Illustrating that farmers rights are human rights, and the concerns are global in nature, United Kingdom’s Labour Party MP Claudia Webbe has said that the massive farmers protest underway in India, may be discussed in the UK parliament soon. An online petition titled “Urge the Indian government to ensure safety of protestors & press freedom” seeking a debate, has gathered massive response and was signed more than over 106,000 times (and counting) qualifying it for a Parliamentary debate.  

Webbe also urged her government to “immediately cease sale of weapons including water cannons, tear gas & baton charges, which could be used against Farmers in India” 

Huge congratulations to all who supported this petition in defence of Farmers Protest

The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental human right

Farmers must be protected #FarmersProtests https://t.co/RWfaNy9ke2

— Claudia Webbe MP (@ClaudiaWebbe) February 3, 2021

The online petition states, “The government must make a public statement of the #kissanprotests & press freedoms. India is the world’s largest democracy & democratic engagement and freedom of the press are fundamental rights and a positive step towards creating an India that works for all,” reported The Outlook and others. The qualification comment as seen states, “Parliament will consider this for a debate. Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate. Waiting for less than a day for a debate date. The government responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures.”

According to news reports the petition was created by one Gurcharan Singh on December 17, 2020, and now it is being said that the UK parliament will take it up for a debate in Parliament. Webbe shared the screenshot in her post on Twitter. 

As reported by Rediff, the British Parliament’s Petitions Committee will consider a Westminster Hall debate in the House of Commons complex on the farmers’ protests and press freedom in India. However the news report added that “while the list of signatories for the e-petition also reflects a signature of Boris Johnson, in his capacity as a west London Conservative Party member of Parliament, Downing Street on Wednesday categorically denied that the United Kingdom Prime Minister had signed the petition.”

There has been a surge of international support for the farmers who have been on protest seeking the repeal of three farm laws, in the past few days. The United States has made an official comment on the nationwide farmers’ movement in India. Responding to a question by India Today at a State Department press briefing, a spokesperson said, “We recognise that peaceful protests are a hallmark of any thriving democracy, and note that the Indian Supreme Court has stated the same,” adding, “We encourage that any differences between the parties be resolved through dialogue.” On the subject of internet shutdown in areas near the protest sites on Delhi’s borders, NDTV quoted the spokesperson as saying, “We recognise that unhindered access to information, including the internet, is fundamental to the freedom of expression and a hallmark of a thriving democracy.” This comes shortly after a series of social media posts by international celebrities such as singer Rihanna, climate activist Greta Thunberg and other influencers put the farmers’ protests under the global spotlight. 

On Wednesday, India’s Union Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), had issued a statement soon after the international cultural, political, and social icons expressed solidarity with the ongoing farmers’ protests. The MEA stated that the “Before rushing to comment on such matters, we would urge that the facts be ascertained, and a proper understanding of the issues at hand be undertaken. The temptation of sensationalist social media hashtags and comments, especially when resorted to by celebrities and others, is neither accurate nor responsible.”

Soon after the MEA statement went viral, scores of Union Ministers, Indian actors, and sports celebrities shared the official hashtags in support of the government and its responses to the ongoing farmers protests.

In London, reported Rediff, a UK government spokesperson said, “Media freedom is vital for the protection of human rights and journalists all around the world must be free to do their job and to hold authorities to account without fear of arrest or violence. Free press plays a crucial role in our democracies and the government are putting their full weight behind this including through our membership of the Media Freedom Coalition.”

According to the news report the signatories of the petition reflect names of cross-party parliamentarians including Indian-origin Opposition Labour Party MPs Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Preet Kaur Gill, who have been particularly vocal over the issue on social media and most recently raised concerns over the blockage of ‘water, electricity and internet’ to protesting crowds. It added that the Indian Journalists’ Association (IJA) in the UK joined other international media organisations to express concern over the arrest of journalists covering the farmers’ protests and urged the Indian government to ensure the safety of journalists in the country. ‘The freedom of press is an important pillar of any democracy and authorities must ensure that journalists are able to do their jobs — reporting accurately and without bias — however challenging the circumstances,’ it stated.

Related

Farmers’ movement: How NIA summons triggered the ‘Khalistan’ conspiracy theory
Peaceful protests are a hallmark of any thriving democracy: US on Farmers’ Protest
Greta Thunberg continues to support farmers, offers toolkit on Twitter
Rihanna, Greta Thunberg support Indian farmers; MEA cries foul
Greta Thunberg continues to support farmers, offers toolkit on Twitter
Can concertina wire, cemented barricades, keep out ideas?

The post British Parliament may consider debate on Indian farmers’ protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The issue is of relevance since Mohan Bhagwat raked up the issue of reservation within a fortnight after Article 370 providing special status to Kashmir was abrogated. Mohan Bhagwat speaking at Gyan Utsav event at IGNOU in New Delhi on August 18 called for a discussion on the contentious issue of reservation in a “harmonious atmosphere”. Although this wasn’t the first time the RSS chief was pushing forward the debate around reservation, the present timing is of significance.

So far as constitutional provisions are considered, Article 370 providing special status to Kashmir is listed in part twenty one containing Temporary, transitional and special provisions. Article 46 on the other hand providing the basis for affirmative actions commonly called reservation is contained in part four of the constitution as one of the Directive Principles of state policy. The two provisions unrelated though have one thing in common, the constituent assembly debates establish that both were included in the constitution as a temporary measure.

Article 370 was included as a special provision which was supposed to be effective till the time Kashmiris themselves decided upon their fate as per the guidelines mentioned in their constitution. It was other matter that since after the dissolution of the constituent assembly of J&K and after the refusal of India to withdraw it’s army and create enabling atmosphere for conducting a plebiscite, and after the numerous presidential orders that diluted the ambit of Article 370, it’s nature as a temporary provision had changed to being permanent at least in practice.

Similarly the provision for affirmative actions in the form of reservation were in principle a temporary relief with the aim that the historically marginalized and oppressed sections would be provided with certain preferential treatment till the time they achieve a socio-economic status at par with the fellow citizens. However, the widely prevalent numerous social malaise and demand for inclusion in mainstream from representative voices have ensured that the range of affirmative actions only gets wider with time instead of being phased out.

Just like the nationalistic politics of mainland India ensured the dilution of Article 370 & changed its nature from temporary to permanent, it was the caste politics and evils associated with caste that prolonged the concept of reservation.

Sangh which has forever been against reservation, after abrogation of Article 370 is smelling an opportunity and is smartly trying to push the debate against reservation by raising questions that reinforce in public memory the in principle temporary nature of this extraordinary provision. A commonly posed question by Sangh and it’s affiliated outfits is why is the provision of reservation based on caste and not on income. Another question they ask which underlines the temporary nature of reservation is that “how long” the reservations will be given on caste. Mohan Bhagwat in the IGNOU event repeated this question and urged people to engage in a dialogue around the subject, sufficiently indicating that the time has come for temporary provisions to be done away with.

It’s in the interest of citizens that they exercise caution and guard themselves from falling prey to any such propaganda. The Dalits and OBC’s who are nurturing ambitions of an upward mobility and have developed Hindutva affinity after investing their time and resources in the last five years should be very careful of the tide of communal polarization that has swept them off their foot. In their fit of insanity before rejoicing at the injustice done to Kashmir, they must think about their own future as to what would it be to be robbed of the constitutional protection, to be once again reduced to the level of serfs in a Brahmanical structure.

Md. Aariz Imam is a Jamia Millia Islamia alumni, freelancing for citizen journalism portals reflecting upon the old and contemporary from the sub altern’s point of view .

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post What lies behind Mohan Bhagwat’s call for debate around reservation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Deccan Herald

He invited Mr Bhagwat to inaugurate a ‘historic national consultation or a round table conference on reservation’ on September 24, the Poona Pact day, or on any date of his choice in the month of October at Bengaluru . According to him, constitutional experts, legal luminaries, social thinkers, experts from different fields and leaders from various organizations and political parties will also be invited to this consultation programme.

He also claimed that ‘dalit thinkers are always having an open minded approach towards all types of criticism on all policies and thoughts’ and that ‘In spite of sharp reaction given by eminent political leaders like Mayavathi, Ram Vilas Paswan, Ramdas Athawale, P L Punia and others, the dalit thinkers and activists are always ready to have a conversation, in a harmonious atmosphere, with anti-reservationists’

Many Dalit leaders including Chandrasekhar Azad have challenged Mohan Bhagwat for a debate on reservation ever since he brought up the contentious topic during a talk August 19, saying “that there should be open-hearted debate pertaining to reservation given to SC/ST/OBCs” , leading many to wonder if the abrogation of reservations was on the cards. 
 

The post Mohan Bhagwat gets another invite to debate reservation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Scroll.in

Around this time in 2015, a video showing an astrologer slap self-styled Godman Om Ji Maharaj on a panel discussion on IBN7 had gone viral.

Now, it's the turn of panelists on a television show in Egpyt. The topic under discussion was whether Muslim women should wear headscarves. Sydney imam Mostafa Rashid and Egyptian lawyer Nabih al-Wahsh were the guests on the show.

Al-Wahsh did not appreciate something Rashid said on the issue and the conversation took a turn for the worse, to put it mildly.

Here's how the very apologetic anchor explained what happened. He needed to look at the footage twice, because he was too distraught too understand what happened the first time round.

(This story was first published on Scroll.in)

The post ‘You’re an apostate! You’re an infidel’: Guests come to blows on Egyptian TV (looks familiar?) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ongoing unrest in Kashmir, where 23 people including policeman have lost their lives after Indian security forces killed Hizbul commander, Burhan Wani, has also ignited a raging debate on whether some channels in Indian media have resorted to playing patriot games over a militant’s death.

And once again, two big names of Indian TV industry have locked horns with no holds barred attack against each other.

It all started with the veteran journalist, Rajdeep Sardesai, taking to his blog questioning the ‘patriotic’/nationalistic credentials of Indian journalists particularly during the coverage of Wani’s killing and the subsequent protests.

In his well articulated blog, Rajdeep recounted the role of the BBC during the Falklands War in 1983 when the British national broadcaster was criticised by the then UK prime minister, Margret Thatcher, for not taking side with the British forces in its coverage.

To which, the then Director General of the BBC, John Birt, was reported to have reminded Thatcher that the journalistic organisation was not an ‘extension of the political authority’; its first commitment was to the truth, not to the nation state.

Many felt that Rajdeep’s anguish was targeted at his former colleague, Arnab Goswami, and his channel Times Now, which has become notorious for whipping up often unnecessary nationalistic fervour, thereby throwing objectivity out of the window.

Hours later, a visibly agitated Arnab launched a blistering attack understandably against Rajdeep to counter the latter’s ‘patriot games’ jibe with his own headline, ‘Don’t Romanticise Terror.’ Arnab resorted to name calling and frequently used terms such as ‘pseudo-liberals’ for his critics while describing their criticism as a shameful act.

Many felt that Arnab’s reply pretty much confirmed what his former boss had highlighted in his blog.

You can read both Rajdeep’s blog and Arnab’s response during his Newshour debate below and decide for yourself who’s right on the issue of media ethics.

Rajdeep Sardesai:

‘BURHAN WANI AND PATRIOT GAMES’

During the 1983 Falklands war, a member of the Margaret Thatcher government angrily described the BBC as the ‘Stateless People’s Broadcasting Corporation’ because it referred to the forces as ‘British’ and ‘Argentinian’ forces instead of ‘our’ and ‘enemy’ forces. When an Argentinian ship was sunk, an incensed Thatcher responded, ‘only the BBC would ask a British prime minister why she took action against an enemy ship that was a danger to our boys’. That is when the BBC director general John Birt is said to have reminded the British prime minister that the journalistic organisation was not an ‘extension of the political authority’; its first commitment was to the truth, not to the nation state.

The Thatcher story is instructive at a time when the ‘patriotic’/nationalistic credentials of Indian journalists and news organisations are under the scanner for their coverage of the violence in the Kashmir valley. The newly minted I and B minister has already warned that he expects ‘responsible’ coverage from the media; army information teams have red flagged any attempt to send out any ‘negative’ news; the social media army of ‘proud Indians’ on Twitter has abusively accused journalists (including this writer) of being ‘terrorist sympathisers’, ‘anti national’ and questioned ones parentage.

Who is to tell my outraged friends in the Twitter world that journalism in its purest form doesn’t wear the tricolour on its sleeve. Yes, I am a very proud Indian, but my journalism demands that I tell the story of Kashmir, not as a soldier in army fatigues but as a mike pusher who reports different realities in a complex situation. Burhan Wani is a terrorist who has been ‘neutralised’ in the eyes of majority of Indians; he is a victim who has been ‘martyred’ for the thousands of Kashmiris who lined up for his funeral. A propagandist would only broadcast the narrative that suits the agenda of one side but a journalist must necessarily explore both stories: that of Wani the Hizbul terrorist who took to the gun and used social media as a weapon AND Wani as the posterboy for a localised militancy which feeds on tales of alleged oppression and injustice. A journalist must speak to the army which is trying to quell the protests on the street, but must also listen to the youth who have chosen to their vent their anger with stones. And he must then dispassionately and accurately report the ground reality without glamourising violence or terrorism but also without becoming a spokesperson for the Indian state.

It is maintaining this delicate balance that defines good journalism. Sadly, there are few takers it appears for this challenging task. Instead, in a polarised, toxic environment, journalists are being asked to take sides, to state their preferences, to place opinion ahead of facts, to show off their macho ‘nationalism’, to be part of a ‘them’ versus ‘us’ battleground in tv studios and beyond. Which is why I wish to highlight the BBC role in the Falklands war. Here is a genuine public service broadcaster that is able to ensure that its commitment is to the British people, not to the government, even in a war between countries. The philosophy is clear: the truth, however inconvenient it might be for the power apparatus, must be told.

In Kashmir too, we need to tell truth to power: the truth of disaffected youth with limited opportunities for growth, of failed, corrupted politics, of an unshaken ‘azaadi’ sentiment, of army excesses, of a neighbouring country which sponsors terror, of a nostalgic notion of Kashmiriyat which was eroded when Pandits were driven out of their homes, of radicalised youth seeking to romanticise violence, of hard working twenty somethings topping the civil service exams, of an unacceptable distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. As a vibrant democracy, we must be able to look into the mirror with confidence and face these competing ‘truths’. Too many of the stakeholders in Kashmir, Delhi and beyond have lived in denial for too long. Wani’s killing and its aftermath must end this mood of denial even as we in the media must learn to stop playing patriot games.

Post script: Many years ago, while reporting a story on Kashmir, I described those who had targeted a bus as terrorists. That evening, a local colleague in Srinagar suggested that I might be better off calling the perpetrators as ‘militants’. I asked him why. “Sir, they maybe terrorists, but here it is safer to use the word ‘militant’.” When even simple wordplay can get tangled in the minefield of Kashmir’s bloody politics, you realise the complicated nature of the journalistic challenge.

Arnab Goswami on Newshour

“For over 72 hours now since the SUCCESSFUL killing and MUCH WANTED killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani, a section of misguided pseudo liberals have gone on and on about how the Indian State must be more responsible. About how the Indian security forces must be more sensible. Now, some of these highly confused elements, who are in journalism say that they are in a dilemma today about how to report a terrorist’s death. They say they are in a dilemma about how to report the fallout of a terrorist’s death with mobs breaking out of control and attacking a police station.

I feel sorry for these people, because they don’t realise that when it comes to right or wrong, black and white, nationalist and anti-national, for the Indian army, which protects us, and against the Indian army, for the tricolour and against the tricolour, for the sovereignty of the Indian State and against the sovereignty of the Indian State. there can be no prevarication, no grey area, no confusion and certainly no dilemma. Ladies and Gentlemen, this terrorist, Burhan Wani, had declared the Indian army as his biggest enemy. Burhan Wani was an identified and armed threat to the sovereignty of the Indian State. And just because he was KASHMIRI, does not make it ok for the pseudo liberals to build a case against his killing. He was a terrorist.

Today the self-proclaimed pseudo liberals, the same who speak of injustice to Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon have most unfortunately and SHAMELESSLY, come together to shy away from calling a known Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist a terrorist. To use the guise of human rights and peddle it to bestow martyrdom to slain terrorist and today we watch these pseudo intellectual brigade sitting in their high-armchairs refusing to call the killing of Burhan Wani, for what it is a FANTASTIC SUCCESS.

A GLORIOUS success of our brave security personnel. Viewers, let’s come together tonight and let us junk this group and junk their bluff.. Let us not romanticise or confuse terror…And if you agree with me because this rubbish has been going on for three days now, then join me as we together take on the pseudo liberals and the Pakistanis after that in debate number one and debate number 2 of the Newshour.”

This story originally appeared on Janta Ka Reporter.

The post Independent Versus the Hawk: Indian Commercial Television debates appeared first on SabrangIndia.