Free Speech was mercilessly murdered on the evening of September 5, 2017 as Shri Gauri Lankesh breathed her last. The question we all need to ask ourselves is, what now? Should we all just sit stumped, in mourning? Or should we speak up against the injustice, keeping her firebrand spirit alive?

India has been termed as “Asia’s deadliest country for media personnel” by the global advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The report said that India was ahead of both Pakistan and Afghanistan in this regard. How unfortunate it is, that our country which has freedom enshrined in its Constitution under Article 19, has become home to murderers of free speech. Is this the cost of performing one’s duty to safeguard society? Is this the cost of unshadowing the truth? Ms Gauri Lankesh was an Indian journalist-turned-activist from Bangalore, Karnataka. She worked as editor of Lankesh Patrike, a Kannada weekly started by her father P. Lankesh. Later, she ran her own weekly called Gauri Lankesh Patrike. She began her career with the Times of India. She earned the reputation of being a firebrand journalist at an early stage in her career. Today, India has lost one of her valiant daughters but must ensure that her life’s struggle and death do not go in vain.

In her interviews with media houses and publications, Ms Gauri Lankesh expressed her concerns over the crackdown on the freedom of speech as written in The Quint. She, who was seen as “anti-establishment” and “left leaning”, went on to convey that these words would not deter her from her “Constitutional duty.” She said, “But I consider it my Constitutional duty to continue – in my own little way – the struggle of Basavanna and Dr Ambedkar towards establishing an egalitarian society.”

How can those demanding an egalitarian society personified by freedom, unity and integrity, be termed as anti-national? Why are these foot soldiers of the Constitution maligned, marginalised and murdered? Why are these innocent voices rising against tyranny being supressed? Why have Narendra Dabholkar (in August 2013), Govind Pansare (in February 2015), Professor MM Kalburgi (in August 2015), Senior journalist and activist Gauri Lankesh (in September 2017) been murdered? Aren’t these questions which India needs to ask herself today? Shouldn’t India probe to see if there is a pattern in all these murders? Shouldn’t India identify the culprits and penalise them? Is it fair that those fighting to save the true spirit of nationalism are killed in the name of vindicating anti-nationalism? Isn’t it ironical that Freedom of speech and its murderers are allowed to thrive in the same country?

The Huffpost beautifully elucidated her dedication and courage saying, “Until her murder on Tuesday, Lankesh remained vocal against the tyranny of organised religion and caste, especially against the rapidly saffronising character of her home state. Undaunted till the end, Gauri Lankesh will be remembered for her gutsy journalism.”

Today, we’re faced with a tragedy, we’re hit by poignant questions, we’re stumped by the reality of our society. It is our choice to either sit quiet as we always do or wake up. Let’s make a judicious decision.

The post Why India should Awaken to The Brutal Murder of Secularism and Freedom of Speech? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Leveraging Our Laws: A Comparative Account and Conscious Effort to Strengthen Various Personal Laws in India

India – a kaleidoscope of cultures, has always been immensely diverse in thought as well as in action. People of different religions reside in India in harmony as also in disharmony. Some are the original inhabitants such as the Hindus; some, who sought refuge such as the Parsis and Jews; others, the foreign rulers such as the Muslims and Christians. Nonetheless, they all continue to thrive together as rightful citizens of India.

In secular India, all citizens are governed by uniform criminal and contractual laws. However, their family laws are different. Each community has its own personal law governing marriage, divorce, adoption, custody, inheritance and more. Which community a person belongs to, is generally decided by his/her birth or conversion. Thus, Hindus are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Parsi community is governed by Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The Muslims follow the uncodified Shariah Law, the Shariah Application Act, 1937, Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986. The Christians are governed by Indian Christian Marriages Act, 1872, Divorce Act, 1869. This multiplicity of laws does to a large extent uphold and honour the fundamental right of citizens to practice and profess their religion but at the same time, it also causes inconvenience and upheaval in the delivery of justice. Thus, we aren’t left with much of a choice.  Either we choose our religious preferences or simply follow the egalitarian secular laws on matrimonial issues, namely the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Not recently, but ever since A44 has been a part of the Constitution of India, deliberations have taken place to decide the possibility of implementing a Uniform Civil Code in India. The current stir relating to the feasibility and applicability of the UCC (as popularly abbreviated) seems unnecessary to me. The need of the hour is to strengthen the currently prevailing laws, to rid the existing laws of the sting of discrimination and not to enforce homogeneity on the heterogenous Indian diaspora.

The prime factors driving this debate are – a secular republic needs a common law for all citizens rather than differentiated rules based on religious practices and gender justice – against discrimination of women. In my opinion, both these factors are flimsy and unconvincing. It is important to highlight the fact that personal laws of all communities in India, not just one, are discriminatory in one way or another. This is due to the inherent structure of patriarchy which exists in our society. In fact, this structure pervades all others and has its clutches shackling Indian society since times immemorial. The power dynamics in this country are so skewed that the enforcement of a uniform civil code will do only little to alleviate the anomaly. The underlying principle should be that constitutional law should supersede religious law in a secular republic. However, many practices governed by religious traditions are at odds with the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Indian Constitution. The remedy to this would be to identify the vitiating factors in each community’s personal laws, amend and align them with the Constitutional principles.

Often, when we talk of archaic personal laws, the first thing that comes to mind is the matter of ‘Triple Talaq’ and the discriminatory Muslim personal laws. Well, there’s much more to it than that. Let us take a holistic look at the personal laws of the religious communities in India and explore areas for improvement,without politicising issues, to bring about a fair and just judicial system for every citizen of India.

To begin with the Christian community in India, which is governed by Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and Divorce Act, 1869. Matters relating to succession are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The laws for dissolution of marriage under Indian Divorce Act, 1869 severely discriminate against women. S.10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 provides for dissolution by husband on the ground of adultery by wife only. On the other hand, a wife can seek divorce on the grounds of conversion of husband to another religion and marriage with another woman; or incestuous adultery, or bigamy with adultery, or marriage with another woman with adultery, or rape, sodomy or bestiality, or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards.

Thus, for a Christian man to seek divorce, one fault ground is enough whereas a Christian woman has to prove multiple fault grounds. This provision forces a Christian woman to live in a marriage which is painful, unhappy, devastated, broken – as has also been laid down in the case of Ammim v. Union of India. In this case, the Kerala High Court said that this provision violates Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. A bigger problem is the tussle between the Roman Catholic Church in India and the Formal Courts, it is to be noted that marriages annulled in the ecclesiastical courts/ churches are not valid in the eyes of law in India. At the same time, a marriage dissolved by a decree of court is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, Christians seeking to dissolve/ annul their marriage must seek a decree of Nullity from the Church as well as the Court of law. The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 states that after a decree of divorce has been provided by the District Court, a special bench of the High Court must confirm the divorce, this provision makes the process of seeking divorce lengthy, tiresome, tedious and increases matters before courts, thus burdening them further. Several efforts have been made by Christian Groups to identify, alter and amend these shortcomings in the law. Their efforts have paid off with the recommendationsof 164^th  Law Commission of India Report in 1998. Thus, came into force, the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, which to a large extent has cured the law of the anomalies. Thus, a conscious effort to create awareness within the religious community, logically persuade everyone to arrive at a consensus and drive a social change is the way to go to strengthen our laws.

Next, we must discuss the restrictive laws of the Parsi community. Neither Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 nor the Amendment Act, 1988 provide for adoption of children. The community does not recognise adoption as a means of child bearing. This is a very inequitable practice, both for the parents and the child. Every couple must have the right to bear a child. If biologically this is not possible, the couple must have the option to adopt a child.Further, the Act provides for the establishment of Parsi Matrimonial Courts with an appellate jurisdiction to the High Court. With an already established, secular redressal system in place, the provision for special Parsi Marriage Matrimonial Court, is unnecessary and defeats the purpose of the formal courts of law. Besides these flaws, there are also progressive provisions in the Act such as, on dissolution of marriage, either spouse can claim maintenance from the other, both pendentelite and permanent. The custody of children upon dissolution of marriage can be given to either of the spouses or any 3^rd party keeping in mind the best interest of the child. Either parent can be the guardian of the child without restriction, unlike the practice in Muslim Law. Finally, the event of conversion to another religion by one of the parties to the marriage, does not make the marriage null and void, unlike the practice in Hindu Law.

Speaking of Hindu Law, it is imperative to put the spotlight on the anomalies in the law governing the majority of the population in India. Besides the Hindus, the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, all fall within the ambit of this law. To begin with, the practice of marriage which is a sacrament under this law is grounded on the derogatory belief and practice of “Kanyadan”, a bride is considered as the property of her father which is donated to the groom upon marriage. The concept of Restitution of Conjugal Rights as practiced by the colonial powers was first introduced to Indian society by Hindu law and is still a part of it. This practice is considered to be in violation of A21 of the Constitution of India as it forces sexual cohabitation on spouses not desiring to live together. In T. Sareeta v. Venkatasubaiah, this provision was stated as unconstitutional. Such archaic provisions which are still part of our laws must be abrogated. Though the Muslims are accused of being polygamous, it’s not them alone, the practice continues among Hindu men also. Research has it, bigamy is also prevalent among Hindus, perhaps in numbers larger than those of Muslims.  A Hindu woman who seeks divorce or demands maintenance on grounds that her husband has contracted a bigamous marriage must prove that he has married again. To add to the torment, marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act are not automatically registered hence it is hard to prove the existence of the marriage. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 makes provision for a Hindu Undivided Family to deliberately ensure that property remains with the male line of descent. A son gets a share equal to that of his father whereas, a daughter only gets a share in her father’s share. Worst still, she cannot reside in the family home unless she is single or divorced, and cannot claim her share of property as long as the men of the family continue to live in it. Also, a Hindu woman has no right to her matrimonial home, unless she can prove that it was purchased with her earnings. Thus, whether in their natal home or in their matrimonial home, Hindu women can never find comfort or security. Every day is a struggle and the laws provide little or no help what so ever. We must understand that women are equal partners in the marriage, and their contribution has to be recognised with an equal division of matrimonial property. Maintenance is the right of every woman and must not be mistaken for compensation.The Hindu Matrimonial law enumerates an extremely long drawn procedure for dissolution of marriage which does not relieve the spouse from the marriage but creates further adversity. Such hardship desists many, especially women from filing for divorce, despite facing violence and abuse.

For reasons unknown, adoption laws in all religious communities are either absent or discriminatory. Hindu, the only community to recognise adoption, also discriminates as to who can adopt. While any major, Hindu male of a sound mind may adopt a child (boy/girl), a Hindu woman has more prerequisites to fulfil. Along with being a major, Hindu female, of sound mind, she must also be unmarried or if married, whose marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. To put it in simple words, a Hindu woman can adopt a child only if her husband ceases to exist in the eyes of law. What is this, if not discrimination against the one who is to nurture and protect the child?

Having known the harsh realities about each of the religious community’s laws, we certainly can deduce that Muslim personal law is not the only demon we need to deal with.Yes, the Muslim personal law does also have unconstitutional elements which need to be repealed and major efforts have already ensued in that direction. To name the obvious, practices of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala, Polygamy need to be banned. This is primarily because these practices are extra judicial, ultra vires to the law and against the basic principles of our Constitution. The Five Judge Constitutional Bench has recently heard several cases in this regard and the nation keenly awaits its verdict. Some of the less criticised yet alarming issues are of Muta Marriage or temporary marriage, no maintenance, guardianship. Muslim uncodified law gives a Muslim man the option to marry as many times as he wants, to women belonging to a Qitabi religion for as long as he wants. The only prerequisite is that the duration of the marriage must be predetermined. Laws for maintenance of a Muslim woman are quite skewed. The latest judgement in this regard is Danial Latifi&Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2001. However, the provision of reasonable amount of maintenance to be provided to a divorced Muslim woman beyond the period of Idda is neither accepted in theory nor in practice. Worst still, the position of a woman in Muslim law is so poor that the father is recognized as sole guardian of the child’s person and property and after him his relatives. Mother is not recognized as a guardian, natural or otherwise even after the death of the father. Efforts must be made to straighten out these irregularities as well.

To conclude, establishing a common code for all citizens rather than rules based on religious practices, may pose a problem for the Indian democracy. The Uniform Civil Code may itself be ‘unconstitutional’ by restricting religious freedom.  Yet, the cornerstone should be that every citizen of India is protected by the constitutional laws and none is denied justice.The need of the hour is to amend and update existing personal laws to ensure equality and gender justice especially in aspects such as marriage, dissolution, adoption, succession and maintenance.  To quote B. R. Ambedkar “I like the religion that teaches liberty, equality and fraternity”. Taking from this, let the supreme religion guiding our thoughts, actions and laws be that of humanity.Let us try to align the personal laws in a manner in which they fall within and in line with the Constitutional law, in the true spirit of India being a secular republic.

Related Articles
Muslim ‘instant divorce’ law divides India
Uniform Civil Code or Gender Justice?
Is Gender Justice the Real Concern for the Modi Sarkar, Look at the Injustices in All Personal Laws

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post What India Needs is More Gender Just Laws, Including Personal Laws, for Its Women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As part of the Government’s agenda to privatize the railways, the upcoming auction of the Kanpur and Allahabad railway stations on June 28, has created tremendous amount of restlessness among the Indian populace.
 
We at Sabrangindia, attempted to identify the various stakeholders who would be affected by this policy change. The key stakeholders are, the railway employees, railway passengers, the Government and the private companies.
 
However, the worst losers, we can identify are the railway employees and passengers. Thus, we contacted members of various Workers’ Unions, Trade Unions. The unions very clearly state their disapproval of this move, terming it as undemocratic.
 
Some of the excerpts are given below.
 
We first had a telephonic conversation with representatives of the Northern Railway Men's Union, here is what they had to say.
 
Q. What is your opinion on the recent policy for privatization of railways? How do you think it will affect the railway employees?
 
A. The private owners (thekedars) will only take not give. (Vohsirfsabkijaannichodneaayenge). The existing employees may not be removed. No new employees will be hired on regular hiring terms. The thekedars may make employment on contract basis. 
 
Q. How do you think this change will affect passengers? Will it be a boon or bane?
 
A. The passengers will be the losers. The private players will keep increasing the prices of the tickets. All their decisions will be for the sole purpose of profit making. The Indian Railways which were started 150 years ago were meant to be a service to society. The present Government has today decided to convert the age old service into a business. (Yeh log lootne aye hai, lootkechalejayenge). 
 
Q. Do you think this will affect the rail routes in any way?
 
A. In my opinion, I do not think the rail routes will be changed as long as they enable profits. They will only concentrate on making profit. 
 
Next, we spoke to AmarjeetKaur fromAll India Trade Union Congress
 
Q. Ma’am, what is your opinion on the recent policy for privatization of railways?
 
A. The ruling Government is on a sell out spree. All national assets are being sold to make profits. Indian Railways is the biggest railway network in the world. It is a lifeline for the entire population whether the young or the old, rich or poor. Thus, making the railways private will cause immense damage to the Indian populous as a whole. 
The revenue from railways becomes part of Government revenue as of now. Privatising railways completely is the ultimate agenda of the Government; this will lead to loss of revenue to the Government treasury. This move exposes the capitalist, pro corporate agenda of the Modi Government, further proving that he has no regard for the poor workers. 
 
Q. What do you think will be the direct impact of this move on Railway employees?
 
A. The employees will face massive unemployment. The private players will increase the workforce by hiring contract labourers. The salaries of railway employees will be reduced. No social securtiy will be provided to the employees. No consideration will be given to the safety of the employees. Thus, their performance will suffer and it will pose a higher risk to the safety of the commuters and passengers alike. The resultant precarious job situation will create havoc in the lives of the Railway workers. 
 
Q. How do you think this change will affect passengers?
 
A. With the private players coming in, there will be no accountability. The subsidies in price of tickets that are provided to the poor, elderly will not be provided by the profit driven private players. Safety of passengers will remain a big question. 
 
We also spoke with representatives from the Hind MazdoorSabha
 
Q. What is your opinion on the recent policy for privatization of railways?Do you think there will be a negative impact of this move on Railway employees?
 
A. We are in support of continuing Railways as a Public Sector Undertaking. We are strongly against the privatization of railways.The employees will be heavily exploited. 
 
Indians from across the country seem to be angered with this move of the Government. The time is not to raise voices but to unite and act.
 
 
 
 

The post Sabrangindia speaks to Trade Unions on the Modi Govt move to Sell Railway Stations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The court has given the country's parliament two years to amend existing laws or create new ones to ensure equal treatment of individuals with respect to marriage laws.

Back home in India, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Naz Foundation V. Government of NCT Of Delhi And Others, had ruled in favour of the LGBT community in 2009. The Court had asked the Indian parliament to amend laws according to the recommendations of the 172^nd Law Commission of India Report. The report may be read here.Sadly, little has been done in this regard. The LGBT community still suffers from exploitation, discrimination and denunciation. Hopefully, this progressive judgement passed by the Taiwan High Court will motivate the Indian law makers to finally frame laws to protect the preferences and rights of its diverse populace.

Just like India, in Taiwan the fight for rights of the LGBT community, is not recent. The issue of same-sex marriage has been a source of contention for decades in Taiwan. The key plaintiff, Chi Chia-wei, a gay-rights activist, has been fighting for gay rights since the 1980s and first sought a gay marriage license 16 years ago according to Focus Taiwan Reports. Chi Chia-wei’s suit claims that the prohibition against same-sex marriage violates the rights guaranteed in the Constitution by Article 7 which declares that all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, ethnic origin, class or party affiliation, to be equal before the law, and Article 22, which states that all other freedoms and rights of the public that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare are guaranteed under the Constitution.

The obiter dicta of the Grand Justices reflect their liberal, reformist outlook.The Justices called sexual orientation an "immutable characteristic that is resistant to change." This, in our opinion is the most logical definition of the sexuality of an individual, knowing that it is internal and natural and not an externally developed sentiment. The court further said that, “Allowing single people to have the autonomy to decide whether to marry and whom to marry, is vital to the sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right."

The alliance of Taiwan Religious Groups for the Protection of the Family and representatives from Buddhist, Taoist, Christian and Lamaist groups, rallied against this decision of the Court. However, it was the key campaign issue for President Tsai Ing-wen, who took office one year ago, and the legislature has been weighing a change to Taiwan's Civil Code.

Taiwan will now join 20 other countries from across the world which have legalised same-sex marriage. Netherlands was the first to legalise same-sex marriage(2000), followed by Belgium (2003), Spain and Canada (2005), Finland, Ireland and United States (2015) and now Taiwan (2017). India, certainly has a lot learn from this international reform. The first step in the right direction was taken by the Delhi High Court in 2009 as discussed above, but the Supreme Court took a U-turn in 2013, when it overruled the order of the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court Judgement may be read here.

What the Indian diaspora fails to understand is that Homosexuality is innate to the Indian culture and has been a part of our multihued heritage. Ancient texts such as Shrutis and Smritis make a mention of the existence of Homosexuals and Trans genders. The Kamasutra, another ancient Indian text makes explicit mention and portrayal of various relations existing between individuals of different as well as same genders. Sculptures and paintings in the Khajurao Temple, Ajanta and Ellora caves are evidence of the deeply rooted connection of homosexuality and Indian heritage.

Quite contrary to this, the ‘progressive’, ‘modern’, Indian society of today considers acts of homosexuals and transgenders as taboo. Accepting the Tibetans and not the Transgenders, allowing communal movements and not LGBT movements, criminalising homosexuality and not marital rape; isn’t this a reflection of the hypocrisy of the Indian polity?

The percentage of the population strongly preferring same-sex, sexual acts and relationships, and thus identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual, is thought to be somewhere between 1% (a figure generally considered too low) and 10% (a figure generally considered too high). In India 25 lakh individuals have been identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, as per a report submitted to the Supreme Court in 2012. The irony is, these are only the few who have come out of the closet. The rest, perhaps the majority, still fear the stigma attached hence, do not reveal their sexual orientation and identity. The Indian laws lag behind when compared with the rest of the world as they fail to identify, accept and protect the members of the community.

On the contrary, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalises homosexuality primarily on the basis of the form of sexual intercourse. This is the biggest obstacle in the path to equality. The Constitution of India – the supreme law of the land, protects and promotes diversity, ensures an egalitarian society where freedom should no longer be a privilege. Although Part III of the Constitution provides certain rights to the citizens, it only covers those citizens who form part of the ‘popular morality’.  The LGBT community does not form part of this ‘popular morality’ and hence is neglected. It is the right of each member of the LGBT community to be treated equally like other citizens, to live with dignity as enshrined in A 15 (1), (2), Part III, Constitution of India. As given, “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

It is important that the ground of ‘sex’ must include the sexual orientation of the individuals along with the ‘gender’ as these develop over time, differently for every individual depending on the genetical make up. Further, A 19, Part III, Constitution of India, provides certain rights and freedoms to individuals which we are well aware of. Of course, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India and maintenance of public order. The LGBTQ communityis not harming the integrity and sovereignty of India and clearly forms an integral part of our society. At the same time, we know, it may be against the ‘popular morality’ but is not against ‘constitutional morality’ or public order. Then why are those belonging to the LGBT community prevented from taking an apartment on rent or buying a house or property? Why are the queer individuals discriminated against on public forums? Why is it difficult for a transgender to get a white-collar job? Why is a homosexual harassed, treated as an inferior being, abused, exploited, stigmatized? Clearly because the Constitutional interpretations have not expanded so as to include them.

As citizens of India, can’t lesbians, gays, transgenders and bisexuals live their lives with as much freedom as the rest of the Indians? Provisions need to be made to enable these individuals to acquire property, reside in a house, work freely and violations of the same need to be made punishable. A 21, Part III, Constitution of India, states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”  Though not explicitly, the A 21, does provide Right to Privacy to the citizens of India. Thus, what individuals do in private with consent should not be a crime. If the state does not involve itself in consensual sexual acts of heterosexuals, why should it criminalise consensual sexual acts of homosexuals? S 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860, is a draconian law of the British colonial powers, with a misconception that homosexuals indulge in anal sex which amounts to sodomy. The law fails to take into account, the feeling of mutual love, care and security that partners provide to each other. Thus, if two men find happiness in cohabiting, they should be allowed to do so and S 377 should be amended. A 14, Part III, Constitution of India, provides, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”  This provision is not reflected in the current scenario. Evidence of mass human rights violations of members of the homosexual community is obvious, numerous cases have also been filed. However, little has been done by the police and other authorities to provide protection to the LGBT community. The courts still do not rule in the community’s favour. Thus, the question remains, are the doors of the Courts really open for the LGBT community in India?

Our fight here is not just to decriminalise sexual acts of homosexuals but to ensure that they are provided with the same rights as other citizens of India. We need to fight for their right to marriage, right to procreate or have children, right to work without discrimination, right to consent any and all acts done with partners, right to seek justice in the formal court of law and finally, right to be included and accepted as part of Indian society.

Related Articles:

ADVANCE QUESTIONS TO INDIA (FIRST BATCH) UPR Process 2017

Mumbai Pride March: LGBT supporters share their hopes for the future

What the Women’s March on Washington can learn from Black Lives Matter

Concentration camps’ opened for Gay Men in Chechnya

The post Taiwan, 1st Asian Country to Legalize Gay Marriage, Shouldn’t India Follow Suit? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Though a city court had ordered reopening of the Hotel Hayat Rabbani on April 29,  the civic body did not follow the order offering lame excuses. It moved the court seeking change or stay on the order, but the court on May 23 repeated the earlier order of April 29 and asked Nagar Nigam to open the hotel or face the contempt of court charge.

 The recent case of the Hotel Hayat Rabbani on Kanti Chandra Road, Jaipur City is a spectacle of the unnecessary havoc caused by the self-proclaimed cow vigilantes in the state of Rajasthan. On the unfortunate evening of March 19, 2017, Sadhvi Kamal Didi and her supporters, stormed the Hotel Hayat Rabbani and allegedly battered the staff in the lobby. The local police arrested two staff members of the hotel alleging that they were in possession of beef. An FIR was filed against the owner of the hotel Naeem Rabbani under S.295-A(act intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court of J. Amarjit Singh, Additional Civil Magistrate & Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur City Civil Court, heard the suit filed by the hotel owner, Naeem Rabbani and passed a temporary injunction order in his favour on April 29, 2017. The Court asked the Jaipur Municipal Corporation (JMC) to unseal the hotel within seven days of the order.As per the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report submitted to the police, meat samples seized from the hotel were not beef. Instead they were of chicken as also earlier testified by Naeem Rabbani.

The order of the court delivered in Hindi may be read here.

Over a month had passed since the hotel had been sealed. On May 10, 2017, the hotel owner, Naeem Rabbani, served a notice to the civic body, asking it to unseal the hotel.An appeal was made by the JMC to the Additional District Judge, ADJ-10 and J.Bhupendra Singh disposed the appeal on May 23, 2017 by ruling in favour of the hotel and hotel owner. The JMC has been ordered to reopen the Hotel Hayat Rabbani at the earliest and not take any further action against the hotel. The Court is still deciding the damages to be awarded to the hotel.

A detailed reading of the Additional District Judge Court Order dated May 23, 2017 has brought to light certain pertinent facts about the case.

• Hotel Hayat Rabbani is a lodging hotel and has no restaurant facility
• The food cooked in its kitchen is only for its employees
• The hotel has paid the taxes due for the financial year 2017
• The hotel does not have a food licence, but has now applied for one
• The hotel has a green licence
• The cow vigilantes examined the garbage of the restaurant dumped at the Municipal dumping ground at 6 pm on 19 March, 2017
• The cleaner of the restaurant, Kasim was allegedly assaulted on the road by the supporters of Sadhvi Kamal
• The hotel guard was beaten up
• The hotel kitchen was sealed around midnight
• Guests staying in the 20 rooms of the hotel were immediately checked out
• The hotel was sealed with a lock by the supporters of Sadhvi Kamal
• No prior show cause notice was given to the hotel owner
• The hotel owner was not given any chance to speak, he was not heard
• The cow vigilantes are not allowed to conduct their activities at night yet they unlawfully did all this
• The local police were called by an onlooker much after all the damage was done
• The act of the cow vigilantes was unlawful in fact against natural law

Having recorded all these facts, the Court ordered the hotel be reopened.

As per statements made by the hotel owner Naeem Rabbani to the media, there were 5 or 6 people around 6 pm who beat up Kasim, all seemed to be strangers, outsiders. They kept chanting “Jai Gau Mata” all the way from the dump yard to the hotel. As the sky got darker, the number of people increased. Soon enough it became a mob of 80-100 people. They surrounded the hotel, sloganeering, violently protesting. There was no sign of the police, no sign of help. Just, vehement misuse of hegemonic power.
What else does an incident like this depict besides a Blitzkreig against a certain minority group.

In an India that speaks of liberty, equality and fraternity, how can such an act of physical assault and violence by one man on another be justified? How can a vicious and vehement mob be allowed to persist for so many hours (from 6 pm till midnight) without any intervention from the local police and authorities? Under the garb of protecting the mute animal are we hearing the reverberations of another jolt of communal violence? The Dadri lynching case, in September 2015 wasn’t the first of its kind, but India certainly hoped it would be the last. Sadly, even today, 2 years later, the torture continues. It’swell established that cows for certain communities in India are sacred, but the heinous acts of violence committed in the name of ‘Gauraksha’ are belittling their holiness. The executive seems to be doing nothing to stop these overt acts of injustice. Finally, the Jaipur City Court has provided some respite by ordering the JMC to reopen the hotel. The first step in the right direction has been taken but a lot more needs to be done. Bhakshaks such as Sadhvi Kamal Didi and the like should be punished for their criminal acts of violence, in the name of Raksha.

India needs to stand by its core constitutional mandate, be it from within unite the judiciary, the executive, the legislature all need to awaken to stop this alarming issue to ensure that India does not once again become witness to the carnage of majoritarian diktats and violence.
 

Related Articles

Man Who is Part of a Lynch Mob is a Freedom Fighter a la Bhagat Singh: Sadhvi Kamal

Chilling Collusion Between State & Cow Vigilantes: The Case of Hotel Hyatt Rabbani

No Terrorism in the Name of Cow Protection: Call for Nationwide Protest on Lynchings& Violence

“Very disturbed” by lynching of Pehlu Khan: Former IAS officers letter to Rajasthan CM
 

The post Justice Delivered: Hotel Hayat Rabbani to Re-Open after Court Order appeared first on SabrangIndia.