The breakfast table was filled with apprehension, shock, disbelief, and outrage. Every news channel, every WhatsApp forward, every news headline pointed to the RG Kar Medical College rape case. A doctor, after a 36-hour shift, tried to get some sleep and woke up to a man, trying to rape her. She put up a strong fight, however she succumbed. The gruesome details of the crime lingered in the air, refusing to be ignored.

The conversation started with my parents and grandparents, telling me to be careful, not to go out at night or wear revealing clothes, the usual. I did not have the strength left in me to argue, because who is to explain to them that a woman was raped in her scrubs, the scrubs my own parents and grandparents wear to work every day.

I am sure, this was not just my breakfast table on the August 10, but every Indian’s breakfast table conversation. The mainstream media called this case “the Nirbhaya 2.0.” The Nirbhaya rape case took place in 2012, which naturally made me ask did no other rape case take place in 14 years? Or did we as a society collectively normalise rape, that only one stood out to us?

A few days later, ironically on the August 15, as the nation celebrated its independence, a 14-year-old Dalit girl was abducted, brutally gang-raped, and murdered in Muzaffarnagar. On the same day, a 6-year-old Dalit girl was raped by a 57-year-old government official in Bulandshahr. Yet, despite the horror of these crimes, there were no protests, no candlelight marches, and no public outrage. These are just two of the many cases that greeted me on the morning of our Independence Day — a day meant to commemorate freedom, but one that served as a reminder to the fact that we are not truly independent.

This is not an anomaly; it is merely the tip of the iceberg. Ten incidents of rape against Dalit women and girls are reported every single day in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2021, the country recorded an average of 86 rapes daily and 49 offenses against women every hour. Yet, despite these staggering numbers, the response from society remains uneven, disturbingly selective, and all too often silent.

What was most striking in the discussions I came across was the focus on the victim’s professional identity — “A doctor was raped.” The outrage, when it does occur, seems to stem from the victim’s social status rather than the sheer horror of the crime itself. It begs the question: why isn’t the conversation centered around the fact that a woman, regardless of her profession, was raped? Why isn’t anyone addressing the pervasive rape culture that we, as a society, have allowed to flourish over the years? Don’t all women — irrespective of their caste, religion, or profession — deserve safety, justice, and outrage when those rights are violated?

Incidents like Hathras, where a young Dalit woman was raped and murdered, went unnoticed by the broader public consciousness. The brutal assaults and humiliation of women in Manipur failed to ignite a sustained national outcry. NCRB data detailing the grim reality of violence against women in India goes largely ignored. These heinous crimes seem to only shake the conscience of urban Indians when they happen to someone with whom they can identify, someone from their own social or economic background, someone whose suffering they deem worthy of their empathy.

Newspapers can easily excuse themselves by saying that if they were to cover every rape case in the country, reports of rape would fill up all their pages. But dailies also let go of numerous rapes that deserve coverage given the interplay between sexual crimes and caste dominance.

This selective outrage exposes a disturbing hierarchy of human worth — one that is deeply entrenched in our collective psyche. A Dalit girl in a remote village is not considered “one of us,” while a doctor or a professional woman living in an urban setting somehow becomes a more relatable figure, her pain more tragic and her suffering more visible. Such a mindset lays bare the layers of privilege, casteism, and discrimination that continue to permeate Indian society, even 77 years after independence.

If our outrage is conditional, if our empathy is selective, then we are complicit in perpetuating the very structures of violence and discrimination we claim to condemn. To be truly free, to truly honour the values of independence, what must be confronted are not just the acts of violence themselves but also the social hierarchies that dictate which lives are mourned and which are forgotten. The toxic culture that allows such crimes to happen, time and again, with little to no accountability can be dismantled only when, this selective outcry does not take place, when society and the mainstream media stop framing certain victims as more deserving of justice, attention, and outrage than others.

Independence Day should be a reminder not just of our freedom from colonial rule but of the ongoing struggle for true equality — a reminder that no woman, regardless of her caste, class, or profession, should be seen as expendable in the eyes of society.

What is equally selective, and perhaps even more troubling, is the pattern of outrage directed against the government. The public and political class do not respond uniformly when those in power are implicated in or associated with crimes. During the Hathras case, a young Dalit woman was brutally raped by four upper caste men eventually succumbing to her injuries, there was no significant demand for Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to step down, even as the state administration was accused of mishandling the case, burying the body of the victim without the family’s consent and intimidating the victim’s family. Similarly, when violence erupted in Manipur, leading to countless atrocities against women, women were made to parade around naked the state’s Chief Minister, N. Biren Singh[1] faced no substantial or sustained calls for resignation from those in power.

This inconsistency extends across the political spectrum. The former Chief Minister of Karnataka, B.S. Yediyurappa, now faces charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, yet this has not led to mass demands for accountability or political consequences. Meanwhile, Prajwal Revanna, accused of non-consensually recording and raping more than 400 women, was still allowed to stand in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The lack of public outrage or even discussion around these issues raises an uncomfortable question: Is the outrage we see often politically motivated? Are calls for accountability determined more by political convenience than by principles of justice?

However, this is a question whose answer might be too troubling to confront. It suggests a society where justice is not blind but rather selectively applied, depending on who the perpetrator is and how politically expedient it is to demand action. It reflects a disturbing trend where political allegiance, rather than moral clarity, dictates public outrage. When powerful figures are protected by their political affiliations, the very foundation of democratic accountability is weakened. The selective outrage erodes public trust, making it appear that justice is a tool wielded for political gain rather than a right owed to every citizen.

The West Bengal government, in response to the heinous crime, recently passed an anti-rape bill on the September 4, 2024, which seeks capital punishment for rape convicts if their actions result in the victim’s death or leave them in a vegetative state. This legislative action, framed as a measure of “damage control,” raises fundamental questions about the true basis of our justice system. Are we driven by deterrence or rehabilitation? Is justice merely the administration of punishment, or does it involve a deeper engagement with the causes and mindsets that lead to such heinous crimes?

Proponents of capital punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent, a severe warning that aims to scare potential offenders from committing crimes like rape. However, this rationale is built on the assumption that the threat of death will be sufficient to dissuade criminals. But, as pointed out by one of the rapists in the Nirbhaya case in the documentary “India’s Daughter,” such measures can lead to unintended consequences. The convict chillingly remarked that capital punishment could push rapists to kill their victims to eliminate any witnesses and destroy evidence. This mindset underscores a harsh reality: punishment alone, especially in its most extreme form, does not address the underlying social, cultural, and psychological roots of crime. It does not erase the mentality that views women as objects or the entitlement that fuels such violence. What needs to be transformed is not just the crime but the mindset that enables it.

Philosophically, the debate over capital punishment intersects with Immanuel Kant’s perspective on human dignity. Kant posits that human dignity is an absolute value, one that cannot be quantified or compromised. Every individual, according to Kant, possesses intrinsic worth simply by virtue of their rational autonomy. Thus, individuals should never be exploited as mere means to an end but should always be treated as ends-in-themselves, worthy of respect and value. Applying this principle to capital punishment reveals a fundamental moral conflict. If a person is sentenced to death as a means to deter others from committing similar crimes, they are reduced to an instrument for achieving a social goal. This, Kant would argue, is morally reprehensible. Even when the end goal is to reduce crime or protect society, using an individual in this way violates their inherent dignity. For Kant, justice is not about retribution or even deterrence; it is about upholding the moral worth of every human being, even those who have committed grave wrongs.

Moreover, the idea of using capital punishment as “damage control” fundamentally contradicts the very principles of justice that society should uphold. True justice should strive for more than simple vengeance or deterrence. It should seek to understand the roots of criminal behaviour and work towards reforming not just the individual but also the society that allows such behaviour to exist. The pursuit of justice through capital punishment is a stark irony. In seeking to avenge a life taken, we take another life. Can this be considered true justice, or is it simply a continuation of the cycle of retribution? Can we genuinely claim to value human life while simultaneously extinguishing it?

This paradox becomes even more apparent when we consider that capital punishment, by perpetuating the very harm it seeks to condemn, does not address the deeper social issues that contribute to crime. It does not confront the misogyny, casteism, or other prejudices that fuel such violence. It does not offer a path to healing for the victims or their families, nor does it encourage societal reflection on the ways we enable and tolerate such crimes.

Capital punishment, in essence, embodies the notion of “an eye for an eye.” It is rooted in the belief that justice means retribution, a belief that overlooks the potential for rehabilitation and the moral imperative to respect human dignity, even in the most challenging cases. It fails to consider that justice should aim to transform rather than to destroy.

Instead of resorting to capital punishment, a more profound societal introspection is needed. We must ask ourselves what kind of justice system we want. Do we want one that perpetuates cycles of violence and dehumanizes individuals, or one that seeks to rehabilitate and transform? Do we want a system that reacts to crime with more harm, or one that works to prevent it by addressing its root causes? True justice should involve not just punishment but also education, transformation, and the fostering of a society where all lives are valued and protected. The challenge, then, is not just to punish, but to build a society where the very need for such punishment diminishes — where justice is not just a reaction, but a path to a more humane and equitable world.

(The author is a fourth-year law student at the BML Munjal University)

[1] The audio tapes, The Wire has recently released contain explosive contents including Mr. Biren Singh taking credit for the ethic conflict which took over 200 lives and displaced at least 60,000 people belonging to the Kuki and Meitei communities. Please find the link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_a7b56ja9I

The post A morning of outrage and what we choose to see appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nobody has done more to advance this cause than Prime Minister Narendra Modi, one of India’s most beloved and polarising political leaders. Traces of the “Hindutva” ideology can always be found at the breakfast table conversations, an idea that has been deeply ingrained in the minds of well-to-do (financially) Hindus by a multitude of right-wing political parties. The conversation then goes on to engage in casual Islamophobia, which again is due to the idolisation of PM Modi, who has not once but multiple times asserted that Hindus are superior to every other religion in the country and the others are mere “infiltrators”.

Hindu nationalism is a political ideology that dates back to the 19^th=early 20th century. It encompasses a broad range of groups but at its core is a belief that Indian national identity and culture are inseparable from the Hindu religion. This ideology has taken a very toxic role in the present, which has not only reinforced the belief that Hindus are superior but has also led to a series of hate speeches, communal riots, and discrimination.

PM Modi’s political rhetoric frequently invokes themes of Hindu unity and strength, portraying his government as the defender of Hindu interests and promoting the idea of Hindutva. PM Modi has effectively used cultural symbols and narratives to reinforce Hindutva ideals. This includes promoting Hindu festivals, rituals, and historical figures and inaugurating the Ram mandir at Ayodhya! (Yes, it is the same temple that led to the Godhra incident and subsequently the Gujarat carnage of 2002).

Every single political discussion at the breakfast table leaves me disheartened. Initially, I ignored these comments, and my role was that of a passive listener to the conversation. However, I then realised that my reading and writing about hate speech and communal violence in the country, criticising several people in the course of doing so, and not being able to change the minds of my family itself serves as a stark reminder that there is a long way to go before the country truly embraces all that the Constitution of India stands for.

What does the Constitution of India Stand for? The Constitution enshrines the principles of justice—social, economic, and political. It strives to create a society where justice prevails, ensuring that the marginalized and the vulnerable are protected and empowered. It stands as a bulwark against discrimination, promoting affirmative action to uplift those historically oppressed. It envisions a nation where communal harmony prevails, where diversity is celebrated, and where every individual feels a sense of belonging. It seeks to unite its people in the pursuit of common goals, transcending regional and cultural differences.

The right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, only makes it to the breakfast table while talking about reservations and how they serve no purpose. The middle-class and upper-middle-class Hindus believe that reservations compromise meritocracy, and opportunities should be based on merit rather than caste or class, this thought process stems from a place of privilege. The right to profess one’s religion only makes it to the breakfast table while their religion is under attack. The right to free speech only makes it to the table, when one is very rightly criticizing the government and somehow that’s problematic. The stringent bail provisions on laws like the UAPA, PMLA, or the anti-conversion laws are never spoken about. The concept of innocent, until proven guilty, comes into play only when PM Narendra Modi is accused of the Gujarat riots and not when I want to speak about how it has been 4 years since Umar Khalid has been languishing behind bars.

These rights don’t make it to the table when there are mass riots taking place, when the right-wing spews hate speech with every sentence they say, and when the reservations somehow end up serving them.

Being proactive in these breakfast table conversations has taught me one thing, and that is patience. Since I am the youngest one seated at the table, my opinions are not taken seriously enough and are often laughed at. Every time I try to reason with them, I am met with loud voices that I can’t surpass, these voices are blindfolded with delusion, and deeply rooted in the idea of Hindutva. This radical ideology seeks to redefine Indian culture strictly in terms of Hindu values, marginalizing and discriminating against religious and ethnic minorities such as Muslims, Christians, and Dalits. It involves historical revisionism, reinterpreting India’s past to glorify Hindu achievements while vilifying contributions from other communities.

My dad said to me, I will talk about the questionable things PM Modi has done only if you can recognize the good, he has done for the country. I laughed, waiting to hear the good. He pointed to the GDP of the country. What good is the GDP, when the rich get richer, and the schemes introduced by the government don’t even reach the poor?

The Indian economy grew around 8.2 percent (this official calculation is not proportionate to the population that is GDP per capita) in the previous financial year, following two consecutive years of high growth. It even bagged global accolades after it grew at a comparatively faster rate than its peers.[1] Typically, this would be regarded as an electoral advantage for the incumbent government. A majority of people should have experienced improved living standards, and the ruling party would likely have emphasized this in their campaign. However, neither occurred. In India, a high rate of self-employment generally reflects a weak link between GDP growth and the generation of formal jobs. This underscores the ongoing challenge of converting economic growth into better employment quality, revealing a critical gap between the nation’s economic output and the availability of good jobs.

Moreover, is the GDP of a country enough to justify the amount of lives lost across different riots that have taken place, is it enough to justify the amount of people languishing in prisons because they disagreed with the government, is it enough to justify trying to turn India into a Hindu nation when the preamble itself uses the word “secular”, is it enough to serve only the creamy layer of the country and forget about the ones that actually need upliftment?

The number of lives lost in the infamous Gujarat riots totaled 1900 plus lives, whereas the number of lives lost in the Delhi riots totaled 53. The number of political dissenters languishing in jails amounts to 20 people at the least. (Only in connection with the Delhi riots)

Every single person, who is well-read recognises what the government is doing to silence dissent, seldom do people worry about it because the government is serving the majority and the rich. The fact that Modi and hundreds of politicians attended the Ambani wedding reeks of plutocracy. India’s richest man Mukesh Ambani has doubled his wealth within the first four years under the Modi government. Between 2014 and 2019, his wealth more than doubled –from about $23 billion to $55 billion. This means that Mukesh Ambani accumulated more wealth in the five years of BJP rule than all the wealth he made and inherited in the entire 58 years of his life before Modi became Prime Minister. The rise of Adani in the business world seemed to have gone hand in hand with Modi’s ascent to power in Gujarat in 2001. By the time Modi ended his tenure in Gujarat, Adani was a billionaire with a net worth of $2.6 billion. And, the fruits of this friendship continued to bear after Modi’s shift to Delhi. Adani’s net worth more than quadrupled to $11.9 billion – in just the first four years of Modi’s rule.

At the breakfast table, it is often pointed out to me that I am being blinded by one side and that I am not able to appreciate the two sides of the coin that exist. However, this question always crosses my mind, how is it possible that I am blinded by one side when the mainstream media just reports the side that makes the government look its best? How is it possible that I am blind to the mainstream media? How is it possible that the BJP government in total since 2014 having spent over 7000 crore rupees in advertising and PR itself has not reached me? How is it possible that a man who has made a brand out of himself, has not shown me his side of the story?

Every media outlet that has tried to raise its voice against the BJP has faced some sort of legal intervention. Be it NDTV or Sabrang. Between 2014 and 2019, 4000 crore rupees were spent on advertisement and PR (taxpayer’s money of course), whereas between 2019 and 2024, 3000 crore rupees were spent, bringing the total to a whopping 7000 crore rupees.

The question now remains; are they blind, or am I? The mainstream media, advertising, and PR have reached them, but the websites and magazines that showcase the other side of the coin have failed to reach them through their morning news channels and their morning newspapers.

The talk about Rahul Gandhi fumbling at press conferences or any other political leader is always laughed at the breakfast table and used as a testament to the fact that Narendra Modi is the only one who makes any sort of sense in the country. What is often overlooked is, since the past 10 years, that is, 2014 to 2024, the Prime Minister of the country has not been a part of even a single press conference, where he can hear the questions of the people, he is supposedly elected to take care of. Modi did face a press conference – only one – at the end of the 2019 Lok Sabha election campaign, five days before the results. However, he only addressed the media briefly and then diverted all questions to Amit Shah, his closest confidante who was then the president of the Bhartiya Janata Party. It is very easy, to come up with a speech prepared, address what one thinks needs to be addressed, make a couple of jokes, spew some hate speech, make sure the majority is happy with you, and then leave the stage. What is difficult is being able to take dissent and answer the questions that really matter.

Tens of thousands of questions, unanswered. Tens of thousands of political dissenters, languishing behind bars. Tens of thousands of crores of taxpayer’s money, lost and yet we idolise these political leaders.

This is not just the story of my breakfast table; this is a story of all upper-class Hindus of the country’s population’s breakfast table. This is not just the story of a breakfast table; it is the story of every political conversation of well-to-do classes taking place in the country. The 7000 crore rupees spent on PR has worked at its finest and brainwashed every sane, well-read person. The money has been used to make everyone forget the Gujrat riots, the Delhi riots, and many more.

When Voices go unheard at one’s own house, how will the voices be heard in a country whose leader does not know what the values of the country are and is actively trying to imbibe the “Hindutva” ideology in a secular nation?

(The author is a fourth year law student at the BML Munjal University)

[1] Editor’s Note: The issue of the manner in which the Modi regime calculates GDP without linking it to per capita status of the population is deceptive and dangerous as it in facts covers up the stagnancy in grown since 2011 and the huge economic disparities that have only got worse. See https://youtu.be/BfEffNzdeYw?s=BPpVcmDO9DYpGMdp

The post The breakfast table at a well-to-do Hindu household appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This committee’s recommendations target various aspects, from administrative reforms and teacher training to curriculum changes and student conduct regulations. The ultimate goal is to dismantle caste-based biases and establish social justice, aligning with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of a progressive society.

This piece delves deeper into the reasons behind the committee’s establishment, the dangers of caste markers in schools, and the proposed solutions for a more equitable educational environment.

The one-man committee: Justice K. Chandru

Justice K. Chandru, a retired judge of the Madras High Court, was appointed to head a One-Man Committee to investigate and address caste-based discrimination and violence in Tamil Nadu’s schools. The committee was tasked with providing recommendations to create an inclusive, equitable, and non-discriminatory environment in educational institutions. Mr. Chandru submitted his report to Chief Minister M.K. Stalin at the Secretariat in Chennai on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, in the presence of School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena and others.

Caste names and markers: their role and significance

Caste names and markers are symbols that denote an individual’s caste identity. These markers can be explicit, such as the wearing of specific colours, symbols, or accessories, or implicit, such as behaviours and practices that indicate caste affiliation. In Tamil Nadu, students often use these markers to signify their caste pride and identity, leading to division and discrimination within educational settings.

Examples of such markers include coloured wristbands, hair ribbons, bindis (vermillion marks), and specific types of clothing. Each colour combination or accessory is associated with a particular caste. For instance, red and yellow wristbands might be worn by members of the Thevar caste, while blue and green might be indicative of the Nadar caste. These markers serve as a visual representation of caste identity and are often used to assert dominance or superiority over other castes.

Caste names and markers perpetuate the social hierarchy by constantly reminding individuals of their position within the caste system. This reinforcement leads to the normalization of discrimination and inequality.

When students use caste markers such as coloured wristbands, hair ribbons, or specific types of clothing, it visibly segregates them into different groups. This visual division can foster an environment of “us vs. them,” promoting inter-caste rivalry. The use of caste markers often goes hand-in-hand with behaviours that assert dominance or superiority of one caste over another. This in turn manifests in bullying, physical violence, and other forms of social exclusion. Caste markers hinder the development of a cohesive and inclusive community within schools.

Recommendations to eliminate caste names and markers

The recommendations provided aim to address and mitigate caste-based discrimination and foster an inclusive, equitable, and non-discriminatory environment in educational institutions. The proposed measures span various aspects of the educational system, from administrative reforms and teacher training to curriculum changes and student conduct regulations. The ultimate goal is to eradicate caste-based prejudices and promote social justice, aligning with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of a constantly evolving society that embraces change and revises old standards for the greater good.

Given the dangers posed by caste names and markers, the One-Man Committee headed by Justice K. Chandru recommended their elimination to foster a more inclusive and equitable educational environment. The key recommendations include:

1. Administrative orders to remove caste identifiers:
Government and private schools should be directed to remove caste prefixes or suffixes from their names. This step aims to eliminate any formal recognition of caste within the school’s identity, setting a precedent for inclusivity.

2. Prohibition of caste markers among students:
Schools should implement strict regulations prohibiting students from wearing or displaying caste-related symbols, such as specific colours of wristbands, hair ribbons, or bindis. This measure seeks to reduce visible indicators of caste that can lead to division and discrimination.

3. Confidentiality of caste information:
Policies should be put in place to maintain the confidentiality of students’ caste backgrounds. By doing so, schools can prevent caste-based segregation and ensure that all students are treated equally regardless of their caste.

4. Promoting social justice and equality:
Educational curricula should be revised to include lessons on social justice, equality, and non-discrimination. This education can help students understand the negative impacts of caste discrimination and foster a culture of mutual respect and inclusion.

5. Implementation of a code of conduct:
Establishing a Code of Conduct for both students and teachers that explicitly prohibits caste-based discrimination and behaviours is crucial. This code should include consequences for violations to ensure compliance and accountability.

Other recommendations given by the committee

1. Teacher and officer regulations
Periodic transfers of teachers and officers were recommended to prevent dominance by any single caste in specific areas. Guidelines should ensure that high-ranking education officers do not belong to the dominant caste of their area. The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) should consider candidates’ attitudes toward social justice during recruitment, and a statutorily prescribed Code of Conduct for teachers and staff should be introduced. Annual orientation programs on social issues and laws pertaining to discrimination should also be mandatory.

2. Unified control of schools
Bringing all types of schools under the unified control of the School Education Department was another key recommendation. This policy seeks to streamline administration and ensure uniform standards across all schools. A committee of high-level officers may be necessary to oversee this transition and resolve issues related to the service conditions of teachers.

3. Teacher training and curriculum changes
Revising the B.Ed. syllabus and the Diploma in Elementary Education to focus on inclusivity was recommended. An expert committee should review school syllabi to eliminate incorrect views and promote social justice values. Establishing a Social Justice Monitoring Committee to oversee curriculum changes related to social justice issues is also suggested. 

4. Mobile phone restrictions and Ara Neri classes
Prohibiting the use of mobile phones by students in school campuses to minimize distractions and introducing compulsory Ara Neri classes from Class 6 to Class 12, focusing on social justice, equality, and non-discrimination, were suggested. A guide should be prepared to ensure the effective delivery of these concepts. 

5. Appointment of counsellors and school welfare officers
Appointing trained counsellors for each Block and School Welfare Officers (SWOs) for larger schools was proposed to address issues such as ragging, drug abuse, and caste discrimination. These officers should monitor school activities, conduct orientation programs, and report directly to a State-level Monitoring Committee.

6. Grievance mechanisms and reservation policies
Establishing a dedicated grievance box managed by the SWO, with strict confidentiality, was recommended. Ensuring reservation of seats in higher secondary classes for Scheduled Caste students to pursue science subjects was also proposed. Expanding the National Service Scheme (NSS) to include students from 9th to 12th grade and establishing a Social Justice Students Force (SJSF) are additional measures aimed at promoting social justice. 

7. Centralized kitchens and use of school properties
Creating Block-level central kitchens for school meal programs, with proper staffing and distribution networks, was recommended to improve efficiency and support disaster relief efforts. Regulations should be introduced to prevent the use of school properties for non-educational purposes, particularly for activities that propagate communal or caste-related messages. 

8. Addressing caste atrocities and promoting communal harmony
The state government should assess areas prone to caste atrocities and take preventive measures. A Special Intelligence Unit should be constituted to gather information on caste violence. An expert body should investigate allegations of saffronisation of education. Finally, the government should take appropriate steps at the societal level to eradicate caste discrimination and promote communal harmony.

The need for the committee: context and background

The One-Man Committee was established following a series of disturbing incidents that highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to caste-based discrimination in schools. In August 2023, the brutal attack on two Dalit children in Nanguneri by a group of six minors brought to light the severity of caste-based violence in educational settings.

The Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front (TNUEF) conducted a study across 441 schools, revealing widespread caste-based violence and discrimination. The study, which covered government, government-aided, and private schools, found that caste-based discrimination was prevalent among students and, alarmingly, propagated by some teachers.

Findings of the study conducted by Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front (TNUEF)

In 25 schools across various districts, caste violence among students was reported. Students openly expressed casteist sentiments, formed groups based on their caste, and used specific colours of kerchiefs, bindis, threads, and stickers to indicate their caste. The study identified 34 types of caste-symbolic indications used by students.

Dalit students were made to wash the school’s toilets, a task not assigned to students of other castes, in 15 schools. In six schools, students were segregated into separate lines based on caste to receive their mid-day meals, and in four schools, dining rooms were segregated by caste. Such practices humiliate Dalit students and reinforce caste hierarchies among young minds.

The study found that caste-based discrimination extended to teachers in at least three schools. Teacher’s actively propagated caste-based discrimination in classrooms, refused to touch Dalit students, and subjected them to excessive punishment. In Madurai, a school cancelled the felicitation function for Class 12 toppers because the top two rank holders were Dalits, further illustrating deep-seated prejudices among educators.

A case in Nanguneri town involved a 17-year-old Dalit boy from the Paraiyar caste who was nearly hacked to death by three of his Thevar caste classmates. This attack followed years of bullying and was triggered by a complaint the victim had lodged about the harassment he faced. The attackers, showing no remorse, took turns assaulting the boy with a billhook in a planned and brutal manner. Despite the victim’s and his mother’s efforts to seek help from the school administration, no action was taken, leading to the brutal attack. This incident is a stark example of how caste-based bullying can escalate into life-threatening violence.

These harrowing examples expose the urgency of implementing the One-Man Committee’s recommendations. The brutal attack in Nanguneri and the pervasiveness of caste discrimination documented by the TNUEF study demonstrate the devastating impact on students’ well-being and educational opportunities. Ignoring these issues allows a culture of fear and prejudice to fester, jeopardizing the safety and hindering the potential of Dalit students. Implementing the Committee’s recommendations – from eliminating caste markers to fostering social justice through education – is not just about fostering a more inclusive environment, it’s about safeguarding the fundamental right to education and preventing violence. It’s a critical step towards a future where Tamil Nadu’s schools empower all students, regardless of caste, to reach their full potential.

Long term goals of the one-man committee

There are three long term goals that have been outlined in the report submitted.

First, is the enactment of special legislation in Tamil Nadu to enforce a policy of social inclusion and eradicate caste discrimination across all educational levels? This legislation should impose duties and responsibilities on students, teaching and non-teaching staff, and management. It should include mechanisms for supervision, control, and sanctions for non-compliance.

Second, is to enhance the control of local bodies over primary education. This involves granting full authority to block-level administrations (Panchayat Unions) over the management of primary schools, including appointing, posting, and removing staff. To facilitate this transition, the government should formulate new legislation granting true autonomous powers to local bodies. This may require amending the existing Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act of 1994. By providing local bodies with full control over primary education, the government can create a more people-oriented education system that is better aligned with the needs and aspirations of local communities.

Third, is to amend the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, to prevent caste appellations in the names of educational institutions. This amendment would ensure that societies intending to start educational institutions do not include caste-based identifiers in their names.

Conclusion

The One-Man Committee’s recommendations offer a roadmap for dismantling caste-based discrimination in Tamil Nadu’s schools. By eliminating caste markers, revising curriculums, and fostering social justice principles, the proposed measures aim to create a truly inclusive educational environment.

The success of these recommendations’ hinges on effective implementation and a societal shift towards recognizing the inherent equality of all individuals. Eradicating caste-based discrimination requires a multi-pronged approach addressing educational practices, teacher mind-sets, and broader social norms.

If implemented effectively, the One-Man Committee’s vision can pave the way for a future where Tamil Nadu’s schools become bastions of learning, opportunity, and social justice for all students, regardless of caste.

The report of the committee can be read below:

Related:

Tamil Nadu: Abuses, segregated meals, forced to clean toilets, systemic discrimination faced by Dalit students

Caste Discrimination and Related Laws in India

Widespread residential segregation & discrimination of Muslims & Dalits: Study

Higher education: Caste discrimination runs deep 

UP: Dalit School Teacher Alleges Discrimination by Principal & Upper-caste Teachers

Caste Struggle and Colonialism dropped from NCERT school textbooks

The post Dismantling caste in education: Tamil Nadu’s attempt at tackling discrimination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a recent case involving Naziya Ansari and her husband Mohammad Umar brought further attention to the rights of individuals in interfaith marriages. The Allahabad High Court criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police for handing over 21-year-old Naziya to her uncle against her will. Naziya and Umar had filed a petition alleging police misconduct after Naziya claimed she ran away from home and married Umar in Hyderabad. Despite her statement to a magistrate expressing fear for her life if sent back to her uncle, the police disregarded her plea and threatened Umar with arrest.

The court emphasised that adults have the constitutional right to marry and live with whom they choose, protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty. The court criticized the magistrate for failing to protect Naziya and held the police accountable for not ensuring her safety.

“Even if the petitioners have not married each other, no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish. This is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution”

The court ordered the quashing of the FIR against Umar, directed that Naziya be allowed to live freely without interference from her uncle, and made it clear that the police officers would be personally responsible if any harm befell her. The court also underscored the importance of protecting human life from honor killings or any form of harm due to societal or familial pressures by stating that the magistrate ought to have also taken adequate measures to secure the woman’s safety.

“Honour killing in such matters is not an unknown phenomenon and it is very important to save a human life from extinction on account of misguided emotions or notions of morality. This issue is quite independent of the issue of matrimony that the parties have entered into. No citizen can kill another for holding a different opinion and it is the foremost duty of the State to preserve human life,” 

The order may be read here:

Mixed, conflicting and contentious judgments

While this judgment is indeed a step in the right direction, interfaith couples in India continue to face significant challenges due to conflicting judicial rulings and societal attitudes. The legal landscape is fraught with inconsistencies, which often result in a lack of uniform protection for interfaith couples. For instance, despite the strong stance taken in Naziya Ansari’s case, other judgments have upheld restrictions on interfaith relationships under various state laws, such as the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. This act, and similar laws in other states, require couples to follow stringent procedures for religious conversion and marriage, often leading to harassment and legal obstacles. Additionally, some courts have interpreted these laws in ways that effectively criminalize interfaith relationships unless they conform to prescribed legal norms.

These conflicting judgments create a precarious environment for interfaith couples, who find themselves at the mercy of varying legal interpretations and local enforcement practices. For instance, the Allahabad High Court itself has delivered decisions both supporting and restricting interfaith relationships, contributing to an unpredictable legal environment. Such inconsistency not only undermines the rule of law but also exacerbates the social stigma and threats faced by interfaith couples. Despite progressive judgments like that of Naziya Ansari, the struggle for interfaith couples is far from over. They continue to navigate a legal system that can alternately protect or endanger them, depending on the interpretation of the law by individual courts.

In light of this, CJP’s research team will point out some conflicting judgments that highlight the ongoing struggle for consistent legal protection for interfaith couples in India.

Contrasting Judgments by the Allahabad High Court

Justice Renu Agarwal’s rulings exemplify the prioritization of religious and customary laws over constitutional protections. In February 2024, she denied protection to a Muslim woman in a live-in relationship with a Hindu man, ruling that the woman was committing ‘Zina’ and ‘Haram’ according to Shariat Law. This decision underscores how subjective interpretations of personal laws can supersede the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Indian Constitution.

The order can be read here:

In January 2024, the Allahabad High Court dismissed petitions from eight Hindu-Muslim couples based on non-compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. This act requires prior notice and approval for religious conversion, imposing stringent bureaucratic hurdles for interfaith marriages. The court’s insistence on compliance with these laws further complicates the legal process for couples wishing to marry under their personal beliefs and choices. In Ayesha Parveen’s case, the court dismissed a petition due to non-compliance with the anti-conversion law, despite the couple’s willingness to practice their respective religions post-marriage. In the case of Farah B Kumar v. State of UP, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava again rejected the protection plea of the interfaith couple filed by one Farha on exactly the same ground as it mentioned in the above judgment. Similarly, in Nagma Bano’s case, the court rejected a petition for protection despite claims of forced remarriage, emphasizing societal norms over individual rights and safety.

A detailed analysis of these petitions can be read at Sabrang India.

The Allahabad High Court’s refusal to grant police protection to interfaith couples has faced significant criticism. These decisions often hinge on non-compliance with anti-conversion laws and the lack of marriage registration proof, leading to a discriminatory practice. Couples from the same religion without marriage certificates often receive protection, while interfaith couples do not. This practice directly contradicts Supreme Court guidelines, as emphasized in Devu G Nair vs State of Kerala, which mandate immediate interim protection for vulnerable couples, including interfaith, inter-caste, and LGBTQ+ couples. The Allahabad High Court’s rulings have been criticised for undermining these constitutional protections and emphasizing social morality over individual rights.

The Allahabad High Court in the case of the Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP case protected an interfaith couple, recognizing their fundamental right to live together, even after the woman had converted to her partner’s religion. This decision relied on Supreme Court judgments that upheld the right to personal liberty and freedom of choice in relationships, highlighting a more progressive approach in protecting interfaith couples’ rights. This judgment overturned Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others and Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another which held that, conversion only for the purpose of marriage is invalid.

The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, requires prior notice and approval for conversion, making it difficult for interfaith couples to get married without facing legal and social obstacles. On March 13, the Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Gajendra Kumar clarified that the issue was about individual liberty and the right to choose a partner, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioners were adults who married of their own free will under the Special Marriage Act, referencing the Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP case, which upheld the right to choose a partner irrespective of religion as part of the fundamental right under Article 21. Additionally, it cited Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, differentiating between heinous crimes and private disputes, justifying the quashing of the criminal proceeding.

In the case of Razia and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, the court ruled that noted that interfaith couples are free to live together in a live-in relationship, and their parents cannot interfere. However, in the recent case of Shilpa Alias Shikha and Another vs. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Department, Lucknow and Others the court held that Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 prohibits live-in relationships between couples of different religions unless they undergo religious conversion according to the law. The court highlighted that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, applies not only to marriages but also to relationships resembling marriage or live-in relationships. The court therefore, ruled that the FIR could not be quashed as the couple had not solemnized their marriage in accordance with the law.

Both the orders can be read here:

LiveLaw reported on May 31, 2024 that the Allahabad High Court has emphasized that interfaith couples can marry under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) without the need for religious conversion. In a recent case, the court granted protection to an interfaith live-in couple seeking to marry under the SMA, highlighting the judiciary’s role in safeguarding personal liberty and life choices against societal and familial pressures. The court directed the couple to demonstrate their bona fides by taking steps to solemnize their marriage under SMA and submit documentary proof via a supplementary affidavit.

How this is problematic

The Allahabad High Court’s conflicting judgments regarding interfaith relationships create a problematic and unpredictable legal environment for couples seeking protection of their rights. These inconsistencies not only undermine the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and equality before the law but also perpetuate discrimination against interfaith couple. Firstly, the court’s denial of protection to interfaith couples in live-in relationships on the grounds of Islamic customary law and non-compliance with anti-conversion laws raises serious concerns. The court in these cases prioritized customary and religious laws over constitutional protections, which is problematic because it allows subjective interpretations of personal laws to supersede fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The insistence on compliance with anti-conversion laws adds an additional layer of legal and bureaucratic hurdles, effectively denying protection to couples who wish to marry under their personal beliefs and choices.

Secondly, the rejection of police protection for interfaith couples based on these interpretations violates their constitutional rights, including Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (equality before the law). Previous Supreme Court rulings, such as in Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M, uphold the right to marry a person of one’s choice as integral to Article 21. The Allahabad High Court’s decisions often contradict these precedents, prioritizing social morality over constitutional protections. This discriminatory practice provides protection to same-faith couples with marriage certificates while imposing additional hurdles on interfaith couples, exposing them to potential harassment and violence. However, the Allahabad High Court’s decisions contradict these precedents, prioritizing social and religious norms over individual autonomy and constitutional rights.

Moreover, the inconsistency in judicial decisions creates confusion and uncertainty for interfaith couples. Couples face the risk of harassment, intimidation, and violence due to the lack of legal protection and clear guidelines. The pattern of rejection in the Allahabad High Court, especially under judges like Justice Renu Agarwal, who have consistently denied protection to unmarried couples, underscores the bias against interfaith relationships.

The court’s insistence on religious conversion as a prerequisite for protection further exposes couples to privacy violations and threats to their safety. This requirement not only disregards the secular nature of the Indian Constitution but also perpetuates discrimination against minority communities and vulnerable individuals.

Furthermore, these conflicting judgments do not align with Supreme Court guidelines that mandate immediate interim protection for vulnerable couples, including interfaith and inter-caste couples. The Allahabad High Court’s decisions undermine the principles of justice, fairness, and non-discrimination that are fundamental to a democratic society governed by the rule of law.

The way forward: building a bridge of understanding

The battle for legal acceptance of interfaith marriages in India is far from over. However, the path forward is clear. By prioritizing a consistent and rights-based approach, India can move towards a future where love transcends religious boundaries. Here’s what needs to happen:

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Allahabad High Court, must adopt a unified interpretation of laws concerning interfaith relationships. This demands prioritizing fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, such as individual liberty and freedom of religion. Courts must move away from subjective interpretations of religious laws that can supersede these fundamental rights.

The constitutionality of anti-conversion laws in several Indian states deserves thorough examination. These laws, often used to harass and intimidate interfaith couples, raise concerns about their compatibility with the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution. A Supreme Court review is essential to ensure these laws don’t infringe on individual rights and the freedom to choose one’s faith.

Clear and unambiguous guidelines for police intervention in interfaith relationship disputes are crucial. Police training programs must emphasize the rights of individuals in interfaith relationships and the importance of upholding the rule of law. This will prevent instances of police bias and ensure the safety of vulnerable couples.

Conclusion

To summarise, the key takeaway is the inconsistency in the court’s decisions. On one hand, the court upholds the constitutional right to marry whomever one chooses. On the other hand, it prioritizes religious laws and anti-conversion legislation, creating hurdles for interfaith couples. This inconsistency exposes couples to legal uncertainty, potential discrimination by law enforcement, and societal pressures.

Moving forward, a unified approach based on fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution is crucial. The judiciary needs to prioritize individual liberty and freedom of religion. Anti-conversion laws need scrutiny to ensure they don’t infringe on individual rights. Clear police guidelines and social awareness campaigns promoting tolerance are also essential.

The battle for legal acceptance of interfaith marriages in India requires a multi-pronged approach. By prioritizing a consistent, rights-based approach, India can create a future where love transcends religious boundaries.

CJP’S fight against the Anti Conversion Laws

In December 2020, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of law anti conversion laws which are based on unfounded fears dubbed ‘love-jihad’. These laws violate personal liberty, freedom of choice, privacy, and conscience by restricting inter-faith marriages.

‘Love-jihad’ refers to interfaith marriages where a Muslim man is accused of courting a Hindu woman to convert her to Islam. Ministers from Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, and Karnataka publicly vowed to introduce laws against ‘love-jihad’.

CJP’s petition referenced the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., affirming the fundamental right to change religion, as well as cases such as KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala (2019), which emphasized the importance of privacy, choice, and religious beliefs in upholding dignity.

The petition was heard by a 3-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, along with Justices V. Ramasubramanian and A.S. Bopanna, who issued notices to the concerned states.

Subsequently, Himachal Pradesh (2019) and Madhya Pradesh (2020) enacted Anti-Conversion laws similar to those in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. In February 2021, CJP applied to include these enactments in their original petition, which was granted by Chief Justice Bobde’s Bench.

On January 16, 2023, a 3-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, began hearing the petition as it remained pending.

While CJP’s petition is still pending, Gujarat (2021), Haryana (2022), and Karnataka (2022) enacted their own Anti-Conversion laws. However, the Gujarat High Court stayed several sections of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act on August 19th, 2021.

Related:

Allahabad High Court quashes FIR against couple accused of ‘conversion’ accusations, upholds freedom of choice

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

Allahabad HC denies protection to inter-faith couple observing that “Muslims cannot claim right to live-in relationship as it is against their customary law”

Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts deliver two contradictory judgments on interfaith marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act (SMA)

The post Love vs Law: Allahabad HC verdict offers hope, but inconsistencies persist appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The debacle of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde)-Nationalist Congress Party (NCP-Ajit Pawar) combine (MahaYuti) in the western Indian state of Maharashtra was despite and in spite every effort to trick the voter into confusion.

Never has been the voter’s faith in the electoral process been at such an all-time low. The questionable conduct of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in a) failure to act against the brazen incitement and use of religion during the campaign by star campaigners like the Prime Minister and others from the ruling BJP; b) the ECI’s hostile and unaccountable behaviour in not releasing the figures of the Form-17C (that gives the total of votes polled from every constituency within 48 hours of the poll) and c) general hostile attitude towards the opposition and civil society increased scepticism and anger.

Before the onset of the poll process in March 2024, the obviously partisan behaviour of the ECI in awarding original party status to the breakway Shiv Sena and NCP rather than the original generated further resentment. Finally, during the recent electoral debacle in Maharashtra’s Lok Sabha constituency significant concerns regarding the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) allocation of election symbols have also come to light.

In the Maharashtra’s 2024 elections, splits within major political parties like the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) created significant voter confusion due to changes in party symbols. While the SS (UBT) was tasked with conveying to its loyal voter base that the bow and arrow needed to be overlooked for the new symbol of torchlight (Mashaal), NCP (SP) had to ensure that their voter base did not go for the Clock (Ghadiyal) but pressed the EVM button on the Tutari (man with the trumpet. However, after polling day came and went and counting day ensured that NCP(SS) romped home with 8 of the 10 seats in the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi Alliance (MVA), the near certain Satara seat was lost because of another smbol of just a trumpet was also awarded to a rival candidate.

This phenomenon was particularly evident in four critical constituencies: Satara, Dindori, Shirur, and Baramati, where voters struggled to identify their preferred candidates’ symbols. This confusion impacted voting outcomes and highlighted deeper issues within the state’s political landscape.

Was the ECI actions in awarding visually similar or interchangeable symbols right in the eyes of law and the Constitution or juridically questionable violating the basic principles of free and fair elections in a democracy?

What conspired in Satara?

In Satara the similar symbol confusion cost the NCP (SP) one Parliamentary seat. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections for the Satara constituency, the NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar faction) fielded Shashikant Jayvantrao Shinde, whose symbol was a man blowing a tutari (trumpet). Meanwhile, an independent candidate, Gade Sanjay Kondiba, was allotted a tutari (trumpet) symbol. The similarity between the symbols allegedly caused confusion among voters, contributing to the defeat of Shinde by a margin of 32,771 votes to BJP’s Udayanraje Bhonsle[1]. Patil claimed that the allocation of similar symbols was a deliberate attempt to split votes, which is a serious allegation that warrants a thorough legal examination[2]. The confusion over similar symbols could well have cost the NCP (SP) one seat.

Kindly embed this tweet here:

D confusing symbol in election plays spoilsport role. Sharad Pawar’s NCP (SP) nominee Shashikant Shinde lost LS polls due to this only. Shinde lost by 33,000 votes while proxy symbol having independent nominee got 37,000 vote. In other seats, proxy symbol reduced victory margin. pic.twitter.com/1t2Dd7FUHH

— Sudhir Suryawanshi (@ss_suryawanshi) June 7, 2024

What conspired in Dindori[3]?

In Dindori, the confusion over symbols was also palpable. In the Dindori constituency, an independent candidate named Babu Sadu Bhagre, who had a similar name and symbol to Bhaskar Bhagre from the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), caused a significant stir. Bhaskar Bhagre was running against the sitting MP, Bharti Pawar from the BJP.

Babu Bhagre, although largely unknown and not a teacher (despite using “sir” in his name), started getting a lot of votes from the beginning. His symbol was a ‘Tutari’ (trumpet), which looked very similar to the NCP’s symbol, confusing voters.

After four rounds of vote counting, Bhaskar Bhagre was leading by 6,989 votes, but Babu Bhagre had already collected 12,389 votes. By the end of the counting, Babu Bhagre had over 103,632 votes. Despite this, Bhaskar Bhagre managed to win with 577,339 votes, beating Bharti Pawar by 113,119 votes.

Narhari Zirwal’s support for Bhaskar Bhagre, despite recently crossing over to Ajit Pawar’s faction, added another layer of complexity. Voters found it difficult to keep track of the political realignments and symbol changes, leading to potential mis-votes. This situation in Dindori exemplified the broader state-wide confusion, where voters’ long-standing associations with specific symbols were disrupted, necessitating intensive educational campaigns that were not always successful.

What conspired in Shirur[4]?

In Shirur, the electoral confusion was similarly pronounced. Amol Kolhe from the NCP (Sharad Pawar) was pitted against Adhalrao Patil from Ajit Pawar’s NCP. Reports indicated that senior voters accidentally voted for the clock symbol, traditionally associated with Sharad Pawar, but now representing Ajit Pawar’s faction. This error stemmed from muscle memory and deeply ingrained voting habits.

Despite Sharad Pawar’s faction’s efforts to educate voters about the new tutari symbol, many still inadvertently supported the rival faction. Campaigns involved using placards and real tutaris to familiarize voters with the new symbol, but these measures were not entirely effective. The voters’ confusion in Shirur underscores the challenges of shifting symbol recognition and the significant impact on voter behavior and election outcomes. Fortunately the outcome was not affected, and Dr. Amol Ramsing Kolhe of the Nationalist Congress Party – Sharadchandra Pawar won with 6,98,692 votes, second came Adhalrao Shivaji Dattatrey of the Nationalist Congress Party with 5,57,741 votes and the independent candidate with the tutari symbol Manohar Mahadu Wadekar came third with 28,330 votes.

Kindly embed this tweet here:

I voted. But observed a disturbing trend.

The problem is that the BJ Party has muddied the waters in MH by design. I belong to the Shirur constituency where Amol Kolhe (NCP-Sharadchandra Pawar, with INDIA bloc) was against Adhalrao Patil (NCP-Ajit Pawar, with NDA).
1/n

— Kedar Anil Gadgil (@KedarAnilGadgil) May 13, 2024

What conspired in Baramati[5]?

Baramati saw the peak of symbol confusion, with Supriya Sule from Sharad Pawar’s NCP competing against her sister-in-law Sunetra Pawar from Ajit Pawar’s faction. The outcome was however not affected. Supriya Sule of the Nationalist Congress Party – Sharadchandra Pawar won with 7,32,312 votes, second came Sunetra Ajit Pawar of the Nationalist Congress Party with 5,73,979 votes and third came the independent candidate with the tutari symbol Mahesh Sitaram Bhagwat who gathered 15,663 votes.

The situation was further complicated by the presence of an independent candidate who was allotted a symbol similar to the tutari, leading to additional voter confusion.

Despite extensive campaigning by Supriya Sule’s team to make voters aware of the new tutari symbol, traditional voters who had long associated the clock symbol with the NCP accidentally voted for Ajit Pawar’s faction. This confusion split the vote and demonstrated the deep-rooted challenges of re-establishing party identity amidst changing political symbols. The voter misalignment in Baramati highlighted the broader issue of symbol recognition in the face of political realignments.

Legal Violations and procedural failures in the allocation of election symbols by the ECI

The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) allocation of a man blowing a tutari to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) candidate and a tutari to an independent candidate in the Satara constituency, changing the symbol from the clock to the tutari and allotting the clock to other candidates in Baramati and Shirur constitutes a violation of Paragraph 4 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968[6].

This provision requires the allocation of “distinct symbols to different candidates in the same constituency to prevent voter confusion,” which clearly occurred in Satara and Dindori as voters likely mistook the independent candidate’s tutari symbol for the NCP candidate’s symbol, leading to a misallocation of votes.

Moreover, paragraph 4 requires that symbols allotted to a recognized party should be frozen and preserved during a split until the Election Commission or a court resolves the matter. In Shirur and Baramati, the emergence of a new symbol without clear guidance on symbol preservation for the different factions within the NCP may have contributed to voter confusion. This confusion was exacerbated in Baramati by the presence of an independent candidate using a symbol similar to the tutari, further complicating the electoral landscape and potentially violating the spirit of symbol reservation and allotment rules.

Furthermore, this allocation reflects a misclassification under Paragraphs 5 and 6, which distinguish between “reserved” and “free” symbols. Reserved symbols are meant to preserve the unique identity of recognized political parties in the electoral process. By permitting an independent candidate to use a symbol so similar to that of a recognized party, the ECI blurred this critical distinction, diluting the party’s identity and confusing the electorate, thereby undermining the intended purpose of these provisions.

Article 324 of the Indian Constitution vests the ECI with the responsibility to ensure free and fair elections. The alleged deliberate allocation of similar symbols to cause voter confusion stands in stark contrast to the mandate of Article 324. The ECI’s primary role is to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, and actions that compromise this integrity violate the spirit of this constitutional provision.

Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951[7] defines corrupt practices, including undue influence. The allocation of similar symbols can be perceived as a tactic to confuse voters, constituting undue influence. The significant number of votes that went to the independent candidate with the similar symbol in various constituencies, as cited by NCP leader Jayant Patil, suggests that voters were misled. This misdirection of votes not only affects the fairness of the election but also undermines the democratic process.

This act also contravenes the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961[8], specifically Rules 5 and 10, which empower the ECI to specify, reserve, and allot election symbols. These rules are intended to ensure clarity and fairness in the symbol allocation process, preventing voter confusion and guaranteeing that each candidate is distinctly represented by their symbol. By disregarding these rules and allowing symbols that are strikingly similar, the ECI undermined the fundamental purpose of these provisions, leading to a compromised electoral process where voters were misled, thus failing to uphold the principles of fair and transparent elections.

The election symbols, did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do: they created more confusion, which led to people voting for the opposite party.

Free and Fair Elections: The cornerstone of democracy

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of any democratic system. They ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected in the composition of the government. The sanctity of elections is protected by laws and regulations that seek to prevent any undue influence or manipulation. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India[9], reinforced this principle by holding that democracy is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution and that free and fair elections are integral to this structure. The court emphasized that any action undermining the fairness of elections would be detrimental to the democratic framework of the country.

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a set of guidelines issued by the ECI to regulate political parties and candidates prior to elections. It aims to ensure that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner and that no party or candidate gains an unfair advantage. However, the conduct of ECI in the Maharastra constituencies suggest a blatant violation of the MCC by the commission itself. By allowing similar symbols and confusing symbols to be allocated, the ECI has failed to uphold the principles of the MCC, which it is mandated to enforce.

In Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms[10], the Supreme Court reiterated that the rule of law and the right to free and fair elections are basic features of democracy. The court stressed that electoral malpractices and undue influence over voters must be prevented to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. The actions of the ECI in the Satara case seem to contradict this judicial mandate by creating a scenario where voter confusion was inevitable.

The Broader Implications

The integrity of the electoral process hinges on the trust of the electorate. When voters are presented with symbols that are similar or are confusing, their confidence in the system’s fairness is undermined.

The confusion caused by the allocation of a “man blowing a tutari” symbol to the NCP candidate and a “tutari” symbol to an independent candidate in Satara likely led to voters being unable to accurately distinguish between the candidates. This not only happened in Satara but four other constituencies. This misallocation of votes can result in feelings of disenfranchisement and suspicion towards the electoral authorities, thereby eroding trust. When voters perceive the electoral process as flawed or manipulated, their willingness to participate in future elections diminishes, which is detrimental to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Ensuring that every vote accurately reflects the voter’s intent is crucial for maintaining public trust and upholding the legitimacy of elected officials.

The implications of the ECI’s actions extend beyond this single instance. If the issue of (deliberately allocated) similar symbols is not addressed, and that too soon, it establishes a dangerous precedent that could be exploited in future elections.

Other political entities may adopt similar strategies, deliberately selecting symbols that closely resemble those of their opponents to confuse voters and split votes. This tactic could become a pervasive form of electoral manipulation, complicating the voting process and increasing the incidence of contested elections. Such practices not only disrupt the immediate electoral outcomes but also contribute to a longer-term degradation of electoral integrity. Over time, if such practices are not curbed, the overall credibility of the electoral system may be compromised, leading to widespread disillusionment and disengagement among voters.

The Maharashtra cases underscores a critical need for more precise regulations regarding the allocation of election symbols. The ECI must take proactive steps to ensure that symbols assigned to candidates are distinct and easily distinguishable to prevent any confusion among voters. This could involve revising the criteria for symbol allocation and implementing stricter guidelines to avoid any overlap or similarity between symbols. Furthermore, enhanced scrutiny during the symbol allocation process could help identify and rectify potential issues before they impact the election.

Clearer regulations would also empower candidates and political parties to raise objections more effectively when they believe that the assigned symbols are likely to cause confusion. By setting and enforcing stringent guidelines, the ECI can safeguard the electoral process, ensuring that voters can make informed decisions without ambiguity. This approach would help maintain the clarity and transparency essential for free and fair elections, reinforcing the democratic principles on which the electoral system is based.

Conclusion: Upholding democratic integrity

To uphold democratic integrity, it is imperative for the ECI to implement stricter regulations and more robust guidelines regarding the allocation of election symbols. Symbols must be distinct and easily distinguishable to prevent any possibility of voter confusion. Additionally, the ECI must engage in proactive voter education campaigns, especially when there are significant changes in party symbols due to political realignments. Voters need to be clearly informed about these changes to ensure that they can make informed decisions at the ballot box.

Ensuring the clarity and transparency of the electoral process is essential for maintaining public trust in democracy. The voters’ confidence that their votes will be correctly attributed to their chosen candidates is fundamental to the legitimacy of elected officials and the overall functioning of a democratic system. By addressing the issues highlighted in Maharashtra’s 2024 elections, the ECI can reinforce this trust and safeguard the democratic framework of the country.

In conclusion, the ECI needs to immediately take decisive action to rectify the symbol allocation process and prevent future electoral confusion. Upholding the principles of free and fair elections is not just a constitutional mandate but a moral imperative to preserve the integrity of India’s democracy. By ensuring that every vote is accurately counted and reflects the true intent of the voter, the ECI can uphold the sanctity of the electoral process and maintain the foundation of a robust democratic society.

[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/similar-poll-symbols-led-to-skewed-results-ncp sp/article68260814.ece

[2] Maharashtra: Similar poll symbols led to defeat in Satara, says NCP(SP) (scroll.in)

[3] https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/maharashtra-dindori-unknown-candidate-garnered-99000-votes-9371782/

[4] https://scroll.in/article/1068006/bow-and-arrow-or-torch-in-maharashtra-confusion-over-new-election-symbols-may-help-bjp-allies

[5] https://scroll.in/article/1068006/bow-and-arrow-or-torch-in-maharashtra-confusion-over-new-election-symbols-may-help-bjp-allies

[6]https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_3_81_00001_195143_1517807327542&type=order&filename=Election%20Symbol%20Order,%201968.pdf

[7] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2096/5/a1951-43.pdf

[8] https://old.eci.gov.in/files/file/15145-the-conduct-of-elections-rules-1961/

[9] People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India, (2003) 2 S.C.R. 1136

[10] Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294

Related:

From counting of votes by the rule book to respecting the mandate of the people, transparency and integrity is key: People’s Organisations, Delhi.

Protect Electoral Democracy, defend the Constitution and the law: Judges to President of India, Chief Justice of India and ECI

ECI Press conference ahead of polling day, BJP puts its two bits in, concerns on counting of postal ballots etc. remain

Why Indian exit polls are often biased and favour the ruling party

ECI’s Handbook for Police Officers and RP Act 1951: For Pre-Poll, Polling Day, and Post-Poll Responsibilities

The post M’tra: Similar Symbols, a failed ECI and seats lost: the case of Satara appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With 67 candidates reportedly securing All India Rank (AIR) 1 with perfect scores of 720/720, alongside the improbable scores of 718/720 and 719/720, concerns about cut-off levels and potential malpractice have emerged.

This piece delves into the NEET 2024 controversy, analysing the background, protests, and subsequent Supreme Court intervention, highlighting the critical issues at play.

Background of the Controversy

On June 4, 2024, the NTA released the NEET 2024 results, catching students and parents off guard due to the results being announced ten days ahead of the anticipated date. This early release coincided with the national focus on the general election results, which added to the public’s astonishment. The declaration that 67 candidates had secured a perfect score of 720/720 raised immediate concerns, as achieving such scores is exceptionally difficult given NEET’s negative marking system.

Further suspicions were fuelled by reports that many of the top scorers had consecutive roll numbers, implying they might have taken the exam at the same centre. This raised allegations of collusion and possible exam centre malpractice. The situation was further complicated by reports of candidates scoring 718/720 and 719/720—scores that are impossible under NEET’s marking scheme, sparking confusion and suspicion among stakeholders.

NTA’s Response and Normalization Formula

In response to the uproar on social media, the NTA issued a clarification on X (formerly Twitter), attributing the unusual scores to a normalization formula approved by the Supreme Court. This formula was ostensibly implemented to address time loss issues during the May 5, 2024, exam. However, many remained unconvinced, questioning the normalization process and the integrity of the results.

pic.twitter.com/woK8QhtoWo

— National Testing Agency (@NTA_Exams) June 4, 2024

A subsequent NTA press release on June 6 explained that the increase in the number of high scorers was due to a 14% rise in candidates from 2023 to 2024, as well as revisions in the answer key and compensatory marks. Yet, this explanation did not fully account for the significant increase in perfect scores, leaving many questions unanswered.

Regarding queries of candidates on NEET (UG) 2024 Result declared on 04 June 2024 pic.twitter.com/F3Hu7aMtwb

— National Testing Agency (@NTA_Exams) June 6, 2024

Protests and Social Media Outcry

The release of NEET 2024 results triggered significant protests across India. Student organizations and opposition youth wings mobilized, with protests occurring in cities like Delhi, Kanpur, and Bhopal.

Delhi protests (June 9, 2024)

On the day of the new NDA government’s oath-taking ceremony, Delhi witnessed significant protests. Student associations like AISA, NSUI, and Youth Congress workers joined forces to demonstrate, claiming coaching centers were bribing officials to favor certain students.

Kanpur and Bhopal protests (June 7-8, 2024)

Hundreds of students protested in Kanpur and Bhopal, demanding redressal and transparency. The widespread nature of these protests underscored the deep discontent and mistrust among students and their families.

Legal action and Supreme Court intervention

In response to the controversy, multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the cancellation of NEET 2024 and the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged fraud. The Supreme Court did not stay the NEET results but issued notices to the NTA.

Comparison with CLAT 2018

To understand the complexity of the NEET 2024 situation, a comparison with the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 is instructive. Both exams faced issues related to time loss and score normalization, but the approaches and contexts differed significantly.

CLAT 2018 was conducted online, allowing precise tracking of technical issues and time loss for each candidate. This precise data enabled accurate adjustments to scores based on a detailed normalization formula. In contrast, NEET 2024 was conducted offline, making accurate determination of time loss more challenging. The reliance on CCTV footage for assessing time lost introduces uncertainty, unlike the precise logs available in an online setting.

For CLAT 2018, the Supreme Court set up a grievance redressal committee to review complaints and created an email account for candidates to submit grievances, ensuring thorough examination and transparency. Conversely, NEET 2024 lacked such a comprehensive grievance redressal mechanism. The NTA mentioned compensating 1563 candidates, but the process lacked transparency and did not provide an open forum for all candidates to report issues. In the NEET 2024, the court held that, only the people who have come to the court with the complaints can take the re-exam and no grievance redressal mechanism is put in place.

Kindly embed this tweet here-

Sai Deepak: 1563 are the students who approached court for the time not being granted.. what about others who did not come to court?

SC: Are they here ? Are you holding their brief ? do not unnecessarily expand the scope#SupremeCourt #NEET #NEET_परीक्षा #NeetUG24Controversy…

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) June 13, 2024

SC: in how many centres did students suffered loss of time ?

NTA: 6 centres

SC: how many candidates ?

NTA: 1563

SC: then all covered.

J Sai Deepak: Then please keep it open for the ones who suffered loss of time but did not approach court

SC: that means keep sitting on…

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) June 13, 2024

The normalisation formula used in CLAT 2018 calculated additional questions a candidate would have attempted without time loss based on their answering efficiency. This method, however, is inappropriate for NEET 2024, given the offline nature of the exam and the lack of precise data on time lost. The discrepancies in the scores, such as 718 and 719, which are not possible under NEET’s marking scheme, demand clear explanation and public scrutiny.

The court has therefore, held that the grace marks will be cancelled, the students who have received grace marks can then sit for a re- examination.

Kindly embed this tweet here-

J Nath: Subsequent committee has made recommendations, which have been placed today before us by Mr Kanu Agarwal. It has been suggested that score cards of affected 1563 candidates will stand cancelled and withdrawn#SupremeCourt #NEET_परीक्षा #NEETUG

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 13, 2024

J Nath: These candidates will be informed their actual scores, without compensatory marks. Re-exam will be conducted for the affected 1563 candidates. Results of those who don’t wish to re-appear will be declared based on actual marks#SupremeCourt #NEET_परीक्षा #NEETUG

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 13, 2024

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed a significant controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2024 examination. The issue in question involved the awarding of grace marks to over 1500 candidates due to reduced exam time. This decision was met with multiple petitions challenging the conduct and results of the exam, raising concerns about fairness and transparency.

Hearing Details and Arguments

The matter was brought before a Vacation Bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The court reviewed several pleas, including demands for the cancellation of NEET-UG 2024 results and objections to the awarding of grace marks. Advocate Kanu Aggarwal, representing the respondents, informed the court of a decision to address the students’ concerns. A committee recommended cancelling the scorecards of 1563 candidates affected by reduced exam time and conducting a re-test for them. Advocate J Sai Deepak, representing one of the petitioners, argued against the arbitrary award of grace marks, stressing that some candidates did not receive the full exam duration, which led to compensatory marks being awarded.

Court’s observations and orders

The Supreme Court clarified that the ongoing counselling process would not be halted. Justice Nath stated, “Counselling will go on, and we will not stop it. If the exam goes, then everything goes in totality, so nothing to fear.” The court scrutinised the National Testing Agency (NTA) recommendations and found inconsistencies regarding the re-test clauses. Justice Mehta emphasized the need to re-draft the clauses, noting, “You can’t declare the result of all 1563 candidates canceled.”

Advocate J Sai Deepak referenced a 2018 Supreme Court judgment in a CLAT matter to argue his case, but the bench clarified that the CLAT judgment did not apply here. Justice Nath remarked, “The CLAT judgment is not being applied here. The circumstances and specifics differ, so we must address this case on its own merits.” The Supreme Court directed that only candidates genuinely affected by the reduced exam time should be eligible for the re-test, scheduled for June 23, 2024, with results to be declared by June 30 to avoid disrupting the counselling process starting on July 6.

Final Verdict and Broader Context

The Supreme Court’s order stated that the petitioner raised concerns about the normalisation formula and the award of grace marks to 1563 candidates. The NTA, after reconsideration, recommended cancelling the scorecards of these candidates and conducting re-exams. Those who opt out of the re-exam will have their actual scores considered without compensatory marks. The decision to cancel the grace marks awarded to 1563 students was communicated by the Centre to the Supreme Court, with these students informed of their actual scores. Advocate Kanu Aggarwal, representing the Union Government, conveyed that the panel’s decision was made to “allay the fears of the students” and address the skewed situation resulting from the grace marks.

Additional Petitions and Ongoing Issues

The court dealt with three primary petitions challenging the NEET-UG 2024 results due to irregularities and the contentious award of grace marks. One notable petition was filed by Physics Wallah CEO Alakh Pandey, who argued that the NTA’s decision to award grace marks was arbitrary, supported by representations from about 20,000 students. Another petition by SIO members, Abdullah Mohammed Faiz and Dr. Shaik Roshan Mohiddin sought a recall of the NEET-UG 2024 results over alleged paper leaks and malpractices, with the court issuing a notice on this matter.

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition challenging the grace marks while keeping pending other grievances. The NTA and the Union Education Ministry had earlier formed a four-member committee to review the results of the candidates awarded grace marks to compensate for the loss of time.

Need for a Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow re-examinations for the 1563 candidates affected by reduced exam time is a step towards addressing the immediate concerns of fairness and transparency. However, the broader issue of a lack of a comprehensive grievance redressal mechanism remains unaddressed. This controversy highlights the urgent need for the National Testing Agency (NTA) to establish a robust and transparent grievance redressal process to ensure that all students have a fair opportunity to report issues and seek redress.

The other students, who have not approached the court may not have the means to and hence the court must follow the precedent laid down in CLAT 2018, where a grievance redressal mechanism was established in order to give every student a chance to voice their concern.

Supreme Court order can be read here:

Related:

Scrutinising the procedure for awarding compensatory marks in NEET 2024

Students, organisations protest as allegations against NEET examinations pile up

NEET: An Exam only for Elites

Now, Muslim girl students complain of being forced to remove burqa and hijab before NEET exam

Two pre-med students die by suicide in Rajasthan: NEET

The post NEET 2024 Row: Supreme Court cancels grace marks, orders re-test for affected students appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What are the laws and rules governing money spending in elections? Are they observed in letter and spirit?

The laws on election funding

Election financing in India is governed by a comprehensive set of laws, rules, and guidelines designed to maintain transparency, accountability, and integrity in the electoral process. These regulations cover various aspects of election expenditure by both individual candidates and political parties. Below is an in-depth exploration of these laws and their implications, including the latest guidelines and expenditure limits for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in 2024.

The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, sets forth a comprehensive framework for the maintenance and submission of election expenses by candidates.

• Section 77(1) of the RPA mandates that every candidate meticulously maintain a correct account of all election expenses incurred from the nomination date to the result declaration date.
• This requirement is reinforced by Section 78, which obliges candidates to submit their accounts of election expenses to the district election officer within thirty days of the result declaration.
• Non-compliance with these provisions can lead to severe repercussions under Section 10A, which allows for the disqualification of a candidate for up to three years for failing to lodge an account of election expenses or for lodging an incorrect account.
• Moreover, Section 123(6) identifies exceeding the prescribed limit of election expenditure as a corrupt practice.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) set specific expenditure limits for candidates in the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections[1]. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh and other states, the expenditure limit is ₹95 lakh for each Lok Sabha candidate and ₹40 lakh for each Assembly candidate. In smaller states and Union Territories, these limits are slightly lower, set at ₹75 lakh for Lok Sabha candidates and ₹28 lakh for Assembly candidates. These limits encompass all election-related activities, including public meetings, rallies, advertisements, posters, banners, and vehicles. To ensure compliance, the ECI is required to closely monitor the expenditure of each candidate, requiring them to maintain separate account books for election expenditure and use only one bank account for all election-related transactions. Additionally, candidates, agents, and party cadres are prohibited from carrying more than ₹50,000 in cash and ₹10,000 worth of material in their vehicles, with any excess subject to seizure by election authorities. Recognized political parties’ star campaigners can carry a maximum of ₹1 lakh in their vehicles.

In terms of transparency, the ECI’s guidelines[2] stipulate that expenditures over ₹20,000 by political parties must be made via cheque, draft, or bank transfer, except in specific circumstances. Unrecognised parties must file their election expenditure statements with the Chief Electoral Officer of the respective state. When providing financial assistance to candidates, political parties must adhere to prescribed expenditure limits and ensure payments are made through accountable financial instruments. Furthermore, political parties are required to maintain and submit annually audited accounts by qualified Chartered Accountants to the ECI.

Over the years, the expenditure limits have undergone various changes. For example, in 2019, the limits were set at ₹70 lakh for Lok Sabha candidates and ₹28 lakh for Assembly candidates. The last major revision before 2024 occurred in 2020, increasing the expenditure limits by 10%. In response to the growing number of electors and rising costs, the ECI formed a committee to study cost factors and make suitable recommendations for enhancing the ceiling limits. The committee considered the increase in electors from 834 million in 2014 to 936 million in 2021 (an increase of 12.23%) and the rise in the Cost Inflation Index from 240 in 2014-15 to 317 in 2021-22 (an increase of 32.08%). These factors, along with the shift to virtual campaigning, were crucial considerations in recommending the revised expenditure limits.

The PUCL v/s Union of India (2003) case endorsed stronger disclosure and auditing norms, advocating for statutory audits and proper formats for filing election expenses.

The financial Burden of elections

The 2024 Lok Sabha Election broke all records and became the most expensive electoral event in the world, with expenditure reaching ₹1.35 lakh crore[3]. This staggering amount, more than double the ₹60,000 crore spent in 2019, underscores the significant financial burden of elections in India and highlights the ongoing issue of transparency in political funding.

Despite the much-proclaimed extensive regulatory framework established by the ECI to monitor and control election spending, transparency remains a major concern. The ECI has prescribed specific expenditure limits for candidates—₹95 lakh for Lok Sabha candidates and ₹40 lakh for Assembly candidates in larger states, with lower caps in smaller states and Union Territories. These limits are intended to cover all campaign-related expenses, including public meetings, rallies, advertisements, and transportation.

However, the actual expenditure far exceeds these limits, as political parties and candidates find ways to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the Model Code of Conduct.

The cost of entry into Indian politics has surged to unprecedented levels, with the intertwining of wealth and power creating formidable barriers for aspiring candidates, particularly those from less affluent backgrounds. As evidenced by the data from the recently concluded state assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh, a significant proportion of winning candidates possess assets valued at crores, reflecting the increasing role of wealth in electoral politics[4].

In Madhya Pradesh, 44% of winning candidates boast assets of 5 crores and above, while Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh present similar trends, with 39% and 30% respectively[5]. The comparative analysis further reveals a substantial increase in the average assets of re-elected MLAs, with the Indian National Congress witnessing a staggering average asset increase of 51% in Madhya Pradesh, 37% in Rajasthan, and 49% in Chhattisgarh[6]. The concentration of wealth among successful political representatives raises concerns about the affordability of political participation and the exclusion of individuals who cannot afford the exorbitant costs associated with electoral campaigns.

Hidden costs and under-the-table transactions

N. Bhaskara Rao, chair of the Centre for Media Studies (CMS), notes that pre-election activities, such as political rallies, transportation, hiring of workers, and even controversial practices like horse-trading of political leaders, contribute significantly to the overall expenditure[7].

A recent report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reveals that approximately 60% of contributions to the six major political parties in India from 2004-05 to 2022-23 came from undisclosed sources, totalling ₹19,083 crore[8]. This lack of transparency is largely due to the use of electoral bonds, which allow for anonymous donations. The Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling[9] declaring the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional highlights the need for greater transparency in political funding. The Court noted that the anonymity granted by the scheme promotes corruption and quid pro quo arrangements, undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

Despite the ECI’s efforts to enforce expenditure limits and ensure transparency, political parties often engage in under-the-table giveaways, including gifts, cash, and gold, to influence voters. This practice continues to rise with each election, reflecting the growing reliance on money power over ideology in Indian politics.

Third-party campaigners and lack of regulation

A significant yet often overlooked aspect of electoral expenditure is the role of third-party campaigners[10]. These are individuals or groups that participate in campaign activities without being formally registered as political parties or candidates. Indian electoral laws lack clear definitions and regulations for third-party campaigners, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability.

The unchecked expenditure and nature of content posted by third-party campaigners raise serious concerns, especially in the context of the now-scrapped Electoral Bond Scheme. The absence of regulation for third-party expenditure often leads to an influx of unaccounted money into the electoral process and quid pro quo arrangements.

Election freebies: implications and measures for electoral integrity

Election freebies, often manifesting as promises of goods, services, or financial incentives, have become a widespread strategy used by political parties to sway voters. While these tactics can attract short-term support, they pose significant risks to the principles of free and fair elections. Addressing the implications of election freebies is crucial for ensuring electoral integrity and fostering a more informed electorate.

The impact of election freebies

The allure of immediate gains can skew voters’ decisions, leading them to prioritize short-term benefits over long-term policies and governance capabilities. This undermines the democratic process, as decisions are not based on informed evaluations of candidates’ platforms and performance. Additionally, large-scale promises of freebies can impose a heavy financial burden on state budgets. This often results in the misallocation of resources, diverting funds away from essential services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure development, which are critical for sustainable growth and development.

The repeated reliance on election freebies fosters a culture of dependency among voters. This discourages them from making informed choices based on policy performance and long-term benefits, instead creating an expectation of continual handouts from political parties.

Election freebies distort the democratic process by encouraging voters to base their decisions on immediate material gains rather than the long-term development and governance capabilities of candidates. The financial burden of these promises diverts funds from critical public services, potentially hindering sustainable growth and development.

Freebies and welfare schemes have been a defining feature of Indian politics, especially around election times. While they can provide immediate relief and benefits to the public, their timing and intent often draw scrutiny, raising questions about the ethical implications of using public resources to secure votes. The recent slew of schemes announced in the Budget 2024-25 and the extension of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) are prime examples of this practice.

Several ambitious schemes aimed at fostering development and addressing various socio-economic issues were introduced by the government in the month of February 2024. The “Viksit Bharat by 2047” initiative outlines a vision for a developed India by 2047, including a 50-year interest-free loan of Rs. 75,000 crore to state governments to drive significant development in the economy, environment, and social progress. The “Rooftop Solarisation Scheme” or PM Suryodaya Yojana aims to provide 300 units of free electricity per month to one crore households through the installation of rooftop solar panels, offering substantial annual savings, promoting entrepreneurship, and creating employment opportunities for the youth. In the health sector, the government proposed a vaccination program for girls aged 9 to 14 to prevent cervical cancer, potentially improving women’s health outcomes significantly.

The budget also proposed changes to existing schemes. The government plans to provide two crore more houses under the PM Awas Yojana (Grameen) in the next five years, addressing the increasing housing needs in rural areas despite the challenges posed by COVID-19. Various maternal and childcare schemes will be unified under a comprehensive program to improve early childhood care, nutrition, and immunization through platforms like U-WIN and Mission Indradhanush.

In January 2024, the government extended the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) for five years, providing free food grains to 81.35 crore beneficiaries. This scheme, with an estimated cost of Rs. 11.80 lakh crore, aims to ensure food security and mitigate financial hardship for the poor and vulnerable sections of society.

Policy-making close to elections occupies a grey area, teetering between genuine public service and strategic political manoeuvring. While the intent behind such policies might be to address pressing societal issues, their timing raises suspicions about whether they are authentic welfare measures or electoral strategies aimed at swaying voters.

Policies announced just before elections can be perceived as tools to gain voter favour. Ruling parties introduce popular schemes during this period to create a positive image and garner support that might otherwise be lacking. This practice leads voters to make decisions based on short-term benefits rather than considering long-term policy impacts. The immediate appeal of these measures can overshadow critical analysis of their sustainability and overall efficacy.

The integrity of governance is also at stake when policies are perceived as electoral gimmicks. The timing of these announcements erodes public trust in the government’s intentions and transparency.

There is a delicate balance between providing necessary welfare and using public resources for electoral gains. Genuine welfare policies should be designed with long-term sustainability and impact in mind, not merely for short-term electoral advantages. Transparent and accountable governance can help ensure that welfare schemes are implemented effectively and fairly, benefiting those in need without compromising fiscal health or ethical standards.

Although these policies might not technically be classified as “freebies,” they often serve a similar purpose. They provide immediate relief and address pressing needs, but their timing close to elections often raises ethical concerns. This practice can violate the principle of free and fair elections by unduly influencing voter behaviour through state resources.

The recent schemes announced in the Budget 2024-25 and the extension of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) highlight this complex interplay between welfare and electoral strategy. While they offer immediate benefits and address urgent needs, their proximity to elections brings into question the genuine intent behind them.

Moving forward, it is crucial for policymakers to balance addressing immediate needs with ensuring long-term sustainability. Welfare schemes should genuinely benefit the public and not merely serve as electoral tools. Transparent governance and accountable implementation are key to maintaining this balance and fostering trust in public institutions. Only through such measures can the delicate line between public service and political strategy be navigated effectively, ensuring that the true spirit of welfare is upheld while maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.

Transparency in electoral finance

In the realm of democratic governance, transparency in electoral finance stands as a crucial pillar, ensuring that the voices of the people are not drowned out by the influence of vested interests. India, like many democracies, grapples with the challenge of ensuring fair and transparent elections amidst the complexities of modern politics. In this pursuit, the concept of state funding of elections has emerged as a potential solution, offering to mitigate the influence of private donors and level the playing field for all candidates. This comprehensive piece explores the various facets of state funding, drawing insights from recommendations by esteemed commissions, different models of implementation, and the imperative of transparency in electoral finance.

Understanding state funding of elections

State funding of elections fundamentally entails the government providing financial support to political parties and candidates, thereby reducing their reliance on private donations. This support can manifest in various forms, including direct grants, subsidies, or reimbursements for campaign expenditures[11]. The overarching aim is to curtail the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and corporations on the political process, thereby safeguarding the integrity of elections and promoting democratic principles.

Recommendations by Commissions

In the discourse surrounding state funding of elections in India, several influential commissions have provided valuable recommendations, shaping the conversation and informing policy considerations. These commissions, through their reports and findings, have underscored the potential benefits of state funding while also highlighting the need for a robust regulatory framework to ensure transparency and accountability. Let’s delve deeper into the recommendations put forth by these esteemed bodies:

1. Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998)[12]:

The Indrajit Gupta Committee, established in 1998, conducted a comprehensive review of electoral finance practices in India. Recognizing the disparities in financial resources among political parties, the committee recommended state funding as a means to level the playing field. Importantly, the committee emphasized the provision of non-monetary support, such as free transport, to ensure fairness among parties with limited resources. Additionally, it proposed two key restrictions on state funding: limiting it to national and state parties with recognized symbols and providing short-term funding in kind rather than cash.

2. Law Commission of India Report (1999)[13]:

The Law Commission of India’s report in 1999 echoed the sentiment of the Indrajit Gupta Committee, advocating for state funding of elections under a stringent regulatory framework. Emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability, the report recommended that political parties should not be allowed to accept funds from sources other than the state. It underscored the need for comprehensive reforms to ensure the integrity of electoral finance practices.

3. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001)[14]:

While not explicitly endorsing state funding of elections, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in its 2001 report echoed the sentiments of the Law Commission. It highlighted the necessity of establishing an appropriate regulatory framework for the regulation of political parties before considering state funding. The commission emphasized the importance of addressing systemic issues and strengthening regulatory mechanisms to uphold the integrity of electoral processes.

4. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)[15]:

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its “Ethics in Governance” report from 2008, advocated for partial state funding of elections. Recognizing the pervasive influence of illegitimate and excessive funding in elections, the commission underscored the importance of curbing such practices through state intervention. It recommended measures to reduce the dependency of political parties on private donors, thereby enhancing transparency and fairness in electoral finance.

Benefits of state funding

The adoption of state funding of elections offers a myriad of advantages that resonate with the core tenets of democracy. Firstly, by reducing the dependence of political parties on private donors, state funding limits the undue influence of wealthy individuals and corporations on political outcomes. This ensures that policies and decisions are guided by the interests of the electorate rather than narrow vested interests. Moreover, state funding levels the playing field for all candidates, irrespective of their financial resources, thereby fostering healthy competition and diversity in political representation. Additionally, state funding mandates public disclosure of party finances, enhancing transparency and accountability in electoral finance. This increased transparency not only empowers citizens to make informed choices but also serves as a deterrent against corruption and malpractice in electoral processes. Furthermore, by lowering financial barriers to entry, state funding encourages democratic participation, enabling a more diverse range of candidates, including those from marginalized or underrepresented groups, to engage in the political process. Overall, state funding of elections aligns with the principles of fairness, transparency, and inclusivity, which form the bedrock of democratic governance.

Different models of state funding

The German model[16] of “matching grants” provides an intriguing approach to state funding, offering financial support to political parties based on their electoral performance. Under this system, parties receive funding from the state, which is proportional to their vote share in recent elections. This mechanism ensures that parties with broader popular support receive a larger share of state funding, thereby reflecting the will of the electorate. Additionally, the German model mandates immediate reporting of high-value donations and imposes strict regulations to promote transparency in electoral finance. Moreover, smaller parties are provided equitable funding opportunities through this model, provided they meet a predetermined threshold of electoral support, typically around 5%. By incentivizing parties to garner public support and discouraging reliance on private donors, the German model fosters a more democratic and transparent electoral process.

In contrast to the German model, the United States employs a system of federal election funds to support presidential candidates[17]. The Federal Election Commission provides matching funds to candidates who meet specific criteria, such as adhering to spending limits and securing a threshold level of public support. This system is funded through a voluntary $3 tax checkoff on federal income tax forms, allowing citizens to contribute to the financing of presidential elections. While the US model offers some degree of public financing, it also highlights the significant influence of private donations, particularly from Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs, which can circumvent spending limits through independent expenditures. Despite its limitations, the US model underscores the importance of public participation in financing electoral campaigns and provides insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with state funding.

Application to India

In the context of India, a hybrid model drawing insights from both the German and US approaches could offer a pragmatic solution to electoral finance reforms. This model could incorporate elements of proportional state funding based on vote share, akin to the German model, along with public financing mechanisms for candidates who meet eligibility criteria, similar to the US model. Additionally, stringent regulations and oversight mechanisms would be essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in electoral finance practices. Such regulations could include strict limits on campaign spending, immediate disclosure of donations above a certain threshold, and rigorous enforcement of penalties for non-compliance.

However, implementing state funding of elections in India would also pose significant challenges and require careful consideration of various factors. These challenges may include logistical issues in administering state funds, ensuring equitable distribution among diverse political parties, and preventing misuse or misallocation of funds. Moreover, public perception and political will may play a crucial role in determining the feasibility and acceptance of state funding reforms. Addressing these challenges would necessitate a collaborative effort involving policymakers, electoral authorities, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders to design and implement a robust framework for state funding of elections.

A national election fund- another approach

In addition to exploring models of state funding inspired by global practices, India can consider the establishment of a National Election Fund as a pivotal component of electoral finance reform. This dedicated fund would serve as a centralized repository for political donations, streamlining the process of financing elections and enhancing transparency and accountability.

The idea of a National Election Fund has been championed by eminent personalities in the realm of electoral reform[18], including former Chief Election Commissioner T.S. Krishnamurthy[19]. In various fora and publications, Krishnamurthy has underscored the importance of centralizing political contributions and ensuring their transparent allocation to promote fairness and integrity in the electoral process. His advocacy for the establishment of a National Election Fund has garnered attention from policymakers, electoral authorities, and civil society organizations, sparking discussions on the feasibility and implementation of such a fund in India’s electoral landscape.

The National Election Fund would be created with the primary objective of centralizing political contributions and ensuring their transparent and equitable distribution among political parties[20]. All political donations, whether from individuals, corporations, or other entities, would be directed to this fund, thereby eliminating the need for parties to solicit funds independently. The fund would serve as a neutral arbiter, allocating resources based on predetermined criteria to ensure fairness and inclusivity.

The allocation of funds from the National Election Fund would be governed by transparent criteria, such as a party’s electoral performance, adherence to democratic practices, and representation of diverse interests. Parties that meet certain eligibility requirements, such as securing a minimum threshold of electoral support or adhering to ethical standards of conduct, would be eligible to receive funding from the National Election Fund. This transparent allocation process would mitigate the influence of private donors and promote a level playing field for all political parties and candidates.

One of the key features of the National Election Fund would be its emphasis on encouraging public participation in political financing[21]. The fund would provide matching funds for small donations from individual citizens, incentivizing grassroots engagement in the political process and reducing the influence of large, potentially influential donors. This emphasis on public participation not only diversifies the donor base but also reinforces the democratic principle of citizen empowerment in shaping the political landscape.

Conclusion:

In the pursuit of strengthening democratic governance and upholding the principles of transparency and fairness, India stands at a crossroads in its approach to electoral finance. The comprehensive exploration of state funding of elections, supplemented by the proposal for a National Election Fund, underscores the imperative of reform in this critical domain. As the world’s largest democracy, India must navigate the complexities of electoral finance with foresight, pragmatism, and unwavering commitment to democratic ideals.

The journey towards transparency in electoral finance is multifaceted, requiring concerted efforts from policymakers, electoral authorities, civil society organizations, and citizens alike. While state funding of elections offers a promising avenue to reduce the influence of private donors and level the playing field for all candidates, its implementation necessitates careful consideration of regulatory frameworks, oversight mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement. Drawing inspiration from global best practices and indigenous innovations, India can chart a path towards a more transparent, inclusive, and participatory electoral process.

Since India is done with the Lok Sabha elections of 2024, addressing the issues raised by the burgeoning nexus of wealth and power is paramount. While electoral reforms have made significant strides in safeguarding the integrity of the voting process, the high cost of entry into politics threatens to undermine the democratic aspirations of millions. A reassessment of the current political financing environment is essential to ensure affordability in democracy and meaningful public engagement. By embracing transparency and accountability, India can uphold its democratic values in the face of evolving political and economic realities, fostering a political landscape that is truly representative of the diverse aspirations and interests of its citizens.

[1] https://old.eci.gov.in/files/file/13928-limits-of-candidate%E2%80%99s-expenses-enhanced/

[2] https://www.eci.gov.in/transparency-guidelines

[3]https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/rs-1-4-lakh-crore-the-cost-parties-are-paying-to-woo-voters-in-the-worlds-biggest-elections/articleshow/110196142.cms?from=mdr

[4] https://thewire.in/politics/entry-cost-into-politics-soaring-high-money-elections-and-participation

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/unveiling-the-veil-expenditure-disparities-in-indias-electoral-system/article68143486.ece

[8]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/almost-60-of-the-funds-received-by-national-political-parties-are-from-unknown-sources/article67925069.ece

[9] Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India, 2024 INSC 113

[10] https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IssueBrief_47.pdf

[11] https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/state-funding-of-elections?page=2&per-page=1

[12] https://legislative.gov.in/document/indra-jit-gupta-committee-report-on-state-funding-of-elections/

[13]https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022082424.pdf

[14] https://legalaffairs.gov.in/national-commission-review-working-constitution-ncrwc-report

[15] https://darpg.gov.in/arc-reports

[16] https://www.politico.eu/article/political-party-funding-in-germany-explained/

[17]https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/

[18] https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/congress-calls-for-national-election-fund-says-electoral-bonds-corrupt-8466493/

[19] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/national-election-fund-an-alternative-ex-cec-krishnamoorthy-after-sc-verdict-101707983253597.html

[20] https://www.cnbctv18.com/politics/electoral-bonds-data-supreme-court-sbi-political-funding-bjp-congress-tmc-19288431.htm

[21] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsas4isrPf8

Related:

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court declares Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional in unanimous decision, citing violation of right to information

Electoral Bonds: A Democracy’s Trojan horse

Is India’s democracy being sold through electoral bonds?

Electoral Bonds: SC directs all parties to reveal political funding details to EC

United Against Hate: CJP’s Battle for a Hate-Free Election in 2024!

The post Untangling the Electoral Web: A path towards transparent financing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As the Lok Sabha election results loom large, a mass WhatsApp campaign has cast a shadow over the electoral process. Initiated by a business account named “Viksit Bharat Sampark,” the campaign has ignited significant debate and raised serious ethical and legal questions. This initiative involved the widespread dissemination of an open letter from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in which he praised his government’s achievements and solicited public feedback. The messages were not only sent to millions of people in India but also reached citizens in Pakistan and the UAE, raising concerns about data privacy and the misuse of government resources.

The letter may be read here:

The controversial messages from “Viksit Bharat Sampark” were sent between March 15 and March 18, coinciding with the announcement of the Lok Sabha elections by the Election Commission of India on March 16, 2024. Some recipients reported receiving the messages as late as March 18 and beyond, exacerbating concerns about the timing and legality of their dissemination during the election period.

The WhatsApp messages, sent from a verified business account categorized as a “Public and government service,” aimed to publicize the Modi government’s initiatives and solicit feedback. The account identified itself as linked to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India. The letter, addressed to “My dear family member,” highlighted various government schemes and achievements over the past decade.

The use of “Viksit Bharat Sampark,” a business account on WhatsApp linked to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, raises serious questions about the misuse of government resources. This account utilized a paid service to send messages in bulk, a service permitted for government agencies but explicitly prohibited for political parties or entities engaging in political campaigning. Using government machinery for political campaigning undermines the integrity of the electoral process. This blurring of lines between government functions and political agendas is highly problematic.

Violation of the Model Code of Conduct

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure free and fair elections. It prohibits the use of government resources for electioneering and mandates that parties in power should not misuse their official position for campaign purposes.

Clause VII(4) of the MCC states that “issue of advertisement at the cost of public exchequer in the newspapers and other media and the misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage of political news and publicity regarding achievements with a view to furthering the prospects of the party in power shall be scrupulously avoided.” The “Viksit Bharat Sampark” campaign, funded by government resources, violates this clause.

The campaign blurred the lines between governmental functions and political agendas. By using a government-linked WhatsApp account to send messages that promote the ruling party’s achievements, it appears to leverage official platforms for partisan purposes, which is against the principles of the MCC.

The opposition and the citizens have been vocal in its criticism, with leaders like Congress MP Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tewari highlighting the misuse of government machinery and data. They have called on the Election Commission of India to take action and ensure a level playing field. The Election Commission has responded by directing the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to halt the campaign and sought a compliance report on the matter.

Will the ⁦@ECISVEEP⁩ take note of such a blatant misuse of government machinery and government data to serve the partisan political interests of the ruling party? pic.twitter.com/wrV6iWwfsJ

— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) March 18, 2024

.@ECISVEEP – This unsolicited WhatsApp message came at 12.09 AM today . It seems to be from @GoI_MeitY .
Is this not a blatant violation of the both Model Code of Conduct & Right to Privacy.

Where did @GoI_MeitY get my mobile number from ? Which database are they unauthorisedly… pic.twitter.com/MDvOhHrYcb

— Manish Tewari (@ManishTewari) March 18, 2024

Upon receiving complaints about the “Viksit Bharat Sampark” campaign, the Election Commission of India took action to address the violations. The ECI directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to halt the bulk WhatsApp messaging campaign immediately. The ECI emphasized that such actions compromised the level playing field necessary for free and fair elections.

Find the letter sent by the ECI to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology here:

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was ordered to stop sending the bulk WhatsApp messages immediately to prevent further misuse of government resources. The ECI asked the Ministry to submit a compliance report detailing the steps taken to halt the messaging campaign and ensure adherence to the MCC.

While the Election Commission of India’s response was swift, it has not gone far enough to address the full extent of the violations and their implications:

• Halting the campaign and requesting a compliance report, while necessary, do not address the systemic issues that allowed the campaign to happen in the first place.
• The ECI’s actions did not hold specific individuals accountable for the breach. A detailed investigation into who authorized and executed the campaign, and appropriate punitive measures against them, are crucial to prevent future occurrences.
• The ECI did not address the breach of privacy adequately. The misuse of personal data for political campaigning is a serious violation that demands thorough investigation and stricter enforcement of data protection laws.
• This incident highlights gaps in the legal framework governing the use of digital platforms for political campaigning. The ECI should advocate for stronger regulations and enforcement mechanisms to govern the use of technology in elections.

The “Viksit Bharat Sampark” campaign has highlighted the blurred lines between governmental functions and partisan political activities. By using official channels to send messages that praise the ruling party’s achievements and using government resources, the campaign undermines the impartiality of the electoral process and raises doubts about the integrity of elections. This misuse of government resources for political gain not only violates the Model Code of Conduct but also threatens the democratic fabric of the country.

Data Privacy and Viksit Bharat Sampark

The long and short of the issue is unauthorized access to a vast database of phone numbers. MeitY used some database to send its messages, but there is a complete lack of transparency about how it was acquired or what database was use. This obscurity casts doubt on the legality and ethical implications of how the data was obtained. A crucial question is: how did MeitY acquire the vast database of phone numbers used for this unsolicited outreach? Did they get user consent before using this information^[1]?

The possibility that MeitY acquired the data from another public or private entity opens a whole new can of worms. Were legal procedures followed during the acquisition of this database? Did the original source adhere to data privacy norms? A core principle of data protection is that personal information can only be used for the specific purpose for which it was collected. Reusing it for something entirely different, especially without consent, is a major red flag. MeitY facilitated this access without clear consent mechanisms from the recipients.

Further exacerbating the situation is the delayed enforcement of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) and the exemption granted to government entities under Section 17(2)(a). This section allows the Central Government to issue a notification exempting any “instrumentality of the State” from the provisions of the Act in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, maintenance of public order, or preventing incitement to any cognizable offence relating to any of the above. This creates a legal grey area where the government has significant autonomy in data collection and usage, with limited checks and balances. The lack of strong regulations makes it difficult to hold the government accountable for potential breaches of privacy. With the ability to collect and process personal data without consent, the potential for misuse becomes a significant concern. This could involve political micro-targeting, where voters are bombarded with messages tailored to their preferences, potentially manipulating their choices and undermining the fairness of elections.

Ideally, a Data Protection Board should have established guidelines in advance of the elections to prepare for privacy-related infractions under the new Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023. Except the Data Protection Board would report to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which is the body violating these provisions to send WhatsApp messages to everyone^[2]. The BJP and the state apparatus have merged, with little distinction between party operations and official policy.

The absence of stringent restrictions on data usage under the current legal framework creates a worrisome prospect of unchecked data exploitation. The lack of clarity on the criteria for invoking exemptions under the DPDPA leaves room for interpretation, potentially leading to further misuse of personal data.

Moreover, the campaign has also violated the policy of WhatsApp. The WhatsApp Business Messaging Policy mandates that businesses obtain opt-in permission from recipients before sending messages. Clause 1 of the policy reads “You may only contact people on WhatsApp if: (a) they have given you their mobile phone number; and (b) you have received opt-in permission from the recipient confirming that they wish to receive subsequent messages or calls from you on WhatsApp^[3].” However, in the case of the “Viksit Bharat Sampark” campaign, there was no evidence of such consent being obtained. This not only violates WhatsApp’s policies but also raises fundamental questions about the government’s respect for individual privacy rights.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to privacy as a fundamental right. However, the actions of MeitY in using personal data for political messaging without consent undermine these guarantees. The campaign’s reach into countries like Dubai and Pakistan underscores the international scope of the privacy concerns, raising questions about the legality and appropriateness of such cross-border data usage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the “Viksit Bharat Sampark” campaign has exposed critical flaws in India’s data protection and privacy frameworks. The unauthorized use of contact information for political messaging, without explicit consent, is a clear violation of privacy rights and undermines democratic principles. As India moves forward, it is imperative to enact and enforce data protection laws that prioritize the rights and interests of citizens over unchecked governmental authority.

Upholding the principles of individual privacy rights is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative in safeguarding democracy in the digital age. The delayed enforcement of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and the absence of robust regulations create a fertile ground for data exploitation, particularly in the context of political campaigning. As citizens grapple with the intrusion into their personal space, questions loom large over the government’s commitment to upholding constitutional guarantees of privacy and freedom of expression.

In this digital era, the integrity of electoral processes and the protection of individual privacy rights must be preserved at all costs. The “Viksit Bharat Sampark” campaign serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked data usage and the urgent need for comprehensive data protection laws and regulatory oversight. Without these safeguards, the trust of citizens in democratic institutions and electoral processes will continue to erode, posing a serious threat to the future of democracy in India.

[1] https://internetfreedom.in/whatsapp-message-from-meity/

[2] https://www.barandbench.com/columns/inside-the-pms-inbox-privacy-politics-and-digital-governance

[3] https://business.whatsapp.com/policy

Related:

The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2002 is harbinger of a surveillance regime?

A miss and a miss with the new Data Protection Law

United Against Hate: CJP’s Battle for a Hate-Free Election in 2024!

Several instances of hate speech in March and April mar the election cycle, demonise religious minorities before the polls

Digital Personal Data Protection Bill seeks to amend RTI Act to bar disclosure of personal information

In Garb of Data Protection Bill, Centre Attacking RTI, Allege Information Commissioners

New data protection law comprehensive but full of exemptions

The post Unboxing the Inbox: Decoding the “Viksit Bharat Sampark” Controversy and its Shadow over Indian Elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The landscape of abortion rights in India is a complex and evolving one. While a landmark amendment to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in 2021 extended the legal limit for abortion from 20 to 24 weeks, it fell short of establishing abortion on demand as an absolute right. This progress is further complicated by the inconsistent application of these laws across different courts.

However, despite this amendment, the interpretation and application of abortion laws by different courts have resulted in a patchwork of conflicting judgments. This inconsistency leaves women facing a confusing and potentially unfair legal landscape, with their access to safe abortion hinging on their geographical location and the specific judge presiding over their case. The lack of uniformity in legal interpretation poses a significant challenge. It creates uncertainty for women seeking abortions and can disproportionately impact marginalized groups who may have limited access to legal resources or face additional societal pressures.

Conflicting Judgments and Discretionary Powers

In April 2024, the Supreme Court allowed the plea of a 14-year-old minor rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy at 28 weeks[1]. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala overturned the Bombay High Court’s decision, citing fewer risks to the minor’s life with the termination than continuing the pregnancy until full term.

The Judgement may be read here:

In February of 2024, the Supreme Court refused a 32-week pregnant widow’s plea for abortion, despite her severe mental trauma and depression[2]. The court’s decision was based on the medical board’s opinion against the termination, citing no abnormalities in the foetus. The bench, led by Justice Bela M. Trivedi, suggested that the woman could consider putting the baby up for adoption after birth.

The bench stated, “There is no abnormality in the foetus. It is a full-fledged, normal-bodied child. This is not the case we should entertain.” The court emphasized the short duration remaining until the natural birth and mentioned that even the government was willing to facilitate the adoption of the child. According to the medical board, inducing a pre-term delivery could pose significant risks to the woman’s life.

The 26-year-old petitioner argued that the pregnancy was causing her severe mental trauma and depression. Her advocate, Rahul Sharma, highlighted that as a widow, continuing the pregnancy was against her choice and would exacerbate her emotional distress. However, the Supreme Court maintained that it had to consider the well-being of both the woman and the unborn child.

Previously, the Delhi High Court had allowed the abortion but later reversed its decision following medical opinions affirming the foetus’s health. The woman then challenged this reversal, but the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s final decision. The January 23 order from the Delhi High Court indicated that the absence of foetal abnormalities did not justify the termination of the pregnancy.

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules in India, a woman is permitted to terminate her pregnancy up to 24 weeks under specific conditions. The Supreme Court’s refusal in this case underscores the legal and ethical complexities involved when considering late-term abortions, especially when the foetus is deemed healthy and viable.

The order may be read here:

The Bombay High Court in June 2024 made a controversial decision regarding a 15-year-old rape victim’s plea to terminate her 28-week pregnancy[3]. Despite the rape, the court denied her request to terminate her 28-week pregnancy due to the high chance of the baby surviving and potential health risks from a late-stage abortion. While acknowledging the trauma of the assault, the court also questioned the nature of the relationship due to the victim being with the man for a while. Ultimately, prioritizing the potential child’s well-being, they ordered the victim to continue the pregnancy in a shelter home, deliver the baby, and receive counselling. This case highlights the difficult legal and ethical dilemmas surrounding pregnancy from sexual assault, especially when the foetus is nearing viability.

In a heart-wrenching case, the Rajasthan High Court in January 2024 rejected a plea from an 11-year-old rape victim seeking medical termination of her advanced pregnancy^[4]. The court’s decision rested on two main points. Firstly, they recognized the foetus’s right to life, considering its developed state at over 31 weeks. Secondly, medical experts advised that an abortion at this stage would be dangerous for both the young girl and the foetus due to her underweight condition and abnormal liver function tests.

The court acknowledged the girl’s difficult situation, with no immediate family to care for her or the baby. They offered her the option to keep the child or pursue adoption through legal channels. Finally, the court referenced similar cases and a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the rights of a viable foetus, even in situations involving a married woman.

This case presents a complex legal and ethical dilemma. While the court prioritizes the foetus’s right to life, the decision forces an 11-year-old victim to carry a pregnancy resulting from a horrific crime. The court’s efforts to ensure her well-being offer some solace, but the physical and emotional toll on such a young girl remain a stark reality.

The order may be read here:

The Supreme Court of India overturned a Gujarat High Court decision in August 2023 denying a 25-year-old rape victim’s plea for abortion[5]. This landmark case highlights the legal and emotional complexities surrounding pregnancy resulting from sexual assault.

The victim, an Adivasi woman from a remote village, was allegedly raped under false pretences of marriage. At 26 weeks pregnant, she sought permission to terminate the pregnancy through the Gujarat High Court. Despite a medical board’s approval, her plea was dismissed. The Supreme Court, however, took a strong stance. Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan emphasized the trauma caused by such pregnancies and the burden placed on rape survivors forced to carry them. They argued that continuing the pregnancy would perpetuate the trauma. The Court’s order emphasized the societal pressures surrounding pregnancy outside marriage, especially after rape. It acknowledged that such pregnancies are involuntary and cause immense physical and mental stress. This landmark case reaffirms a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and freedom from forced pregnancy, especially in cases of rape. It also sheds light on the ongoing struggle to balance the rights of the woman and the foetus in such situations.

The order may be read here:

In May 2024, a 20-year-old woman preparing for her NEET exams was denied permission by the Delhi High Court to terminate her 27-week pregnancy^[6]. Citing the foetus’ healthy condition and lack of medical complications, the court ruled against termination as it wouldn’t be legal or ethical. While acknowledging the potential challenges for the unmarried woman, the court prioritized the well-being of both the viable foetus and the mother’s future health. The court offered alternative solutions, suggesting delivery at a reputable hospital and facilitating adoption if the woman chooses not to raise the child.

The judgement may be read here:

The Legal Ambiguity and dilemma

Recent court decisions in India regarding abortion paint a picture of a legal landscape riddled with ambiguity and inconsistency. This lack of clarity creates a labyrinthine experience for women seeking safe and legal terminations, with their access hinging on factors as unpredictable as the judge presiding over their case and the specific state they reside in.

At the heart of the discrepancies lies the struggle to balance the rights of the woman with the potential life of the foetus. In some cases, courts prioritize foetal viability even in harrowing circumstances. The Bombay High Court’s denial of a 15-year-old rape victim’s abortion request, citing the baby’s potential survival, exemplifies this. Here, the court seemingly overlooks the trauma of the assault, prioritizing the foetus over the girl’s physical and emotional well-being. Conversely, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision allowing a 14-year-old rape survivor to terminate her late-term pregnancy shows a more nuanced approach, recognizing the potential harm to the minor in continuing the pregnancy.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act of 1971, while a step towards legal abortions, fails to provide a clear roadmap for navigating these complex situations. The Act’s ambiguity surrounding factors like foetal abnormalities, mental health risks, and the gestational limit (24 weeks) leaves room for wide-ranging interpretations. This discretion granted to judges, influenced by personal beliefs and societal values, results in a cacophony of conflicting decisions.

These conflicting judgments underscore the urgent need for legal reforms. A rights-based approach that prioritizes a woman’s bodily autonomy and right to informed reproductive choices is paramount. The MTP Act requires revisions to provide clear and comprehensive guidelines on applying the law. This ensures consistent interpretation across all jurisdictions, eliminating the geographical lottery that currently determines a woman’s access to safe abortion services. Legislative reforms must also address the emotional and mental health aspects of pregnancy, ensuring women facing difficult circumstances like rape or severe mental health issues have clear legal recourse.

Until these reforms materialize, the legal landscape surrounding abortion rights in India will remain a labyrinth. Vulnerable women, especially those in marginalized communities or facing extraordinary circumstances, will continue to be at the mercy of a system fraught with contradictions and societal pressures. The path to safe and legal abortion services in India should not be a gamble – it should be a right, consistently upheld and protected by the law.

Contrasting Approaches to Abortion Rights: India and France

India’s approach to abortion rights presents a mixed picture. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, with its 2021 amendments, offers a legal pathway for abortion access. However, this framework is riddled with ambiguities. The Act lacks clear definitions for crucial aspects like foetal abnormalities and mental health risks, leading to inconsistent court decisions and hindering access for women. Procedural hurdles, provider shortages, and societal stigma surrounding abortion further limit access, especially in rural areas. This forces some women towards unsafe procedures, endangering their health.

In stark contrast stands France. On International Women’s Day 2024, President Emmanuel Macron signed an amendment that enshrines abortion rights in the French Constitution. French legislators approved the constitutional amendment on Monday in a 780-72 vote that was backed by many far-right lawmakers[7].

By enshrining abortion rights in its constitution, France guarantees a high level of legal certainty and stability for women’s reproductive choices. This constitutional right offers significantly stronger protection compared to India’s legislation, making it harder to restrict access in the future. Additionally, France boasts a comprehensive healthcare system ensuring widespread access to abortion services.

While India has made strides with the MTP Act, legislative reforms are crucial to address ambiguities, ensure uniform implementation, and guarantee equitable access for all women. Public discourse also needs to evolve to overcome societal stigma. France’s constitutional approach offers a model for guaranteeing abortion rights, but India’s journey requires continuous efforts to bridge the gap between legal framework and social acceptance.

In essence, France stands as a leader in guaranteeing abortion rights, while India’s journey towards ensuring safe and accessible abortion services for all women continues.

Conclusion: A Path Forward for India’s Abortion Rights

India’s journey towards guaranteeing safe and accessible abortion services for all women remains a work in progress. The current legal landscape is a complex maze of ambiguities and inconsistencies, leaving women’s access to safe abortion services heavily dependent on factors beyond their control.

The recent court decisions highlight the crucial need for legislative reforms. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act requires revisions to establish clear guidelines for crucial aspects like foetal abnormalities, mental health considerations, and the gestational limit. This will ensure consistent interpretation and application across the country, eliminating the geographical lottery that currently determines women’s access to safe abortion.

Legislative reforms must also address the emotional and mental health aspects of abortion, ensuring women facing difficult circumstances have clear legal recourse. Striking a balance between a woman’s bodily autonomy and the potential life of the foetus is a complex but necessary task.

France’s recent move to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution offers a powerful model. Such a step would significantly strengthen the legal protection for abortion access in India and make it harder to restrict these rights in the future.

Beyond legal reforms, evolving public discourse is critical. Addressing societal stigma surrounding abortion is essential to ensure safe and legal services are readily available and utilized without fear or judgment.

The path to safe and legal abortion in India should not be a gamble. It should be a guaranteed right, consistently upheld and protected by the law. By prioritizing a rights-based approach that empowers women and prioritizes their reproductive choices, India can move towards a future where all women have equal access to the healthcare they deserve.

[1] https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-allows-termination-of-28-week-pregnancy-of-14-year-old-rape-survivor-255723

[2] https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-widowed-woman-to-terminate-32-week-pregnancy

[3] https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-denies-teenage-rape-victim-abortion-request-231351

[4] https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-denies-advanced-pregnancy-termination-minor-rape-victim-foetus-right-to-life-article-21-constitution-247558

[5] https://cjp.org.in/sc-allows-rape-survivor-to-abort-her-foetus-affirms-that-state-should-not-interfere-in-decisions-of-reproduction/#:~:text=On%20August%2021%2C%20the%20Supreme,by%20the%20Gujarat%20High%20Court.

[6] https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-deny-unmarried-woman-terminate-27-weeks-pregnancy-257345

[7] https://www.senat.fr/leg/tas23-073.html

Related:

One step forward, two steps back: SC on Abortion rights

Bodily autonomy & safe abortion, a right under Article 21

South Korean court says ban on abortion is unconstitutional

Parliament passes Bill to extend abortion deadline to 24 weeks 

Allegation of rape need not be proved to allow abortion of fetus under MTP Act: MP High Court

Women, married or unmarried have the right to safe & legal abortion: SC

Understanding evolution of Indian abortion law

The post Rights-based approach to abortion: The need for legislative reforms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nestled amidst the tranquil beauty of Uttarakhand, the city of Rishikesh has long been a symbol of spiritual enlightenment and cultural richness. It is a place where the holy waters of the Ganges flow gently, where yoga and meditation find their home, and where seekers of diverse faiths come together in the pursuit of higher truths. However, beneath this serene exterior, a disquieting issue has marred the city’s reputation – a surge in interfaith violence. In recent times, Rishikesh, once renowned for its harmonious coexistence of faiths, has been plagued by a series of disturbing incidents, where religious tensions have erupted into acts of violence. In a shocking turn of events, Rishikesh grapples with interfaith violence as mazars are desecrated, bringing the city’s cherished harmony into question. This issue demands our collective attention and immediate action to preserve the city’s legacy of peace and to uphold the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

This article serves a critical purpose – to shine a spotlight on two distressing incidents that took place in Uttarkhand where Far- right group leaders can be seen breaking Mazar’s (Mazar is a place where a pious person is buried and people gather there to pray Allah for his maghfirah, any time) to dissect their underlying causes, and to illuminate their profound implications.

At the heart of this issue lies a stark contradiction with the core principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. India, as a nation, cherishes the ideals of secularism, religious diversity, and the equal treatment of all its citizens. The violence that has unfolded in the sacred city of Rishikesh challenges the very essence of the democratic and pluralistic society that India aspires to be. It is essential, therefore, to shed light on this contradiction, not just as a matter of legal and moral duty, but as a call to action – a call to restore harmony and uphold the constitutional ideals that form the bedrock of our great nation.

There were two events that unfolded where right group leaders are seen breakings mazaar.

Incident 1: Rishikesh, Uttarakhand

Date and Time: This shocking incident occurred on a Sunday, and the video was posted by Hindutva Watch on the 4^th of September on Twitter

Location: The desecration unfolded in Prem Nagar, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, a place that would soon be marred by an act that defied all principles of decency and coexistence.

Location: Rishikesh, Uttarakhand

Members of Hindu far-right groups demolish three Muslim shrines with sledge hammers while chanting Jai Shri Ram slogans. pic.twitter.com/KTdW5nkU00

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) September 4, 2023

Details of the Incident:

In Prem Nagar, Rishikesh, members of Hindu far-right groups committed a heinous act of vandalism, targeting three mazars (Muslim shrines). The brutality of their actions was captured in a damning video that quickly circulated on various social media platforms. The video revealed individuals actively participating in the destruction, wielding sledgehammers, and fervently chanting “Jai Shri Ram” slogan and “Har Har Mahadev”.

The video, shared by Hindutva Watch, a research initiative dedicated to tracking hate crimes, presented an appalling scene: a mazar being ruthlessly razed to the ground. An unidentified man in the video coldly identified the location as the site of their criminal act and boasted that this was the third mazar they had demolished on that day alone. The footage portrayed a massive structure reduced to a pile of debris within an alarmingly short span of time.

Incident 2: Prem Nagar, Uttarakhand

Date and Time: On 4^th September, this video was posted by Hate detectors on twitter Prem Nagar, Rishikesh, witnessed another act of mazar demolition that was live-streamed on Facebook by a Hindutva leader named Radha Semwal Dhoni.

In #PremNagar of #Uttarakhand‘s #Rishikesh, #Hindutva leader #RadhaSemwalDhoni brought men and demolished the Mazar with sledge hammer while abusing people and chanting ‘#JaiShriRam‘. pic.twitter.com/uGLnneOdgo

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 4, 2023

Details of the Incident:

In a disturbing sequel to the first incident, another mazar demolition took place in Prem Nagar, Rishikesh. This time, the act was broadcasted live on Facebook by Radha Semwal Dhoni, a prominent figure in the Hindutva movement. The video streamed her leading a group of individuals as they ruthlessly demolished a mazar, wielding sledgehammers and echoing chants of “Jai Shri Ram.”

During the live-stream, Dhoni expressed her sinister intent to build a Hindu temple at the mazar site, openly questioning who would support the establishment of a Shivaling. Her vitriolic rhetoric extended to verbally abusing those who worshipped at mazars instead of Hindu gods. Despite facing resistance from local officials, Dhoni remained unrelenting in her pursuit of demolishing another mazar in the vicinity.

Quoted Statements from the Videos:

Video 1:

• An unidentified man in the video brazenly declared, “This is the third mazar. Someone was asking whether demolition was carried out or not. This is the third which we have demolished.”
• A Facebook user named Anil Hindu, who live-streamed the demolition, shamelessly asserted, “Our teams are making Devbhoomi Rishikesh ‘mazar free.’ Dear lion brothers from Rishikesh, we want to salute you. Har Har Gange! Hindus are being misled and filled with fear that if they build a mazar, their problem will be solved. This is a trick to trap our sister-daughter. Therefore, don’t send your daughter and sister to mazar.”

Video 2:

• Radha Semwal Dhoni, the Hindutva leader, ominously proclaimed, “I will build a temple here. But who will help in the Shivaling? I will establish Shivaling here.”
• In a chilling declaration, she further asserted, “See, either they will demolish the mazar or we will do it.”

These quoted statements provide a stark glimpse into the mind set and motivations of the individuals involved in these reprehensible acts of vandalism, highlighting their ideological beliefs and the sinister intention to eradicate mazars while replacing them with Hindu religious symbols or structures.

Background of Rishikesh and Prem Nagar:

Rishikesh, situated in the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand, holds a significant place in the country’s religious and spiritual landscape. Known as the “Yoga Capital of the World,” Rishikesh attracts pilgrims, spiritual seekers, and tourists from around the globe. The city is located on the banks of the holy river Ganges and is renowned for its numerous temples, ashrams, and spiritual retreat centres.

Rishikesh has long been regarded as a place of interfaith tolerance and harmony. It has been a melting pot of different religious traditions, including Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism. The city has witnessed a coexistence of diverse communities, with people from various faiths living and practicing their beliefs side by side for centuries. This historical reputation for interfaith tolerance has contributed to Rishikesh’s cultural richness and spiritual significance.

However, the recent incidents of interfaith violence in Prem Nagar, Rishikesh, stand in stark contrast to the region’s tradition of harmony. The targeted demolition of mazars by Hindu far-right groups disrupts the social fabric and threatens the unity that Rishikesh has been known for. Such acts of violence not only undermine the principles of respect and coexistence but also create fear and division among different religious communities.

Preserving social cohesion and unity is of utmost importance in Rishikesh and any other community. The diversity of religious beliefs and practices should be celebrated as a source of cultural richness rather than becoming a cause for conflict. The region’s historical reputation as a place of interfaith tolerance should serve as a reminder of the need to nurture and protect these values.

Efforts should be made to promote dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect among different religious communities in Rishikesh. Community leaders, religious figures, and civil society organizations can play a crucial role in fostering harmony and addressing the underlying causes of interfaith tensions. Education and awareness programs that highlight the importance of coexistence and respect for diversity should be implemented to prevent future incidents of interfaith violence.

By upholding the values of tolerance, compassion, and unity, Rishikesh can reclaim its legacy as a place where people of diverse faiths can come together in peace and harmony

Motivations and Ideology of the Far-Right Group:

The motivations and ideologies of the far-right groups involved in these incidents are a matter of grave concern. These groups are characterized by radical ideologies that emphasize Hindu supremacy and the assertion of their beliefs over those of other religious communities. Their motivations can be analysed as follows:

1. Hindu Supremacy: These far-right groups operate under the banner of Hindutva, a radical interpretation of Hinduism that seeks to establish Hindu dominance in India. Their primary motivation is to create an environment where Hinduism is the dominant and exclusive faith.
2. Ideological Propaganda: Reports suggest that these groups disseminate propaganda and inflammatory rhetoric through various channels, including social media. They often exploit religious sentiments to rally support for their actions, portraying themselves as protectors of Hindu culture and tradition.
3. Intolerance towards Minority Religions: The groups’ ideologies are marked by a deep-seated intolerance towards minority religions, particularly Islam. They view the presence of mazars and other non-Hindu religious symbols as a threat to their vision of a Hindu-centric India.
4. Acts of Provocation: These incidents of mazar demolition are viewed as acts of provocation aimed at igniting religious tensions and furthering their divisive agenda. They intend to intimidate minority communities and assert their dominance.

Contradiction with Secularism and Equality:

These ideologies run counter to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution upholds the ideals of secularism, religious diversity, and the equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of their faith. The actions of these far-right groups, driven by religious intolerance and an exclusivist agenda, blatantly contradict these principles.

Their attempts to dismantle religious structures and impose their beliefs infringe upon the constitutional rights of religious freedom and equality. Moreover, their use of violence to achieve their goals not only threatens the social fabric but also undermines the democratic foundations of India, which is committed to pluralism and the peaceful coexistence of diverse faiths.

Factors Contributing to the Violence:

The eruption of violence in Rishikesh, specifically the targeted destruction of mazars (Muslim shrines), can be attributed to a complex interplay of several underlying factors. These factors span the political, economic, social, and cultural domains, and their analysis is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the situation:

1. Political Factors:

• Rise of Hindutva Ideology: The increasing influence of Hindutva ideology in recent years has contributed significantly to the rise of religious polarization and intolerance. Certain far-right political groups have propagated this ideology, creating an atmosphere where acts of religious aggression are perceived as virtuous.

2. Economic Factors:

• Economic Disparities: Economic disparities within the region might have contributed to social tensions. Economic grievances can sometimes be channelled into religious or communal conflicts.

3. Social Factors:

• Historical Interfaith Tensions: Past incidents or conflicts between different religious communities in the region have left lingering tensions and animosities. These historical grievances can resurface and exacerbate existing prejudices.

4. Cultural Factors:

• Identity and Belonging: Cultural identity and a sense of belonging play a pivotal role in such incidents. Some individuals or groups may perceive mazars as a challenge to their cultural or religious identity, leading to acts of aggression.

Aligning with Constitutional Commitment: Addressing these underlying factors aligns squarely with the Constitution’s commitment to justice and liberty for all. The Indian Constitution enshrines the principles of social justice, equality, and the protection of minority rights. By tackling these factors, authorities can work towards upholding these constitutional ideals:

• Justice: Addressing economic disparities and ensuring that all citizens have access to opportunities and resources promotes social justice, a core constitutional principle.
• Equality: Combating historical interfaith tensions and promoting religious harmony and tolerance is essential for upholding the constitutional principle of equality, ensuring that all citizens are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their faith.
• Liberty: Preserving the cultural diversity of the region and respecting the religious freedom of all citizens is in line with the constitutional commitment to individual liberty. It allows individuals to practice their faith without fear or intimidation.

In conclusion, addressing the underlying factors contributing to the violence in Rishikesh not only serves as a means to restore peace and harmony but also aligns with the constitutional values that form the foundation of India’s democratic and pluralistic society. It is an essential step towards ensuring justice and liberty for all citizens, regardless of their religious background.

Implications for Social Harmony:

In the wake of the distressing incidents of interfaith violence that unfolded in Rishikesh, it is imperative to reflect on the profound implications these actions have for social harmony. These incidents transcend mere acts of vandalism; they strike at the very heart of a diverse and pluralistic society, undermining the principles that bind us together. Here, we emphasize the broader implications and underscore the urgent need for strict measures to protect constitutional values.

Erosion of Social Harmony:

Interfaith violence, as witnessed in Rishikesh, represents a dangerous fissure in the fabric of social harmony. It tears at the bonds of trust and mutual respect that have been nurtured over generations. In a society that celebrates its rich tapestry of religions, cultures, and beliefs, such violence threatens to unravel the delicate threads that hold us together.

These incidents foster an environment of fear, suspicion, and mistrust among different religious communities. They sow the seeds of division and discord where unity once prevailed. The desecration of religious symbols and places of worship strikes deep at the core of communal peace, leaving scars that are not easily healed.

The Imperative of Strict Measures:

In light of these grave implications, it becomes imperative for authorities to enforce strict measures to curb such incidents. The government, law enforcement agencies, and civil society must work collaboratively to ensure that those who seek to disrupt social harmony are held accountable for their actions.

Protection of Constitutional Values:

The Indian Constitution, the cornerstone of our democracy, enshrines principles that celebrate secularism, religious diversity, and the equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of their faith. The incidents in Rishikesh stand in stark contrast to these constitutional values. It is not merely a matter of law enforcement but a moral obligation to safeguard the principles that define our nation.

Conclusion:

The incidents of interfaith violence in Rishikesh serve as a somber reminder that the struggle for social harmony is ongoing and requires unwavering commitment. It is a call to action for society at large to recognize the urgency of preserving our collective heritage of coexistence and mutual respect. By enforcing strict measures against those who seek to disrupt this harmony, we protect not only our constitutional values but also the very soul of our diverse nation. It is a pledge to ensure that the bonds of unity remain unbroken, and the flame of religious tolerance continues to burn brightly in the heart of India.

Related:

Hate crimes surge in Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh

Wild Goose Chase: From filing preemptive complaints to following up with officers, a round-up of CJP’s efforts to curb hate speech

Hate Surges in India, Reveal Disturbing Shifts in Patterns

The post Rishikesh’s Troubling Interfaith Clash: Mazars Targeted, Constitutional Harmony Under Threat appeared first on SabrangIndia.