This rising pattern of authoritarianism of ruling dispensation from last one decade was the major factor in the coming together of most of the opposition parties coming together to form INDIA coalition, despite many inner contradictions. The overall impact of the coalition, with Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo and Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra and the social groups forming the platforms like Eddulu Karnataka and Bharat Jodo Abhiyan impacted the Lok Sabha results and the target of BJP to cross 400 seats in Lok Sabha was quashed.

It is true that the progression of the INDIA alliance did not go in the desired direction of forming an ongoing platform for state elections. This was one of the reasons for the set back to the INDIA alliance partners in Maharashtra and Haryana election. The added cause was the renewed attempt by all RSS affiliates to work for BJP. This is nothing new but probably during Lok Sabha elections J.P. Nadda’s statement that BJP does not need the help of RSS as it is now capable of winning on its own.

It seems the important need of INDIA alliance to strengthen itself post Lok Sabha elections has been ignored with many constituents declaring their aloofness from this and the biggest opposition party, the Congress not having taken any major initiative. It is worthwhile to note that the CPI (M), the ideologically strong component of this alliance is having second thoughts on the issue as its Acting General Secretary Prakash Karat stated that “The opposition INDIA bloc was formed for the Lok Sabha elections and not state polls… and called for a broader platform of secular opposition parties.

He also said the alliance should be looked at with a broader perspective so that it would not be stifled solely by electoral politics. This is paraphrased by many left leaning intellectuals who are saying that BJP is not exactly a fascist party, Like “Patanaik reasons that while neoliberal capitalism generates a “fascist presence” – manifesting in right-wing authoritarian movements, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, and eroded democratic norms – it does not necessarily recreate the conditions for full-fledged “fascist states” like in the 1930s.”

While many terms have been used for the rising politics of Hindutva Nationalism, Neo Fascism, proto Fascism and Fundamentalism, the point is that no political phenomenon repeats itself in the same way. Today Hindutva nationalism has many features close to that of Fascism, which was the initial inspiration for the founders of RSS particularly M.S. Golwalkar, who in his “We or Our Nationhood” said “To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.”

We in India are witnessing many of the traits of fascism, like the Golden past, aspiration for Akhand Bharat, targeting minorities presenting them as enemies of the nation, authoritarianism, promoting big business, stifling the freedom of expression and dominating the social thinking. Here we are witnessing the intolerance to freedom of expression as recently witnessed in the case of Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, saying that “…the RSS is poison. They are trying to destroy the soul of the country. We should be fearful about that because if the soul is lost, everything is lost.” Tushar Gandhi was asked to apologize and to take back his words. He did neither, and now he is facing death threats.

With the vast spread of RSS and hundreds of its organization, thousands of its pracharaks and lakhs of its activists, it is threatening the idea of India which emerged from the Freedom Movement. The values of the freedom movement got expression in our Constitution, which is based on the equal right of all the citizens and is inclusive to the core. RSS did plant its ideology, which is opposed to the values of freedom movement and Indian Constitution, through its vastly growing network.

It initially created hatred for Muslims by abusing history, as witnessed currently in Maharashtra where demands for uprooting the tomb of Aurnagzeb is priority number one for the ruling BJP. Currently it is also targeting the major leader of the freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi by propagating that he had no role in getting us freedom, many of its social media posts going to the extent that Gandhi sabotaged our freedom movement.

The list is long. What is to be done today? Karat is right that a broader secular platform has to be created. The INDIA coalition was precisely the first step in this journey. The need is to strengthen this alliance much further. The rough edges in the coalition need to be sorted out and Karat’s party with over million members can play a major role in boosting this alliance further, despite some contradictions among the coalition partners. For bigger reasons, small sacrifices by the constituents; is mandatory.

To back this up the social groups also need to continue their great work done in the wake of 2024 Lok Sabha elections, which the National Secular Coalition can initiate. The exact characterization of the present regime, Fascist or having elements of fascism or whatever the strategy in India should be a broader platform, with more energy and dynamism, which we witnessed on the eve of 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Related:

Hindu festivals and sectarian nationalist politics

Attempts to Undermine Gandhi’s Contribution to Freedom Movement: Musings on Gandhi’s Martyrdom Day

Between Hope and Despair: 75 Years of Indian Republic

The post Striving to Promote Democracy: Values of the Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Collected Works sell sans Annihilation of Caste and the Riddles in Hinduism!

Who is afraid of the writings of Babasaheb Ambedkar? Both, the Modi and Phadnavis governments respectively; or so it seems.

For an average social scientist, Ambedkarite, a student of Indian freedom and inequality, when discussing Ambedkar and his most critical works, some names come immediately to mind.

These are, or are they or not, the Annihilation of Caste, or Riddles in Hinduism?  Even State and Minorities , Shudras and the Counter Revolution, Women and the Counter Revolution ?  Not for this regime(s) however. This government(s) – Centre and Maharashtra — would have us believe that the seminal or important works of this man are only his writings on the Roundtable Conference or his works related to Poona Pact, or his debates with Gandhi.

Now imagine a set of books, the official collection, copyright of which is with the Government of Maharashtra, re-branded as the (truncated) Collected Works of Bhimrao Ambedkar (CWBA) but without these seminal texts that cast a sharp and critical look at caste-ridden Hindu society.

This is exactly the farce that is being played out at India’s premier Book Fair currently on in the capital right now. The Delhi Book Fair. The Ambedkar Foundation, a Government of India body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the sole publisher of Babasaheb’s writings and speeches in Hindi, is selling the Collected Works without 11 books from the set ! Among the missing books in the Collected Works in Hindi are Anhilation of Caste and Riddles in Hinduism.

The official explanation is that the Ambedkar Foundation is in the process of publishing a new set of the Collected Works –and in the intermediate period — this truncated Collected Works is what they have to offer to the readers. But none at the Foundation (whom this writer spoke to), knows exactly when the new set of books will be published. This is the status of the Hindi edition of the CWBA.

For the English originals, the situation is more complicated. As the Foundation has not received the No Objection Certificate or the NOC from the Maharashtra Government, the copyright holder of these works, the Foundation cannot publish the English versions of the CWBA. It’s intriguing that the Maharashtra government that holds the publishing rights for the writings and speeches of Babasaheb is resisting sending this NOC to the central government affiliated Foundation!

In the meanwhile, citizens of the country have no option but to buy a truncated set of the Collected Works.  These acts of the Modi and Phadnavis  governments come at a time when the year is being celebrated, nationwide, for the 125^th Birth Anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has himself taken the lead in these celebrations. The Indian Parliament has held a two days special session to mark this occasion; a special commemorative coin has also been issued.

Is this celebration, then, just a façade for the Modi Government ? On the outside there are clever moves to appropriate Babasaheb; the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have declared him a ‘thinker’ or a ‘Guru’. But in essence, while this shallow eulogising continues, the radical social scientist and critical thinker in Babasaheb is being white-washed.

Dr. Ambedkar, while delivering his concluding speech before the Constituent Assembly, had forewarned us about the problems with hero worship. This regime, adept at ‘event management’ is simply trying to appropriate an idol. By suppressing Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s critical works, the RSS driven regime is trying to rob the revolutionary essence contained in the writings of Babasaheb.  While both the BJP and the RSS want to appropriate Babasaheb, his writings are, in a sense, too hot for them to handle. As a symbol to garner votes, Babasaheb is a welcome appropriation to the Hindutva  pantheon. But their affection for him ends there.

Why are Ambedkar himself and the Ambedkarite movement a Catch 22 for the RSS and the Sangh Parivar ?  Because, it has always faltered in its dealings with the issue of Caste. The centrality of caste in the democratic discourse of Ambedkarite stream of thought is a stumbling block for the avowed objective of the RSS in establishing upper caste Brahamanic hegemony in the country. In the Anhilation of Caste, Ambedkar actually advocates the demolishing of certain Hindu religious texts to enable Hindus to be really free. His writings are therefore extremely problematic for any organisation that seeks to re-affirm or consolidate caste hegemony.

And therein lies the rub. With Ambedkar and his legacy of radical critical thought, a searchlight is shone on aspects of the Indian (read Hindu) social and political structure that reactionary forces like the RSS and the BJP would prefer to conceal. In this year of the 125^th Birth Anniversary of Ambedkar, the choice is clear. Dr BR Ambedkar’s writings and thoughts need to be recognised in their completeness. In toto. By hollowing out his Collected Works of their seminal portions, the regimes in Delhi and Maharashtra seek to sanitise this legacy. A strong vibrant Dalit tradition will not so easily allow this mis-appropriation.

 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches

(The writer is a senior journalist, former managing editor India Today group and presently researching at the Jawaharlal Nehru Univreristy (JNU) on Media and Caste relations)

The post Who is afraid of the writings of Babasaheb Ambedkar? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rosary School in Vadodara (Baroda) Gujarat is one of the premier educational institutions of the state of Gujarat. It is co-educational and run by the Society of Jesus. It caters to about 2,300 students from all walks of life. The school that was begun in 1935, provides quality education to make students women and men for others. It also boasts of alumni, who have contributed significantly to the nation- in public service, sports, and academia and research engagements and in other important spheres. It is therefore, not without reason, that Rosary School, is much sought -after by parents, for the education of their children.

On November 4, 2023, 19 days ago, the school had its Annual School Day celebrations. The first part, which lasted for about an hour, was devoted to customary items like lighting of the lamp, prayer dance (performed beautifully by the school staff), the Principal’s report, the Chief Guest’s speech, the prize distribution etc. Then one would naturally have expected the traditional items of song, dance and playlets to hold fort the normal stage presentations so typical on such Annual Days in most schools.

But NO! The massive gathering: parents, alumni, well-wishers and friends of the institution were treated to a performance, which few will ever forget.

The theme of the Annual Day was ‘Promoting and Safeguarding Constitutional Values. The huge backdrop catchingly emblazoned the theme with a picture of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the father of the Constituent Assembly and a picture of the Constitution of India. The entire programme, which went on for a non-stop two hours, highlighted the four non-negotiable values of the Constitution: justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It was a moving spectacle in song, dance and mime. Class after class (from the KG to Std. XII) they came; they regaled, engaged and conscientised the audience in meaningful ways. More than seven hundred students participated in a performance, which was simply brilliant, touching and heart stopping.

The tiny-tots of the kindergarten set the ball rolling. They were all beautifully dolled up in the image and likeness of those who fought for India’s freedom and ensured India’s independence from colonial rule on 15 August 1947. The children confidently paraded in royal style, to the cheers of the audience and with the commentator highlighting the significant role each of these played in making India a free nation.  From a mini Mahatma Gandhi to Jhansi ki Rani: they were all there! It was an out- of this world performance by tiny tots, who helped bring back memories of those who sacrificed so much for our freedom.

The audience was then transported to August  29, 1947, with the appointment of the seven members to be on Drafting Committee for the new Constitution .The members of this Drafting Committee were certainly look-alikes of the original. The student who played the role of Ambedkar was certainly a chotta version of the original. The accents and articulations of each of these members, besides their names, magnificently communicated their cultural and ethnic backgrounds, which spoke volumes of the wealth of diversity in India. They were the link that bonded the entire programme. It was evident that painstaking research was put in, to ensure that this group of students would create the necessary impact.

The post Celebrating Constitutionality! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The first years of Indian Independence were very fraught indeed. Jawaharlal Nehru became the prime minister and served for 16 years. Nehru promoted parliamentary democracy, secularism, science and technology during the 1950s. In January 1950 a new republican Constitution came into being. The Congress under Nehru’s leadership established a democratic Constitution and oversaw a series of mostly fair elections. Another great gift it gave to the people of India was the positive ideology of Hope.

The Congress of the 1950s and the1960s is best regarded as the school of democracy. During this period Indian people learnt to vote and speak their minds freely. They learnt also to craft and entrust independent, impersonal, rule-bound institutions such as the judiciary, the press and (not the least) the Election Commission. Thus, through the 1950s and 1960s, the specific contours of democracy and national unity were intensely debated in all parts of the country. Nehru’s Congress party won successive general elections from 1952 to 1962. Lal Bahadur Shastri became the prime minister after the death of Nehru in 1964 and on his death in January 1966 Indira Gandhi became the prime minister.

Congress under Indira Gandhi

The 1967 general elections, which were held under the prime ministership of Indira Gandhi, cut the Congress’s majority in the Lok Sabha to twenty five, it lost 264 seats in state assemblies and its majority in 8 states.

Till the 1967 the elections of the Parliament and all the State Assemblies used to be held simultaneously and much money was not required to contest election. Politics was an instrument of service. The elections used to be contested on ideologies of political parties. In 1967 elections Congress suffered reverses as a result of anti-Congress wave. It started becoming apparent that in the next elections, which were due in 1972, the Congress Party was bound to lose power in the Centre and many states.

In 1969, Indira Gandhi split the Indian National Congress into two: the one led by Indira Gandhi came to be known as Congress (I), and the other which comprised the then stalwarts in the Congress, came to be known as Congress (O). In 1977, the Congress (O) merged into the Janata Party and thereafter ceased to exist.

In 1971, Indira Gandhi, politically shrewd as she was, was fully able to sense the impatience in the people about removal of poverty, gave a deceptive slogan of ‘garibi hatao’, delinked the parliamentary and the assembly elections, surprisingly, by preponing the same, which otherwise were due in 1972. She utilised a large amount of money in elections for her party candidates and secured a thumping majority, giving a severe blow to the process of political polarisation on an ideological basis. She secured 352 seats in the Lok Sabha in these elections. A series of events since  1971  finally led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on the December 6, 1992 demonstrate that both the major political parties-the Congress and BJP–have shown little regard for the rule of law and the country’s judicial institutions.

Both the said parties wanted judiciary to be weak and have been making attempts to make the Court obedient to their governments, both unbalanced the power equations among the three branches of the state. Both the parties also wanted to change the basic structure of the Constitution. Mrs. Gandhi’s government superseded the three senior most judges of the Supreme Court for their ruling in Kesavanand Bharati case, laying down the basic structure doctrine.

During the years, 1971-77 Mrs. Indira Gandhi ruled the country in an authoritarian way. The date, March 23, 1977 is regarded as the day of India’s liberation from authoritarianism as on that date Mrs. Indira Gandhi had lifted the Emergency. In 1977 elections Mrs. Indira Gandhi suffered a crushing defeat and for the first time a non-Congress government of the Janata Party came into power. The Janata Party government could not survive on account of its internal contradictions and in 1979-80 mid-term elections of the Lok Sabha were held. In these elections Indira Gandhi secured majority votes.

Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress and India

The danger of authoritarianism reappeared with the success of Mrs. Gandhi in the post-Emergency elections of 1979-80. In 1984 Mrs. Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Thereafter, Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in as the next prime minister for only two months. In the 1984 elections, in which Rajiv Gandhi had a clean sweep, BJP could secure only 2 seats in the Lok Sabha. The Sangh Parivar started a campaign for the construction of a magnificent Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple at the site of the Babri Mosque and by 1985 built up a sizeable support in the Hindu community. In January 1986, the locks of the 450 year old Mosque were opened and “Ram bhakts” were permitted to offer prayers to “Ram Lala”. It is said that the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s aide and minister Arun Nehru ordered the Chief Minister Veer Bahadur Singh to ensure that the district administration do this. Thus, in this period, both these parties, the BJP and the Congress, started pandering to communal Hindu sentiments. By 1988, Hindutva organizations led by the RSS organised a mass campaign for building a grand temple exactly where the Mosque stood. They claimed that the Mosque stood at the precise site where Lord Ram was born. By the time  the fifth and the final suit was filed on July 1, 1989 and all the five suits were transferred to the High court to be tried by a Full Bench by order dated July 10, 1989, the political climate had changed beyond recognition.

Union Home Minister Buta Singh signed an agreement with the VHP on the August 17, 1989, to the effect that bricks for constructing the temple would be allowed to be brought from all over the UP without hindrance and collected at plot No. 586 near the Mosque. This agreement was in violation of an order of the Allahabad High Court dated August 14, 1989 that stated that no construction activity could be taken at that spot.

Later, the VHP announced that ‘kar sewa‘would be performed to lay the foundation stone. This was also a violation of the judgment given two days ago, prohibiting any such activity. This repeated defiance of the orders of the court did not weigh with the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, who inaugurated the campaign of the Congress party the next day from the twin city of Faizabad, and announced, moreover, that the objective of the Congress party was to establish Ram Rajya. Soon thereafter the BJP president Advani at Palampur, after the National Executive Meeting, announced that the inclusion of the construction of the temple in its Election Manifesto “would fetch votes” for it. It would thus appear that the two major political parties were in a race to the finish on this issue.

The race between the two was lost by Rajiv Gandhi and won by L.K. Advani. The next elections were to be held in 1989. The Congress could secure 197 seats only as compared to 404 seats in 1984, and the BJP got 85 seats as compared to only 2 seats in 1984. Thus a non-Congress government came into being in 1989.

The masculine, militaristic, ultra-Hindu nationalism, which is being propagated by the BJP and the Sangh Pariwar, represents a far greater danger to the Indian democracy than the personal authoritarian rule which Mrs. Indira Gandhi imposed on the country. The movement for the construction of a Sri Ram Temple by destroying the Masjid was clearly a movement for encouraging Hindus to humiliate Muslims. The main reason why the Babri Masjid was destroyed on December 6, 1992 was that the Narasimha Rao government at the Centre did not like to take any firm action against the so-called Kar Sewaks because it was reluctant to alienate Hindu votes.

Looking back, we find that the people of this country had an urge to participate in the political process. This was evident in the elections that took place till 1967, and then in 1977. Until this time, a common man could hope to get elected, because until then, electoral politics had not come in the vicious grip of casteism, communalisation and criminalization. It was in 1989, when the fifth suit was filed and all the suits were transferred to the High Court that the poll politics came in the vicious grip of casteism, communalisation and criminalisation.

Ayodhya Judgement 2019

The controversial judgment in the Ayodhya case by the Supreme Court was delivered on November 9, 2019. By now, the Union Home Minister Amit Shah has declared the construction of the temple would be completed by the January 1, 2024. That means that the issue would be used in parliamentary elections as an “achievement” and claim that the grand Ram temple has been built due to their efforts. The BJP thus is still keeping the issue of Babri Masjid alive, but Congress is now out of the race.

The Constitution Bench which decided the Ayodhya case comprised of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Bobde, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice D.Y.Chandrachud. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has been nominated as Rajya Sabha member, Justice S.Abdul Nazeer has been made a Governor within a month of his retirement and Justice Ashok Bhushan is currently the Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

Independence of the Indian Judiciary

The judgment in the NJAC case came on October 16, 2015. Unfortunately, till N.V.Ramanna took over as the Chief justice of India, at least four of his predecessors were perceived as standing with the government, even when the fundamental rights and civil liberties of the people were under attack and dissent was being suppressed under the UAPA and the draconian law of sedition. It was only after Justice Ramanna took charge that some faith in the judiciary was restored. During his tenure, Supreme Court agreed to revisit the sedition law and urged the government to refrain from lodging FIRs under the said laws.

Justice U.U. Lalit, who had a tenure of less than 3 months, made sincere efforts to bring about the much needed reforms in the listing of cases with a view to ensuring that important cases no longer remained on the back burner and were heard expeditiously.  The present Chief justice of India is known for his commitment to Fundamental Rights and Civil Liberties of the people.

A “Committed” Judiciary

The present government had no problems with the Supreme Court so long as it was docile and was by and large toeing its lines. But now fearing a more assertive court, the esrstwhile Union Minister of Law and Justice (Kirin Rijiju) and the Vice President (Dhankar) find the collegium system of appointment of judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court “opaque and not accountable.” The former Law Minister, Kiran Rijiju, has also questioned the court’s order putting the sedition laws in abeyance.

When the Modi government was formed in 2014, they announced that the appointment of judges by the collegium should go. With this objective, the NJAC Act 2014 was enacted. Its validity was challenged.  The Supreme Court declared the NJAC Act and the consequential amendment to the Constitution as unconstitutional on the ground that it was against the judicial independence and thus contrary to the basic features of the Constitution. The Court did what it is ordained to do under the Constitution. Nothing more nothing less.

Most politicians, while in power, are allergic and intolerant to an independent judiciary. It requires a politician to rise to the level of a statesman and a visionary to understand how vital an independent judiciary is to the functioning of a constitutional democracy. Authoritarian regimes want that the judiciary should be executive-minded. Indira Gandhi also wanted to have a committed judiciary. ‘Committed’ here means committed to the executive.

The re-emergence of Indira Gandhi after her authoritarian and personal rule, especially between 1972 to 1977, started after 1979-80 elections when Indira Gandhi defeated the Janata Party in the elections.

Granville Austin in his book ‘Working a Democratic Constitution’wrote  “During January 1980 Justice Bhagwati wrote  ‘Dear Indira ji’  letter to the Prime Minister congratulating her on her election and praised her  ‘iron will…..uncanny insight and dynamic vision, great administrative capacity and…… heart which is identified with the misery of the poor and the weak’. The justice continued that: “  The judicial system in our country is in a state of utter collapse. We should have a fresh and uninhibited look at [it]… and consider what structural and jurisdictional changes are necessary. …….”

The unfinished task of having a ‘committed judiciary’ which Mrs. Gandhi wanted to accomplish during 1971-77 was completed on her re-emergence with the help of the judgment of a constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Bhagwati in the S.P Gupta case. In that case, known as the First Judges case, the Supreme Court appeared virtually to surrender itself to executive power exercised through the President. According to the decision in the First Judge case, under the Constitution the prime responsibility for the appointment of judges was upon the executive, which meant the executive government and opinion of the executive government was to prevail over the views expressed by the Chief Justice of India. The position of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointment of judges was reduced to a nullity. ‘Consultation’ meant little more than passing on information and definitely did not imply consent. The S.P Gupta case judgment was delivered on  December 31, 1981 and it continued to hold the field for about 12 years, up to October 1993, when the judgment in the Second Judges case was given.

Collegium is Supreme

Thanks to the Second Judges case, the Supreme Court, realising the grave error committed in the First Judges case, virtually reversed the judgment in the case holding that the judiciary shall have supremacy in the matter of appointment of judges, and not the executive.

The Third Judges case arose out of a reference made by the President under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution as it was thought that the decision in the Second Judges case created some complications. The questions posed by the President were answered by a unanimous opinion of five Judges of the Supreme Court. (Judgment delivered by Bharucha J). The ultimate effect of the Third Judges case at the end of the day was the substitution of a collegium of five judges instead of three that is to say, the Chief Justice and the next four senior most judges. With these judgments the Congress Party finally gave up the issue of appointment of judges and assertion of the power of the executive.

More recently, under the Modi 2.0 regime, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar   sparked a debate on the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. He criticised the Supreme Court  for using the doctrine of basic structure to strike down the constitutional amendment that introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. On December 7, 2022, in his maiden speech in the Rajya Sabha, Dhankar called the striking down of the NJAC Act a “severe compromise” of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the “mandate of the people”. It is well-known that in the constitutional scheme of things in India, there is no such thing as the parliamentary sovereign’. If at all it is, it is the ‘constitutional sovereignty’, though we often talk of national sovereignty, which is correctly said. The law minister had also written to the Chief Justice of India seeking government representation in the collegium.

The law minister and the vice president questioned the judgment of the Supreme Court which came to be known as the Kesavanand Bharati case. The said judgment was delivered 50 years ago. In this judgment the court has held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it does not have the power to amend its basic structure. It was and is held as one of the finest judgments delivered so far.

Both the erstwhile law minister and the vice president have attacked the basic structure doctrine not only to challenge the NJAC case but for more sinister design. The BJP really wants to change the basic structure of the Constitution, The BJP, for example is against the words ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. Although this word was not in the Constitution, as it stood initially, it was inserted in the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act. The BJP does not want that India should remain a secular country. They want that the word ‘secular’ be omitted in the Preamble of the Constitution, facilitating the declaration of India as Hindu state.

It is worthy to note here that Chief Justice Sikri and Justices Shelat, Grover and Khanna had declared secularism as one of the basic features of the Constitution even before the Forty-second Amendment, by which the word ‘secular’ was inserted into the Preamble of the Constitution. That the ‘secular’ nature of the Constitution is one of its basic features has subsequently been emphasised in innumerable cases.

Subsequent to the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court made occasional exploratory searches to identify the basic features of the Constitution. In Kesavananda Bharti case itself, Chief Justice Sikri enumerated what he considered were some of the basic features of the Indian Constitution:

1) supremacy of the Constitution;

2) republican and democratic form of government;

3) secular character of the Constitution;

4) separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary;

5) federal character of the Constitution.

Illustrating the statement that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered, Khanna J, said:

“It would not be competent under the garb of amendment, for instance, to change the democratic government into dictatorship or hereditary monarchy nor would it be permissible to abolish the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The secular character of the State according to which the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion cannot likewise be done away with.”

In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, independence of the judiciary, judicial review, and separation of powers were held to be the basic features of the Constitution.  This was reiterated in Subhash Sharma v Union of India, by a seven-judge Bench.

India 2023

Now let us discuss the present political scenario. The present political parties have no will or capability to think beyond the centralised system of governance. They are incapable to maintain the integrity of the Constitution and its secular character, and their calculated political actions towards weakening the key democratic institutions are ruinous.

I suggest a new civic movement must emerge with the aim of defending the Constitution and democratic institutions. Human rights defenders, activists and the people, who respect the Constitution should come to gather to fight to secure it.

A people’s movement should be developed on a non-party basis against the present government’s anti-constitutional policies, tactics, governance, ultra-Hindu nationalism of which is the main tool. And it can be done. Such endeavours have already started in the country. Bharat Jodo Abhiyan is one of them.

A large number of persons, who are in the non-government organisations  (NGOs), and who believe in democracy and secularism, and who are determined that India must never turn a theocratic or semi-democratic state, have  joined the Bharat Jodo Abhiyan. A few of such persons are:  Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan, Admiral Ram Das, Ram Puniyani, Medha  Patkar, Amol Palekar, Irfan Engineer, Nikhil Ray, P.V.  Rajagopal, Pooja Bhatt, Sunilam, Gauhar Raza, Shabnam Hashmi, Professor Anand Kumar,  Kumar Prashant, Prof. Shekhar Pathak, Kavita Srivastava, Ajit Bhuian,  Manoj Kumar Jha, Prahlad Tipania, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Rajeev Dhyani, Bhanwar Meghwanshi, Dr Subhash , Surendra Pal Singh, Ramchandra Rahi, T.M. Krishna,  Roop  Rekha Verma, S.P. Kumar and  Justice Kolse  Patil.

It is timely now that we talk a bit of Rahul Gandhi, who has of now generated some hopes and expectations for the better of the Indian democratic scenario and who is for  long unleashing unrelenting attacks on the ultra-nationalism, crony capitalism, and who is delivering hammer-blows to the Indian government’s  present fascistic policies, tactics and aims.

Rahul Gandhi was only 20 years of age when his father Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in 1991. He came into active politics sometime in 2004 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister of the NDA government. In 2004 elections nobody expected that NDA would not return to power.  A significant political scenario emerged after the Lok Sabha elections of 2004. After years of sheer disgust and frustration with the system, which the Indian polity had remained plagued with, the unexpected poll   results had revealed that the voters had finally delivered a hard blow to the high profile politics, based on emotive communal divide, which had literally dumped the basic issues into the dustbin of electoral politics.

Rahul Gandhi had just entered the politics when his mother, Mrs Sonia Gandhi in 2004,  delivered a master stroke, either guided by strategic reasons or out of  a sense of sacrifice, when she refused to become Prime minister of India and instead nominated Dr Manmohan Singh as the prime minister. During the prime minister ship of Dr Manmohan Singh there were large-scale violations of human rights. In 2009 drastic amendments in the UAPA were made under which human rights activists remained in jails for a long period of time. Rahul Gandhi did not join the government after the Lok Sabha elections of 2004 and 2009.

In the 2014 and 2019 elections, the Modi government remained in power. During this period, there was virtually no opposition in the Lok Sabha. A group of senior Congress leaders, known as G-23, weakened the Congress further. The situation resulted in Rahul Gandhi and his mother remaining as the main leaders of the Congress.  Unlike his father Rajiv Gandhi, who was sworn in as the Prime Minister on the death of his mother Smt. Indira Gandhi for a short period of a month but who, in the general elections that followed (December 1984), enjoyed a clean sweep.

Unlike his father, Rajiv, Rahul Gandhi has had to compulsorily remain in politics and he has consistently kept raising people’s issues as the Leader of Opposition.  For 2024 elections it became necessary for him to have the Bharat Jodo Yatra. The aim of this yatra was to unite India and come together to strengthen our nation.

The yatra began on the September 7, 2022, from Kanyakumari to Jammu and Kashmir spanning a distance of 4000 kms over the course of about 136 days. The yatra received an overwhelming response: lakhs of people have joined the yatra to raise their voice against the economic, political, social issues that are afflicting our nation today. The yatra sought to address rampant unemployment and inflation, politics of hate and division, and over centralisation of our political system.

People from all walks of life came together to be a part of this historical movement. After Bharat Jodo Yatra a Bharat Jodo Abhiyan has been launched on the 6th February 2023 in which about 600 people participated came from around the whole country.

The draft resolution for National Convention of Bharat Jodo Abhiyan says:

“Today We the People of India embark upon a mission, a seven year long journey, to defend the future of India. Today we launch a movement, the Bharat Jodo Abhiyan, that can reclaim our republic, renew our Constitutional values, rescue our democratic institutions and rekindle the spirit of our freedom struggle. A movement of resistance to the unfolding assault on our Constitution, our nationalism, our civilization – indeed, the very idea of India. A movement of national reconstruction that extends its horizon from helping political change to fostering socio-cultural change and indeed combating climate change, that offers a credible hope to secure the constitutional promise of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity for every Indian.

“We are a group of citizens who have worked with various peoples movements, voluntary organisations and political formations. Many of us have participated in the historic Bharat Jodo Yatra from Kanyakumari to Srinagar, from despondency to optimism, from keeping quiet to expressing ourselves, from finger pointing to taking personal responsibility and from apolitical stances to explicit assertion of our political role as citizens. The unprecedented success of this yatra places an extraordinary responsibility on everyone who shared this journey with their body, mind or soul. We launch Bharat Jodo Abhiyan to fulfill this responsibility, to exercise our right to protect our hard won freedom and to discharge our sacred duty to defend our Constitution.”

It seems to me, nay,  my belief  is, that the menace that is hovering over our Constitution is very real, and very serious, and ignoring the same would tantamount to ignoring the imminent dangerous changes that may be effected not long before in India’s civilisation and cultural fabric and firmament.

In these circumstances, the immediate role, and response of, “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA”, would decide at the end of the day whether we survive as a secular, federal, republican nation? Only our response to the situation would determine whether the gains and achievements that we earned through thousands of years of continual struggles and odyssey survives or are destroyed.

(The author is a senior advocate and national president of People’s Union for Civil Liberties- PUCL)

The post Serious times, grave challenges: India 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The book, Wages of Impunity: Power. Justice and Human Rights, a collection essays written by the late K.G Kannabiran, a renowned Human Rights lawyer- points out the importance of values enshrined in the constitution and how they do not see better implementation on the ground. For this, he argues that the reason is the impunity which has been accorded to people and institutions which do not follow the law. The book’s relevance to this day is both fascinating and truly concerning. To explain this statement, I will take the help of some themes that recur in the book.

The author argues that India has a culture of impunity, in which state violence is sanctioned by law and there is little judicial oversight. He believes this culture of impunity has been sustained by a disconnect between the lofty principles of the Constitution and their implementation on the ground, as well as the uncritical acceptance of colonial traditions and jurisprudence. He argues that these factors have led to the weakening of rights-based jurisprudence in India.

The arguments in the book are based on author’s experience as a human rights lawyer and activist. He has seen firsthand how the culture of impunity has allowed state violence to go unchecked, and he believes that it is a major obstacle to the realization of human rights in India.

There are some common themes that the book deals with. One is how the individual rights with respect to personal liberty always took a back seat, in interpretations by Judiciary -especially until the 1970s- and how the individual rights related to property were given due importance- an anomaly when seen within the matrix of constitutional values. Kannabiran calls this the honouring of a Colonial Legacy, another theme within the book. This reference of Colonial Legacy becomes important in his book when we look for reasons as to why the frameworks on civil liberties have remained much in the same previous place as they were, despite a liberal and empowering Constitution. The book states “policies of the government of the day are forever being equated with national interests, an equation that ignores or overrides every Constitutional principle assuring limited government.” The relevance of this statement stands true today, 16 years after the publishing of this book. The recent law commission’s report that recommended for more power to the Section 124A-Sedition is an example of the carrying forward of colonial practices.

Another theme that the book imbibes is the theme of anti-communalism and a secular stand. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgement in SR Bommai vs. Union of India, 1994 in which the apex court declared Secularism to be a part of Basic Structure of Constitution, the author questions the legitimacy of anti-secular parties to be eligible to govern the country. Professing theocratic principles or propounding the Hindu religion as the ruling religion of the state, he declares, disentitles these parties from continuing in power.

In another chapter, dealing with the 2002 Gujarat Violence, the author makes an important statement. He says, “A formal compliance with the law, a routine engagement with justice will not keep justice alive.”

He adds that, as emphasized in the Constitution, Justice- Economic, Political and Social- should inform all institutions of state. What this presents is that the fight for justice is not restricted to Court or such legal institutions but in empowering all institutions of the state and society to be just. References to gods in elections by leaders and asking for votes in their name is just a small and recent example of the way communalism has found its way into mainstream politics and solidified its place.

Another important theme in the book, for which he is most known in the Telugu states is his opposition to extra-judicial killings, and the impunity with which the police is protected. Describing an encounter of two people in Andhra Pradesh in which one person was not at all connected in any way to the case of other – in which the police demonstrably acted without legal restraint – the author states “The political objective (not translated into law) of rooting out extremism seems to have been sufficient justification for acting beyond the limits of the law.” This statement is rich in terms of relevance again. Today, a majoritarian political objective professed and advocated by the ruling establishment- finds strength to take law into its hands. Going a step beyond, the political objective is not being fulfilled by the state but by the fringe elements like the anti-cow slaughter groups which have a militant character-with impunity.

It is hard, when you re-visit this book, not find recent examples of all themes the author explores in his essays. It is not a pleasant task to find and locate such examples and their prevalence.

Should you read the book? Yes. Not only does it deal with themes, but there is also an underlying thread that runs through almost all his essays- an unwavering faith in Constitutional values and his fight for such values to be upheld. And, apart from the themes, the books present a peek into Kannabiran’s life of defending the rights of those people who would find themselves at the mercy of a criminal justice system designed to oppress them.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

A question of justice

Nothing But Genocide, Gujarat 2002

The post Wages of Impunity: a book by KG Kannabiran that gains a chilling relevance with each passing day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I wish you all purposeful days ahead. 2020 is here and we hope forces of social justice, secularism, pluralism, democracy, socialism, with deep respect to individual autonomy, will join hands, without attempting to become ‘great leaders’ but in a collective spirit. The past one decade has seen how over-ambitious, crooked forces joined hand in the name of corruption and ended up actually handing over the country on a platter to the Hindutva forces. The anti-corruption plank is the easiest and the best way for the religious right to get legitimacy.

While we must protest against all the draconian laws, and in particularly the attempt to filter out Muslims in the NRC or NPR processes, these protests that we are witnessing today, all over the country, also give us hope that India’s young want to do away with the divisive forces and work for an India which is as per the ideals of our constitutional forefathers, as defined in our Constitution. Baba Saheb Ambedkar has emerged as a mass hero of the youth of India It is not as if he was not a mass hero already. More than 20 crore Indians already considered him as their icon but it is heartening to see now that he has been embraced by the ‘others’ too. It is great as embracing Dr Ambedkar’s revolutionary ideals will give us freedom from the age-old chains of the varnashram dharma. It may also be possible that all those who hold Dr Ambedkar’s poster do not know much about him except as the Father of India’s Constitution. I would advise friends to read him and you will find, refreshingly, a freedom waiting for you. You will get liberated. You will be able to understand what ails India.

The fact is that whenever movements emerge, most of them address the immediate needs of the people and avoid ‘controversial’ issues. We need to be careful because if we continue like this, we will not be able to fight against the powerful.

During Anna’s period, we saw a huge number of ‘civil society activists’, who were visible on TV as well as elsewhere, attempted to create an ‘alternative’ and ended up in strengthening the Sangh Parivar immensely. At the moment, the country is really in a crisis and we need to democratise and secularise the political parties. Respect the diversity of these political parties and focus on alliance building. The civil society leaders must compel the political parties to democratise themselves. Movements, discourse, opinions, all of these will help us to build the environment for that.

The last decade saw the growth of fundamentalists and hate-mongers. How can we defeat them in this decade? With short term goals, where people fight each other for ‘position’ and entry on the stage? Can we really put the fight against caste discrimination and untouchability at the center of our ‘revolution’? Baba Saheb is my hero not because there is a Constitution but because he identified and remedied the alternative to brahmanism. Will we rise up and speak the truth?

Fact of the matter is that growth of the religious right the world over is due to the fear of the success of the marginalised, immigrants and minorities. In India, the brahmanical forces are really afraid of the growth and success of the Ambedkarites and other shudra communities. They want to put a full stop to it, not allow children from the marginalised communities into schools and institutions of higher education. Destroy public institutions and universities so that education remains in the hands of the brahman-bania elite. And for this, they want to keep the poor continuously on their toes so that they do not have time to stand up and concentrate on other things. From what we have already seen, the manner in which the state is ‘asserting’ its power in our private domain and individual things, it is clear that in the name of ‘digitalisation’, an attempt is being made to control our lives and make us totally depended on state. But, more than that, it will be an easier tool to harass and humiliate the dissenters and the religious minorities.

Everyone says we must fight against hatred, but how? First, the reason behind this hatred in India has to be diagnosed. Any serious reader of India’s social system can tell us that as the number of Dalit-OBC-Adivasi students were growing in the higher education, it became a threat. And that needed to be curtailed and controlled, because these segments were most assertive and proud on the legacies of Ambedkar, Phule, Birsa, Periyar. Hence, they became a ‘threat’. Muslims, too, understood well, that their future lay with this segment and not with India’s brahmanical elite, which come to them as ‘patron’ and gave themselves the ‘satisfaction’ of promoting their great faith of ‘Vasudhaiv kutumbkam’, but did not have the largeness of heart to give space to the 80% of the population, which they claim is Hindus but whom we call Bahujans. Political battles will be, and should be, fought by political parties and it is our duty to ensure they have a fair representation of India’s diverse sections. It is our duty to ask for fair representation in all sectors of power, including India’s police, paramilitary and armed forces. Our diversity must be reflected at all levels. Social movements must continue to focus on anti-caste agenda at the top, respecting the autonomy of the Adivasi life and livelihood, providing access to natural resources to Dalits and other marginalised communities. These resources, these days, are being handed over to a few cronies and social movements must oppose privatisation of public resources and call for a complete land and agrarian reform in India. You cannot democratise India unless you democratise our villages, and it is not possible if social conditions do not change there or power equations remain the same. Let political parties promise to do fair distribution of village land, implement the land laws honestly, get the Forest Rights Act implemented fairly and do not sell our water to profit making companies. The issues are bigger but let us not allow our natural resources to be grabbed by a few corporate cronies. Let us not allow our beautiful environment and life style to be damaged by cronies in the name of ‘development’.

In the end, I would advise friends to protect themselves from the temptation of ‘being in the news’. Those who are not in print or air work, too, and it does not mean all those who are giving their ‘expert advice’ on air are the best and only ones.

The best thing of the decade was the complete expose of the electronic media. Promoted by Babas and real estate agent, and now the party in power, most of these channels became a threat to the very idea of India. While I am happy that most of the people understand this, they still have the power to destroy, so it is still important to fight against this propaganda unleashed by such crooked corporate slaves, who are enjoying their ‘slavery’ by abusing others who disagree with the powers that be.

Let us connect, share and continue our struggle to democratise our society and fight to protect the rights of all the citizens of the country, irrespective of their identities. Let us hope that this new decade will bring all the people together, to strengthen our Constitution and build a strong, united, secular, republic of India.

RELATED ARTICLES :

1. NAPM releases report on state repression of protestors in UP

2. Up in Arms: A look at protests that rocked India in 2019

3. Police Force sans Diversity: Poor rep of SCs, STs, Women, OBCs, Muslims Invisibilized

4. ‘An Act of Mass Surveillance’: India Use of Facial Recognition Tech Against Protesters Angers Privacy Advocates

5. ‘Bloody Sunday 2019’- PUDR releases report on Jamia police brutalities

The post Let Us Strengthen the Idea of India and Defend Our Secular Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many well-meaning liberal and secular political analysts are highly perturbed by the brazen sectarian policy decisions of RSS/BJP rulers led by PM Modi specially after starting his second innings.

They are vocal in red-flagging the policies of Modi government on Kashmir, national citizens registry (NRC), murder of constitutional norms in Goa, Karnataka and now in Maharashtra, lynching, Pragya Thakur (first getting her elected to Lok Sabha and then nominating her to high powered 21-MP House Panel on Defence) who is an accused Malegaon Blast case, worships Godse, killer of MK Gandhi as hero and publically stated that it was her curse due to which renowned decorated cop Hemant Karkare  was killed. Shockingly, Hemant was killed by the Pakistani terrorists when former was confronting these heavily armed terrorists on November 26, 2008.

They are greatly mistaken. In fact, it is failure of such friends to understand the real anti-national character of the RSS that India has been taken to such an impasse; on the verge of losing its democratic-secular identity. The belief that RSS cadres gracing the constitutional posts would influence them to be secular or inspire them to get used to practice democratic norms is futile with this lot’s diehard commitment to the cause of Hindutva. The fast-forward demolition of the democratic-secular polity of India which is taking place is neither new nor unexpected. Modi as CM of Gujarat while talking to Reuters (July 12, 2013) had declared himself to be ‘a Hindu nationalist’, the RSS top brass declaring again and again that India is a land for Hindus and by 2020-21 it would be Hindu rashtra with Muslims and Christians cleansed from the land, Indian nationality tied to worshipping of cow and open declaration of the Cabinet ministers that western concepts like secularism would be replaced by the principles of Hindutva.

It was less than one year after crowning of Modi as PM in 2014, one of the most decorated police officers in Independent India Julio Ribeiro wrote in an emotional piece,

“Today, in my 86th year, I feel threatened, not wanted, reduced to a stranger in my own country… I am not an Indian anymore, at least in the eyes of the proponents of the Hindu Rashtra. Is it coincidence or a well-thought-out plan that the systematic targeting of a small and peaceful community should begin only after the BJP government of Narendra Modi came to power last May? ‘Ghar wapsi’, the declaration of Christmas as ‘Good Governance Day’, the attack on Christian churches and schools in Delhi, all added to a sense of siege that now afflicts these peaceful people…It is tragic that these extremists have been emboldened beyond permissible limits by an atmosphere of hate and distrust. The Christian population, a mere 2 per cent of the total populace, has been subjected to a series of well-directed body blows. If these extremists later turn their attention to Muslims, which seems to be their goal, they will invite consequences that this writer dreads to imagine.”

We should not fail to understand that whatever is being done by the RSS/BJP rulers to destroy the present Indian polity is part of a well-thought strategy to convert India into a theocratic and totalitarian state as per the diktats of the Hindutva idea of India. It has not been a hidden agenda of RSS except that we have been foolishly unaware of it. When the Constituent Assembly of India had finalized the Constitution of India RSS was not happy. Its organ, Organizer, 4 days after this historical event, in an editorial on November 30, 1949,complained,
 

“But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that meansnothing.”

How loyal the RSS is to the Constitution of India can be known by thefollowing statement of Golwalkar which is being reproduced from Bunch of Thoughtswhich is not only a selection of the writings of Golwalkar but also a Bible for the RSS cadres.

“Our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various Constitutions of Western countries. It has absolutely nothing which can be called our own. Is there a single word of reference in its guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our keynote in life is? No.”

[MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 238.]

What kind of civilization the RSS wants to build by enforcing the laws of Manu, can be known by having a glimpse of the laws prescribed by Manu for the Dalits/Untouchables and women. Some of these dehumanizing and degenerate laws, which are presented here, are self-explanatory.

LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING DALITS/UNTOUCHABLES.

1. For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and hisfeet.

2. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) threecastes.

3. Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of loworigin.

4. If he mentions the names and castes (jati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into hismouth.

5. If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into hisears.

6. With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching ofManu.

7. He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cutoff.

(8) A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.
 

LAWS OF MANU CONCRNING WOMEN

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families),and,if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments,they must bekept under one’s control.

talk of a federal structure of our country’s Constitution, to sweep away the existence of all ‘autonomous’ or semi-autonomous ‘states’ within the one state viz., Bharat and proclaim ‘One Country, One State, One Legislature, One Executive’ with no trace of fragmentational, regional, sectarian, linguistic or other types of pride being given a scope for playing havoc with our integrated harmony. Let the Constitution be re-examined and re-drafted, so as to establish this Unitary form of Government and thus effectively disprove the mischievous propaganda indulged in by the British and so unwittingly imbibed by the present leaders, about our being just a juxtaposition of so many distinct ‘ethnic groups’ or ‘nationalities’ happening to live side by side and grouped together by the accident of geographical contiguity and one uniform supreme foreigndomination.

[MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 227.]

Thus, RSS represents the most lethal danger to the existence of democratic-secular Indian Constitution handed over to the nation by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 2019. If our Constitution is to be saved the anti-national RSS and its ideology must be confronted in Parliament, judicial rooms, corridors of administration, educational institutions and outside. We should not overlook the fact that with RSS around India does not need any foreign enemy to undo democratic-secular India, the former has to be thoroughly exposed and defeated.

Link for some of S. Islam’s writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:

http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam

Facebook: shamsul

Twitter: @shamsforjustice

http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/

Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com

The post Demolition of democratic, secular Constitution, old project of Hindutva gang appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In January 2018, four top Supreme Court Judges in a surprise move, held a press conference declaring that ” Democracy is at stake, and we have a debt to the nation.” Justice Ranjan Gogoi, as he then was, had also remarked that, “independent judges and noisy journalists are democracy’s first line of defence”. Three of these judges have retired  as judges, over a year ago. The fourth became chief justice of India (CJI) on October 3, 2018. On the evening of November 25, 2018, in an unprecedented move, the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi had tea with the CJI at his Court room number 1, within the Supreme Court. The CJI quickly reconstituted the five-judge bench hearing the Ayodhya case, proceeded to hear it on a day-to-day basis and pronounced an un-signed judgment on November 9, 2019  just a week before demitting office. The CJI also led the benches which dismissed the challenges to the Rafael deal, the executive’s interference in the highest echelons of the CBI, ensured the completion of the arbitrary and discriminatory NRC exercise in Assam within a set time-frame and upturned the earlier majority Sabarimala judgment allowing younger Hindu women to enter the Kerala temple, by permitting review of the verdict by a bigger bench. In the process he compromised the independence of the judiciary and lowered the dignity and prestige of the highest Court.  After the Ayodhya verdict, what can we now say about the future of our democracy?

The demolition on August 10, 2019, of the Sant Ravidas Temple – a symbol of Dalit faith in North India – for land encroachment, on directions of the Supreme Court was a brazen and clear violation of the freedom of religion as laid down by the Constitution of India. The same Supreme Court on November 9, 2019 directed the Central Government, on grounds of faith and not fact, to construct the Ram Temple at Ayodhya at the site of the demolished Babri Masjid, even after holding that the placing of the idol Ram Lalla in 1949 inside the mosque was illegal and its demolition in December 1992 was an “egregious violation of the rule of law”.

A careful reading of the 1045 – page long judgment brings out the deep inconsistency between what is professed and what is practiced. The judgment talks about the equality of religion and equality before the law as enshrined in the Constitution, but has clearly leaned on the side of the majority. As the BBC reported, loud chants of “Jai Shree Ram”(“Hail Lord Rama”) and “Mandir Wahin Banayenge” (“We shall construct theTemple at the very spot where Lord Rama was born “) rent the air in the precincts of the Supreme Court, as the Ayodhya verdict was being read out.

While holding that “the dispute is over immoveable property” and ” the court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence”, the Court ultimately decided the title dispute in favour of majoritarian forces and against the minority, contrary to all available evidence.  The Court also ruled that a) ASI found the Masjid was built above a structure but it could not be said to be a temple; b) the Masjid was not built after demolishing a temple; c) the placement of the deity Ram Lalla inside the Masjid in 1949 was illegal; and d) the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was a clear violation of the rule of law. The Court has nevertheless awarded the ownership of the disputed site to a juristic person, baby Ram Lalla, on the ground of continued line of worship at the outer and inner courtyard and directed the Central Government to form a Trust to construct the Ram Temple. There is no evidence before the Court that a historical person called Ram ever existed, that Lord Rama was born there or that a Ram Mandir ever existed on the site.  

Even while paying lip service to the premise that ” at the heart of the Constitution is a commitment to equality upheld and enforced by the rule of law”, the judgement has denied the aggrieved party the Sunni Wakf Board its claim to the site after its palpably visible dispossession, because of its inability to provide evidence of continued  possession. The Court has also held that there is no evidence that Muslims have abandoned the inner courtyard.  The judgment is indeed a classic case of a ” bundle of contradictions”, as by yet another somersault, the Court has decided to provide the Sunni Wakf Board a suitable 5-acre land in Ayodhya away from the disputed site for construction of a Mosque. This appears to be a case of compensation or rather reparation for the act of desecration in 1949 and demolition of the Babri mosque on December 6, 1992.

The judgment is replete with errors apparent on the face of the record. The biggest error is that the Ayodhya  ‘judgment’ is unsigned, which under Order XX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 makes it non est or no judgment whatsoever in the eyes of law. Even the Addendum to the judgment as to whether the disputed structure is actually the birth place of Lord Rama, is unsigned and the name of its author undisclosed. Yet another basic or structural error apparent on the face of the record, is that even while swearing by the Constitution, the judgment violates the secular character of the Constitution as reflected in its very Preamble by identifying the parties as ‘Hindu’ or ‘Muslim’. The judgment also assigns to the Central Government the pivotal role of construction of the Ram Temple which the State is prohibited from doing under a secular Constitution.  

The judgment also violates the rule of equality before the law by using the legal procedures and rules of evidence in a discriminatory manner. The rule of evidence followed in deciding the title of Baby Ram Lalla over the disputed site is the “preponderance of probabilities”, which is a rule more subjective than objective. However, the evidence  demanded from the Waqf Board was the proof of continued physical possession which is more objective, even though the Bench admittedly never doubted the existence of the mosque and continuance of Namaz.

Even on the law of limitation, the judgment clearly discriminates. The suit of Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination, was dismissed on the grounds that it is not a juristic person and the suit was time barred. On the other hand, Ram Lalla was illegally placed inside the Mosque in 1949 and the suit was instituted in 1989 beyond the 30-year period of limitation. The judgment does not clarify this issue except to say that the suit on behalf of Ram Lalla is maintainable. It may be because Ram Lalla as a figurative character is depicted as a Baby or minor and there is no limitation for a minor. However, no method of determination of the age of a stone idol, considered as a juristic person, is available in the jurisprudential literature.           

The question then arises: Did the Supreme Court through its Ayodhya verdict, by implication, unwittingly declare India as a majoritarian, theocratic State? Is this a Hindu Rashtra? Is this the culmination of the movement for Hindutva defined as ‘Hindu Rashtra’  since the early 1920s, with personalities like Hedgewar, Savarkar and Golwalkar as its leading figures, and particularly since the formation in Nagpur in September 1925, of the voluntary body of the Hindutva forces, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or the RSS in short ? My simple answer is:  not yet, in the face of an emergent counter-force of a bold, vibrant, vigilant rainbow-like civil society in defence of secularism, human rights and democracy.

The Sunni Wakf Board and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) were quick to reject the offer of the Ayodhya bench of 5-acres of alternative land for construction of a new mosque, because Hanafi law does not allow it. The AIMPLB has also decided to file a Review petition, but the Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities has cautioned against such a move. The verdict was immediately followed by the formation in Chennai of a forty-body strong “anti-fascist coalition” to   oppose it. Recently, the Deoband-based umbrella body “United against Hate” organised a joint protest against disappearances, mob-lynching and the killing of rationalists.  Every day there are protests by democratic forces in different parts of the country, for example, J.N.U. students valiantly carry on their fight against unchecked hostel fee hike; various organizations have come together to oppose the NRC (National Register of Citizens) in Assam, West Bengal and other States. Women, Dalits (particularly followers of Sant Ravidas), Tribals, forest dwellers, OBCs, farmers, trade unions and intellectuals are organising protests on a continuous basis, against the anti-people policies of the government.

Under these circumstances, with a growing civil society determined not to submit to the repressive, communal and divisive policies of the government, it is well-nigh impossible for a Hindu Rashtra or a fascist state to takeover this beautiful, “unity in diversity”, secular, democratic country called India.

The author is advocate, Supreme Court of India and can be contacted at g_aurobindo@yahoo.com)

The post India is not quite yet a Hindu Rashtra: 70th Constitution Day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Exactly, seventy years ago on November 26, 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted and gave to “we, the people” a landmark Constitution. ‘The Constitution of India’ is the sacred book of every Indian citizen; it is a bulwark of fundamental rights and directive principles, which are a prerequisite for any healthy democracy. The Preamble, with its emphasis on justice, liberty, equality and fraternity and its commitment to India being and remaining a “sovereign socialist secular democratic republic” spells out the vision and the intrinsic character of the Constitution. The Constitution of India with its minute details is undoubtedly a unique one. Thanks to the vision of women and men of the Constituent Assembly, we can take genuine pride in a Constitution which is forward-looking and all-embracing and which respects the pluralistic fabric of the country.

Today, after several years of having and being guided by a masterpiece, unbelievable events have been unfolding in India. The past five years (up to May 2019) have seen several of them; and ever since, this regime seized the reins of power for a second term (after, what is believed by many, a fraudulent election), a sizeable section of the population is simply dumbstruck. The one question that most thinking citizens of India are asking today is, “have we really done away with our Constitution?”

What took place in the Raj Bhavan of Maharashtra in the wee hours of Saturday 23, November 2019, provides a clear answer: “yes, we seem to have done away with the Constitution!” How else can one explain the way, the President threw all Constitutional propriety to the wind and revoked without a Cabinet meeting and a resolution, ‘President’s rule’ in Maharashtra. In a matter of time, the Governor of the State swore in a usurper as the next Chief Minister of the State. How does one explain this ‘tearing and unprecedented hurry’ – even if there are some so-called legitimate provisions in extreme cases? The support for this nefarious act came from a turn-coat of the NCP, who has several cases of corruption against him, and with a commitment by the Maharashtra CM, to put in jail! (strangely, in just about twenty-four hours, the State’s Anti-Corruption Bureau “closes” the corruption cases against him). The  Maharashtra case came up in the Supreme Court on Monday, and on expected lines, the highest Court of the land does not think that it is in their own interest and impartiality, that they should at least have restrained the ‘impostor’ CM from functioning, until one or the other combines proves its majority on the floor of the house.

So, if the President, the Governor and even the judiciary, are not serious about Constitutional basics, to whom do “we the people” go to? It is not that one did not see or read the writing on the wall. It has been coming slowly but surely. There are several instances when the spirit and letter of the Constitution has not been adhered too. But this most recent out of Maharashtra is on several counts, the proverbial “last straw”.  The moot question, we need to ask ourselves at this juncture do we have the courage to stop the fascists who are not merely tearing the Constitution to shreds, but are doing all they can to destroy the very idea of India and its pluralistic fabric.

The National Register of Citizens (NRC), as announced by Union Home Minister, is again blatantly violative of the Constitution. The NRC together with the ‘Citizenship Amendment Bill’, assuring citizenship to all undocumented persons except those of Muslim faith, risks tearing the country apart, reopening the wounds of Partition, and ultimately destroying the secular and democratic tenets of the Constitution. The country today stands at the brink of catastrophic human suffering and injustice, if the government as it plans to do, begins implementing it nation-wide.

Many subtle and direct efforts are being made to tamper with the Constitution, to negate its essence and even to delete core dimensions like the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialism’ which are deeply interwoven into the pluralistic fabric of Indian society. The current BJP/RSS combine, including some of their ministers and leading functionaries have often gone on record saying that once they have the pre-requisite numbers in Parliament, they will have no qualms of conscience to change fundamentals of the Constitution like that of ‘secularism’ and equal rights for all. There are consistent proclamations for the establishment of a ‘Hindu State’ by 2020; the annihilation of the minorities particularly the Muslims and Christians; ‘lynching’ of minorities is the ‘new normal’. There is talk of a ‘Common Civil Code’, of a national anti-conversion law and of abrogating the rights of minorities.

In October 2018, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling to allow young women entry into the Sabrimala Temple, the BJP national president Amit Shah not merely questioned the judgement but in fact defended the practice of keeping women out. The ‘spirit’ of what Amit Shah said is practiced in toto: even in this year’s pilgrimage his writ ran large and no women below a certain age were being allowed. The Supreme Court judgement on ‘Ayodhya’ is certainly skewed pandering to the sentiments of the Hindutva regime.

Writing on the recent developments in Kashmir, (‘Business Standard’Nov.18, 2019) Bharat Bhushan says, “The revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, dividing it into two centrally governed provinces and the military clamp down have tipped the balance against the Modi regime. The world can see that the asymmetric federalism which was the basis of the Indian Union’s strength has been junked for a unitary vision. The government’s and pliant media’s celebration of “normalcy” in Kashmir Valley is nothing but self-deluding propaganda. The fact is that the international community is perturbed with the developments in Kashmir, especially the communication restrictions and the continued incarceration of the state’s political leadership”.

In several key cases, the judiciary, seems to be abdicating its fundamental responsibility of safeguarding the Constitution. There have been some landmark judgements. In January 2018, four seniors most judges of the Supreme Court (including Justice Ranjan Gogoi, the recently retired Chief Justice of India) held an unprecedented Press Conference asserting that unless things are set in order and that the Government stops interfering in the judiciary, “democracy will not survive in the country!” That the Government has been interfering in the working of the judiciary is without doubt. Bhushan adds, “The rule of law and impartial judiciary that India prided itself on have also come under question. In a stinging indictment, The Washington Post in a recent report remarked that “BJP partisans increasingly dominate the courts.” This has been evident to Indians for quite some time. One only has to glance at the global media headlines on the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict to fathom how the Indian judiciary is being viewed”.

The regime has spared no efforts to destroy the independence and the autonomous functioning of several Constitutional and statutory bodies. The Election Commission of India is today obviously a pawn. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED)have become ‘caged parrots. The Reserve Banking of India (RBI) is browbeaten to bend backwards to cater to the whims and fancies of a Government that has sent the country into an economic spiral downwards! Media, the fourth pillar of a vibrant democracy, has been made impotent. Only a handful of those in the electronic and print media will dare take on the Government today. Other important bodies, like the Information Commission, have been made toothless and filled with their pliable henchmen!

Seventy years ago, when giving us the Constitution Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the father of our Constituent Assembly said, “Will history repeat itself? It is this thought, which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realisation of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds, we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or above their country? I do not know, but this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost forever. This eventuality we all must resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood!” and he went on to conclude,  “If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better”.

Words of wisdom and very prophetic indeed! Today, on ‘Constitution Day’, as we remember our freedom fighters and the founding fathers of our nation, we need to resolve that we will do all we can to fight the fascist and fundamental forces that are today destroying the sanctity of our Constitution. In a show of hollowness and hypocrisy, they will attempt to clothe their vile acts with empty platitudes, in farcical ceremonies today. However, for us, “we the people of India”, enough is enough! We will stop taking things lying down; the Constitution is sacred to us and in the words of Ambedkar “we are determined to defend it with the last drop of our blood!

November 26, 2019

Constitution Day 2019

(The author is a human rights & peace activist/writer available at cedricprakash@gmail.com)

The post “Have we really done away with our Constitution?” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On 26 January, 1950, the constitution of India came into effect. The Constitution, drafted by a committee led by Dr B R Ambedkar, provided every Indian citizen with six fundamental rights—the right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and the right to constitutional remedies. Today, however, inequality and discrimination mark the state of our nation with the Modi government failing to let people exercise their basic fundamenal rights.

On 70th Republic Day, the Indian Cultural Forum brings back from it archives, times the current government has failed to uphold the Constitution of India.

Right to Equality

Sabarimala
The Article (15) of the Indian constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Yet, the nation witnessed a significant social and political churning on the question of temple entry at the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala. The verdict of the five-judge constitution bench on 28^th September 2018, granting women between the ages of ten and fifty the right to enter the shrine, has set the stage for a direct confrontation between contrary worldviews and social currents. Ranged on one side are defenders of the status quo who see the entry of women of menstrual age into Sabarimala as an assault on their traditions and religion. These champions of orthodoxy include the high priests of the temple, the erstwhile Pandalam royal family, upper caste organisations like the Nair Service Society, and hardline outfits like the Ayyappa Dharma Sena which have the direct backing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Opposed to these forces are a range of progressive organisations and movements which view the Sabarimala issue as a question of gender justice. They seek to use the Supreme Court judgment to advance the struggle against social prejudice and patriarchal mindsets. In this they have received the active support of the Left-led state government. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his speech in Kerala, referred the Kerala government’s effort to implement the SC judgement as “Kerala government’s conduct on Sabarimala issue is the most shameful.” So far, after relentless effort only two women succeeded in entering the temple premise, although the Kerala government claims fifty one women of menstruating age entered the temple after the Supreme Court verdict. 

 
Right to Freedom

Writers and Film-makers return their Award
Soon after the Modi government came into power in 2014, the first attack was on freedom of speech. The attack on curbing of freedom of expression began with the murder of Govind Pansare (2015), MM Kalburgi (2015) and Gauri Lankesh (2017). Even today, the “unknown assailants” of Narendra Dhabolkar and other three rationalists walk freely and the Indian government has failed to identify and arrest the perpetrators of these crimes.

In 2015, several writers returned their awards and resigned from their positions at the Sahitya Akademi; and issued statements of protest about the encouragement to intolerance between castes and communities. Later, around 25 filmmakers and film professionals, including Saeed Mirza, Kundan Shah, Arundhati Roy, Ranjan Palit, Sanjay Kak, and Pradeep Kishen returned their National Awards at the Press Club in Mumbai in protest of state sponsored violence and aggressive interference in academic and cultural institutions.
 
The Jawaharlal Nehru University Story
Sedition is an archaic and outdated law dating back to the British Raj. The law was enforced to keep in check people partaking in the freedom struggle and who were outspoken against the imperial rule. Countless freedomfighters, including MK Gandhi, were jailed under the law. 
On 2016, February 9, some students from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) organised a cultural evening of poetry reading and poster presentation called “The Country Without a Post Office”, inside the university premises, to protest against “extra judicial killing.” The meeting was organised by a group of ten students including Umar Khalid and Anirban Battacharya. The event, however, was disrupted by members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The ABVP termed the event, and the students participating in the event, as “anti-national.” There were clashes between the students, which led to police intervention on campus. On 10 February, Kanhaiya Kumar, the JNUSU  President at that time, who was not present at the event, came out in support of the organisers, asserting that they had a right to express dissent within a university space.  On 12 February 2016, Kumar was arrested on charges of sedition from the campus without any warning. The JNU students and teachers received a wide support from all over the world came that defended the right to freedom of expression.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill
Akhil Gogoi, leader of Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti of Assam, was arrested on 13 September 2017 under sedition charges by the BJP government of the state. A total of 122 cases against him were clubbed together under the National Security Act, foreclosing any possibility of judicial redress. The NSA advisory panel of the state approved his detention on 19 November, thereby sealing his incarceration for 12 months at least. Akhil Gogoi has been a vocal critic of the BJP government and was arrested for his address at a meeting against amendments to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 which aims to legalise preferential treatment of citizenship applicants on the basis of religion, and which many people in Assam believe is specifically designed to help Bengali speaking Hindus of the state to legally obtain citizenship, while denying it to Muslims.

In a repeat of the events, the Assam government slapped on Hiren Gohain and others in 2019. Eighty years into his life of scholarly pursuit Professor Gohain, and journalist-activist Manjit Mahanta, were slapped with sedition cases by the Assam government for being present at a protest meeting against the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. They have been given bail by the Guwahati High Court for now.

Sedition on Artists
On April 29 2018, Chhattisgarh Police booked senior journalist and activist Kamal Shukla on sedition charges under Section 124 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. The matter pertains to a cartoon about the Judge Loya case, criticizing the government and judiciary that Shukla shared from his Facebook wall few days ago.

Crackdown on Activists
Last year August, witnessed a crackdown on five human-rights activists including Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Navlakha, Varavara Rao,and Arun Ferreria  by the Pune police. The arrests are part of a clear design to lock down on democratic dissent, undermine free speech and create a climate of fear. Their arrests, as well as the raids on the homes of a total of nine persons in Delhi, Ranchi, Bombay and Hyderabad, plainly intended to persecute dissenters and those critiquing rights violations by governments.

Right against Exploitation

Manual Scavenging
Though the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 prohibits the engagement or employment of persons for manually carrying human excreta and further prohibits the construction or maintenance of dry latrines, manual scavenging still persists in various forms today. This Act also seeks rehabilitation of manual scavengers by providing them with alternative employment. Yet the government today deny even the existence of the profession in toto. In September 2018 eleven manual scavengers death were reported from across the country. These include five deaths which took place on a single day in the National Capital Region of Delhi. These deaths resulted in massive protests led by the Safai Karamchari Andolan. Every day one manual scavenger dies in our country. Still their deaths goes “unnoticed” and “undiscussed” by the Modi government.
 
Farmers March across the Country
No one can forget the recent image of the farmer who committed suicide next to the harvested, rotten onions. Yes, this is the reality of the people who feed us. As the Prime Minister Narendra Modi heads the most anti-farmer and pro-corporate government since India gained independence, the farmers of the country decided to unite their hands for the promises. The country witnessed a series of farmers protest all across including Mahapadav, Kisan Long March, Mazdoor-Kisan Rally and Kisan Mukti March. Starting from Sikar in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Haryana, then to the national capital, the agitated farmers marched for what they have been promised off. As the farmer suicide number tolls each day, yet, the Modi government choose to turn their face off from these issues.
Read More: Kisan Mukti March | In Photos
 
Right to Freedom of Religion

Hadiya’s trial
Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan, a “girl” aged 24 years was called as “weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways’ because she chose her faith in another god. A young Hadiya was put under media trial for over a year for marrying a Muslim man, Shafin Jahan. The Kerala High Court annulled her marriage with Jahan, and directed her under “protective” custody of her parents. She was put under house arrest for six months. Several questions on her conversion were raised. Widely known as Hadiya Case, was probed by National Investigation Agency (NIA). The centre chose to keep once again silent on this case. However, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgement in favour of the Hadiya, stating, “Right to change of faith is part of fundamental right of choice”. But that doesn’t cover up for the crucification that the young woman had to go through.
 
The lynching of 15 year old Junaid
On 22 June, 2017, Junaid Khan was lynched while he was travelling in a train. The incident took place in the evening and the train was running somewhere between Okhla and Asoti , both in the state of Haryana. The incident was reminiscent of the death of Mohammed Akhlaq, who was killed in 2015. Poet Keki Daruwalla responds to these incidents by saying “…the names of Akhlaq Ahmed and Junaid will go down in history as black marks against the current establishment.” Junaid was murdered in broad day light because he was a of his religion, a Muslim. Over the past four years, the country has witnessed number of lynching in the name of cow, religion. And while these murderers roam around freely, the government shields them.

Cultural and Educational Rights

Rohit Vemula
Rohith Vemula, a young Dalit scholar at the Hyderabad Central University committed suicide on January 17, 2016. His death shook the conscience of the entire nation and led to massive protests, setting off a chain of events that continue to be relevant for the Dalit movement in the country even today.

Reservation for Minorities
In the history of reservations in India, reservations have been given to the SCs, STs and OBCs based only on their “social backwardness”. Today, reservation is being scuttled in higher education, is very dangerous for social justice and the fight for equality in our society. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced 10 percent reservation for economically weaker upper class. The BJP, especially, Modi’s, boast of executing this masterstroke reservation for economically weaker sections is without tinkering with the quotas of the SCs, STs and OBCs.

Right to Constitutional Remedies

Zakiya Jafri case
The stories and images of 2002 Godhra, Gujarat, still echoes in our ear. A targeted communal violence that took many lives during then Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s government. The violence was unleashed by the then ruling Hindu fundamentalist groups. The 78 year old survivor of 2002, widow of the late Ahsan Jafri, and surviour of the communal violence approached the court seeking justice for her family and the community. Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat was one of the accused in this violence. But multiple times the court has failed the give Jafri justice, by giving a “clean-chit” to the accused.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post On Republic Day: Is the Government Upholding or Overturning the Constitution of India? appeared first on SabrangIndia.