The phenomenon of Godi media beginning in the months before 2014 took us back considerably to propaganda. This time it was worse than in Old India and more damaging. On Doordarshan, the Opposition was merely ignored; it was not daily vilified and attacked and called anti-national. On Doordarshan, even when it was in the hands of hypocrites, minorities were not the constant target and distraction was not the only game. In New India this became the daily fare of the channels and remained so for a decade. But a third shift has now come and while it is relatively recent it is so fully established that the government is moving to gain control over it. That shift is the rise of independent journalists using social media to reach large audiences. This includes the set of people known as content creators, who might not necessarily be journalists by background but engage with current affairs through humour, particularly satire. How large are their audiences? Have a look at the numbers. On YouTube, independent journalists have as much reach as news channels. Punya Prasun Bajpai (47 lakh subscribers), Ajit Anjum (61 lakh), Abhisar Sharma (67 lakh) and Ravish Kumar (1.1 crore) can rival entire news networks. Times Now (53 lakh subscribers), Republic (62 lakh) and India Today (93 lakh) are in the same region. Dhruv Rathee (2.3 crore subscribers) has as much reach as Zee News (3.6 crore). Indeed in many ways the reach of the independent voices is more because of the concentration of their content on one specific daily issue. The average Ravish Kumar video gets over 10 lakh views while the average one from Zee gets a few thousand, because there are so many of them. Distribution of these clips through WhatsApp further amplifies the independent voice’s reach. The sharing of advertising revenue by social media networks like YouTube affords these individuals the opportunity to be able to do their work outside of a corporate space.

In addition to the journalists, a set of humourists has risen to comment on our times. They are the product of the stranglehold of Godi media and the suffocation people have felt of having propaganda inflicted on them. A few names are worthy of mention, like Bhagat Ram, Ms Medusa, Meghnad, Garima, Ranting Gola, Shyam Rangeela and Urvish Kothari, all of whom I follow and greatly admire and whose work I enjoy. Unfortunately for the government there are few quality creators on the other side. This is because propaganda and sycophancy are not good ingredients for humour. Godi creators tend to produce content that is sullen and angry and for this reason generally ignored.

It will take an academic paper or a book to examine the effect of the independent voices on our democracy. There is to my mind little doubt that they have managed to loosen the monopoly of the Modi government on narrative.

It is for this reason that the government has moved to throttle the voices of the creators and independent journalists. This is being done through the broadcast bill a draft of which is being circulated. Essentially it seeks to regulate everyone who is on social media because that is the only way in which the government can interfere, block and ban content it doesn’t want seen. The government is also trying to go after independent websites like The Wire, Scroll, Newslaundry and Newsminute.

Because these creators are independent individuals on social media, they cannot be licensed or regulated in the way that news channels can. This is why the government is attempting to do this with the broadest of definitions that will affect every single person using social media. The intent might be to use the law in targeted fashion but that will not be how it will turn out. Bad laws produce bad outcomes.

Will the Modi government be successful in pushing the regulation through? It will not. This is not the same place we were last year. There are too many obstacles for it and too many points of resistance. Even if it had been passed in the previous Parliament through brute force it would have been a total mess in implementation. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet will be compelled to do what governments in other democracies must: listen to criticism from citizens tolerate it and even learn from it. In doing so, perhaps they can also get a laugh out of the material, as many of us so often do.

Courtesy: Orissa Post

The post Listen to Criticism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Brief about the notice of the state governments:

The State governments issued the impugned directive amidst preparations for the annual Kanwar Yatra, a pilgrimage undertaken by Shiva devotees during the monsoon season known as Kanwarias or “Bhole.” In this pilgrimage, the devotees travel to key Hindu pilgrimage sites such as Haridwar, Gaumukh, and Gangotri in Uttarakhand and Ajgaibinath in Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, Bihar, to fetch holy water from the Ganges River. The yatra, traversing through cities including Muzaffarnagar and Ghaziabad, culminates in Delhi.

Initially described as ‘voluntary,’ the state governments’ directive has been widely endorsed by state officials and is now being rigorously enforced across all districts of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Additionally, the Uttarakhand Government has issued an oral advisory aligning with this directive as of July 19/20, 2024.

In Uttar Pradesh, on July 18, 2024, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, issued a directive requiring all eateries along the Kanwar route to display the owners’ names. This direction was extended statewide on July 19, 2024.

On July 20, in the face of the growing criticism, UP Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath, had issues a statement sternly ordering for the enforcement of the said directive to ensure that names and identities of proprietors are displayed to avoid confusion among pilgrims during the Kanwar Yatra. an Uttar Pradesh government spokesperson had also confirmed that the chief minister had issued this directive to ensure that participants of the procession did not get disturbed during their pilgrimage. Additionally, the spokesperson had also provided that CM Yogi will be initiating action against those selling and promoting Halal-certification products. This comes after a directive was issued by the state in November 2023 wherein questions were raised against Halal certification made mandatory by certain organizations for the sale of different products, including vegetarian FMCG (fast growing consumer goods) products and cosmetics products, which don’t require any Halal certification.

On July 21, the civic body in Madhya Pradesh’s Ujjain also directed all shops in its jurisdiction to display their owners’ names and mobile numbers to ensure “customer safety”.

Brief about the petition filed by Apoorvanand Jha and Aakar Patel:

As per a report of LiveLaw, the petition filed by Jha and Patel alleges that the said directive goes against Article 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution, which ensure that no one is discriminated against and everyone is equal before law, and results in disproportional intervention by the state. 

          “The directives issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand cause disproportionate intervention and affect rights under Articles 14, 15 and 17.”

It is essential to note that post the issuance of the impugned directives, reports had emerged stating that Muslim employees were being fired in the state, especially till the Kanwar Yatra is over. The petition further emphasises upon the negative role that police officers play with such arbitrary powers in their hands, by stating that aggressive police officers have frequently enforced the contested commands with force, and non-compliance has apparently resulted in detentions. Referring to the same, the petition highlights the violation of Article 19(1)(g), which grants an individual the right to practice and profession, as well as Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

        “Further the directives also effect rights of those Muslim men who have been fired pursuant to the issuance of the above directives, which is in violation of Article 19(1)(g). Lastly the directives are also in violation of peoples’ right to privacy and to dignity, and consequently violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The petitioners have also maintained that the public notice and its subsequent enforcement are unconstitutional and that the “advisory,” which is then also implemented violently, is an excess of state power.

       “Impugned directives encourage discrimination on grounds of caste and religion and cannot be seen to serve any ‘legitimate purpose.’ These directives promotes discrimination solely based on religious and caste identity, as they do not require the display of food items being served or a statement that no non-vegetarian or non-satvik food is being served, but only the display of religious or caste identity explicit in one’s name. This directly breaches Article 15 of the Constitution of India”, the petitions contended, as per LiveLaw.

Furthermore, the petition also highlighted the impact that such practices will have on the marginalised community as displaying the names of the staff will have the potential to increase the myriad incidents of caste-based discrimination. In view of the same, the petition states that the said directive will bring back the practice of “untouchability,” which is expressly forbidden “in any form” by Article 17 of the Indian Constitution. The petition states that the directive will violate Article 17 forbids the imposition of any kind of handicap resulting from “untouchability” as it would promoting the custom of refusing to accept services from members of particular castes and religions. 

Lastly, the said petition points to the fundamental right to privacy that has been guaranteed to the citizens of India, which will be infringed by the said notice as by forcing the owners and workers of shops and eateries to put out their personal information, including contact details and addresses, might expose them to danger, making them targets.

        “These directives promote discrimination solely based on religious and caste identity, as they do not require the display of food items being served or a statement that no non-vegetarian or non-satvik food is being served, but only the display of religious or caste identity explicit in one’s name. This directly breaches Article 15 of the Constitution of India.”

Brief about the petition filed by MP Mahua Moitra:

As provided by the said petition, the impugned directive and the actions undertaken thereby will exacerbate communal discord and threaten the livelihoods of affected individuals. will worsen social unrest and jeopardize the livelihoods of those impacted. According to the petition, food entrepreneurs give their stores names that appeal to out-of-town visitors, such as pilgrims from Kanwar, but the mandate compels them to alter these names to reflect the entrepreneur’s religious identity.

        “Assuming that the legitimate State aims in question are ensuring respect for dietary choices and maintaining communal harmony, there is no rational nexus between the said aims and the compelled disclosure of the names of the proprietors and staff of eating establishments along the pilgrimage route. There are multiple incidents where non-Muslim food entrepreneurs have failed to comply with the dietary restrictions required by Kanwar Yatris.”

It has been contended by the petitioners that by issuing such directives, the UP government is openly and deliberately targeting Muslim-owned companies, which will led to intimidation and broad economic boycotts. The petition also provides that the said instance of state-sanctioned exclusion or otherisation of the Muslim community will further the divides that have been existing in our society. Since June 2023, anti-social individuals have spread fabricated stories and edited videos online, accusing Muslims of contaminating the food provided to pilgrims. Even during the COVID pandemic, Muslim vendors were demonised on allegations of spitting in food, with the objective of spreading COVID amongst the population. These allegations had resulted in mass targeting and boycott of the Muslim community by the populace. 

         “Since June 2023, the Respondent No. 1 (State of UP) continued to empower and embolden the anti-social elements by actively targeting Muslim owned businesses based on fabricated and malicious information circulated by the anti-social elements. The Respondent No. 1, through acts of commission and omission, created conditions for the complete economic boycott of Muslim minorities on the pretext of their ‘impure’ dietary choices”.

The petition also highlights the issue of mob lynching over the bogey of “beef and cow slaughter”, creating a climate of hatred and intimidation by certain elements. As per the said petition, it is these elements, the far-right extremist groups, that demanded the closure of meat shops along the yatra route. The petition claims that anti-social elements, empowered by the State’s inaction, have propagated inflammatory messages targeting Muslim-owned establishments, leading to a nationwide menace of mob vigilantism and the targeting of Muslim minorities.

The petition further points to threats that Muslim eatery owners received regarding threats of closure in July 2023 and July 2024. There were also reported incidents of WhatsApp messages circulating after identifying Muslim-owned eateries in Muzaffarnagar to prevent Kanwar Yatris from purchasing food from them.

In similar vein as the other petition, the petition filed by Moitra also highlighted the violation of Article 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 as the ground for challenging the impugned directive of the UP and the Uttarakhand government. 

In regards to violation of Article 15, the petition contends that the directives constitute pretextual discrimination on grounds of religion as the directives compel the disclosure of personal details, creating an economic boycott of Muslim shop owners and workers.

         “In forcing the disclosure of the names of proprietors and even those of their staff, on the stated ground of respecting pilgrims’ dietary choices, makes it clear that “dietary choices” is a pretext, or a proxy, for the compelled disclosure of personal – and, in this case, religious – identity, through the disclosure of names. The upshot of this is to create a socially-enforced economic boycott on Muslim shop-owners and workers, and the loss of their livelihoods”.

The petition argues that the directives are manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate, and lack any determining principle, violating the right to equality. The petition argues that the directives violate the right to privacy, including informational privacy. The compelled disclosure of personal information lacks legislative authorization and exposes individuals to social persecution, as per the petition. In furtherance to this, the petition submits that the facts of the present case show a legitimate fear of economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and public hostility. This is evidenced by intimidatory threats of closure to Muslim-owned eateries, circulation of identifying WhatsApp messages and doctored clips, widespread layoffs of Muslim staff, and coercive closures of dhabas with religion-neutral names, the petition states.

Additionally, the petition asserts that the directions impose unreasonable restrictions on the business activities of eatery owners and food sellers, infringing upon their freedom to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

         “It is the State’s affirmative obligation to maintain public order. The State cannot outsource or abdicate its obligations by requiring citizens to give up their rights to free speech in order that public order is maintained. This inverts the relationship between the State and the citizen, and amounts to giving in to the “heckler’s veto””.

Related:

“Vigilantism is not permissible, needs to be checked”: SC, following up Tehseen Poonawalla case

Opposition leaders, activists demand suspension of SP, Kolhapur and judicial inquiry into Vishal-gad Kolhapur violence

June 2024: 10 violent attacks against cattle transporters and 14 cases of communal violence in various states across India

The post Two petitions filed in SC challenging UP and Uttarakhand governments’ directive to display name of shop owner and staff for being unconstitutional appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking development in the matter pertaining to a Look Out circular issued against Aakar Patel, just days after a Delhi court had granted the former chief of Amnesty International’s erstwhile India unit relief after he was prevented from flying abroad, the court has now stayed the order to withdraw the said circular.

On April 12, 2022, the Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi reserved the order in connection with the plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking revision of the trial court’s order directing CBI to withdraw the Look Out circular against Aakar Patel. Special CBI Judge Santosh Snehi Mann of the Delhi Court seemed to be convinced with the submissions made by the CBI counsel while staying the impugned order pending the decision of the revision petition.

With respect to this revision petition, on April 8, 2022, the Delhi Court had granted interim relief to CBI by directing Mr. Aakar Patel not to leave the country without court’s permission.

Brief background of the case

Trouble began for Patel when he was prevented from flying abroad and informed that this was due to a Look Out circular issued against him. Patel challenged this and on April 7, 2022, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar, while granting relief to Patel, directed the CBI to immediately withdraw the said Circular and also ordered the Director of CBI to tender a written apology to Patel. It had directed the CBI to file a compliance report regarding the same.

However, despite court orders, Patel was again stopped at the immigration of Bengaluru International Airport with respect to the same Circular that was ordered to be withdrawn by the trial court.

The trial court had noted the monetary loss of Rs. 3.8 lac (approximately) suffered by Patel and granted him the liberty to approach the Court or other forum for the compensation. However, now that Patel missed another flight due to the agency, he has claimed an additional loss of 5.6 lac and filed a contempt petition against the agency for not following court orders. According to LiveLaw, the contempt petition is scheduled to be heard tomorrow at 2 PM.

Patel had approached the court to seek directions to the CBI for withdrawal of the said Look Out Circular and to seek permission to travel to the United States of America till May 30, 2022 to take up his assignment and lecture series. However, he was stopped from boarding a flight to the US at Bengaluru airport on April 7, 2022. He claimed that the impugned action was taken despite a Gujarat court’s order granting him permission “specifically for this trip”. 

He is facing prosecution before the court of Sixth Additional District & Sessions Judge Surat, Gujarat in a private complaint lodged by a BJP legislator in Gujarat by the name of Purneshbhai Ishwarbhai Modi. Vide order dated February 19, the Court permitted him to travel abroad and accordingly his passport was released for a period March 3 to May 30, 2022. 

The CBI purportedly stopped him from leaving the country on the basis of a Look Out Notice issued in connection with a case registered by the agency against Amnesty International India for alleged FCRA violations. Patel has stated that he is not a named accused in the said FIR and was given a notice under Section 160 CrPC only once for appearance on December 24, 2020, which he complied with. Thereafter, he claims that he has never been called by the CBI authorities. 

Today, the Delhi court reserved the order on the revision petition filed by the CBI which is likely to be pronounced at a later date.

Related:

Aakar Patel granted relief, free to travel, CBI ordered to withdraw Look out Circular

The post Delhi court stays order directing withdrawal of Look Out circular against Aakar Patel appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Delhi Court on Thursday granted relief to former Amnesty International India Chief Aakar Patel, who has challenged the Look Out Circular issued against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), LiveLaw reported. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar pronounced the order after reserving it earlier today. He directed CBI to immediately withdraw the Look Out Circular issued against Patel. 

The Court said that it has passed certain directions to the CBI for which a compliance report is directed to be filed before the Court.

A detailed order is awaited.

Patel had approached the court and sought directions to the CBI for withdrawal of the said Look Out Circular and also seeking permission to travel to United States of America till May 30, 2022 to take up his assignment and lecture series. Patel was stopped from boarding a flight to the US at Bengaluru airport earlier today. He claims that the impugned action was taken despite a Gujarat court’s order granting him permission “specifically for this trip”. 

He is being prosecuted before the court of Sixth Additional District & Sessions Judge Surat, Gujarat in a private complaint lodged by a BJP legislator in Gujarat by the name of Purneshbhai Ishwarbhai Modi. Vide order dated February 19, the Court permitted him to travel abroad and accordingly his passport was released for a period March 3 to May 30, 2022. 

The CBI purportedly stopped him from leaving the country on the basis of a Look Out Notice issued in connection with a case registered by the agency against Amnesty International India for alleged FCRA violations. Patel has stated that he is not a named accused in the said FIR and was given a notice under Section 160 CrPC only once for appearance on December 24, 2020, which he complied with. Thereafter, he claims that he has never been called by the CBI authorities. 

During the course of hearing today, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for Patel began by referring to the response filed on behalf of the CBI and called it “nothing but a mere rhetoric” which and had nothing to do with the application. 

Breaking: Delhi Court Asks CBI Director To Apologize To @Aakar__Patel
A Written Apology from the CBI Director Acknowledging the Lapse On The Part Of His Subordinate To Aakar Patel Would Go Long Away In Not Only Healing His Wounds But Also Upholding The rust And Confidence Of CBI https://t.co/IWpR4wcdYh

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 7, 2022

Arguing that the look out circular was issued in blatant violation of the Delhi High Court ruling in Sumer Singh Salkan case, Mir added thus: 

“Let him (Investigating Officer) demonstrate from his case diary, what is the attempt till date, where by any propensity or feeling, speculated, hallucination or otherwise, that had come with the agency that I had not joined the investigation? Now for the IO to say, that we opened LOC against him in order to thwart any attempt, so he doesn’t know whether there will ever be an attempt.” 

Mir argued that while the IO failed to inform Patel about the issuance of LOC, he added that Patel was put to a direct prejudice an loss of about 3 lakhs 80 thousand which must be paid by the IO to him from his salary. 

“Citizens rights cannot be railroaded by agency like this. It is time that we send a suitable reply to law enforcement agencies and society,” Mir added. 

Mir also argued that the act of the IO in issuing the LOC was in blatant violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, morality, ethics and legal obligation as a public officer and a police officer. 

“There is a reason why the legendary Justice wrote ED Royappa and then wrote Maneka Gandhi of which every lawyer and judge is proud of. Maneka Gandhi is a flag of Indian jurists. The procedural obligations obligates them. Name doesn’t matter. What matters is what you do and whether that is fair, reasonable and procedurally sustainable? The question will now arise, once he files a chargesheet and doesn’t ask accused to come forward and appear, means that he is not concerned with me and leaves it to your honour,” Mir argued.

He added “In his case diary, right from beginning of FIR registration till date, has he got any substantial evidence which necessitates him to say that loc must be opened against me? I say none. Not a piece of starch cloth. The law empowers us. It is our conscience that we come to aid of persecuted. Aakar Patel’s LOC amounts to persecution.” “The fundamental rights guaranteed under art. 19 and 21, especially after due process, is not to be trampled or to be rendered redundant by agency with complete sense of impunity.”

At the outset, the Court asked the CBI IO as well as agency’s counsel as to what was the necessity in opening the LOC against Patel.

To this, the CBI IO informed the Court that an application for LOC, after taking approval of competent authority, was written and that on December 31, 2021, a request was sent to Ministry of Home Affairs for opening of the LOC. The Court was also informed that the chargesheet was filed without arrest and that the application was moved in anticipation that Patel will flee from justice.

The officer also informed the Court that there is no procedure to be followed by the CBI to give detailed reasons to MHA for issuance of LOC and that merely a performa is sent.

 Rebutting the said argument, Mir submitted thus:

“Pre formatted proforma basis doesn’t work. It would be in blatant violation of due process.”

“From the Pre formatted photograph, passport no etc., what is the material with the IO that Mr. Patel falls within the parameter of exceptional case? It’s not MHA who can be saddled with responsibility because you are the investigating authority. There is no much material which they have to suffice. Where is the material? How is the departure of Mr. Patel being invited by Michigan, Berkley University detrimental to unity and integrity of India? How does he suffice the requirement of an exception? OMs have been railroaded without complete sense of impunity.”

It is Patel’s case that the LOC is illegal and unnecessarily puts fetters on his fundamental rights.

The plea states,

“The applicant suffered the value of his tickets and his immediate program as well on account of arbitrary and absolute illegal actions on part of the investigating authorities…(who) acted in the most illegal, arbitrary and nefarious manner in putting fetters on the fundamental rights of the applicant and have not even bothered to inform him well in : advance for which there would be no predicament whatsoever with the investigating authorities.” 

The petitioner cites the case of Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director & Others, where the Delhi High Court has held that no LOC can be opened to the detriment of any accused, witness or any citizen of this country and unless and until there are non bailable warrants appearing in the field or that the person concerned is deliberately evading or even summons by a court of competent jurisdiction.

He also relied on journalist Rana Ayyub’s case wherein LOC issued against her by ED was quashed.

The plea adds that Patel is in urgent need to travel as he has to deliver lectures no April 8 at USA. Further, the offences alleged in the FIR are not in the category of ‘grave offences’ as the offences are punishable upto 5 years or only with fine. Moreover, it is not the case of CBI that Patel is a flight risk by any stretch of imagination.

The post Aakar Patel granted relief, free to travel, CBI ordered to withdraw Look out Circular appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Aakar Patel, well known columnist and former executive director of Amnesty International India, has stated on Twitter that he was arrested and then let out on bail earlier this week for allegedly posting “offensive” tweets against the Ghanchi community in Gujarat. It was the  Surat City police registered an FIR against Patel, filed by Purnesh Modi, a ruling Bhartiya Janata Party MLA from Surat West constituency and president of the Samast Gujarati Modhvanik Samaj.

Was arrested and bailed yesterday for an FIR filed by BJP citing sections incl 153A (promoting enmity). Will fight it.

— Aakar Patel (@Aakar__Patel) September 22, 2020

The criminal complaint-FIR- registered on July 7 states that on June 24 and June 27, Patel had posted three tweets that were objectionable and against the community. Patel has been booked under Sections 153 A, 295 A, 505 (1) B, 505 (1) C, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Most of these sections are non-bailable. The complainant has listed three tweets posted by Patel. In the first two tweets, Patel mentioned that Prime Minister Narendra Modi belonged to the Ghanchi caste, which was added to the Other Backward Caste list in 1999 by then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s regime. Patel goes on to say that the community is “well-off” and is “meat-eating” and that Modi has taken on the manner of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and has turned vegetarian.

In another tweet that followed, Patel has alleged that those involved in the 2002 Sabarmati train carnage belonged to the Muslim Ganchi community.

On June 27, in this third tweet, Patel wrote, “The RSS and BJP always profit by the violence against other Indians, especially Muslims. Vajpayee more than Upadhyaya, Advani more than Vajpayee and Modi more than Advani benefitted from this. We have to stop this cycle of violence and blood profit by the RSS and BJP.”

Ghanchi Caste: Background

Patel’s claim that the crowd involved in the Godhra train fire of 2002 comprised Ghanchi Muslims is not something new, it has been reported widely in the media before. It is also unclear what offence the police believe his first tweet has caused, even though there was a factual inaccuracy.

The Surat police on September 21 recorded Patel’s statement and has now asked for the devices used to tweet to be handed over to the police. Patel says he will soon be handing them over soon.

Although this is not the first time that a criminal case has been registered against the columnist for his vocal stand against the current dispensation, he told the media that he was surprised when he was informed about the FIR. “I was surprised it was filed. The tweets are factual,” he responded in an email. Patel says he will defend himself and will be weighing his options to see if the FIR can be quashed.

In the past sixweeks, Patel has been informed of at least two police cases against him and he says both of them were registered in BJP-ruled states. “The state has become quite intolerant of dissent. This (the tweets) is not an original observation and is not a new phenomenon. What is new is the extreme to which it is taken, especially at a time when the government ought really to be focussed on its work,” Patel shared.

While Patel has been individually targeted, in the past, when he was associated with Amnesty International India, both he and the organisation had been targeted several times by both the state and central machinery. “There are other cases (I have lost count of the number) related to the organisation (Amnesty International India) I was working for until last year, which continues to be harassed through the (Central Bureau of Investigation) CBI, Enforcement Directorate and (Ministry of Home Affairs) MHA and through cases like sedition filed by the (Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad) ABVP,” Patel alleges.

In 2002, Aakar Patel, along with Dilip Padgaonkar and BG Verghese had authored the Editor’s Guild report on media coverage of 2002, Rights and Wrongs. The report had meticulously documented what had gone wrong within the media coverage (build up and fall out) of the communal carnage, also highlighting individual efforts that stood out for fair reporting upholding the ethics of the profession.

The post Aakar Patel arrested, then bailed for three tweets on Modi, BJP-RSS & Ghanchi Caste: Gujarat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 2, Bengaluru police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the well known journalist, and columnist who expressed his solidarity with those protesting the killing of George Floyd. Patel who has always spoken up for human rights of the marginalised in India too, and worked for human rights when he headed Amnesty International India, in his latest Twitter post had said: “We need protests like these. From Dalits and Muslims and Adivasis. And the poor. And women. World will notice. Protest is a craft.”

We need protests like these. From Dalits and Muslims and Adivasis. And the poor. And women.
World will notice. Protest is a craft. https://t.co/6btWiMtbOX

— Aakar Patel (@Aakar__Patel) May 31, 2020

He was commenting on a peaceful protest in Denver, Colorado that was protesting against the killing of George Floyd. However, Bengaluru Police chose to take Aakar’s Twitter post as a case of ‘public mischief’ and alleged that he was engaging in provocation with intent to cause riot. Amnesty India has also stated that Patel had in fact urged people to peacefully protest for their rights.

In the statement, Executive Director of Amnesty International India, Avinash Kumar has said, “The FIR filed by the Bengaluru police against Aakar Patel is just another example of how the right to dissent is being increasingly criminalised in the country.” Amnesty has demanded that “Bengaluru police must stop abusing its authority and put an end to the intimidation and harassment of Aakar Patel for exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression.”

“People of this country have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests – without fear or unlawful interference. Peacefully protesting against the government is not a crime. Not agreeing with the policies of those in power does not make you a traitor either,” stated Amnesty India.

Aakar Patel has often been targeted by right wing forces, especially active in Karnataka and has been on the list of what online trolls call the ‘tukde tukde gang’. He, when he was the head of Amnesty India, has also dealt with sedition charges being slapped on the organisation in 2016. Portal India.com had then written on how Aakar Patel, had been one the first ‘anti-nationals’ according to right-wing members. The portal reported that for Patel, who had taken over as head of Amnesty India in 2015, the charges of sedition against the organisation “proves the kind of campaign launched across the nation to curb freedom of speech and expression”. Patel was quoted as saying, “For merely organizing an event that talks about the violation of constitutional values and urges the states to uphold fundamental rights, we are being branded as seditious and slapped with section 124-A (of IPC).”

He had been mercilessly trolled online by those aligning themselves with right-wing politics, allegeding that Patel was a Muslim. He is not, but the attack exposed what the right wing at large thought about minorities in the country. Not much has changed in 2020, Patel, like many other writers and activists, continues to be targeted for expressing opinions, and for standing up in solidarity with the oppressed, and against the state might. His day on social media continues as usual, the news links and opinions continue to flow with vigour.

The post Bengaluru Police must stop targeting Aakar Patel: Amnesty International India appeared first on SabrangIndia.