In the petition filed on November 29, CJP has detailed how the intimidation from administration and police –including threats to file false cases – arose after Mishra’s not only broke the story but pursued coverage of the Sultanpur rape case that took place in September 2019.

Dharmendra Mishra is a recognised journalist working with an established publishing house from their Uttar Pradesh office in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. He is known for unbiased and brave coverage of crucial stories that reveal corruption and injustice, and is the recipient of a national award from Indian Media Welfare Association along with an order by the World Health Organization. The government has initiated many inquiries on the basis of his investigative journalism.

As the application notes, due to his brave journalism, Mr. Mishra is being allegedly threatened by the Superintendent of Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh Himanshu Kumar. Mr. Mishra has stated that Kumar has threatened him on his way to work and had other people threaten him in his Sultanpur office. Dharmendra Mishra is also under the apprehension that Kumar has roped in a local politician and a local gangster to threaten him for his life. The said local politician had earlier pressurised Mr. Mishra to write positive news article about him during the state elections.

The journalist in question, Dharmendta Mishra has been harassed to the extent that in September, he has filed a complaint with the offices of the Prime Minister as well Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister explaining the facts of the case and the apprehension of threat to his life. In his complaints, he has said Himanshu Kumar, his department and the local Sultanpur administration should be held responsible for any untoward incidents that may occur in the future, such as an attack or assault on him or any imposition of false cases or even worse, his death.

In the NHRC petition, CJP has prayed that the Commission take suo motu cognisance of this case under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), conduct an investigation against the Superintendent of Sultanpur Himanshu Kumar and take stern action as probable under the PHRA.

On September 10, villagers from Baijapur in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh woke up to the mutilated body of a young girl hung from a tree, not much unlike the Badaun rape case. The incident was also reminiscent of the Nirbhaya rape case given how a stick had been inserted in the victim’s private parts. But even after all this time, police investigations have proceeded at a snail’s pace, with allegations of deliberate delays and procedural lapses. Then, CJP had moved the National Human Rights Commission to intervene in the matter to ensure justice. The NHRC has issued notice to the UP authorities following this complaint.

CJP’s petition emphasises that “the police, clearly failed to follow protocol in terms of primary investigation and on top of that are making false claims with respect to the post mortem and are representing false facts and the reason for the same is still unknown.” Our petition urges the National Human Rights Commission to “take suo motu cognisance of this case under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA)” and also seeks “an inquiry into this case involving the SP of Sultanpur District and the police personnel concerned with this case (FIR no. 0423 of 2019)”

The petition observes that the press is considered to be the fourth estate of a democracy. It quotes the Madras High Court in saying, “If the voice of the Fourth Estate is stifled in this manner, India will become a Nazi State and the hard labour of our freedom fighters and makers of our Constitution will go down the drain.”

Last year, India ranked 138 in the Freedom of Press Index released by Reporters with Borders. “Brave and investigative journalism can only thrive in a conducive environment that safeguards its freedom and where there is no constant threat to life,” the application states.

The petition memo to the NHRC may be read below.

Related:
Sultanpur rape case: CJP moves NHRC citing lacunae in police investigation
Mutilated body of girl found hanging from tree in Sultanpur, Badaun 2.0?
Over a fortnight, no arrests: Activists protest ‘police inaction’ in Sultanpur rape case: UP

The post Journalist threatened by police for reporting inaction in Sultanpur rape case: UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A case in point is this Twitter thread shared by user Avinash Srivastava:

The contents of this thread have been copy-pasted over multiple sites, such as through Facebook postsby self-proclaimed ‘nationalist’ and public speaker Pushpendra Kulshrestha, a page called Crime Patrol Samba, another named Free Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Pok,responses on Quora, etc.
This tendency of blindly forwarding information without looking into the reliability of the content results in a blurring of lines between the real and the fake.

In this article, we run a fact check on some of the claims made in the thread:
Claim: No Dual Citizenship will be applied, only Indian Citizenship will be valid
Misleading.The state of Jammu & Kashmir never had its own state citizenship. While the concept of dual citizenship (one of the state and one of the union)exists in other Federal Constitutions, it has never been applied in India.The misinformation probably arises from the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir offering a ‘permanent residents’ status to non-Kashmiris living in the state.

Claim: State Government will have limited authority, Law & Order will be Centre’s jurisdiction.
True. Post the bifurcation, the state government of Jammu and Kashmir ceases to exist, and two union territories (UTs) of Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh are created in its place. UTs generally have less governing power than states.
Under Section 32 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, the J&K Legislative Assembly may make laws for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir with respect to any of the matters enumerated in only the State List except those concerning “Public Order” and “Police”.

Claim: J&K assembly decisions will seek Government of India’s nod.
False.Except for the overriding powers of the Parliament mentioned earlier, the legislative assembly of Jammu& Kashmir has complete authority to enact legislation. A bill passed by the assembly will be presented to the Administrator for his/her assent, who may reserve it for the consideration of the President. This isn’t too different from a state Governor’s power of reserving bills, however.

Claim: Rule of People born before 1911 having Citizenship will stand null and void.
False premise.Under the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, all persons born or settled within the state before 1911, or becoming residentfor not less than ten years or prior after having lawfully acquired immovable property were defined as“permanent residents” of the state.
Under that Constitution, thosewho moved away from Jammu and Kashmir and their next two generations, including those who migrated into Pakistan, were considered state subjects. Nullifying the state Constitution implies that this consideration will likely be lost.But the permanent residents will still have their Indian citizenship.

Claim: Kashmir will not have separate flag, Only ‘Tiranga’ will be applicable.
True.Under the special status that was granted to the state by Article 370 of the Constitution of India, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was permitted to fly its own state flag in addition to the national flag from 1952. Its official status came from Article 144 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
The J&K administration stopped hoisting of the region’s separate flagin Srinagar’s Civil Secretariat on August 24, 2019.

Claim: State can’t decide on ‘Permanent Resident’ status, all citizens in the states will be considered equal.
True.With the nullification of the State Constitution, the ‘permanent resident’ status created under it would also cease to exist.

Claim: Right to Information (RTI) will be applicable in all aspects and for all.
False.The State has had theirown Right to Information Act since 2004, a year priorto the Central RTI Act.

Claim: Right to Education will be applicable on people from all segment.
Misleading.RTE is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. Fundamental rights have been applicable in J&K since before the reorganisation.

Claim: Economic Reservation (EWS) 10% quota will be applicable by default.
Misleading.Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, which governs reservations in the state, was amended much prior to the presidential order so as toprovide 10 per cent reservation to the economically backward class.

Claim: Reservation of 16% for Minorities, H’indus and Sikhs will be applicable.
False.Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004provides reservation to SC, ST and socially-backward classes. While an Ordinance had extended the benefits of reservation to people living in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, there is no special reservation for minorities.

Claim:’Hindi’ & ‘English’ will become the official language instead of ‘Urdu’.
False.Neither the Reorganisation Act nor the Presidential Order made any references to changing the official language of the State.
It has been reported by UNI India and the North India Times that BJP Secretary Tarun Chugh did make this claim, but it has not been seen through via any state action so far.

Claim: Pakistanis won’t get citizenship by marrying Kashmiri girl.
Misleading. Under India’s citizenship law, a person who is married to an Indian citizen, and who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years can apply to acquire indian citizenship.

Claim: Indian Constitution Laws (IPC) will be applicable now across J-K & Ladakh instead of RPC.
Confusing.The Indian Constitution will be applicable to the newly designated union territory. IPC generally refers to the Indian Penal Code. As per the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, the Ranbir Penal Code, criminal legislation specific to the state, does stand repealed and replaced by the Indian Penal Code.

Related:
The Truth of Bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir
Bloody Halloween: When evil spirits came to life on the streets of India
After Kashmir, is Govt of India ready to go back on promise to Nagaland?

The post 100 Days into J&K Reorganisation, Fake News Blurs Reality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite the Supreme Court’s directions on how states and the Centre should tackle the menace of mob lynching incidents that have spiraled over the past five plus years, little has been done by way of statutory enactment to prevent and prosecute these crimes. While three states—Manipur, Rajasthan and West Bengal—have passed anti-lynching bills, the enactment of the latter twohas been held up by the Union Home Ministry claiming that their contents need to be further examined. The Centre has been dragging its feet in following the Supreme Court’s guidelines since August 2018.

Here, we have a look at whatanti-lynching mechanisms states have incorporated in pursuance of the apex Court’s guidelines, and how the Centre has been effectively nullifying their progress.

States taking action
Since the issuance of these guidelines, the Government of Karnataka issued a circular establishing the nodal officers and assistants to the nodal officers. Maharashtra also issued guidelines against mob lynching and related violence.

In January 2019, Manipur was the first to pass legislation against these incidents that the Supreme Court referred to as “horrendous acts of mobocracy.” While closely following the SC’s directions, it additionally specifies the element of hate crime within its definition of lynching. It necessitates that the state’s police officials shoulder serious accountability by criminalising the failure to prevent lynching without reasonable cause, under the offence of “dereliction of duty.”

Although the Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal, and Rajasthan passed anti-mob violence bills as well, their enactment was reserved by their respective Governors for the President’s consideration. This is why, as under Article 200 of the Constitution, these bills are now on the table of the President of India, waiting for his assent.

The Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill, 2019 was passed in August 2019 by the State’s Vidhan Sabha by a voice vote amid vociferous protest by the Opposition BJP, which wanted the Bill to be referred to a select committee.

The West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill, 2019 was passed by the state in September. While introducing the Bill in the House, Mamata claimed its provisions would be “sterner than the Indian Penal Code.”It lays down rules for police officers to monitor and prevent situations that could lead to lynching.

The Centre adds hurdles
On July 22, 2018, in response to the SC’s directions, the Centre set up a high-level committee headed by Union Home Secretary Rajiv Gauba to examine the lynching issue and make recommendations to a Group of Ministers (GoM) who would then consider this panel’s suggestions and, in turn, submit its recommendation to the Prime Minister.

Despite the Gauba Committee submitting their report on August 29, 2018, the GoM has not taken any steps to further anti-lynching measures to date. The GoM under the helm of Rajnath Singh had only met twice and had not come to any conclusion in the year before being reconstituted in July 2019, after the Home Ministry portfolio was handed to Amit Shah in the second term of the Modi government.

On August 26, 2019, The Hindu reported a senior government official indicating that a new law was unlikely as the existing laws were enough to combat crimes like lynching, and all it required was “enforcement”. When asked whether the Centre was considering any amendment to the Indian Penal Code to prevent lynchings, the official said, “There are enough laws to deal with lynchings; it is a matter of enforcement. The police need to be trained to ensure conviction in these cases.”

On September 11, 2019, The Hindu reported that the Union Home Ministry will have to clear the anti-lynching Bills passed by the Rajasthan and West Bengal Assemblies before they become law.Under norms of the Union Home Ministry, the State laws are examined from three angles — repugnancy with Central laws, deviation from national or central policy and legal and constitutional validity.Based on the comments by the Ministry, the President rejects or gives assent to a Bill.

The Hindu quoted an official saying that since such consultations required interactions with various Ministries or departments, no time frame could be fixed when the Bills would be cleared. At the date of publishing, no action has been taken by the Ministry with respect to these Acts.

The executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.

The necessity of Union action
What will bringing in a special law against mob violence change? A law, as senior advocate Indira Jaising quoted Martin Luther King Jr while arguing for it in the Supreme Court (SC), may not be able to make a man love someone, but it can keep the man from lynching him.

Although neither the National Crime Records Bureau nor any other government agency has provided information as to deaths caused by mob lynchings, there have at least been 266 reported incidents of mob violence from the beginning of the Modi regime upto June 25, 2019. Such vigilantism has the effect of undermining the institutions of the State and altering the constitutional order.

The apex court’s guidelines, as well as the State acts that have followed, seek to reduce the incidence of mob violence in a specialised, nuanced manner. The suggested prescriptions include the creation of a task force in every district, establishment of district-level Fast Track Courts earmarked for cases of lynching, and formation of special lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme under Section 357A of CrPC within one month from the date of this judgment. The severity and urgency of the issue of mob lynching necessitates that such a special system be created which aims at tackling the menace holistically.

In Tehseen Poonawalla, the SC recommendedthat the Parliament create a separate offence for lynching, stating that a special law in this field would instill a sense of fear for law amongst the people who involve themselves in such kinds of activities.

The SC noted that the State has a sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens from unruly elements such as the perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism, and that the State’s commitment to address and curb such incidents must be reflected in its actions and schemes.

As Justice Misra observed, good governance and nation building requires the “sustenance of law and order which is intricately linked to the preservation of the marrows of our social structure.”

TheSC 2018 Guidelines
On July 17, 2018, the Supreme Court (SC) in the PIL petitionTehseen Poonawalla v. Union of Indiaissued guidelines to state governments on tacklingthe increased incidents of mob lynching in the country.In this case, the apex Court had directed state governments to follow a three-pronged approachto lynching incidents by executing preventive, remedial and punitive measures.Several others including Dalit leader, Martin Macwan were petitioners in the case.

As preventive measures, the Court recommended that, in each district,State Governments designate a senior policeofficeras Nodal Officer and DSP rank officers as assistants to the Nodal Officer. Together, these officers would constitute a special task force that procures intelligence reports about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news.The Nodal Officer would hold at least monthly meetings with relevant authorities to take steps so as to prevent instances of dissemination of offensive material that incite such offencesthrough social media, etc.

As remedial measures, if it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of lynching or mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional police station shall immediately lodge an FIR. The Station House Officer of the police station would intimate the Nodal Officer in the district who, in turn, would personally monitor the investigation and ensure that there is no further harassment of the family members of the victim(s).

Specifically, the Court had, in 2018, directed that

1. The state governments shall designate a senior police officer in each district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching.
2. The state governments shall immediately identify districts, sub-divisions and villages where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past.
3. The nodal officers shall bring to the notice of the DGP any inter-district co-ordination issues for devising a strategy to tackle lynching and mob violence related issues.
4. It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob to disperse, which, in his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence in the disguise of vigilantism or otherwise
5. Central and the state governments should broadcast on radio and television and other media platforms including the official websites that lynching and mob violence shall invite serious consequence.
6. Curb and stop dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other materials on various social media platforms. Register FIR under relevant provisions of law against persons who disseminate such messages.
7. Ensure that there is no further harassment of the family members of the victims.
8. State governments shall prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme.
9. Cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically tried by designated court/fast track courts earmarked for that purpose in each district. The trial shall preferably be concluded within six months.
10. To set a stern example in cases of mob violence and lynching, the trial court must ordinarily award maximum sentence upon conviction of the accused person.
11. If it is found that a police officer or an officer of the district administration has failed to fulfil his duty, it will be considered as an act of deliberate negligence.

As analysed by cjp.org.in, the judgment further reiterates an accused’s right to a lawful trial saying, “No act of a citizen is to be adjudged by any kind of community under the guise of protectors of law. It is the seminal requirement of law that an accused is booked under law and is dealt with in accordance with the procedure without any obstruction so that substantive justice is done.” The judgmentfurther says explicitly,

“No individual in his own capacity or as a part of a group, which within no time assumes the character of a mob, can take law into his/their hands and deal with a person treating him as guilty. That is not only contrary to the paradigm of established legal principles in our legal system but also inconceivable in a civilized society that respects the fundamental tenets of the rule of law.”

Under the Court’s recommended punitive measures, if a police officer or an officer of thedistrict administration has failed to comply with the aforesaid, it would be considered an act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct and appropriate action would be taken against them.

These recommendations of the Apex Court are centered around creating a system of accountability among the on-groundlaw enforcement.As advocate for the petitioner Sanjay Hegde asserted before The Outlook, “The objective of the anti-lynching law is to ensure accountability in the police force for allowing deterioration of law and order to the extent that a mob can lynch a human being. No lynch mob can succeed without a complicit, or a partially complicit constabulary.”

On July 30, 2019, a year later, the SC had issued notices asking the central government, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and state governments to respond to queries on implementation of their 2018 order,

Directions to the Government
The Supreme Court further issued directions that would extend accountability to the Central and the State governments. The Court stated that both governments should take steps to curb the spread of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other material which can incite mob violence, and also broadcast the message that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious consequence under the law.

A lot of responsibility was to be shouldered by the Centre under the guidelines.The Central Government was required to issue appropriate directions/advisories to the State Governments which would reflect the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the measures to be taken.Additionally, the Union Home Ministrywas directed to work in co-ordination with the state governments towardssensitization of the law enforcement agencies and involvement of all the stakeholders in identifying preventive measures against mob violence.

The Nagrik Adhikar Manch has started a Change.org petition to implore the President of India to clear these Bills and also to direct the Government of India to implement the directions/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India. The petition can be signed here. 
 
Related:
Mob lynching and its defenders
No data on lynchings, NCRB withholds figures
False narratives by the government must be questioned
SC to hear petition against Gau Rakshaks
SC urged to formulate guidelines to curb Cow Vigilantism
Victims of Gautankwad: Pehlu Khan
Victims of Gautankwad: Alimuddin Ansari
Cow Slaughter Prevention Laws in India
11 convicted including local BJP leader
Want Justice, Not Revenge
The Murder of Pehlu Khan
The Lynching of Mohammed Akhlaq: A Timline of developments in the case
 

The post Three State Anti-Lynching Bills gather dust on President Kovind’s table appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 9, 2019, Twitter updated its hateful conduct rules to specifically prohibit language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion. Despite this, Twitter users in India regularly find hatred-fuelled messages trending on Twitter every day. What gives? Let us have a look at why hate trends so consistently on Twitter.

How do tweets get on trending?
A trend is a topic or hashtag which has been algorithmically determined to be one of the most popular on Twitter at that moment. They are tailored according to your location, your interests, and who you follow. Location trends are a subtype of popular topics from a specific geographic location. The algorithm which determines these trends is set up to help users discover the emerging topics of discussion on the site.

Although Twitter claims that the volume of tweets focused on a topic is only one of the factors that the algorithm looks at, a topic cannot trend without a significant number of tweets being posted around it. A large number of tweets on an issue posted at the same time within the same geographical location gives the topic more than just a fighting chance to be featured as trending.

If, let’s say, a dozen people from one location start using a hashtagfor an hour, it is likely to be picked up by the Twitter algorithm. If the hashtag shows up on trending for a specific location, other users come into its contact, who may then make posts using the tag. Thus, bringing a hate-ridden topic to Twitter’s fore can be achieved without too much concerted effort. An Indian dataset study has shown that hateful accounts tend to express more negative sentiment and profanity in general.

The echo chamber effect
An echo chamber refers to a metaphorical space that amplifies or reinforces a certain set of ideas and beliefs by consistent, repetitive exposure to them. It can be thought of as creating an information bubble around oneself as a way of exercising confirmation bias and supporting motivated reasoning.

Social media sites like Twitter are echo chambers by design, since they are developed to increase user engagement by showing them content similar to what they already consume. Twitter has multiple features that try to hold onto the user’s interest by showcasing similar content. The site’s suggestions on who to follow, for example, helps create a bubble around the user in terms of the voices that can reach them. Each user’s news feed is accordingly populated with tweets that are likely to align with their interests or beliefs.

Conversely, since a user’s popularity on the site depends on the likes and retweets they muster, the user’s tweets are likely to be in line with their followers or any online community they wish to be part of. Receiving a like affirms that your two cents resonated with someone. Such affirmation is important for many people in radicalist circles, as this kind of support helps normalise a member’s beliefs in the community.

A group of persons belonging to an extremist community can, thus, easily manipulate twitter mechanics into by posting abhorrent comments and encouraging their group of followers to get it trending. HindutvaTwitterati are often seen making “hate chains” out of their tweets for this reason.

If not overt, one can often find covert connections between the hate-filled hashtags and persons engaged in politics. The author of the following tweet, AkashSoni, was reported by AltNews to have been an admin of a BJP WhatsApp group that was harassing NDTV journalist Ravish Kumar

As the report notes, Soni’s Facebook profile and personal page have pictures of him with various BJP leaders, and has also posted publicly private numbers of journalists like BarkhaDutt, Kumar, RajdeepSardesai and Abhisar Sharma on his Facebook timeline.

Communal vitriol packs its volume
It is well understood that internet popularity wields power, and the ability to control public discussion can prove to be very useful. This is the primary reason for which political parties have their own IT cell to do their bidding in terms of garnering support and, sometimes, spreading propaganda.
[Note: Prior to the LokSabha elections, a former employee who worked in data analytics for the BJP alleged the party has collected reams of personal data to classify voters and add them to different group chats based on their location, socioeconomic status, age, religion and caste. The founder of BJP’s IT cell referred to it as Frankenstein’s Monster.]

Case Study: The KamleshTiwari Murder
The latest burst of hatemongering trends came after news breaking of KamleshTiwari’s murder. On October 18, 2019, the saffron leader was found dead in his Lucknow home with a slit throat and multiple gunshot wounds. Since his death, Twitter has been flooded with, and vitriolic and offensive tweets have been seen on the trending board. 
It began with #KamleshTiwari, and #KamleshTiwariMurder. Soon enough, it devolved into blatantly islamophobichashtags in reference to a deplorable incident from 2015 where the saffron leader had referred to Prophet Muhammed as “the first Homosexual of the World”.

A flurry of vile hashtags calling the Prophet gay, a rapist, and a terrorist popped up in English and Hindi. Along with these jibes, a second wave of hashtags calling for a boycott of Muslims emerged.

From a long, hard look into these hashtagspopularised made by Saffron Twitter, one notices two methods that are commonly used to other and demonise the Muslim community

1. Insulting the Muslim Faith
In these type of posts, the users use a predecided hate chain of hashtags that call the Prophet names, and often include islamophobic captions.
A few examples:
“Islam is not a religion, it’s a way to spread terror.” https://twitter.com/Nikesh/status/1185755895122157568 [Note: contains expletives]

“Today, A truth is trending!”

3. Asking Hindus to Wake Up
A surge of tweets seem to equate Tiwari’s death to mean that the entire Hindu community is in danger and needs to “wake up” from their stupor and take action against Muslims, lest you are next in line.
A few examples:

“मुसलमानों का लक्ष्य है हिन्दुओं का सर्वनाश”

“If they want “Violence”, we will show what is “Violence” by means of Blood.”

4. Asking Hindus to Boycott Muslims
On a similar note, other fundamentalists are found imploring their followers to stop availing goods and services of Muslims.
A few examples:

Plea to boycott Muslims

“YOU are giving every penny of your money to them”

Hateful tweets have #consequences
As social media becomes more intrinsic to our daily lives, it has also begun to play a role in our conflicts. In the United States, a study has shown that cities with a higher incidence of hateful tweets have more actual hate crimes. In India, multiple incidents of social media-related fatalities have been reported over and over. Internet shutdowns often follow communal riots. The insurgence of these tweets cannot be treated lightly. There are around 350 million Indians on social media, even a small fraction of those people taking up arms against one another can prove to be disastrous for the fabric of this nation.
 
What can Twitter do?
Twitter’s hateful conduct policy clearly states that a user may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of their religious affiliation. The company states that it would take action against accounts that participate in any of the following types of behaviour: violent threats; wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm on a person or group of people; references to mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence where protected groups have been the primary targets or victims; inciting fear about a protected category; repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone; and hateful imagery.

Evidently, these tweets go against the company’s policy, but the presence of the hate-fuelled hashtags is proof that no real action has been taken against by organisation. Salman Soz called out Twitter India on the anti-Muslim hashtags trending in India.

Twitter has proven its capacity to take action against hate speech and propaganda before.

However, it has been previously argued that Twitter profits greatly from users’ extremist political views.As Darren Linvillnotes, Twitter didn’t report a profitable quarter until 12 years after its founding in 2017. The company wouldn’t view it as being in its financial best interest at this point to alienate a large portion of its users.

The post Hate Watch: How Hate Trends On Twitter—A Look into Communal Echo Chambers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Good

Since its inception, on paper at least, India’s Constitutional foundations declare its push to become a casteless society. The New India was founded on principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, andthe Indian Constitution was framed with a view to protect its people from being vulnerable to any kind of discrimination.

Article 14 of the Constitution underlines the right to equality before the law and Article 17 abolishes Untouchability. Caste however is not directly disparaged in India’s foundational document.

We have seen a lot of instances in this last decade of people exercising their liberty by determining an identity or themselves that foregoes caste and religion. In the 2011 Census, around 29 lakh people in India chose to not state their religion for the religion category.In 2014,the Bombay High Courthad directed the state not to compel any individual to declare or specify his religion in any form or any declaration, the Court quoted the apex courtwhich had observed:
“Article 25, as its language amplifies, assures to every person subject to public order, health and morality, freedom not only to entertain his religious beliefs, …but also to exhibit his belief in such outwardly act as he thinks proper and to propagate or disseminate his ideas for the edification of others.”

Similarly, the Madras High Court in 2016 affirmed that when a person or, in case of a minor, their parents do not wish or unable to disclose the religion and caste, the same need not be insisted upon in instances where they are seeking admission for their child.

More recently, during the 2017-18 academic year, more than one lakhschool students admitted to classes 1 to 12 in Kerala have left the caste and religion columns blank. In February 2019, M.A. Sneha became the first woman to receive a “no caste, no religion” certificate from the government.

These cases are a strong indication of the changing tide in the country where we see Indians are more self-actualised and are moving towards forming a more secular demographic.

The Bad

As heartwarming as these incidents are, and as hopeful as they make one feel for India’s future, are these examples are painting a complete picture? The Non-Savarna Indian would tell you a different side to the story. When you are bornDalit, letting go of your caste is often not possible.Far too often, others don’t let you. You can change your surname, convert to Buddhism,and you may still be primarily associated with what you were born into.  Even after getting a Harvard education, parting from your Dalit caste is about as easy as parting from your shadow.Letting go of one’s identity would also mean letting go of any state assistance offered to offset the societal disadvantages placed on your community. Ajay Kumar, the executive director of the NGO Rights which works for the upliftment of dalits, while commenting on the news from Kerala, noted, “It is easy for the privileged to sacrifice caste while dalits can’t do that. It has been only 60 years since dalits in Kerala have accessed education. Even today, they are not in a position to sacrifice their legitimate rights.”

The Ugly

Worse still, socio-political non-representation and callously chosen government policies can result ineffective invisiblity for the non-Savarna Indian.This amounts to a moreforced loss of identity, and is precisely why the under priviledged often organize their politics around group’s interests.

Dr. Ambedkar once said, “rights are protected not by law but by social and moral conscience of society.”Forced invisibility can show us why the state’s efforts to uplift the downtrodden haven’t had much effect on their social standing.

A simple example of forced invisibility is the manner in which the governments of the last two decades have handled collecting census data. As stated by the Census Board of India, the decennial census performsthe dual objective of collecting valuable information which assistsgovernments in planning and formulating policies, and providing the basis for reviewing the country’s progress in the past decade.Despite the crucial role the census plays in forming effective government policy, we haven’t collected caste-wise data since the 1931 census (except to count the number of people falling in the categories of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes). To this day, we rely on the 1931 censusdata to caste-relatedpolicies.While a caste census was conducted in 2011,the Centre has been sitting on its findings over alleged worries of the results causing political strife and more demands for reservation.

In August 2019, nearly 100 villages in Thane and Palghar districts passed a resolution to boycott the enumeration process for the 2021 census until the government reverses its decision to not include the OBC caste data in the census, going back on its promise from last year. “If you aren’t counted, you don’t exist. You need to demand your visibility first to be able to ask for what belongs to you rightfully,” explained social activist Sunil Deore.

Identity politics is not the problem

Is it fair to not count caste-wise data over concerns of encouraging identity politics?

Identity politics involves people belonging a particular groupengaging in politics to protect their group interests. Going by this definition, one can see that identity politics, in fact, plays anintegral role in the democratic process. Progressive movements for women’s rights and queer rights have both come from identity politics.The use of identity politics only becomes a hindrance to the nation’s growth when it fuels tribalism, creating in an “us versus them” dynamic. As long as a group’s interests are in line with constitutional principles and align with the overarching interests of the country, identity politics only builds a fulfilling democracy. 

Another important point to consider is that caste-based and religious minorities often don’t have any other option but to rely on identity politics. Majoritarian political parties base their agenda on different forms of minority erasure, and while the supposed secular parties mayshow solidarity towards minorities, theyare rarely seen creating space for minorities among their ranks.

It is difficult to make policies that can benefit a community if they don’t have an understanding of that community’s struggles. For example, in an effort to prevent use of offensive slurs against the Dalits, the Centre directed private satellite TV channels and government departments to avoid using the term ‘Dalit’ and to use ‘Scheduled Castes’ instead. This advisory was in accordance with the orders of High Courts of Bombay and Madhya Pradesh.

However, what neither the Centre nor the High Courts had considered at the time was, being referred to as ‘SC’ has become offensive in practical usage, and the term ‘Dalit’ has been a term of empowerment for the oppressed community. This goes to show the need for minoritiesto be adequately represented in positions of power.Without the support of any other organisation, caste-based or religious minorities have no choice but to form their own factionsso as to participate in political affairs. In such cases, the only way to be heard is to be seen.

Conclusion

So how should the non-Savarna Indian navigate through issues of self-identity? In an ideal world, where every single Indian has been unshackledfrom the weight of their caste or religion, a “non-Savarna Indian” wouldn’t be defined as such⁠—the term wouldhold no significant meaning. They, too, would then have the freedom to derive their identity from what they choose.

However, at this time, when an equal society remains a dream for vulnerable communities, and being a minority means facing resentment just for being that minority, the road to obtain civil rightsis of collective, relentless struggle. Out of necessity, then, one identifies with the community that has banded together to be heard in socio-political discourse.
 

The post To Be or Not to Be: The Identity Crisis of the Non-Savarna Indian appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The carnage
It was on July 17, 2019 that the brewing conflict, essentially a battle of Adivasis for their land and tilling rights, boiled over. Yagyadutt led a large group of the dominant, land-owning Gujjar community to indiscriminately fire guns at Gond tribals. Reportedly, close to 300 men who were atop 32 tractors rode onto the farmlands that belong to these tribals and started firing at the Umbha village of Sonbhadra. The incident occurred on July 17 when villagers belonging to the Gond community were farming the disputed land. A group of people led by Yagyadutt went to take possession of the land which they claimed was purchased by him and his relatives two years ago. They indiscriminately fired at the villagers, killing 11 of them and injuring 21 persons.
After the attack, the police seized five firearms, (including three double-barrel and one single-barrel gun), 19 tractors and 12 sticks.

Here is a quick recap of the issue.

The conflict
The district of Sonbhadra, while being one of the most backward in Uttar Pradesh, is also prime real estate for industrialisation. Nicknamed the ‘power capital of India’, it produces at least 12,000 MW of power, with 32 major plants, factories and mines dotting the area. The district has had aluminium and chemical factories, a cement plant and a steel plant established in the 1960s, and the reserves of coal, bauxite, limestone, and gold make it riper for mining-related investment.  

The Gonds have been tilling land of Umbha, a village in Sonbhadra since before independence. Other than being their home, this land has played a role in their formation of a cultural identity. In the year 1952, 639 bighas of the area’s land was declared to be a ‘gaonsamajbhumi’⁠—land owned by the village Gram Sabha under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

However, in 1955, Maheshwari Prasad Sinha used political connections of his IAS son-in-law Prabhat Kumar Mishra to get this very land transferred to a charitable society which he had formed in Sonbhadra. Sinha’s daughter and Mishra’s wife Asha Mishra was made the manager of the society of about 463 bighas of land. In 1989, another 200 bighas of this land was transferred to Asha.

In 2017, Yagyadutt bought 144 bighas of this land from Vinita, daughter of Prabhat Kumar Mishra. The Gond tribals complained to the revenue authorities and approached the court against what they termed was an illegal sale. Ownership of that much land by one person also goes against Land Ceiling law. Yagyadutt thereafter lodged FIRs against the Gonds for “encroaching” on his land.

Thus, the Gond tribals had their unequivocal right to their land put in jeopardy by a few Savarna politicos playing the system and misusing their power. (Read Systematic betrayal of the Adivasis since independence for more detailed coverage)

The chargesheet
Prabhakar Chaudhary, Sonbhadra’s Superintendent of Police, (SP) stated that this chargesheet has been prepared on the basis of scientific evidence along with statements made by 123 people. He told the Indian Express, “The role of 59 people has come to light. Fifty-five of them have been arrested and four others are on the run. On Monday, we filed the chargesheet against 51 of in a local court of Sonbhadra. The court has fixed October 24 for taking cognizance of the chargesheet,”

The chargesheet specifically states that Yagyadutt, his brothers Nidhidutt, Devdutt and Dharmendra, and one Vijay fired guns at the Gond tribals. It states that after Nidhidutt got injured at some point, another accused Neeraj Rai fired using his double-barrel gun. Most of the other persons charged are also related to Yagyadutt.

The chargesheet also names Komal Singh, suspended superintendent of Bhadohi railway station, as a key conspirator in the case. He spoke to Yagyadutt and Dharmendra five times each at the time of the crime. The document also notes that another railway employee contacted Yagyadutt 16 times and Dharmendra 17 times on the day of the killings.

The police has applied IPC sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (acts done in furtherance of common intention) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy), in addition to the SC/ST Act and Arms Act. It has been reported that the UP Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe Commission also asked the state government to invoke the National Security Act and the Gangster Act against the alleged culprits.

Can the meek inherit the Earth?
The hubris displayed by Yagyadutt and his associates might come as a rude shock to the uninitiated, but it comes as no surprise when one looks into all the injustices that adivasis suffer from ever so often. The cards are almost always stacked against them.

With respect to this incident, the village head, who is duty-bound to protect the interests of the villagers, has been been trying to unceremoniously turn the Gond tribals into encroachers of their own land, they are considerably socio-economically disadvantaged as opposed to their Gujjar adversary, the Ghorawal police has been accused of working hand-in-glove with Yagyadutt and helping him with every move since 2017, and now they have had their lives threatened over the property.

Even on a national scale, adivasis are often treated as the invisible class. The government does not provide any assistance to tribal applicants trying to assert their right over forest land, as a result of which lakhs of tribals are not facing eviction from their homes.

Against all odds, however, the tribal communities continue to fight back. Adivasi rights activists from Sonbhadra and other tribal-populated areas have found strength in numbers and collectively assist other tribals in making land claims and raising a voice against discrimination.

Adivasi rights activists Sokalo Gond and Nivada Rana are now seeking court intervention through an intervention application which is supported by CJP and the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP). (CJP has been actively campaigning for the rights of forest-dwellers. You can have a look at our work here.)

As Sokalo Gond (Sonbhadra native and member of All India Union of Forest Working Peoples) said to Scroll.in, “We have to stand with each other and with all the other communities who live in the forest. Even though there has been a stay order from the Supreme Court, we have to continue to show the people in charge that we are not afraid of asking for our rights.”

Related:

1. “Jaan de denge lekin zamin nahi denge” (we will give our lives but not the land): Sonbhadra
2. Forest Dwellers have no support from Gov’t in filing Land Claims: Roma
3. Pellets in MP village, villagers severely injured accused of “encroaching” their own lands

The post The Buck Stopped Here: Village Head and Three Brothers among the 51 Accused in Sonbhadra Massacre appeared first on SabrangIndia.