On Wednesday, renowned human rights activist Dr Sandeep Pandey spoke at a Congressional Briefing in Washington D.C, where he recounted not only his own experience with being persecuted and harassed by a vindictive regime, but also how many other Indians who dared to speak up against the government were made to suffer.

Dr Pandey has been a highly respected member of civil society and has raised his voice for a multitude of cause over the last 27 years. But just last year, he was placed under house arrest thrice! He recounted this saying, “I was put under house arrest in Lucknow, the capital of the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, on 11 and 16 August and 19 December 2019. The first two times on the issue of Kashmir and on the third occasion on the issue of the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens.” He added, “On 17 and 19 August 2019 and 15 January 2020 I was prevented from visiting Ayodhya. The ruling Bhartiya Janata Party government doesn’t want any alternative view on Kashmir, Ayodhya or CAA-NRC to be expressed.”

Brutality inflicted upon protesting students

He then went on to narrate how the police and security forces inflicted brutality on university students, saying, “The Government became the enemy of people who participated in protests against the CAA and NRC after the Act was promulgated in December 2019. The crackdown started with Jamia Millia University in New Delhi and Aligarh Muslim University in UP. The police used tear gas shells and stun grenades to attack students. Mohammad Tariq, a PhD student at AMU, had to get one hand amputated, Nasir lost one thumb and both hands of Tanzim were fractured. First Information Reports against 57 named and 1,200 unnamed were lodged and 26 students were detained on 15 December 2019, and were released after local protests and road blockades by people. Ahamad Raza Khan, a student of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti Urdu Arabi Farsi University in Lucknow was rusticated for merely giving a call for a demonstration.”

Persecution of activists

He also went on to narrate the plight of activists who were tortured in custody by the UP police. Pandey said, “On 19 December, when the call for nationwide protests was given, masked young men appeared from nowhere and indulged in arson and rioting during the peaceful protests in Lucknow. The police didn’t stop them in spite of activist Sadaf Zafar pleading with them, of which there is recorded evidence. Later activists like Sadaf Zafar and Pawan Rao Ambedkar were arrested along with a number of common people, some of whom participated in protests and some were just passers-by. Activist Deepak Kabir was arrested when he went to see Sadaf Zafar at the Hazratganj Police Station in Lucknow. Activist Robin Verma and ‘The Hindu,’ a prominent Indian newspaper, correspondent Omar Rashid were arrested by police on the evening of 19 December. Sadaf Zafar, Pawan Rao Ambedkar, Deepak Kabir and Robin Verma were subjected to torture inside the Hazratganj police station before being sent to jail and Omar Rashid was abused because of his Kashmiri background and then let off after some senior journalists were able to put pressure on the Chief Minister’s Office.” He also narrated how even the elderly weren’t spared saying, “Septuagenarians Advocate Mohammad Shoaib and retired Dalit Inspector General of Police S.R. Darapuri were arrested, even though they were detained at their homes on the day protests and violence took place and sent to jail. The time and place of the arrest of Advocate Shoaib and Darapuri were wrongly shown. Advocate Shoaib was not produced before any Magistrate nor did he sign any arrest memo.”

Targeting Muslims

Pandey then went on to reveal the regime’s insidious ploy to use the protests as an excuse to target Muslims in Uttar Pradesh and how all this transpired allegedly with Chief Minister Adityanath’s blessings. Pandey said, “The CM Yogi Adityanath in a meeting on the evening of 19 December with senior administrative and police officials spoke of taking revenge on people who had indulged in violence and later also said the cost of damage to public property will be recovered from the rioters. After this, police went berserk and indulged in brutal repression. They vandalized homes of well to do Muslims in Muzaffarnagar like Hamid Hasan, Intezar and Farooq in Sarwat and Naseem Ahmed and Ishtekhar in Khalapar, lathi-charged gatherings of Muslims coming out after performing Friday Namaz on 20 December in Meerut and even opened fire.” He added, “When the injured were taken to government hospitals, they refused to entertain them saying that there were instructions from the administration not to treat people with bullet injuries. A number of people injured in police firing did not go to any doctor for the fear of their names being included in the FIRs making them liable to pay for damage to public property caused due to rioting.”   

Pandey also said that the anti-Muslim narrative was spun with full support and willing participation from those in the highest echelons of power. He said, “Even though common citizens including non-Muslims participated in protests almost everywhere, the police and administration targeted only Muslims to create an impression that it was Muslims who created trouble. Prime Minister Narendra Modi even said that miscreants can be recognized from their dress. The ruling BJP was clearly indulging in politics of polarization and communalization by doing this.”

He concluded by saying, “It is a politics of divisiveness, polarization and communalization for political gains. The government has become an enemy to a segment of the population, Muslims and people who don’t agree with its views.”

The post Gov’t became enemy of the people: Indian activist at US Congressional briefing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Just like the arms race between Indian and Pakistan accelerated after the nuclear tests, even though the social indices of the two neighbours are the worst compared to other neighbours in South Asia, consuming invaluable resources which should have been spent on making basic necessities of life available to its citizens, competition in acquiring material for mutual destruction would receive a similar fillip after the Indian surgical strike. It would be underestimating Pakistan if we think that it would be discouraged from carrying out its regular incursions in future because of our surgical strike. The problem with the arms race is nobody knows when it’ll end. With technological advancement more sophisticated and dangerous weapons become available. If one country acquires a certain weapon then it becomes mandatory for the other to acquire something which is of equal destructive potential.
 
We are told that weapons are acquired for one’s security. But they actually increase the feeling of insecurity. First we worry only about our security, then we have to worry about the security of our weapons too. For example, countries possessing nuclear weapons have to worry about their security too. It is a matter of grave concern for US that the Pakistani nuclear weapons should not fall in the hands of Islamist extremists.
 
Currently India has created a situation which will trigger another round of arms acquisition between the neighbours. Countries which will benefit are US, Israel, Russia, Britain, France, China, etc., from whom India and Pakistan will buy their arms. The money which should have been spent on education, health care, food security, housing, sanitation, to ensure that no child is malnourished and no women is anemic, will now be spent on purchasing weapons. Hence, even building an atmosphere of war is a crime against the poor people of both countries.
 
Rajnath Singh, India’s Home Minister has declared that the 3,323 km long India-Pakistan border will be sealed. Boundaries are made by humans and they have a history of being ever-changing. People and material will keep moving across India-Pakistan border because people on both sides have relatives and their religious places on the other side. People want to travel across the border. The two countries have cultural affinity. Nowhere else in the world, the language spoken in large part of north India, known as Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan, is understood so well as in Pakistan. At a time when European countries have made borders irrelevant we are talking about sealing our borders. West and East Germany demolished the wall between them. We want to build one between India and Pakistan. If there are governments in the two countries in future who decide to make peace then the money spent on sealing the borders will go waste. Hence, the effort should be to open the borders, not seal them. An impregnable border is a sign of animosity, an open border is sign of friendship. Enmity is short term, non-permanent, friendship is long term, stable. Hence the decision of Indian government to seal borders lacks wisdom and is anti-people. It is a waste of public resources. Is there a guarantee that sealed borders will prevent terrorists from invading?

Aerial attacks and through sea, like the one in Mumbai, can still take place. Worse, they can infiltrate borders both physically and mentally. How will the sealed border prevent somebody inside India from being radicalized? We should look for solutions so that terrorists stop coming and people stop becoming radicals. It requires deeper introspection than a symbolic gesture of sealing border.
 
People die in wars. It is not always the terrorists or combatants who die. As we saw in over three months of protests in Kashmir, the bullets of security forces killed children, women and old too. Even the family of soldier doesn’t want him to die. They want to see him return alive. His job is to protect the border. He sacrifices his life in very special circumstances. It is the governments which create situations in which the soldier may have to sacrifice his life or he may remain safe. If the governments are not able to solve their problem with neighbouring countries then soldiers may have to sacrifice their lives. If the governments show a real intent of solving the problem then our soldiers may not be required to risk their lives. War is a sign of failure of the government to solve the problem with neighbours and peace is a sign of success. A government which is concerned about its citizens will never want to go to war. On the contrary, a government insensitive towards its citizens will put their lives in danger.
 
To create war hysteria in the country is not patriotism but anti-national, as it will lead the country to disaster. It is not a sign of a responsible government, a government which thrives on the politics of jingoism. The government and the Bhartiya Janata Party may temporarily gain from the war or building an atmosphere of war, but the citizens stand to lose in the long term.
 
(The author, a former Magsaysay awardee is also Vice President, Socialist Party (India))

The post Warmongers are Anti-National appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and V.K. Shukla moreover also recalled the syncretic vision of the founder ot the Banaras Hindu University, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, saying, “…The (BHU) Founder's vision has been as follows; “India is not a country of Hindus only. It is country of Muslims, the Christians and the Parsees too. The country can gain strength and develop itself only when the people of different communities in India live in mutual goodwill and harmony. It is my earnest hope and prayer that this Centre of life and light which is coming into existence will produce students who would not be intellectually equal to the best of their fellow students in other parts of the world, but will also live a noble life, love their country and be loyal to the supreme ruler.”
 
The High Court' order also questions the motives of the IIT-BHU administration that took a summary decision to dismiss Dr Pandey without giving him an adequate hearing. The action was both 'stigmatic' and 'punitive' and guided by a differing ideological view. Further, it violated the procedural guidelines//rules of conduct. It states clearly that basic freedom of expression was violated in the Board's decision.
 
On January 6, 2016 in yet another show of high-handedness under the new Central government, the administration of the IIT-BHU had terminated the services of Dr Sandeep Pandey

Extracts from the Order say that:

“… Here the termination order certainly proceeds to make a note that services of petitioner are being disengaged in consonance with the terms and conditions of the service but the larger question is as to whether the order in question on its face value, appears to be innocuous, is a stigmatic order or not.

“In the present case, the order in question has to be accepted as stigmatic/punitive one for the simple reason that here petitioner has been not only accused of committing cyber crime but has also been accused of imparting teaching contrary to national interest.

“In the counter affidavit, conscious of the fact that line has already been crossed, as a damage control device, observations have been termed to be on prima facie basis. Once the Board of Governors proceeded to form such an opinion and based on the same such a decision has been taken, then it may be true that nature of the engagement of petitioner is a contractual one but once the order is not a termination simplicitor as per the terms and conditions of the contract rather on lifting the veil, it is clearly reflected that basically differences of ideologies has led to such action as petitioner appears to be a believer of different ideologue than the ideologue believed by the incumbent, who proceeded to make complaint, and the people saddled with the administration came on the same page, for reasons best known to them, and here before us from the side of petitioner it has been submitted that academic administrators have lineage to the ideology from which the complainant came forward.

“… Academic administrators should be politically neutral, at the point of time of dealing with academic/administrative matters of the University. The decision of Academic Administrator has to be free from malice and the said authority has to be exercised in free, fair and transparent manner after complying with the principle of natural justice. Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (7) SCC 353, held that the power can not be arbitrarily/ indiscriminately exercised. The power is coupled with duty.

“… Here once the complaint was made and it was going to have serious repercussions, then, at the said point of time, it is true that petitioner may be the author of the aforementioned documents in question but certainly as to whether it falls within the category of cyber crime or in any way all such materials affected the national interest certainly would have been explained by the petitioner, who is alumnus of the University and a Magsaysay Award winner and fully understand the consequences of his activities.
 
“Petitioner has been performing and discharging his duties in BHU and he is bound by the conduct rules and in case petitioner has proceeded to cross the lines, then certainly after affording adequate opportunity of hearing and after examining all these aspects of matter, his services could have been disengaged, as per the terms and conditions of the contract.
 
“The case in hand is not a termination simplicitor rather it is a punitive/stigmatic order wherein petitioner has been alleged to have committed cyber crime and not only that he has been accused of cyber crime, allegations have been there that he is acting against the national interest. Heavy words such as commission of cyber crime and acting against national interest have been loosely used.
 
“All these allegations are serious in nature and such allegations have serious aspersions on the conduct and character of an incumbent and the way and manner in which decision in question has been taken as against him ex-parte cannot be approved of by us.

“… Rights, restrictions and duties co-exist. Apex Court in the case of S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 (2) SCC 574, held:“The different views are allowed to be expressed by proponents and opponents not because they are correct, or valid but because there is freedom in this country for expressing even differing views on any issue. Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom, by an intolerant group
of people. The fundamental freedom under Article 19 (1) (a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Articles 19 (2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quickstand and of convenience or expediency.
 
“Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. We must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself.”

“… Freedom of speech has been quoted by S.G. Tallentyre, author of the book 'Friends of Voltaire' as follows: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.”

“…The (BHU) Founder's vision has been as follows; “India is not a country of Hindus only. It is country of Muslims, the Christians and the Parsees too. The country can gain strength and develop itself only when the people of different communities in India live in mutual goodwill and harmony. It is my earnest hope and prayer that this Centre of life and light which is coming into existence will produce students who would not be intellectually equal to the best of their fellow students in other parts of the world, but will also live a noble life, love their country and be loyal to the supreme ruler.”

“… On one hand it is necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and expression in democracy, on the other hand when one is discharging public duty he/she will have to to keep in mind that Rules/Regulations /Statutes framed by the University/Educational Institution has not been breached.

“… Here, in pith and substance, petitioner has been attributed with misconduct and without holding enquiry by violating the principle of natural justice with impunity impugned order has been passed that clearly casts stigma on the character of petitioner and is punitive in nature.
Consequently, in the facts of the case, on overall assessment of all aspect of matter, the decision dated 6.1.2016, which has been taken in pursuance of meeting dated 21.12.2015 of the Board of Governors, IIT (BHU), Varanasi, is hereby quashed and set-aside.
 
“Writ petition is allowed, accordingly with all consequential benefits with cost."

On February 6, 2016 during the hearing of the case, the Allahabad High Court had come down heavily on the administration and asked the BHU administration to explain the summary termination.

It was in pursuance of Resolution No 3.59 passed at the meeting of the Board of Governors held on December 21, 2015 that the decision to terminate the services was taken. The BOG, of the IIT BHU, was during the litigation, forced  to defend its resolution, which has been passed, casting stigma and making serious allegations against Dr Pandey. Dr Sandeep Pandey was called 'anti-national', without providing any opportunity for him to be heard, or giving him a chance to respond or explain. The BOG simply took cognisance of a letter from a student of M.A. IInd year Political Science (who never attended the IIT classes), even without taking any pains to verify the correctness of the allegations leveled. Dr Pandey was Visiting faculty at the IIT, BHU.
 

The post Allahabad High Courts Slams BHU Admin Quashes Dismissal of Sandeep Pandey appeared first on SabrangIndia.

-The decision taken by the Board for terminating the services of Dr Pandey sans any academic considerations and it is merely on account of conflict of ideologies and therefore if such a decision stands vindicated, it will surely pose a threat to the basic fundamental freedoms granted in the Indian Constitution.

-The decision of the Board at the instance of the Chairman is in fact a step further to saffronisation of the IIT (BHU) and the University and in our democratic state such an attempt which is aimed at suppressing the ideologies is required to be nipped in bud as otherwise it will have serious effects.

-The framers of our Constitution have given to us the fundamental right in the shape of freedoms as detailed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, particularly freedom to speak under Article 19 (1) (a), which includes professing even different ideologies and State is prohibited from curbing such freedoms which are subject only to some reasonable restrictions (in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence) and the IIT (BHU) by means of the resolution and the consequent termination order has made a dent upon the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India.   

-The BOG resolution and order under challenge in the petition, has nothing to do with the academic performance of Dr Sandeep Pandey and he has been simply punished by the dictates of the Chairman of the Board. The Board was guided in its decision with the complaint of Avinash Pandey which appears to have been procured, without any verification. The truthfulness of the contents of the complaint were not verified through any preliminary fact finding enquiry. It was a rushed and un-thought through decision. .

-The branding of Dr Pandey as anti-national under the opinion formed by the Board has very serious effects as he is being sought to be permanently non-suited for any appointment/ engagement by any academic institute and that too without any enquiry or opportunity for him to be heard.

-The resolution and termination order under challenge in the High Court, which is stigmatic and passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner, Dr Pandey, and without even any fact finding enquiry-(i) goes to infringe fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 16, 19 (1) (a) & 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) is in complete violation of principles of natural justice & (iii) is wholly without jurisdiction because it was passed in the absence of any agenda on the board. 
 
See also
Intolerance Strikes, Sandeep Pandey is out of BHU
 
https://sabrangindia.in/article/intolerance-strikes-sandeep-pandey-out-bhu
 
RSS hardliners ensured the premature termination, says Pandey
 
My contract at the IIT, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) Varanasi as a visiting faculty has prematurely ended after teaching there for two-and-a-half years. This decision was prematurely taken by the Board of Governors (BOG). In a recent Board meeting the Vice Chancellor of BHU, who was made the Chairman of the IIT Board of Governors by the Minister of HRD, government of India, Smriti Irani, after by-passing the panel of five names recommended by a resolution of the Board of Governors. Thereafter, professor G.C. Tripathi, and Dean of Faculty Affairs, IIT, BHU and professor Dhananjay Pandey, both gentlemen associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), primarily forced the decision.

The charges levelled against me are that I am a Naxalite, showed a banned documentary on Nirbhaya case and am also involved in anti-national activities.

I wish to clarify that I'm not a Naxalite. The ideology that I would consider myself closest to is Gandhian.

But I do identify with the causes taken up by Naxalites even though I may not agree with their methods.

The banned documentary on Nirbhaya made by BBC was to be screened in my Development Studies class during the even semester of academic year 2014-15 but the decision was withdrawn after intervention of Chief Proctor of the BHU and officer of the Lanka Police Station just before the class. However, a discussion on the issue of violence against women in our society was conducted after screening a different documentary.

I do not believe in the idea of a nation or national boundaries, which I think are responsible for artificial divisions among human beings similar to the ones on the basis of caste or religion. Hence I cannot be anti or pro-nation. I am pro-people. I'm not a nationalist but am a universalist. I have no regrets as the decision to terminate my contract has not been taken based on my academic performance but it is because of my political views and activities. I've enjoyed my stay at IIT, BHU and wish the Institute and the University the best.
 
(Sandeep Pandey, a Magsaysay awardee for emergent leadership has trained in Mechanical Engineering but has been working on social justice issues; he is co-founder of Aasha)
 

The post Explain termination of Dr Sandeep Pandey, High Court orders BHU appeared first on SabrangIndia.