The moment we saw on Facebook on January 25, 2020, the happy photograph of two elderly women together at the iconic site of women’s protest against the new Citizenship law, Shaheen Bagh, in south Delhi on the banks of the river Yamuna, we knew that this picture was worth a thousand words.

One of them we could identify was Devaki Jain, a known Gandhian and feminist economist, the other was the unknown Bilkis Dadi of Shaheen Bagh. Their camaraderie said a lot. A big human-interest story of compassion and patriotism was waiting to be unearthed.

Devaki Jain was recently in the news when with 170 other women’s rights activists, she wrote to the Prime Minister complaining about BJP leaders using fear of rape as a campaign message for the Delhi election.

By interacting with Devaki Jain, presently at Bengaluru, over the internet, we were able to able to obtain her version of the Shaheen Bagh meeting with Bilkis, three photographs of the meeting and Devaki Jain’s semi-autobiographical lecture at Harvard. It is in this lecture, published in The Scroll as “Neither Gandhi nor Marx” that Devaki Jain held out “the greatest hope for justice in India lies in the Dalit and Feminist movements.”

Born in Mysore, now in Karnataka, 87 years ago to the distinguished Dewan of Gwalior, Devaki Jain studied at Oxford University, taught at Miranda House, Delhi, worked with Vinobha Bhave, was married to the Late L.C. Jain who was responsible for starting the cooperative movement in India, Devaki Jain is scholar, avid writer, activist and teacher at prominent Universities the world over. In short Devaki Jain represents the elite at one end of the social spectrum. At the other and of the spectrum, was till recently unknown Bilkis Dadi, whom we the advocates interviewed on January 31, 2020, to know the truth about Shaheen Bagh. We could not meet the other Dadis who were with Bilkis the day Devaki Jain had met them on January 25, 2020, namely; Nisha Asma Khatoon, aged 90 years and Sarvari, aged 75 years.
 

From our interview we learnt that Bilkis Dadi aged about 82 years, belongs to the downtrodden section of society, hailing from an artisan Ansari family of Karena village near Gulaiti, Bulandshahar, UP. Her five sons have been residing in this locality for the last 30 years and she has joined them only eight years back. She was sitting on protest against CAA, the new Citizen law, and NCR for the last about 50 days from the evening of 15^th December, 2019 only because she felt threatened by the incidents of that morning at Jamia Milia Islamia where her two grandsons are studying. She felt that their survival as citizens of India was at stake. It was a question of life and death for her. On that 15^th morning Police entered into the Jamia library without permission and beat up the students, one of them even lost an eye that compelled her to join the few protesters who were already sitting at an unknown ground on the banks of the Yamuna which later acquired name and fame as Shaheen Bagh. The platform or stage was set-up on 16^th December with the 60-70 people present voluntarily contributing the various elements like bamboos, rassi, duree/mattresses etc. They stop the traffic and blocked the road to NOIDA right from the beginning, only allowing school buses, ambulances and police vans to ply whenever required. Other transport was not allowed because of the concern for safety and security ever since the police entered Jamia Library on 15^th December. She narrated how she has been sitting at the protest suffering three heavy showers of rain and very cold winter nights. About 2,000-3,000 persons come and go to the protest site through the day. There have been at least 20-25 women present all through the day and night except some times when she and others had to go home for the night. The number of men present at night have been uncountable, but in the morning, at least 500 men were present.

She narrated how people spontaneously kept coming to the protest, sometimes the crowd swelled to thousands an even a lakh or more. When Bhim (army) leader Chandra Shekhar Azad addressed the gathering on New Year’s Eve, there was an estimated crowd of two lakh fifty thousand. When actor Sushant Singh Thakur came on January 19, there was a huge crowd to listen to him. Republic Day was celebrated on January 26, 2020, by about one lakh to one lakh twenty-five thousand persons, with much pomp. Almost everyone was  holding the National tri-colour, many holding the book of Indian Constitution and everyone singing the National Anthem as also the new anthems of the anti- CAA movement across India: “Azaadi” (Azad desh mein Azadi- The song of freedom in a free country) by activist Kanhaiya Kumar and “Tanashah ayenge jayenge, Kagaz hum nahi dikhayenge” (Dictators will come and go but the papers we won’t show)by poet Varun Grover.

Money donations at the Shaheen Bagh protest are barred and people have voluntarily contributed the required items like food, refreshment, electrical gadgets like mic, LED lights, loud speaker, National flags and banners etc. A Sikh langar was running for 10-12 days throughout the day, till Police removed it cleverly when most of the protesters were busy in performing Namaaz and some had gone for a rally at Shaheen Bagh, police station.

On January 17, Bilkis Dadi joined a delegation of seven members from the Shaheen Bagh protestors, to meet the LG of Delhi, Mr. Baijal and requested that on our behalf, he should send a message to the Prime Minister to repeal the CAA and withdraw the proposed NRC. We are still awaiting a reply. We will stop our protest the movement the CAA is repealed and the proposed NRC is withdrawn. Bilkis told the LG that “Modi Sa’ab is like my son. His mother is my sister. My fight is not with Modi Sa’ab. We are fighting for our survival as citizens of our beloved country India.”

There have been several attempts to vacate the protesters from Shaheen Bagh either by persuasion or by force or by provoking violence as the recent incidents have shown, but the protesters have stood their ground. Bilkis showed her determination to uphold “Bhim (Ambedkar) ka Constitution” and that she and her friends would not budge unless the CAA was withdrawn and the NRC was cancelled. It was a great pleasure to see the library which has been set up with historical photographs of the freedom movement and collection of books including many copies of the Constitution of India. We took photographs of Bilkis Dadi and the library which we are sharing with this write-up.

In this background of what is the truth of Shaheen Bagh, we will be able to appreciate what Devaki Jain had to say on her meeting with Bilkis Dadi when she had visited Shaheen Bagh on January 25, 2020.

Bilkis Dadi was sitting with her other Dadi friends on the platform, when she spotted Devaki. Bilkis and her friends, welcomed Devaki and asked her to come and sit with them. Devaki said she was unable to join them on the platform because of her back problem. Bilkis explained that they had been compelled to sit on this indefinite protest to save the future of the next generations. “If we don’t do this, they won’t forgive us,” she said. Devaki told them that the whole country was enthused by their protest and they had set a great example. Before leaving, Devaki said, “We will win!”

In this background, it is not difficult to understand the significance of the chance meeting of Devaki Jain and Bilkis Dadi on January 25, 2020, at Shaheen Bagh. While Devaki Jain represents the social elite, Bilkis Dadi is from the downtrodden section. Both are feisty, courageous, amazing women in their eighties at two ends of the social spectrum. Both are a patriotic committed to their love for an India that they have known where diverse people have come from different parts of the world to live and die here.

What Devaki Jain had mentioned in her lecture at Harvard University, published in The Scroll comes to mind: “the greatest hope for justice in India lies in the Dalit and Feminist movements.”

If Devaki Jain and Bilkis Dadi and their kind, were to combine their commitment to the resurrection of a secular, democratic India, it could perhaps save India from the disaster that the new Citizenship Law forebodes: from one Partition to several divisions in the future.

Aurobindo Ghose is a Human Rights activist and lawyer and can be reached at g_aurobindo@yahoo.com

Gurjeet Kaur is a lawyer, has been active in the women’s rights movement, and has researched on issues of law and gender. She can be reached at kalsi_gurjeet@yahoo.co.in

The post Picture of two Elderly Women at Shaheen Bagh, is worth thousand words appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Tit for Tat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In January 2018, four top Supreme Court Judges in a surprise move, held a press conference declaring that ” Democracy is at stake, and we have a debt to the nation.” Justice Ranjan Gogoi, as he then was, had also remarked that, “independent judges and noisy journalists are democracy’s first line of defence”. Three of these judges have retired  as judges, over a year ago. The fourth became chief justice of India (CJI) on October 3, 2018. On the evening of November 25, 2018, in an unprecedented move, the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi had tea with the CJI at his Court room number 1, within the Supreme Court. The CJI quickly reconstituted the five-judge bench hearing the Ayodhya case, proceeded to hear it on a day-to-day basis and pronounced an un-signed judgment on November 9, 2019  just a week before demitting office. The CJI also led the benches which dismissed the challenges to the Rafael deal, the executive’s interference in the highest echelons of the CBI, ensured the completion of the arbitrary and discriminatory NRC exercise in Assam within a set time-frame and upturned the earlier majority Sabarimala judgment allowing younger Hindu women to enter the Kerala temple, by permitting review of the verdict by a bigger bench. In the process he compromised the independence of the judiciary and lowered the dignity and prestige of the highest Court.  After the Ayodhya verdict, what can we now say about the future of our democracy?

The demolition on August 10, 2019, of the Sant Ravidas Temple – a symbol of Dalit faith in North India – for land encroachment, on directions of the Supreme Court was a brazen and clear violation of the freedom of religion as laid down by the Constitution of India. The same Supreme Court on November 9, 2019 directed the Central Government, on grounds of faith and not fact, to construct the Ram Temple at Ayodhya at the site of the demolished Babri Masjid, even after holding that the placing of the idol Ram Lalla in 1949 inside the mosque was illegal and its demolition in December 1992 was an “egregious violation of the rule of law”.

A careful reading of the 1045 – page long judgment brings out the deep inconsistency between what is professed and what is practiced. The judgment talks about the equality of religion and equality before the law as enshrined in the Constitution, but has clearly leaned on the side of the majority. As the BBC reported, loud chants of “Jai Shree Ram”(“Hail Lord Rama”) and “Mandir Wahin Banayenge” (“We shall construct theTemple at the very spot where Lord Rama was born “) rent the air in the precincts of the Supreme Court, as the Ayodhya verdict was being read out.

While holding that “the dispute is over immoveable property” and ” the court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence”, the Court ultimately decided the title dispute in favour of majoritarian forces and against the minority, contrary to all available evidence.  The Court also ruled that a) ASI found the Masjid was built above a structure but it could not be said to be a temple; b) the Masjid was not built after demolishing a temple; c) the placement of the deity Ram Lalla inside the Masjid in 1949 was illegal; and d) the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was a clear violation of the rule of law. The Court has nevertheless awarded the ownership of the disputed site to a juristic person, baby Ram Lalla, on the ground of continued line of worship at the outer and inner courtyard and directed the Central Government to form a Trust to construct the Ram Temple. There is no evidence before the Court that a historical person called Ram ever existed, that Lord Rama was born there or that a Ram Mandir ever existed on the site.  

Even while paying lip service to the premise that ” at the heart of the Constitution is a commitment to equality upheld and enforced by the rule of law”, the judgement has denied the aggrieved party the Sunni Wakf Board its claim to the site after its palpably visible dispossession, because of its inability to provide evidence of continued  possession. The Court has also held that there is no evidence that Muslims have abandoned the inner courtyard.  The judgment is indeed a classic case of a ” bundle of contradictions”, as by yet another somersault, the Court has decided to provide the Sunni Wakf Board a suitable 5-acre land in Ayodhya away from the disputed site for construction of a Mosque. This appears to be a case of compensation or rather reparation for the act of desecration in 1949 and demolition of the Babri mosque on December 6, 1992.

The judgment is replete with errors apparent on the face of the record. The biggest error is that the Ayodhya  ‘judgment’ is unsigned, which under Order XX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 makes it non est or no judgment whatsoever in the eyes of law. Even the Addendum to the judgment as to whether the disputed structure is actually the birth place of Lord Rama, is unsigned and the name of its author undisclosed. Yet another basic or structural error apparent on the face of the record, is that even while swearing by the Constitution, the judgment violates the secular character of the Constitution as reflected in its very Preamble by identifying the parties as ‘Hindu’ or ‘Muslim’. The judgment also assigns to the Central Government the pivotal role of construction of the Ram Temple which the State is prohibited from doing under a secular Constitution.  

The judgment also violates the rule of equality before the law by using the legal procedures and rules of evidence in a discriminatory manner. The rule of evidence followed in deciding the title of Baby Ram Lalla over the disputed site is the “preponderance of probabilities”, which is a rule more subjective than objective. However, the evidence  demanded from the Waqf Board was the proof of continued physical possession which is more objective, even though the Bench admittedly never doubted the existence of the mosque and continuance of Namaz.

Even on the law of limitation, the judgment clearly discriminates. The suit of Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination, was dismissed on the grounds that it is not a juristic person and the suit was time barred. On the other hand, Ram Lalla was illegally placed inside the Mosque in 1949 and the suit was instituted in 1989 beyond the 30-year period of limitation. The judgment does not clarify this issue except to say that the suit on behalf of Ram Lalla is maintainable. It may be because Ram Lalla as a figurative character is depicted as a Baby or minor and there is no limitation for a minor. However, no method of determination of the age of a stone idol, considered as a juristic person, is available in the jurisprudential literature.           

The question then arises: Did the Supreme Court through its Ayodhya verdict, by implication, unwittingly declare India as a majoritarian, theocratic State? Is this a Hindu Rashtra? Is this the culmination of the movement for Hindutva defined as ‘Hindu Rashtra’  since the early 1920s, with personalities like Hedgewar, Savarkar and Golwalkar as its leading figures, and particularly since the formation in Nagpur in September 1925, of the voluntary body of the Hindutva forces, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or the RSS in short ? My simple answer is:  not yet, in the face of an emergent counter-force of a bold, vibrant, vigilant rainbow-like civil society in defence of secularism, human rights and democracy.

The Sunni Wakf Board and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) were quick to reject the offer of the Ayodhya bench of 5-acres of alternative land for construction of a new mosque, because Hanafi law does not allow it. The AIMPLB has also decided to file a Review petition, but the Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities has cautioned against such a move. The verdict was immediately followed by the formation in Chennai of a forty-body strong “anti-fascist coalition” to   oppose it. Recently, the Deoband-based umbrella body “United against Hate” organised a joint protest against disappearances, mob-lynching and the killing of rationalists.  Every day there are protests by democratic forces in different parts of the country, for example, J.N.U. students valiantly carry on their fight against unchecked hostel fee hike; various organizations have come together to oppose the NRC (National Register of Citizens) in Assam, West Bengal and other States. Women, Dalits (particularly followers of Sant Ravidas), Tribals, forest dwellers, OBCs, farmers, trade unions and intellectuals are organising protests on a continuous basis, against the anti-people policies of the government.

Under these circumstances, with a growing civil society determined not to submit to the repressive, communal and divisive policies of the government, it is well-nigh impossible for a Hindu Rashtra or a fascist state to takeover this beautiful, “unity in diversity”, secular, democratic country called India.

The author is advocate, Supreme Court of India and can be contacted at g_aurobindo@yahoo.com)

The post India is not quite yet a Hindu Rashtra: 70th Constitution Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
In all such cases, like that of Akhlaq, Pehlu Khan and Riazuddin Ali, there was not only public outrage, witnesses were identified, FIRs lodged and the cases proceeded in the courts. But this case was different. As the Indian Express reported on the front page on Sunday, June 25, of the about 200 people who were there on the Asaoti platform while Junaid bled to death, not one of them had seen anything. The police could not muster a single witness to Junaid's killing. Even now, two weeks after the lynching, there have been some arrests but no great leads in to why and who killed Junaid. The footage only captured three men boarding a motorcycle and fleeing from the area soon after the train in which Junaid was killed came to a halt at the station. This indicates unmistakable intention, but nobody, wants to identify the killers.
 
Aarti Sethi writes searingly in Kafila Online, that the police cannot find a witness because something very peculiar and uniquely terrifying seems to have happened to those present at Junaid’s death :
"the totalising force of an unspoken, but collectively binding, agreement between Hindus to not see the dead body of a Muslim child"  Aarti Sethi in the same piece draws a stark conclusion : " On June 22, 2017, the  Republic effectively ended. India is no longer a secular constitutional republic but on the precipice of being transformed into a majoritarian state…" 
 
However, here, I argues that there is still hope. If the civil society comes out loudly and unmistakably against such mob lynchings and if this is the beginnings of a united democratic movement.
 
I could not believe the descriptions  of Junaid's lynching in full public view inside the train, no one coming to held, no one admitting to have seen anything as the child's body lay on a platform where it had been thrown.
 
I also suddenly remembered the video of the lynching of the sons of Balu Sarvaiya, a  SC by caste who traditionally skins and disposes off dead cows , who were flogged with belts and sticks on suspicion of having slaughtered a cow. One of Balu's sons was dragged by a car on the road, till the video went viral (it was the assailants that used social emdia) and thousands of Dalits protested the next day. Fortunately, the sons of Balu Sarvaiya survived. 
 
My next reaction was to  take out my ruffled, yellow-paged  copy of Lee Harper's " To Kill a Mocking Bird" to check what lynching meant in the racially charged southern States of America.
 
In this memorable best-seller, there was no description or scene of any actual lynching. Only two in which the mob had gathered . One in which the African-American gentleman drove his car fast past a mob inching to lynch him and his family. The other near-lynching  scene was in which Atticus Flinch, the lawyer defending Tom Robinson, the  man accused of having raped a white girl, guards the main door of the jail in which the accused is lodged. A seemingly drunk mob gathers outside the jail, it seems with the clear intention of  breaking the prisoner Tom Robinson out of the jail and lynching him., the purpose being to send a message to the African-Ameican community and to prevent Tom from going to trial. The mob comes very close to Atticus and asks him to move away which the lawyer refuses. Atticus' children manage to reach the jail and talk the mob into dispersing.
 
When I consider these fictional accounts of  lynch crowds in the United States in the racially charged 1920s and 30s, and compare them with what is happening in the cases of Muslims and Dalits in India at present, I am liable to agree with Walt Disney when he  remarked " Truth is stranger than fiction" and even more grim and cruel..
 
The silence over Junaid's lynching on Thursday, June 22,  was both eerie and frightening This silence was finally and firmly broken on the evening of June 28,  when there were #NotInMyName protests in Delhi and 18 other cities of India, like Mumbai, Chennai,  Kolkata, Bengaluru, Pune, Faridabad, Chandigarh,Thiruvanthapuram, Lucknow, Patna, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Gaya, Allahabad and five cities abroad.(The Economic & Political Weekly gives a vivid and live account.)  
 
I was present in a 2000+ strong gathering (Dr. PS Sahni of PIL Watch group puts the number at 3000 while another estimate says it was 3500) as activists from all walks of life gathered in drizzling rain, during the '# Not in My name' protest meeting full of songs, poetry, memoralia and mono-acting, at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, The protest was a great success as the rain as well as the support and enthusiasm of the gathering brought much relief both to the beseiged minority community as well as the educated middle classes all around. It was a most moving and powerful show of cultural resistance to emerging fascism. 
 
I soaked in every moment of the cheerful solidarity expressed by the protest with the victims of the ongoing lynching tyranny. The meeting began with a strong and combative introduction by Saba Dewan, on how the # Not in My Name campaign originated and moved forward after 15-year old Junaid's lynching last week Thursday and the reign of silence and fear that followed.
 
Though the immediate families of Junaid and Pehlu Khan could not arrive despite every intention, they were represented by relatives and vocal members of their village. The audience were in tears when Mohd. Azharuddin from Junaid's neighbourhood, read out a 'fictional' letter from heaven from Junaid to his mother on earth.
 
The meeting was spruced up with Gandhiji's favourite Bhajan 'Vaishnava Jana' sung by Mohd. Haneef Khan and group, recitations of nazms by Dr. Padmawati 'Chhinna' Dua, Gauhar Raza, Sabita , Akhil Kumar and Vinod Dua, the song-with-guitar 'Bullah ki' by Rabbi Sher Gill and a powerful performance by danseuese-cum-actor Maya Rao.
 
The audience cheered and clapped throughout, undeterred by the drizzling rain. Soon news trickled in that similar 'NOT IN MY NAME' protest meetings were simultaneously going on in 19 Indian cities and were scheduled that day in 5 cities abroad. I could spot some of the faces I knew of well-known women activists, journalists, human rights activists, Professors, lawyers, student leaders.
 
Particularly noticeable were the skull caps and beards of people who were for once feeling at home. Also noticeable were. the emerging  faces of resistance to tyranny and incoming facism. Must congratulate the visible faces of the organising team, particularly film-maker Saba Dewanand Rahul Roy.
 
I say visible faces because I do not think it was spontaneous. It was so well planned, organised, co-ordinated and executed beautifully. Plenty of resources – human, moral, material, temporal – seem to have gone behind it. It gives us hope. Congratulations to the emerging faces of #NotInMyName event in 19 cities in India and 5 cities abroad. I fully agree that#NotInMyName is a much-needed step forward from the prevailing fear and silent acquiscence to frequent lynchings of our Muslim brethren. It has unmistakably and firmly broken that silence. But it needs to be taken forward and broadened in scope. 
 
Even now the public protests continue. There was a massive protest on July 3 at Dadar, Mumbai, led by filmmaker Anand Patwardhan and supported by various organizations, political parties and trade unions like AITUC. Kolkata witnessed a fiery torchlight procession on July 4, organised by the Young Bengal group. On July 8, despite non-cooperation by the police, Ahmedabad saw a massive demonstration organised by Gujarat Jan Andolan with people from all walks of life holding placards – 'Not In My Name', 'Shed Hate Not Blood' and 'Democracy Not Mobocracy'.
 
As I sit to complete and release this piece, news comes of 100+protest actions across Delhi on August 27 : Say NO to Hatred!#NotInMyName.

State and civil society were both quick to  respond to these  protests. Electronic and print media  gave better coverage than usual. For days, these protests were the only talking point over social media, both Facebook and Twitter. 
 
The very next Saturday after the Wednesday 28 June protests,  the President of India who is the Constitutional Head of State used strong words when he remarked :“When mob lynching becomes so high and uncontrollable, we have to pause and reflect, are we vigilant enough? I am not talking of vigilantism, I am talking of are we vigilant enough, proactively to save the basic tenets of our country.”  
 
Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke his silence  the day after the nation-wide  protests , making general remarks, expressing "sadness on some of the things going on…..killing people in the name of protecting cows is not acceptable….As a society there is no place for violence…. No person in this nation has the right to take the law in his or her own hands… " These words of the Chief Executive appear significant but the general public reaction was,  it was too late, too little.
 
Facebook was aflutter with a retired English Professor Javed Mullick's Hindi poem :
" Dekho logo Modi boley
Dhol bajao, jashn manao,
Uchhlo, Koodo, khushi manao
Dekho, dekho Modi boley.
Modi boley, Modi boley
Jab duniya ne, phatkaar lagaee,
Janta cheekhee aur chillaee
Gussey mein sadkon par ayee
Tab kahin jaakar,
Bahut sambhal kar,
Ghuma phira kar,
Thoda sach jhoothon mein milakar
Zara -zara sa muh ko kholey.
Modi boley, Modi boley."
 
From the evening of the #NotInMyName protests on June 28, Facebook was full of cheerful photos and optimistic reports of how much relief these mass secular protests had brought to the minority community and common citizens.
 
Writing in the online journal, Countercurrents.org, Dr. P. S. Sahni of the PIL Watch group said " A thousand seeds of resistance got planted yesterday evening at Jantar Mantar, national protest site, Delhi on the blood shed by Junaid". Dr.Sahni thought this was the largest public gathering at Jantar Mantar for a long time. He observed, significantly, that it has brought much solace and confidence to the Muslim community , as did the public meeting in June 1984 at the Constitution Club against  'Operation Bluestar' at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, bring a sense of relief to the Sikhs at that time. Sohail Hashmi, cultural Historian, wrote on Facebook : "
 
What a great feeling of relief, lifting of the shroud of despondency and a rekindling of hope".
 In sync with tough laws recently passed by the British and German Parliaments, and the US Congress against  hate crime and hate speech, an online petition was launched last week in India too. Veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar, Dalit activist Jignesh Mevani, Tehseen Poonawala, student leaders Kanhaiya Kumar, Shehla Rashid and Bollywood actor Swara Bhaskar jointly launched a national campaign against mob lynching last week. They urged the Government to pass a law against mob lynching to be known , in short, as MASUKA or Manav Suraksha Kanoon. 
 
There were some negative or critical comments too. I cannot  agree at all with Shivam Vij of Huffington Post that  #NotInMyName protests did more harm than good. Like the rain which accompanied the 3000+ strong protest at JANTAR Mantar , it reduced the political temperatures, tension and brought an immediate sense of relief to the Muslim community, that they are not alone in their suffering and that they belong to this nation as much as the others. Shivam Vij also seems to be completely oblivious of the amount of left-liberal support received by the Dalit movements of Una as well as Shaharanpur, the Adivasi struggles of Chhatishgarh and the farmers' struggles.
 
His seem like cynical comments. To say that these protests were basically the act of the Left Elite and that they did not touch upon the life of the common man – ignoring completely the daily  legal/police  lynching of the workers, peasants, Adivasis and Kashmiris. I cannot bring myself to agree. Lynching , whether by the State or the mob, cannot be tolerated at any cost and must be resolutely and strongly protested and opposed. Every such protest is valuable and cannot be minimalised. 
 
Gautam Benegal, eminent graphic designer, painter, writer,  documentary filmmaker from Kolkata, made an apt comment on Facebook, which went viral – 
"The mob lynchers have a B Team. These are educated, English speaking Hindutva supporters who provide cover up fire to the backward mob killers. They keep silent at the violence of the mobs, but have a million critical things for people protesting the killings.

-"Oh but why didn't these people protest against Malda or WB killings?"
-"Oh but these siculars like NDTV will only speak of Junaid and never of police officer Pandit"
-"Oh, where were you when the Kashmiri pandits were being chucked out."
-"Oh if you speak out against the communal killings, you are the one polarising India."

Before you know it you will be defending your positions against their whataboutery and the targeted hate killings will become just another thing. These people are no less responsible than the brutal and crazy mob, for the hate-hole India finds itself in."
 
We also sought the reactions of people active on the Facebook and this is what they said.
 Harbans Mukhia , retired Professor of History at JNU, was forthright :"a march here and some slogan shouting there touches merely the fringe of the vast problem. But Not in My Name gave voice to what was being felt by a mass of people. The fact that even the PM had to respond to it and some small steps are being taken puts the regime even more open to charge of misconduct the next time a lynching happens. Unfortunately political parties have lost their legitimacy. Thus such protests leading to a movement at the level of civil society need to be organized by different groups at different levels. But the protest did show that India is ready to resile from the extreme to which it is being driven. Some hope still lives on."

John Dayal, writer, human rights activist and former President of the All India Catholic Union asked on Facebook : " Is a #MillionMarch possible before 2019?" When asked pointedly on his view of the mob lynchings and the ensuing protest, he issued a common appeal to all religious leaders, particularly his own,which runs thus :
" We as a people  have not shown, or voiced,  our love and support for our brothers and sisters in distress. We have remained silent, or subdued,  in the face of lynchings of Muslims and of Dalits by the cow vigilantes.
 
We have not spoken truth to power on many occasions in recent times.
 
We have not shown our oneness and solidarity with civil society which has shown courage to protest.
 
On the other hand, many in the leadership have made common cause with Ceasar, pleading that this capitulation will secure the community against persecution and targeting.
Can we be safe when our brother is targeted ?
This must weigh heavy on our conscience.
Our statement of preferential option for the poor, our policy on the Dalits, our new focus on the Tribals of central India, and our code on gender justice ring hollow, otherwise.
Our proven track record of service, in education and health, already  dwarfed by the massive infusion of resources into these sectors by the government, corporate sectors nd other faith groups, will no longer be sufficient.
 
Religion is a moral and ethical watchdog.
It empowers the poor. 
And makes us a pillar of  civil society, which today plays an important role in safeguarding the constitutional values that underpin the Idea of India.
This Idea of India is based on Values of dharma. 
In joining civil society and the common citizen in reclaiming citizenship and pristine constitutionality, we proclaim these values. 
We call upon you to give the leadership India requires at this hour to strengthen its courage and resolve."
 
Krishnendu Sarkar, who is a senior management consultant presently in the Middle East, makes very  definitive and clinching remarks : "Person who is lynched is Indian . The person who lynches is also Indian. The lynching must stop saving life of both. The Hindus who are misguided and participate in lynching must be educated and informed that they become criminal inviting legal punishment and community exclusion and shame for their family and children. They must stop becoming cold blooded murderer and play in hand of politicians. Also bystanders in group must intervene to stop such situation. Looking for some effort to save India. "
 
Khaja Jamaluddin, retired tea-planter from Kerala, now located at Hyderabad is very concerned when he says : " I definitely stand with all those who oppose this oppressive violently-bent regime.I wish we can dislodge this unholy ruling junta and replace them with what we as a United India were always used to."
 
Dr. Tripta Wahi, political scientist and former Professor at Delhi University takes up the issue of the extent of palpably false and unhistorical brain-washing that the mob is subjected to , when it engages in lynching an unsuspecting member of the minority or Dalit community : " Also one has to begin to address the question of historic facts. You go to any temple anywhere in India you find it being continuously stated that the temple was destroyed by the Muslim rulers. It is not denied that temples were demolished by some rulers,but majority of temples were not . It also needs to be remembered that shariat did not have provision for treating Hindus as zimmis,that is, people who were protected by the state on payment of a tax. Yet it happened. In response to the exigencies of the situation new developments took place in India despite opposition in the Islamic world. I personally think that short topical and relevant questions must be taken directly to the people . After all what is happening needs to be countered. Also Hindu rulers were doing the same kind of things in Java Sumatra etc which is regarded as greater India with pride by the self same persons/ideology . Hinduism also wiped out Buddhism and absorbed bhakti movement and made it caste ridden."
 

The important role of independent intellectuals and social groups to act as a 'safety valve' and mobilise strong public opinion against the break-down of law and order and the vanishing of the rule of law, cannot be minimized at all. I asked my respondents the pointed question : When there is such mob lynching of our Muslim and Dalit brethren and the State deliberately looks away, while appreciating the positive role of civil society, are some meetings and protests enough or do all secular and democratic forces need to come together in a strong, mass-based political movement to meet the challenge of the fascist, anti-democratic forces ?
 
Walter Fernandes, Jesuit, well known scholar, human rights activist and presently Senior Fellow at a Gauhati-basedResearch Institute, said : Yes Aurobindo I to believe that we should come together in a strong anti-fascist coalition though at my age I can give it mainly moral support. Please go ahead. The main objective is not winning the elections but providing ideological and moral support to the anti-fascist forces not based on any party."

Moolchand Sonkar, Dalit poet and writer responded : "a mass-based strong United anti-fascist democratic front is needed to meet the challenge but before going ahead a proper strategy be chalked out. "

Arun Maji, Advocate at Supreme Court and Convenor of India Against Fascism, said : " We urgently require to form a joint platform to resist the fascist Hindutwa forces."

Professor Ravinder Goel of Delhi University was conclusive, while limiting himself to the question of an united front to meet the fascist challenge : " In my view progressive forces ( left of all colours and socialists along with liberal individuals) should try to forge a unity and united front among themselves. Currently no need to join with various bourgeois parties. but support pro-people action of all. The question of all secular and democratic forces need to come together in a broad, mass-based strong United anti-fascist democratic front to meet the challenge of RSS and Hindutva forces should be taken up at a future date. In the absence of a united front of left forces it will essentially lead to tailing behind one or the other bourgeois parties and it will split when the chips are down. Remember the experience of PUCL days."

 
(The writer is a human rights activist, general secretary, Peoples' Rights Organisation, a human rights body)

The post I live in Hope # Protests against Mob Lynchings # Not in My Name appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Reuters

It is more than ten days since the One Belt One Road (OBOR) Summit called and hosted by China at Beijing from May 14 to 15, 2017, concluded. Significantly, India did not participate in OBOR. But the subject is so important for peace, development and stability or otherwise in the region and beyond, that it has continued relevance and requires a fresh review and discussion. The front page news on May 24 of Indian army's punitive fire assaults on Pakistan posts and today's news of US revival of two Public-Private infrastructure projects in South and South-East Asia in which Indian firms are to play a  key role , are sufficiently indicative.
 
As he formally inaugurated the two-day Summit,  Chinese President Xi Jinping , while. pledging to inject an additional $124 billion into the One Belt One Road initiative, assured the august gathering that the “project of the century” was not an attempt at forming “a small group (of countries) detrimental to stability”.In his opening address, Xi, without him referring to India or CPEC, said, “All countries should respect each others' sovereignty, dignity and territorial integrity, sovereignty, dignity each other’s development paths and social systems, and each other’s core interests and major concerns.”  
 
Twenty-nine heads of state and government including Vladimir Putin(Russia), Xi Jiping (China), Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan), Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey), Ranil Wickremesinghe (Sri Lanka), Rodrigo Duterte (Phillipines), Joko Widodo (Indonesia),  and the Presidents or Prime Ministers of such important nations as Argentina, Chile, Fiji, Greece, Italy, Spain, Kenya, Malaysia and high – level delegations from Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives, Myanamar, USA, France, Germany and UK participated.
 
While the prestigious US presence at the summit was a last-minute surprise due to the persistent efforts of the Chinese President Xi Jinping  to fructify a give-and-take trade plan, India's non-participation was very much on the cards as China's offer and invitation to India, nearly three years back, right after Prime Minister Modi came to power,  to jointly build new silk roads in inner Asia and the Indo-Pacific littoral, were literally spurned by the Indian side. On the other hand, the US participation came after the two sides clinched a lucrative trade agreement which will boost shipments of American liquefied natural gas, beef and other products to China. In turn, Chinese banks and poultry will get access to the US market.

Voicing sovereignty concerns on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, passing through Pak-occupied Kashmir, India though cordially invited, chose to boycott this hi-fi Summit concerning its immediate neighbourhood environment, security and attractive prospects of   trade, commerce and development in the region and between the participating countries.

My immediate reaction and that of most commentators on the subject was: Bad foreign policy not to participate in the   Beijing Summit indicating India's total isolation in the immediate as well as wider geo-political neighbourhood. On the face of it, it was not at all clear as to why India was choosing a path wherein it was leaving China free to surround,  gherao and push India into a corner geo-politically as well as economically. Sovereignty questions are paramount no doubt.
 
India could have however participated "without prejudice" and under protest, having leverage to influence future course of events and relations. Like the European Union which participated but chose not to endorse the Draft Trade Agreement proposed by China, on the grounds of transparency and co-ownership, India could have also raised its concerns that connectivity projects must respect sovereignty and  territorial integrity and that the financing of mega projects must not be such as to lead to the ultimate economic and political dependence of the receiving (donee nations ) as has happened in the case of Mynamar and Sri Lanka vis-a-vis China (donor nation).   This was a totally missed opportunity for India, was my first impression. But the first impression is not always the last impression.

That Indian capitalists did not want a public spat at the OBOR Summit, straining their new found ties with Chinese capitalists – for example, Chinese retail giant Alibaba- Jack-Ma's participation in PayTM and   collaboration with Mukesh Ambani's Reliance in Jio. Also, the multitude of Indo-China capital collaborations amounting to a total of about $800 million in Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) which came into India in just 17 months between April 2014 and September 2015, more than double all previous Chinese FDI to India. There are also issues why Indian capital would like the Indian Govt. to avoid public confrontations with Pakistan as in OBOR in view of ongoing discussions between lndian industrialists Gautam Adani and O.P. Jindal and their  Pakistani counterparts regarding future capital collaborations. Further, if you have read Robert Kaplan's "Monsoon", India may align in the very near future

When I expressed my reservations on India's non-participation in the OBOR Summit over Facebook,  a stimulating discussion emerged between well-known commentators. 
 
Dr. Noor Zaheer,  writer, academic and activist said, " I think the present govt. does not care. They are not interested in anything except fleecing their own countrymen and turning the tide towards more Hindutva as a buffer. If at all they are thinking then they would prefer isolation, to be able to do what they want to do within the country. " What Dr. Noor Zaheer was meaning by "what they want to do" was amply clear to anyone who had heard or read her talk at Caligary, Canada only last year in May,  on " India under Modi : Indian struggle for Secularism, Women’s Equality and Workers Rights."

Masroor Khan was forthright when he commented : " By not participating in Belt and Road forum India has scored a self goal . Staying​ away from an event that is going to have far reaching effects​ on the world economy and to leave the playing field entirely open to 2 major adversaries China and Pakistan we have failed in our foreign and economic policies.India should have participated ,under protest of course. Our participation​ would have given us opportunity to put our point view before other participating nations. By boycotting we aren't going to achieve anything, on the contrary China and Pakistan will go ahead caring two hoots about our absence. In fact they'll be happy. "

Xavier Dias, Editor and human rights activist from Jharkhand, pointed out that India cannot endanger its own interests, when he remarked: " A mistake India cannot afford. China can do without India in this project but India cannot afford to stay out. In the long run Indian economy and foreign policy will be jeopardised."

Haroon Zuberi said something interesting on the sovereignty issue : " India please learn from China. In 1997 to solve Hong Kong issue, China did not bring up the issue of sovereignty. India stands isolated."
 
John Dayal, known commentator, minority and human rights representative, was sharp and focussed, calling a spade a spade. He begun by saying: “China seems to be succeeding in its hegemonic ambitions." Then he came up with the strategic scoop that " India will have to come up with its own comprehensive extra-regional land and sea economic and strategic plan to avoid being strangulated in the silken cords of the Chinese master plan. Though it cites the road through lands occupied by Pakistan, India has been caught napping by the support that Chinese Belt has received from its neighbours in South Asia, as well as the rest of Asia. India is currently painting itself in a corner."
 
John Dayal's views found echo a week later in former Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran's bold and robust piece on "Looking China in the Eye" in the Indian Express, dated May 22, 2017 which argues that what India needs is an alternative narrative which contests the inevitability of Chinese hegemony.

Ravinder Goel, Professor and economic consultant, says: “Think that the project is essentially good but the way Chinese government is moving in the matter, the potential will not be realised. Government of India, despite my strong differences with its politics and economics, is justified in having concerns about CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) which passes to disputed territory of Kashmir. Such transnational projects are best executed by consensus."

Shafi Patel, consultant and commentator, is blunt and to the point: “The whole exercise is a Chinese game to pull in money and access."

What is the conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion? Difficult question to answer.
 
On the one hand, India boycotted the OBOR Summit , it seems after ample consideration because China was after India for its joint sponsorship , shortly after Modi came to power three years earlier, which India rejected right then. On the other hand, the latest news in the paper indicates that India had alternative plans. One to act as a spoilsport by keeping the Indo-Pak border hot as the recent Indian Army's punitive assaults on Pak posts along the J&K demonstrate. China's dreams of brisk business via the OBOR are unlikely to be realised in an environment of frequent armed clashes along the Indo-Pak border. The other plan rests on the strategic involvement of the Indian Government and Indian capital in any major initiative by China's major beta – noire, the United States of America.

What are the possibilities? There is more to it than meets the eye about India's non-participation in last week's Beijing OBOR Summit.
 
That Indian capitalists did not want a public spat at the OBOR  Summit, straining their new found ties with Chinese capitalists – for example,  Chinese retail  giant Alibaba- Jack-Ma's participation in PayTM and   collaboration with Mukesh Ambani's Reliance in Jio. Also, the multitude of Indo-China capital collaborations amounting to a total of about $800 million in Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) which came into India in just 17 months between April 2014 and September 2015, more than double all previous Chinese FDI to India.
 
There are also issues why Indian capital would like the Indian Govt. to avoid public confrontations with Pakistan as in OBOR in view of ongoing discussions between lndian industrialists Gautam  Adani and O.P. Jindal and their  Pakistani counterparts regarding future capital collaborations. Further, if you have read Robert Kaplan's "Monsoon", India may align in the very near future with Trump's America to plan and resurrect the alternative route to the old Silk Road – the Indian Ocean- as a challenge to the new Chinese owned One Belt One Road.
 
This is fully confirmed, as I have mentioned above, by the front page news on May 25 that the USA has revived two Public-Private infrastructure projects in South and South-East Asia to counter China's OBOR mega project, in which India ( read Indian capitalists like Ambani and Adani and the like) is to play a vital role. In a sense, the Indian Govt. is listening closely to the Indian Big Corporates and their aspirations and fears. Their aspiration is to both collaborate and compete with Chinese industry while clearly avoiding the ignominy of business projects in Mynamar and Sri Lanka (and now the target is Pakistan), where utter dependence of domestic industry on Chinese loans, capital and technology have allowed China to almost gobble up the local industries resulting in both economic and political dependence of the host (donee) countries on China.
 
India and Indian capital are most wary of such an eventuality, to avoid which it is even willing to compromise with American ventures and interests in both the sub- continent as well as the Indian Ocean.
 
(The author is an economist, lawyer and human rights activist)

The post More Than Meets the Eye: India’s Boycott of the OBOR Summit appeared first on SabrangIndia.