It was befitting that the two boys who rushed Syed Feroze Ashraf to hospital when he was tragically knocked over by a speeding autorickshaw on Friday night, were students, both strangers to him. Aman Jain in Std X, and his friend Mohsin Shaikh in Std XII, could well have been among the hundreds of children in Jogeshwari whom Ashraf helped to complete their education. Many of those first generation learners wept at his funeral, remembering how “Uncle” boosted their morale through school and college.

“Uncle’s Classes” became an institution in Jogeshwari. Daughters mainly, but occasionally sons too, of hawkers, construction workers (one girl lived in a half-finished building, surviving on the eggs of pigeons who shared space with her family), and even a grave-digger, found in Ashraf a “farishta” who guided them for free through the fog their syllabus was for them.

It all began when the watchman requested the only man in his building, who spent all his time reading and writing, to coach his daughter for a modest fee. Ashraf, by then retired from Indian Oil Corporation, refused the fee. Soon the girl’s cousins landed up at his door, then the entire neighbourhood’s children.

Supported by his wife Arifa, a municipal employee, Ashraf didn’t just coach these children. First he fed them, then cajoled and sometimes chided them, even took them on outings. Simultaneously, his wife made them realise the importance of their own lives, showed them that they could dream of a future beyond an arrested education, early marriage and motherhood. Together, the Ashrafs taught these girls to do something no one else could have: stand up for themselves in a society loaded against them.

For Ashraf, seeing to it that these children finished school and at least Std XII, became a mission. He would visit their homes to convince their parents that it was their duty to ensure that their daughters got a couple of hours’ respite from housework, a quiet corner to themselves, a bulb, a pen, a notebook and some food. This wasn’t easy; their homes were tiny rooms teeming with large families hooked on TV soaps, where daughters ate last.

It was this life mission that made Feroz Ashraf so contemptuous of Urdu intellectuals who bemoaned the fate of Urdu and of their community, but did nothing for those who had no choice but to go to Urdu schools. Ashraf himself might have ended up like these intellectuals, had it not been for the 1992-93 riots which forced him to shift, for the sake of his traumatised school-going son, from his Hindu neighbourhood in Malad to Muslim-dominated Jogeshwari.

In Malad, he would discuss the day’s headlines with his Hindu neighbour. In Jogeshwari, no one read the papers. No one played Holi either. “Mumbai’s riots stole the colours of Holi from me,” Ashraf would often lament.

But victimhood was not for Ashraf. He used his changed circumstances to get to know his community, initially visiting the nearby mosque every Friday, then navigating the narrow, slippery lanes where his students lived. The poverty and ignorance which reigned in Jogeshwari’s Muslim ghettoes never ceased to shock him, but he spent his life trying to change the lives of as many as he could.

In the last decade, confident that his work was being carried on by his ex-students who have started “Uncle’s Classes” in their own areas, Ashraf developed another passion: discovering Muslim leaders from across the country whose contribution over the centuries remains unknown even to the community. He chronicled their lives in a weekly Hindi column which will soon be a book.

Hindi came as naturally to Ashraf as Urdu. Growing up in Hazaribagh, Holi, Saraswati Puja, Vande Mataram and dressing up as Bal Gopal on Janmashtami was as much a part of his childhood as was wearing fresh clothes for the Eid namaz. It was this legacy that he imparted to his students.

At his funeral, half a dozen veiled figures made a sudden appearance; they were the latest batch of students to whom he had taught Urdu journalism at Bombay University. Feroze Ashraf would have been proud to know that breaking tradition, these girls managed to pay their last respects to their ‘Sir’ inside the cemetery.

(This article first appeared in The Mumbai Mirror  dated June 9, 2019. It is being reproduced here with the permission of the author)
 

The post A farishta shining the light of education appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Stenography lessons: How Mumbai media covered arrest of 9 Muslim youth for alleged IS links appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Mumbai Mirror

Five lakh Muslim women are expected to converge at Azad Maidan today, to oppose the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill. The Bill, which makes instant triple talaq a non-bailable, cognisable offence, attracting a punishment of three years’ jail, has been passed by the Lok Sabha, but awaits Rajya Sabha assent.

However, these women have been told that the Bill criminalises talaq per se. Speaking at an 800-strong meeting of women at Oshiwara, Dr Asma Zehra, head of the women’s wing of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, made this statement without specifying that the Bill applies only to instant triple talaq. The same wrong claim was repeated by another speaker at a Madanpura rally.  

The women have also been told that the Bill is the “first step’’ towards the BJP’s dream of a Uniform Civil Code. Once that was enacted, said Board member Monisa Bushra Abidi, Muslims would no longer be allowed to conduct nikaahs in masjids, and might even have to go through Hindu rituals such as saat phere.

Attending the rally was akin to waging “jehad’’ against the `kaafir’s attempts to destroy their religion, the women were told. They were exhorted to follow the examples of the Prophet’s daughter  Fatima and the first female martyr Sumayya.

Describing the atrocities on Muslim women during the Gujarat 2002 violence, speakers pointed out that the perpetrators of those atrocities were now showing concern for Muslim women’s rights. “Gender justice, women’s and child rights – we don’t need any of these,’’ said Dr Zehra. “We have the Shariat.’’

Few in the audience knew anything about the Board or the Bill.  A handful said the rally was aimed at opposing interference in their religion and their Shariat. Triple talaq was not allowed in Islam, they emphasized. But when told that the Bill too does not allow it, they faltered and directed this reporter to the organisers.

Today’s rally is being seen as the “grand finale’’ to the series of women’s rallies organised by the Board across the country, in a bid to show that the triple talaq Bill is being opposed not only by men, whose rights it curtails, but by women too, whom it is supposed to benefit. The who’s who of Mumbai’s Muslims gathered at Islam Gymkhana on Tuesday to work out the logistics of the rally. Among those present at the meet called by Congress MLA Yusuf Abrahani, were Dr Zahir Kazi, president, Anjuman I Islam group of educational institutions, ex-Congress minister Arif Naseem Khan, AIMIM MLA Waris Pathan, and Farid Shaikh of the Mumbai Aman Committee. Shakir Patni, Mumbai AIMIM president, announced a personal donation of Rs five lakh. The all-male gathering announced that schools and masjids would be used to mobilize women.

Similarly, male activists such as Arif Ghori of Lokanchi Shakti and Zubair Azmi, who runs the Bhendi Bazar festival, helped organize meetings of women across the city, making sure only women addressed them. Barring a few, the speakers were wives of activists. Dr Asma Zehra from Hyderabad, and Sumaiyya Nomani, daughter of Board spokesman Maulana Sajjad Nomani, were the star speakers.  

Said Zubair Azmi, “This rally will be historic. I’ve seen meetings of Muslims stretching from Madanpura to Azad Maidan on two occasions, but those were all men.’’

The women were told that this was their chance to create history. “The beef ban ruined so many homes; so did TADA earlier. But did your husbands tell you to leave your home and protest?’’ asked activist Gazala Azad. Speakers emphasized that “Islam doesn’t like women to come out of their homes. But this time, you have to take to the streets, because Islam itself and the Sharia are in danger. If Mumbai’s women oppose this Bill, the government will have to listen. The country’s eyes are on you; if you shirk your responsibility, you will be a sinner in the eyes of Allah.’’

The Oshiwara meet ended with women sobbing as a long dua (by a man) bemoaned the fact that women’s tears had dried up and their hearts had hardened like those of men.   

By the end of these preparatory meetings, the women were raring to go. Clear instructions were given: “Your menfolk will guide you to buses which will leave from  the nearest masjid. Though exams are on, leave children at home. Let the men look after them. Carry water and Electral, but no plastic bags. Do not litter. Show the world that Muslims can be disciplined.  Above all, wear your burqa. There will be no slogans because Islam does not like women’s voices to be raised. If the media asks why you are here, tell them this Bill is against our religion, Shariat and our rights.’’ 

(This is the unedited version of the story that appeared in Mumbai Mirror on March 31, and provide that link 

The post “We Don’t Need Women’s Rights, Child Rights, We Have the Shariat” : Dr Zehra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“RIP Indian justice” was the message going around on social media the moment Pragya Thakur, among the most famous faces of “saffron terror”, got bail on Tuesday.

This is the first time Thakur has been granted bail since her arrest in October 2008 for her alleged role in the Malegaon blasts that year that killed six Muslims. Immediately after her arrest, she applied for bail under normal bail provisions only to have her application turned down right up to the Supreme Court.

After the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act was applied to the case, bail became difficult for the accused. Yet, Thakur kept on applying. She was turned down both by the trial courts and the High Court in 2012, 2014, and finally once again in November 2015.

This repeated denial of bail made it clear that given the evidence on record against Thakur, no court was inclined to give her even temporary freedom from jail.

Suddenly in May last year, the evidence against her changed drastically. From being one of the two main accused in the case, she became a non-player. How did this happen?
 

‘No objection to bail’

Two key witnesses who had given incriminating statements against Thakur to Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad, the agency that initiated the investigation into the blasts, changed their statements after the National Investigative Agency re-examined them. Three others had also implicated her, but of them, one had died, one was said to be “missing”, and the third had already retracted his statement earlier.

It is not clear why the National Investigative Agency, which took over the case in 2011, suddenly decided in late 2015 to re-examine witnesses. According to media reports, the central agency was all set to file a charge sheet in the case in 2014 when Narendra Modi’s government was voted in at the Centre. The investigation was then reportedly handed over to another officer.

In May last year, the agency submitted a supplementary charge sheet declaring that there was no evidence against Pragya Thakur and five others and dropping Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act charges against all 12 accused. This was a green signal for the accused to apply for bail.

In June, the National Investigation Agency told the special NIA court that it had no objection to Pragya Thakur’s bail.
 

Normally, once the prosecution says it has no objection to the accused getting bail, the court does not refuse bail, even if in its view, there exists a prima facie case against the accused. How important the prosecution’s say is can be seen from another case where the accused was a prominent person. In 2001, Ram Dev Tyagi, former Mumbai Police Commissioner and prime accused in the Suleman Usman Bakery case of the 1992-’93 Mumbai riots, was granted bail by sessions judge Abhay Thipsay despite the judge’s observation that there existed a prima facie case of murder against Tyagi. At that time, on being repeatedly asked by the court, the special public prosecutor kept replying that he had no objection to Tyagi’s bail.

But for Thakur, things did not go as expected. Taking everyone by surprise, the special NIA court refused bail to her in June despite the investigating agency’s no objection. Not just that, presiding judge SD Tekale asked why the agency had re-examined witnesses. He pointed out that the Anti-Terrorism Squad investigation had to be considered along with the National Investigation Agency’s, and that Thakur had been present at a meeting held in Bhopal to plan the blasts, and also owned the motorcycle used in the blasts.

Judge Tekale also allowed an intervener to oppose Thakur’s bail application. Malegaon resident Sayyed Nisar’s 19-year-old son was killed in the 2008 blasts. The High Court bail order records that the NIA court noted that since no one was objecting to the accused getting bail, in order to have a “fair hearing” on the point of bail, it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to the intervener who was the “real aggrieved person”.
 

In the Bombay High Court

On the same grounds, the Bombay High Court also allowed Nisar to intervene when Thakur appealed against the special court’s rejection of her bail.

The 78-page order signed by Justice Ranjit More and Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi of the Bombay High Court, rejected the defence’s arguments on two grounds, but ruled in Thakur’s favour on the crucial ground of whether she deserves bail for her role in the crime. The reasons are:

• The judges doubted that the motorcycle used for the blasts was the one owned by Thakur. Presuming it was, they pointed out that “much prior” to the blasts, it was being used by another accused.
• The judges found contradictions in witness statements against Thakur. While two witnesses told the Anti-Terrorism Squad that she had offered to provide men to execute the blast, two others present at the planning meeting in Bhopal said nothing incriminating against her. The court noted that the former two had retracted their statements when re-examined by the NIA, and also alleged torture by the Anti-Terrorism Squad. But even without taking into account the retractions and allegations of torture, the contradictions in the statements, says the order, are enough.

Hence, says the order, “it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations made against her are prima facie true”. The judges also give consideration to Thakur’s defence that she is a woman suffering from cancer. This plea had been rejected by all courts earlier.
Once a court says there is no prima facie evidence against an accused, the latter files for discharge. Thakur has already done so.
 

Comparisons with Rubina Memon

This case is being compared to the Rubina Memon case. Memon was sentenced to life imprisonment in the March 12, 1993, bomb blasts case because a van used to plant bombs was registered in her name. The court rejected her argument that she had shifted to Dubai eight months before the blasts, and had no idea what the van was being used for.

But there is a difference between the two cases. As an under trial, Memon remained on bail almost through the entire 12 years of the trial, though the draconian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act was applied to the case. When she was convicted in 2006, she was out on bail. She remained in custody for a year before she got interim bail again. However, after she was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007, Memon has been denied bail and even furlough.
 

In contrast, Pragya Thakur has been in custody as an under trial from the time she was arrested nine years ago.

There is another comparison which indeed makes the Bombay High Court’s grant of bail to Pragya Thakur unsettling. Innocent Muslims have remained in jail for periods ranging from five to 14 years on false terror charges, without bail, till their acquittal. Except in two cases, no agency has come forward to further investigate the false cases against them. Ironically, in one of the two cases, it was the National Investigation Agency that proved to be their saviour, when it found Hindutva terrorists were responsible for the 2006 Malegaon blasts, instead of the nine Muslims arrested by the Anti-Terrorism Squad.
 

In defence of the judiciary

But can all these factors be used to cast a slur on the judiciary? The same judges who granted Pragya Thakur bail, refused bail to her co-accused Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Purohit. After the NIA court dropped Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act charges in the case in 2009, the Bombay High Court restored them in 2010. In 2015, the Supreme Court that denied Purohit and Thakur bail, asked the NIA court to hear their bail applications on merits, without applying Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act provisions. Again, it was a sessions judge who discharged the Muslims falsely accused in the 2006 Malegaon blasts, though the National Investigating Agency opposed their discharge.

In 2015, Rohini Salian, NIA special public prosecutor in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case, had gone public about being asked to “go soft” on the accused ever since the BJP government came to power. Reacting to Thakur’s bail, Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Pravin Togadia appealed to the government to withdraw all cases against Hindus in jail for such cases, instead of “single case tokenism”.

So, instead of blaming the judiciary, should we not be asking ourselves why we repose so much faith in our investigative agencies? Be it the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Anti-Terrorism Squad or the National Investigation Agency, all of them have demonstrated that they simply follow the directives of the party in power at the Centre.

Instead of “RIP Indian judiciary”, the social media message should have been “RIP Indian investigative agencies”.

This article was first published on Scroll.in

The post Why blame judiciary for granting Pragya Thakur bail when investigative agencies show no spine? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bombay High Court judge granting bail to three murder accused said that she considered the fact that the victim was Muslim a point in their favour.

What are the implications of Justice Mridula Bhatkar’s January 12 order granting bail to three men accused of killing an unarmed innocent Muslim man in Pune in June 2014?

The Bombay High Court judge, in words now gone viral, argues, “The accused had no other motive such as personal enmity against the innocent deceased…[his] fault was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the accused… it appears that in the name of religion they were provoked and have committed the murder.”

So, killing an innocent man because you have been instigated by hate speech is less serious than killing someone for personal reasons.

How valid is that argument?
 

Hate speech and violence

Undoubtedly, ordinary men and women who may never have harboured violent intentions do get stirred up after listening to powerful speakers berating other communities, especially if the speaker’s allegations confirm the former’s prejudices.

To what extent can such speeches provoke violence is not known, but it is noteworthy that after listening to the testimonies of victims, policemen and politicians on the causes and events of Mumbai’s 1992-’93 riots for over five years, Justice BN Srikrishna concluded in Volume I of his inquiry report into the riots that in January, 1993:
 

  “the communal passions of the Hindus were aroused to fever pitch by the inciting writings in Saamna and Navakaal … Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims…”  
 

Indeed, Thackeray himself described his newspaper Saamna’s role through the riots as having “prepared a burning generation, Saamna’s job is to keep this generation smouldering. Every word of Saamna was like a flame”.

In 2008, when fast-track special courts were set up to try offences of the 1992-’93 Mumbai riots, many ordinary men would turn up to face trial for crimes they had allegedly committed 15 years back. Almost all were acquitted, but a few of those acquitted were guilty. They admitted to this reporter that as youngsters, they had been swayed by the rhetoric of those days.

“God knows what happened to me, I was just 20,” said one.

A Shiv Sainik wept as he clasped the hands of his Muslim victim outside court. The latter had just testified that this accused was not the man who he had named as having attacked his home, thereby paving the way for the Sainik’s acquittal.

Another Sainik, speaking about how his frequent requests for leave to attend court had affected his job, vowed tearfully that never again would he be swayed.

Having seen riot victims struggle in vain for justice for more than a decade, this reporter felt that in the absence of true justice, perhaps these admissions of remorse could be seen as a kind of redressal. But none of these men had committed murder. Their brains addled after reading and listening to Thackeray’s and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s hateful rhetoric against Muslims, they had thrown stones, and damaged Muslim property.
 

Nailing instigators

But can those who, overwhelmed by such poison, kill innocents, be seen as deserving of bail, which would normally be denied to those who have had personal motives for killing? If so, then those who provoke such communal attacks should be considered the greater criminals, for whom jail without bail must be the rule.

In this particular case, the instigator, Dhananjay Desai of the Hindu Rashtra Sena, has been behind bars for two-and-a-half years. His bail application is coming up. If he also gets bail, Justice Bhatkar’s reasoning will become meaningless.

But we have had hatemongers more powerful than Desai. Some have ruled us: Bal Thackeray, who was the remote control of the Maharashtra government for five years, and commanded the state police’s loyalty for decades; LK Advani, who having led a rath yatra in 1990 which left a trail of riots in its wake, and having presided over the demolition of the Babri Masjid, became our home minister in 1998; Narendra Modi, whose inflammatory statements after the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat and during his election campaign later that year, led him to victory in his state. None of these three have ever been arrested for hate speech.

Thackeray had cases filed against him, but his party, which ruled Maharashtra in alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party from 1995 to 1999, had all but two of them withdrawn. Advani’s days in power ended in 2004. Why didn’t Congress home ministers who succeeded him expedite the Babri Masjid demolition case against him? Why didn’t the Congress, the main Opposition party in Gujarat, file cases for hate speech against Modi all these years?

There’s no doubt that the party that has ruled us for more than 50 years, has preferred to indulge, not punish, hatemongering politicians.

It gave Thackeray a state funeral in 2012. In 2008, it also gave a state funeral to Salahuddin Owaisi, the chief of Hyderabad’s All India Majlis-e-Ittihad-e-Muslimeen, known for his incendiary speeches, which in 1984, were followed by riots. The case against Akbaruddin Owaisi, his younger son and Telangana MLA, is gathering dust since 2013. Congress Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi even justified the massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi after another prime minister, his mother Indira, was assassinated by two Sikhs. He then went on to win the biggest ever majority in Parliament, seconded only by our current Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
 

What the law says

Electoral politics may be amoral, but what about the law?

The maximum punishment for hate speech is three years, which goes up to five years if it is made inside a place of worship. In 2008, a Special Court convicted Shiv Sena ex-MP and ex-MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar, party corporator Jaywant Parab, and up-vibhag pramukh (deputy chief of one locality) Ashok Shinde for anti-Muslim speeches made in December 1992. Judge Rajeshwari Bapat-Sarkar ruled that provocative speeches made by elected representatives well aware that they would lead to violence, deserved punishment “to send the correct signal that wrong doing would be punished”.

For the first time, leaders of a party that thrived on hate speech were convicted for it. This was the only riots case conviction upheld in the Sessions Court. Yet, these three hatemongers didn’t get the maximum punishment – the trial court sentenced them to one year in jail, which the Sessions Court reduced to two months.

In 2012, Maharashtra Samajwadi Party president Abu Asim Azmi was convicted for hate speech – and sentenced to two years.

If we accept the argument that demagogues who inspire killings are more culpable than the killers themselves, then punishment for hate speech must be enhanced. But first, politicians who indulge in hate speech must be charged, arrested and deprived of bail.

Neither is likely to happen. Justice Bhatkar’s order therefore, snatches away even the crumbs of justice that our system gives to those killed only for their religion.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post Muslim man’s murder: India’s courts simply don’t punish hate speech with the severity it merits appeared first on SabrangIndia.