेमुला अपने दुख और गुस्से के बीच मजबूत होकर उभरी हैं। वह बेटे की मौत से शोक संतप्त मां से प्रतिरोध के प्रतीक के तौर पर उभर आई हैं। जो अपने साहस और धैर्य से हजारों युवाओं के लिए प्रेरणा स्रोत बन गई हैं। वह बीमार हैं। एक बार फिर उन्हें जीविका के लिए सिलाई के काम का सहारा लेना पड़ा है। उनके पास आज की तारीख में कोई घर नहीं है। आंध्र प्रदेश सरकार की ओर से उन्हें पांच लाख रुपये का मुआवजा देने का वादा अखबार में सुर्खियों की स्याही की तरह ही गायब हो गया।
 
दिल्ली और इससे साठगांठ कर शासन चलाने वालों का एक ही संदेश है- समझौता करके चलो और फायदा उठाओ। जिस दिन आपने खुद को व्यापक लोगों को हितों से जुड़े मुद्दे के साथ जोड़ा आपको प्रताड़ना, कष्ट और दुखों का सामना करना पड़ेगा।  
 
रोहित वेमुला के निधन के एक साल बाद उनके लिए न्याय की मांग में एक और जरूरी मुद्दा जुड़ गया है। रोहित के लिए न्याय के मुद्दे में उनके परिवार के लिए न्याय का मुद्दा भी जुड़ गया है। सरकार रुपनवाल कमेटी की रिपोर्ट सार्वजनिक करे और इस पर अपनी आधिकारिक प्रतिक्रिया दे। अनुसूचित जाति अत्याचार निरोधक कानून के तहत अप्पा राव और रोहित की मौत के जिम्मेदार लोगों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई हो।  साथ ही दलित और आदिवासी छात्रों को अत्याचार से बचाने के लिए कानून बनाना भी बेहद जरूरी है।
 
आप राधिका का साथ दे सकते हैं। उनकी मदद कर सकते हैं। आप उन्हें समर्थन दे सकते हैं और उनके साथ खड़े हो सकते हैं।
 
वृंदा करात माकपा पोलित ब्यूरो की सदस्य हैं। वह राज्यसभा की सांसद रह चुकी हैं

The post रोहित वेमुला की खुदकुशी के बाद मां राधिका पर सरकारी तंत्र का कहर appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A sustained attempt has been on to discredit the Vemula family and in particular, Rohith's mother, Radhika. The machinery of the State has been utilized to "prove" that Rohith was not a Dalit, that his mother had lied, and that a case on grounds of fraud could be made out against her. Radhika has been subjected to indignity, insult and sought to be humiliated by the authorities on the orders of Delhi. But before discussing those details, let's recall the background.

The charge was first made within three days of Rohith's death by then Human Resources Development Minister Smriti Irani in her highly offensive press conference on January 21. She defended her own actions and those of her colleagues in pressuring the university authorities to take action against Rohith and five more Dalit students on a complaint against them filed by the student wing of the RSS, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad or ABVP.

Irani said at the time that Rohith was not a dalit. The BJP paraded Rohith's father (estranged from his wife) at a press meet; he said he belonged to an OBC community. And so even before a week of mourning was over, the grieving mother of Rohith was forced to defend herself and reveal to the world her own tragedies. That she had been born into a Dalit family of migrant workers. That she was adopted by an OBC family and never knew her own parents who moved on in their search for work. That her own identity was revealed to her only through the caste abuse she heard from a senior member of her foster family, who never reconciled  to the adoption of a Dalit child into the family. That she was married into an OBC family. That she was abandoned by her husband when her children were very small and went back to her adopted parents' home. That circumstances forced her to leave and she subsequently lived on her own with her children, bringing them up on the meager earnings from her work as a tailor. That her children got their SC certificates when they were forced to leave private schools due to strained economic conditions.
 
But neither compassion nor a sense of justice could mar the official determination to prove Rohith was not a Dalit. Officials visited Radhika's ailing mother on February 12 and cross-examined her. She gave them a statement about the circumstances in which she adopted a Dalit girl. She died of a heart attack soon after, some say because of the stress caused by these events. Radhika's father-in-law also gave a notarized statement that he too was told at the time of the marriage of his son to Radhika that she had been born into a Dalit family. All this is a matter of record. It disproved the lies being spread from Delhi.

But the efforts did not stop. A one-man Commission of Inquiry  by retired Justice AK Roopanwal was set up by Irani to enquire into the "circumstances of Rohith's death and to bring the perpetrators to task" and also to "to review the functioning of the grievance committee and suggest measures for its improvement." The report, submitted to the ministry in October, has not been made public. According to selective leaks to the media, the Commission has devoted a quarter of its report to the caste status of Rohith. If this is indeed the case, then on whose authority did the Commission do so? It had neither the competence nor the mandate to do so. Caste certificates are issued by designated authorities.

But even assume for a moment that Rohith's Dalit caste certificate was wrong. How does that change the case? When he was targeted by the ABVP, when he was punished by the Vice Chancellor, when his scholarship was stopped and he was left unable to send any money to his mother, when he was thrown out of his room, those who acted against him did so on the knowledge and belief  that he was a Dalit. Their actions have to be judged on that basis alone. Everything else is irrelevant in the case, a convenient sarkari after-thought, which can have no moral or legal sanction.

We know this, we also need to know how far official agencies are prepared to go to manufacture evidence to demolish Radhika Vemula's case. 

On November 2, Radhika was called to the office of the Guntur Collector. Guntur is where she and her surviving son, Raja, live now. The Collector is himself a Dalit. It was he who on the basis of earlier inquiries had submitted a report to the Supreme Court Commission confirming Rohith's Dalit status. What and from whom were the pressures for his subsequent behavior and that of his officials?
 
This was the second call from his office to Radhika. After the Roopanwal Commission submitted its report, her younger son Raja had been asked to deposit all the papers pertaining to his caste certificate and education, which he had done. When Radhika reached the office last month, she found that the father of her children was also present. So were at least 10 officials. She was interrogated for three hours from 2 to 5 pm. 

Here is a sample of some of the questions she was reportedly asked: Why did you leave your husband? What is the evidence that he was a drunkard and mistreated you? Did you live alone or with anyone else? Did you have an OBC certificate? Why are you lying that you did not have an OBC certificate? Why did you wait to get your sons their SC certificates? Isn't it true that you claim to be a Dalit only to get benefits? And so on.

She was treated as though she was a criminal. She was humiliated in the presence of the man who had abandoned her. She was asked totally irrelevant questions. Her life was subjected to scrutiny. She was not offered any water, nor was there a toilet available.

Her daughter Neelima had also been called. She too was asked all kinds of questions. Weeping, she pleaded with her mother to "give up everything and stay at home." The officers were pleased. But not pleased enough to show even a little humanity to her 3-year-old child. They were rude when Neelima tried to feed her a biscuit."Don't dirty our office," they said.

Officers who so flagrantly misuse their power and position to threaten, intimidate and bully a Dalit woman and her family, a woman in grief for her lost son, a woman fighting for justice – have such men any right to stay on in those positions? Is there no accountability, no minimum norms to be observed? Such is the power of the Delhi diktat that no officer dares to question, or be anything other than subordinate and subservient, however repugnant the order might be.

Radhika Vemula has found strength and anger in her grief, she has been transformed from a heartbroken mother to a symbol of resistance inspiring thousands of young people with her courage and fortitude. She is unwell. But once again, she has had to take up tailoring to ensure survival. She has no home. Promises by the Andhra Pradesh government for five lakhs in compensation and a home disappeared as fast as the headlines did. 

This is the message from Delhi and its allies: compromise and you will get a "benefit," but the day you link your "case" with the wider cause, you will be doomed to harassment, suffering and misery. 

One year after Rohith's death, the demands of this government acquire an added urgency. Justice for Rohith must also include justice for Rohith's family. Let the government make public the Roopanwal report, and its official reaction to it. Action on the FIR under the Prevention of Atrocities Act against Appa Rao and others must be taken. The law for the protection of Dalit and Adivasi students is essential. 

You can reach Radhika, you can help her, you can offer support and solidarity.

(Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha. This story appeared on the writer's regular blog on Ndtv.com and is being re-published with the permission of the author)

The post How Radhika Vemula Is Paying For Her Son Rohith’s Suicide appeared first on SabrangIndia.