At an event organised last week in memory of actor and activist Vira Sathidar, a group of young cultural activists sang the lyrics of Faiz’s famous Hum Dekhenge. The Nagpur police have now booked the organisers and the event’s speaker under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to sedition, along with other sections of the BNS, including Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 353 (statements conducive to public mischief).

Sathidar, an accomplished actor, prolific writer, journalist, and political thinker, died on April 13, 2021, after battling COVID-19 for over a week. Satidhar was also an Ambedkarite and the editor of Vidrohi magazine. Since his passing, his wife, Pushpa, is one of the organisers of the annual memorial. A committee was formed after Sathidar’s death under the name ‘Vira Sathidar Smruti Samanvay Samiti’ which has been instrumental in organising the annual event. This year, social activist Uttam Jagirdar was invited to speak. Although the FIR does not name individuals explicitly, it refers to the event’s organiser and speaker.

At the event organised on May 13 at the Vidarbha Sahitya Sangh, attended by over 150 people, Jagirdar talked about the contentious Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024. The  BJP-led state government is aggressively pushing to convert this bill into a law and implement it. Activists and academics believe this bill, if enacted, will lead to blatant violations of human rights and allow dissenting voices to be labeled “urban Naxals”.

The FIR, filed by one local Nagpur resident Dattatray Shirke, cites a news report aired on ABP Majha, a Marathi channel. The channel was likely the first to find issue in reciting Faiz’s poetry in India. In his complaint, Shirke claims, “At a time when the country valiantly fought Pakistani forces, the radical left in Nagpur were busy singing Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s poem.

Shirke further claims that the line “Takht hilaane ki zaroorat hai (a need to shake the throne)” constitutes a direct threat to the government. However, while the FIR quotes the above line, the actual line in the poem is “sab takht giraye jayenge”. The poem was performed by young Mumbai-based cultural activists from Samata Kala Manch.

Despite an ongoing stay by the Supreme Court on the application of sedition charges, the Nagpur police have booked the organisers and speakers under the section. On May 11, 2022, the apex court had issued a historic order, staying all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code until the sedition law’s re-examination was complete. Since then, the BJP-led government has replaced the IPC with the BNS. However, the new law does not eliminate the sedition provision. Instead, the BNS introduces Section 152, which closely resembles the sedition law without explicitly using the word ‘sedition’.

Journalist arrested on same month

This is the second case this month in which the Nagpur police have targeted an individual’s freedom of expression. Earlier this month, a 26-year-old Kerala-based journalist, Rejaz M. Sheeba Sydeek, visiting Nagpur, was arrested for posting a photo of himself posing with two fake guns and opposing the Indian Army.

Initially investigated by the Nagpur city police and now handled by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Rejaz is accused of opposing Operation Sindoor – India’s military strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The agency has also alleged that Rejaz has connections with banned organisations, including the Communist Party of India (Maoist), Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. These banned organisations have radically different ideologies and the police have accused Rejaz of espousing ideologies of each of these banned groups.

Vira Sathidar’s endless protest

During his lifetime, Sathidar faced constant harassment from the police due to his political activism, keeping him under their radar. In a long interview with The Wire, months before his death, Sathidar had raised concern over the government’s tactics of employing new methods to control its citizens. For instance, while shooting for the film Court in 2013, the Gondia police arrived unannounced on the Mumbai set, searching for a “Naxal from Nagpur.” A year before his death, after raising issues against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) headquarters in Nagpur, his house was raided by local police. During the raid, a sword was found, but local youths chased the police away.

In October 2020, when the NIA filed a supplementary chargesheet in the Elgar Parishad case, Sathidar’s name appeared among the so-called “urban Naxals,” a term loosely used by the Devendra Fadnavis-led government to target dissenters. Now, with the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, the state government seeks to formalise the term “urban Naxal” within the legal framework.

The government had made several attempts to criminalise Satidhar when he was alive and such efforts have seemingly continued even after his death.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Singing Faiz’s ‘Hum Dekhenge’ is ‘Sedition’: Nagpur Police Book Organisers of Vira Sathidar Memorial appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The UGC submitted the new draft to the Supreme Court last month in a six-year-old petition filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi. In the petition, the two mothers, after losing their children, sought accountability and the establishment of adequate mechanisms by the UGC to address caste-based discrimination in university spaces.

The UGC, unprompted by the court or the petitioners, has submitted the Equity Regulations Draft, which undoes some of the crucial clauses from the 2012 regulations. The petitioners had moved the court to highlight the ineffectiveness and lack of government will to put its act together. Instead of addressing these issues, the UGC has further diluted the existing regulations.

‘New regulations will make redressal more difficult’

Vemula and Tadvi argue that the newly submitted draft regulations will make redressal more difficult, as the UGC has decided to group all forms of discrimination – including those based on gender, disabilities, religion and caste – under a single umbrella. In contrast, the 2012 Equity Regulations primarily focused on caste-based discrimination. Existing mechanisms already address other forms of discrimination, and expanding the scope of the Equity Regulations will only lead to more chaos in the dispensation of justice, the petitioners assert.

The petitioners, represented by lawyers Indira Jaisingh and Disha Wadekar, have pointed out the lack of adequate mechanisms to address the growing number of discrimination cases and suicides on campuses. They argue that the UGC’s proposal to dilute the existing regulations on caste discrimination and introduce other forms of discrimination will not only hamper the redressal of caste-based discrimination but also “risk undermining the effectiveness of current regulations related to gender and persons with disabilities (PwDs).”

In addition to filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to the UGC’s draft regulations, the petitioners have submitted detailed suggestions to the UGC, comparing the 2012 regulations with the proposed ones. They have identified gaps and provided effective suggestions to the higher education governing statutory body.

One crucial suggestion is the need for a clear definition of what constitutes caste-based discrimination in higher education. Wadekar notes that the draft regulation fails to specify what constitutes caste-based discrimination. “Discriminatory practices in university spaces often get normalised, and without a clear definition, universities may exercise their discretionary powers and, more often than not, attempt to shirk responsibilities,” Wadekar said. Her observation is based on past data showing how universities have denied the existence of caste-based discrimination on campuses.

In the past decade, as caste-based discrimination and suicides rose, the UGC was compelled to notify the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2012, also known as the Equity Regulations. These regulations required all colleges and universities to establish an Equal Opportunity Cell to oversee the promotion of equality and appoint an anti-discrimination officer to investigate complaints regarding discrimination in violation of equity. However, the regulations were not fully implemented as intended.

The proposed regulations, besides lacking clear definitions of discrimination, also exclude the Other Backward Classes (OBC) community from their scope, applying only to students from the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). In 2012 regulations too, students from OBC communities were excluded. The petitioners argue that this will be unjust to OBC students, who are equally vulnerable to discrimination on campuses. Data shows that many students from the OBC community have resorted to suicide or dropped out of colleges because of caste-based discrimination in the past decade.

The proposed regulations do not include staff or faculty members. Wadekar argues that the suggestion to include staff members comes from numerous anecdotal instances where faculty members have reported discriminatory practices based on their caste identities.

The 2012 regulations lacked a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the equity measures were effectively implemented. Vemula and Tadvi have suggested that the UGC should expressly mandate that “all Universities and Colleges submit periodic reports to UGC on the working of the Equity Regulations.”

While the proposed regulation has several problems, it also contains some concrete measures, such as the registration of FIRs once a case under penal laws is established. To this, the petitioners have suggested that “the heads of institutions should be mandated to register FIRs within 24 hours for complaints where a case is made out under penal laws.”

2012 regulations’ failure

In January 2016, Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad (UoH), along with five other Dalit students, was expelled from the university housing facility for an alleged attack on an ABVP member. As the expelled students intensified their protest against the university administration’s decision, a few days into the protest, on January 17, 2016, Rohith died by suicide. UoH Vice-Chancellor Appa Rao Podile, then BJP MLC N. Ramachandra Rao, and two ABVP members (Susheel Kumar and Rama Krishna) were accused of abetting Rohith’s suicide. An FIR was filed against them, but the police failed to take any action.

In Dr. Payal Tadvi’s case, her suicide notes and her mother Abeda Tadvi’s testimony ensured that her three harassers – senior doctors Hema Ahuja, Bhakti Mehare, and Ankita Khandelwal – were immediately arrested. A damning 1,200-page chargesheet was filed against them. They have been accused of torturing Payal for an entire year and hurling casteist slurs at her. The Tadvis belong to the Bhil (of the Tadvi sub-caste) tribal community, and Payal was perhaps the first woman from her community to become a doctor. Advocate Wadekar is representing Abeda Tadvi in the criminal proceedings as well.

If the 2012 regulation had worked effectively, both Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi would not have needed to take drastic steps. The existing regulation has made it difficult for students to report instances of discrimination. Most of these cases are known because of individual efforts undertaken by anti-caste activists or organisations, which have, from time to time, highlighted extreme cases of discrimination on Indian university campuses.

Besides Rohith and Payal’s deaths, numerous other suicides have occurred in Indian universities over the past two decades. While some of these deaths were covered by the media, many were documented in an independent study conducted by a Delhi-based organisation called the Insight Foundation, headed by educationist Anoop Kumar.

But instead of focusing on these cases and encouraging students to come forward and report incidents of discrimination, the draft regulations mention “false complaints.” Wadekar says the draft doesn’t differentiate between a false complaint and a mere inability to substantiate a complaint with adequate evidence. “This clause,” Wadekar said, “should be completely removed.” “Students already find it hard to approach the Equity Committee, and such clauses will only act as a deterrent,” she added.

UGC’s hasty actions

This is not the first time that the UGC has acted hastily in response to the petition. In 2024, the UGC had set up a nine-member committee to look into the concerns highlighted in the petition. The Wire, in February last year, had looked into the composition of the committee and highlighted the chequered past of several of its members, including allegations of caste discrimination levelled against them.

Even as the division bench of Justice Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh of the Supreme Court have been hearing this petition, another petition, Amit Kumar and Others versus Union of India, highlighting identical issues, is being heard before Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. On March 24, in a significant order, the apex court directed the formation of a National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the rising number of suicides in higher educational institutions (HEIs). This National Task Force is being constituted as a ten-member committee, with retired Supreme Court judge S. Ravindra Bhat as its chairperson. Other members include mental health experts, teaching professionals, among others. This order too refers to the ongoing petition filed by Vemula and Tadvi.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post ‘Diluted Existing Rules’: Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi’s Mothers Slam UGC’s Draft Equity Regulations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Mumbai police, which investigated the case, found a three-page ‘suicide note’ in which Tadvi had, in detail, described her ordeal and the failure of the medical institution T.N. Topiwala National College and B.Y.L. Nair Hospital, to stop the brutalities inflicted upon her and several other Dalit and Adivasi students.

In the suicide note, Tadvi named Bhakti Mehare, Ankita Khandelwal, and Hema Ahuja – her seniors at the gynaecology department in the medical school. She said they had harassed and humiliated her over her tribal identity. She also named Yi Ching Ling, the then-unit head of the gynaecology department at T.N. Topiwala National College and B.Y.L. Nair Hospital – where Tadvi was studying in 2019 – for not taking her complaint seriously.

A week ago, the special court hearing the case in Mumbai allowed the special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat’s application to add Yi as an accused in the case. Special Judge S.M. Tapkire, on February 28, issued summons to Yi and ordered:

“The impleaded/added accused Dr. Yi Ling Chung Chiang be tried together with the trio of charge-sheeted accused.”

The court directed that summons be issued to her and instructed the investigating officer to submit a report by the next date, March 20.

The court’s order came after the public prosecutor moved an application seeking criminal charges against Yi, who according to Tadvi (through her suicide letter) and her family had ignored a serious complaint of harassment. One might imagine that the state government was in agreement with this move. But on March 7, a notification was issued and Gharat was suddenly replaced with another senior public prosecutor. No explanation was given.

This opens the matter up to the speculation that the state government did not want Yi’s name added to the case, and Gharat was replaced because he did not seek the state government’s approval on this move.

Gharat, however, says such permission was not needed in the first place. “Once you are appointed as an officer of the court, it is your responsibility to decide the course of the trial. My application was based on the anti-ragging committee’s report and also the family’s position from the start,” Gharat says.

This is not the first case in which Gharat has been removed. Prior to this, he was suddenly shifted out of other cases involving BJP leaders like Nitish Rane, Narayan Rane, Navneet Rana, and Mohit Kamboj. “I had moved applications and sought strict actions in these cases too. It wasn’t surprising that I was removed from these cases when the Mahayuti government came into power,” Gharat says.

He expresses concern about the decision to remove him from Tadvi’s hearing. “The community (Bhil Tadvi tribe) to which Payal belonged rarely sees a woman reach higher education. She was a role model for many other children like her, but the system killed her,” he says.

Although Gharat was appointed as a special public prosecutor in the case by the state government, his name for the post was suggested by the Tadvi family and their lawyer. As per the rules under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is mandatory for the states to let the victim’s family have a say on the choice of the prosecutor. The Maharashtra state government too has issued a notification in 2016 allowing the victim and their family to have a say in the appointment of the public prosecutor. Tadvi’s mother, Abeda, had written a letter to the then tribal development minister Kagda Chandya Padvi (under the Mahavikas Aghadi government) requesting Gharat’s appointment.

Advocate Disha Wadekar, who is representing the family in the higher courts, says that the practice of the victim’s family choosing a lawyer in atrocity cases is very common and has helped prove atrocities in many cases. And in cases where the families have not been able to get their own lawyer, the cases have barely made any progress – “like, for instance, the institutional murder of Rohit Vemula at Hyderabad Central University,” Wadekar says.

Wadekar, along with another lawyer, Nihalsing Rathod, was appointed by the Rajasthan government to represent the state in the rape and subsequent suicide of a 17-year-old student. This appointment, Wadekar notes, also occurred through the family’s request. “Getting a perfectly qualified lawyer removed from the case would disrupt the trial,” Wadekar says.

With: Abeda Tadvi, a cancer survivor who has doggedly followed the case from the start and taken it up to the Supreme Court, has now written to chief minister Devendra Fadnavis demanding that Gharat be reappointed. “Advocate Gharat has been handling the case for 3-4 years now and has closely studied it. With him as the public prosecutor, we are hopeful that justice will be done… I request you to bring Advocate Gharat back into the case and allow him to handle it until justice is served,” Abeda Tadvi has written in the letter.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Payal Tadvi’s Case: Maharashtra Govt Replaces Prosecutor Who Moved to Add HoD to Chargesheet appeared first on SabrangIndia.