Maulana Azad was not only this century’s most articulate votary of Hindu-Muslim unity but also the only one erudite aalim (Islamic scholar) who claimed Quranic sanction for his faith in that unity and the freedom of the nation.

Near the mosque, and above the level of the crowded new bazaar, a red sandstone wall encloses a garden in which a tomb of simple dignity marks the resting place of the man born in Mecca on November 11, 1888 and who died in New Delhi on February 22, 1958 — Mohiuddin Ahmed, better known as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

The location is appropriate, a grave amidst the relics of past history, in a domain wrested by the British from the Mughals, and then freed again at great cost. The other leading figures of the great freedom struggle, Mahatama Gandhi and Pandit Nehru, were cremated not far away, along the banks of the river Jamuna, beyond the battlements of the Red Fort. But Azad, in death as in life, is alone.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad is, by any reckoning, a major figure in twentieth-century Indian history. He was a scholar thoroughly trained in the traditional Islamic sciences, with great intellectual abilities and eloquence of pen and speech. He had, in addition, a remarkable openness to modern western knowledge even as he opposed the western rule over India.
 

Azad made a lasting contribution to Urdu prose literature with his translation and interpretation of the Qur’an — Tarjuman-ul-Quran

Azad made a lasting contribution to Urdu prose literature with his translation and interpretation of the Qur’an — Tarjuman-ul-Quran. The intellectual history of Islam in India has long been described in terms of two contrasting currents: the one tending towards confrontation, the other towards assimilation, with the Hindu milieu. 
 

This dichotomy is, of course, an oversimplification, for separatist and syncretist represent extreme points on a spectrum of possible intellectual responses by Muslims to the Indian scene.

In his youth, Azad had been totally inexperienced in politics. Now with a full knowledge of what was involved, he had proved that his religious faith could guide him in the area of general principles, and give him strength for the difficulties he had to face.

Maulana Azad earned a reputation for ‘absolute impartiality’ and ‘unimpeachable integrity’ which served him well, particularly in the years after independence.

The major concern of Azad’s life was the revival and reform of the Indian Muslims in all spheres of life, and his political hopes for them were within this context.
 

Firoz Bakht Ahmed at Maulana Azad’s cemetary

For any such reform, he realised the key position of the ulema and of the traditional educational system which produces them. This was why he pinned his early hopes on the Nadwat ul-Ulema under the leadership of Shibli. Such was Azad’s vision concerning matters internal to the Muslim community.

As far as relations with others were concerned, we have seen that Azad never questioned the fact that being Muslim in India meant living with non-Muslims in common citizenship.

He had never contemplated any other political possibility, and when incidents of communal strife in the 1920s threatened Hindu-Muslim unity, and then in the 1930s and 40s the Pakistan movement gathered strength, his spirit rebelled against those trends.

In his presidential address to the Congress in 1923, he said that the ability of Hindus and Muslims “to live together was essential to primary principles of humanity within ourselves.”

Almost twenty years later, when he again addressed Congress from the presidential chair, he repeated this absolutely fundamental premise: “I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of that fact that I have inherited Islam’s glorious tradition of the last thirteen hundred years.

I am not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy. The history and teachings of Islam, its art and letters, its cultural and civilization are part of my wealth and it is my duty to cherish and guard them… But, with all these feelings, I have another equally deep realisation born out of my life’s experience, which is strengthened and not hindered by the Islamic spirit.

I am equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part of the indivisible unity of Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total makeup, without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete. I can never give up this sincere claim…”
—
*Chancellor, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad, grandnephew of Maulana Azad

Courtesy: Counter view

The post Maulana Azad ‘claimed’ Quranic sanction in Hindu-Muslim unity, India’s freedom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over the last 16 months 54 attacks on journalists in India were reported in the media, according to the Hoot’s compilation.  The actual number will certainly be bigger, because last week Minister of State for Home Affairs HansrajAhir said during question hour in the LokSabha that 142 attacks on journalists took place between 2014-15.
 
Though 7 journalists were killed, reasonable evidence of their journalism being the motive for the murder is available only in one case.
 
The stories behind each of the attacks reveal a clear and persistent pattern. Investigative reporting is becoming increasingly dangerous. Journalists who venture out into the field to investigate any story, be it sand mining, stone quarrying, illegal construction, police brutality, medical negligence, an eviction drive, election campaigns,  orcivic administration corruption, are under attack.
 
Leave alone going out into the field, those who host chat shows in the relative safety of a television studio or voice opinions on social media networks are also subjected to menacing threats, stalking and doxing.
 
The perpetrators, as the narratives of these cases clearly indicate, are politicians, vigilante groups, police and security forces, lawyers (apart from the Patiala House court incident in Delhi in the wake of the JNU protests, there werea  spate of attacks by lawyers in Kerala), jittery Bollywood heroes and, increasingly, mafias or criminal gangs that operate in illegal trades and mining, often under the protection of local politicians and with the knowledge of local law enforcing agencies. Hence, even with clear accusations of the identities of the perpetrators, they get away scot-free.
 
The data with The Hoot shows that law-makers and law-enforcers are the prime culprits in the attacks and threats on the media.
 
 
54  ATTACKS
 

 
 
25 THREATS TO JOURNALISTS

 
Details of attacks and threats
The Silencing of Journalists
 
 
 
NEWS CENSORSHIP
 

1. Governments at various levels attempt censorship, so do private sector media owners.  In the period under review there were a few  outstanding examples of media censorship, of holding back news, and of self censorship. 

2. In June 2016 the Andhra Pradesh government got cable operators across the state to block Sakshi News and  No 1 news channels, on account of their coverage of the Kapu agitation.The leader of the numerically dominant Kapus, MudragadaPadmanabham, a former minister, started an indefinite fast in support of his demands, triggering a tense situation in coastal AP. Sakshi TV channel, owned by Jagan Reddy of the YSR Congress Party, lapped up these developments whereas other media houses reacted very cautiously. Then suddenly Sakshi suddenly went off the air. The  Sakshi Media Group said their channel was blocked in the state.

3. After the killing of BurhanWani the Kashmir media experienced censorship and harassment. In July the offices of the two largest newspapers were raided, their copies seized, their printing presses closed down.

4. In October the Kashmir Reader which was doing a lot of reporting from the ground found itself  banned  for a period which finally extended to three months.  Its editor described  here why it incurred the displeasure  of the state.

5. In November a ban was imposed on NDTV India by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for a 24 hour period  for its Pathankot coverage which is supposed to have revealed strategic information about  the operation. The channel moved the Supreme Court against the ban. (See the section in this report on Free Speech and the Courts.) The Ministry put the ban on hold.

6. Also in November, in the wake of demonetization, the Indore District Collector passed an order imposing restrictions on “misleading and objectionable” posts on social media related to demonetisation. P Narhari, in his order, had invoked Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure making such posts or even sharing them on social media platforms a criminal offence in the district. The Internet Freedom Foundation  in Delhi sent a legal notice asking him to withdraw the order.

 
When Tamilnadu chief minister JayalalithaJayaram passed for seven hours by the hospital authorities though  TV channels were  reporting her passing away from fairly early in the evening.  

8. In March 2017 member of Parliament and businessman Rajeev Chandrasekhar got a Bangalore court to issue an ex parte injunction to The Wire to take down two articles about him. This was curious because the website was not the first to point a finger at him for attempting to align the media he owns with the political ideology he supports. Nor was it the first to describe his military-related business interests, even as his public activism has centered on the armed forces.

 
 
Self Censorship
 
 

 
 
On October 6 NDTV’s editorial director Sonia Singh sent an email to staff laying out how discussions and coverage of the surgical strike should be done. As thewire.inreportedSingh said that it had been decided across the NDTV network that it would not give space “to the political bickering that has broken out on the surgical strikes…..no debates, no airtime of my strikes vs yours, give proof etc…whether it is opposition or the govt….only the army…..to explain this.”
 
Under the title India Above Politics, Singh’s email also laid out the menu for the 9 PM news of 6 October– saying“national security cannot be compromised by politics”. An interview done by its anchor Barkha Dutt with Congress leader P Chidambaram was dropped from the evening news.
 
 
 
FREE SPEECH IN THE COURTS IN  2016-17
 
Defamation
Sedition
Bans
Legislature and the media
Community censorship
Digital challenges
 
 
 
As a year in which cases of sedition and defamation, and of censorship of films and other arts reached record numbers,  2016 saw the courts being tested constantly on the issue of  freedom of  expression. Significant orders and rulings in the supreme court and high courts this year spanned the gamut of conflicts between state and journalist, state and artist,  state appointed censor board and film makers, legislature and media, state and political opposition, and the conflict between societal censure and free expression—the right to free speech of  a citizen  versus another’s right to take offence.
 
Perhaps the most significant rulings in the course of the year were on upholding the validity of criminal defamation, and on defamation and sedition, and whether strong criticism would amount to either.
 
 
Criminal defamation, and what qualifies as defamation
 
In May, giving its verdict on a batch of petitions including the ones by Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister ArvindKejriwal and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the validity of the criminal defamation law.  The court pronounced its verdict challenging the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code providing for criminal defamation. 
 
The law has no chilling effect on free speech, the apex court said. "Right to free speech is not absolute. It does not mean freedom to hurt another's reputation which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution".  There was dismay over a ruling  which seemed to nullify efforts to decriminalize defamation.
 
A few months down the line, in August, however, the SC clarified that criticism did not constitute defamation.  The year which saw the demise of J Jayalalitha, CM of Tamilnadu, also saw the Supreme Court pull her up earlier in the year for using defamation as a political tool.   It quashed a non-bailable warrant issued against DMDK chief Vijayakanth, and said that criminal defamation proceedings cannot be initiated for merely critiquing the government.  (In the year under review the AIDMK government also filed 16 cases of defamation against in the media in just the first three months of the year.)
 
 
Sedition
 
2016 was a year when sedition went viral and a large number of cases were filed, 18 just between January and June. By the end of the year the figure was 40, according to media reports filed year-wise, state-wise, in the Hoot’s Free Speech Hub.
 
In a case hearing on  September 6  the SC clarified that sedition or defamation cases could not be slapped on anyone criticising the government: “Someone making a statement to   criticise the government does not invoke an offence under sedition or defamation law. We have made it clear that invoking of section 124(A) of IPC (sedition) requires certain guidelines to be followed as per the earlier judgement of the apex court,” a bench of Justices DipakMisra and U Lalit said while hearing a petition by Common Cause on the misuse of the sedition law.
 
In 2017 five cases have been filed so far going by media reports, in Assam, Bihar, Punjab (on 66 students which was subsequently dropped), Haryana, and Delhi.
 
 
Bans as regulation: I and B ministry vs TV channels
 

 
2016 saw three bans imposed on TV channels in the course of the year by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, for durations varying from one week to one day. NDTV India  was ordered to go  off air for a day for having revealed "strategically-sensitive" details while covering the Pathankot terrorist attack,  the one day ban quickly became a cause celebre.  The channel moved the Supreme Court   against the ban but the court deferred hearing the case. Care World TV, a health channel upon which a seven-day ban was imposed,  went to court as well and obtained a heartening  order. The Bombay High Court said the order was completely illegal and a breach of the elementary principles of natural justice.  It also observed that larger issue of the power of the central government to impose such a ban would have to be examined.
 
Given that there have been 32 bans imposed by the ministry over the last twelve years, this year may have seen the beginning of a significant push back.
 
 
Legislature and the media
 
In August 2015 an enquiry  committee set up by the UP Legislative Assembly had held staff of two TV channels of the  of TV Today group guilty of breach of privilege of Azam Khan, the Parliamentary Affairs Minister in the Samajwadi Party government in the state, and an MLA from Rampur constituency.
 
In March this year  the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings initiated by the Uttar Pradesh (UP) Legislative Assembly. 
 
This committee had been set up by the Sadan on 17 September, 2013, to examine allegations aired against Khan  in a sting operation telecast on  AajTak and Headlines Today channels in relation to the  Muzaffarnagar riots. It held 48 meetings, it said in its report, examining the evidence and listening to the channel representatives, before it concluded that there had been a breach of privilege.   
 
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee had filed a Special Leave Petition in the SC under Article 32 of the Constitution. Appearing for the TV Today Network's channels — AajTak and Headlines Today (now India Today) — submitted that UP assembly had no locus standi to direct journalists to appear before it for having conducted the sting operation since it pertained to a matter outside the assembly and did not in any way impede the functioning of the House or any of its members.
 
The case has not been heard by the apex court again, but it constitutes a significant test case on whether media exposing a legislator’s actions outside the assembly can attract a charge of breach of privilege. The detailed report of the enquiry committee does point out though that the legislator had not been given a chance to respond to the expose before it was telecast.
 
 
Triumphing over community censorship
 
In July 2016  came a judgement from the Madras High Court which was hailed  for striking a much needed blow against community censorship of the arts. In 2015 Tamil writer PerumalMurugan had announced his death as a writer after orchestrated protests demanding a ban on his novel  Mathorubhagan (One Part Woman)in his hometown of Tiruchengode in Tamil Nadu. He had been forced to tender an apology at a local peace committee meeting.
 
The Hindu  said in an editorial “The 160-page judgment by a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjay KishanKaul builds on a series of progressive rulings. It has applied the contemporary community standards test in concluding that there is nothing obscene in the novel.”  It however demurred later in its editorial that the suggestion of the bench that the state should set up an experts body to resolve conflicts such as these could itself represent a compromise. 
 
After the judgement the writer said in a statement that it had given him much  happiness."It comforts a heart that had shrunk itself and wilted. I am trying to prop up myself holding on to the light of the last lines of the judgment, "Let the author be resurrected to what he is best at. Write."
 
The following month, in August 2016,  there was  a victory in a similar case for a Mumbai writer charged with obscenity in 2005  for a  novel published in 1994.  In this case there was no judgementthe  charge was withdrawn 11 years after being filed.  The Hindu reported that a 19-year-old student at the Urdu Department of Mumbai University had registered a complaint at the Jogeshwari police station stating that she found two paragraphs in Mr Abbas’ 1994 novel, NakhlistankiTalash (The Search of an Oasis), “objectionable” and “obscene”. The allegations cost him his job as a teacher at the Anjuman-e-Islam’s English High School and Allana Junior College. The complainant retracted her statement this year and said she had misunderstood the writing.
 
Batting for the media:
 
2017 so far has seen two significant orders from the Supreme Court. 
 
In February it directed the Bihar government to transfer RashtriyaJanata Dal (RJD) leader Mohammed Shahabuddin, the influential accused in the murder in 2016 of journalist RajdeoRanjan, to Tihar Jail from a district jail in Siwan within a week, to facilitate the trial after the CBI said they wanted to conduct his trial in Delhi.  The politician belongs to the ruling coalition.
 
In March the SC dismissed a PIL seeking an SIT probe into the role of media in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam case, saying it is an "attack" on media's independence.  The apex court said it would not direct any investigation against the media unless there was evidence of a direct involvement. There cannot be an investigation into the role of media as a whole, it said.
 
The PIL had been filed by senior journalist HariJaisingh who alleged that alleged that some journalists were bribed and extended unwarranted benefits in exchange for favouring the VVIP chopper deal.
 
 
Digital challenges
Finally the courts grappled with internet bans and offences arising out of social media.
The year saw the Supreme Court rule on the  legality of Internet shutdowns under Section 144 CrPC.   In February the apex court ruled that mobile internet can be banned under this section, dismissed an appeal challenging a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had upheld the ban on mobile internet under S.144 of Code of Criminal Procedure.  Dismissing the argument that there was a provision for such bans under the Telegraph Act the court said that using this section “becomes very necessary sometimes for law and order. There can be concurrent powers”, remarked one of the judges before dismissing the petition.
 
 
 
DILUTING THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
 
 
Has the state been complicit in watering down the right to information conferred on Indian citizens via successive laws since  2005? Over the last two years there is increasing evidence of this. Diluting the right to information is a direct denial of the access to information the press needs to do its job. Journalists  increasingly use the law  for  their  own investigations, and frequently rely on the tenacity of the country’s RTI activists to get information about governance.
 
Pointers to dilution of  transparency and RTI
 
1.Rules currently being drafted for an amendment to the Whistleblowers Protection Act have proposed that when an RTI seeker dies his request will stand nullified. RTI advocates fear that this will increase the vulnerability of RTI activists the attacks on whom have increased over the 12 years that the Act has been in existence. The year 2016 ended with the murder of an RTI activist, and on 11April 2017 there was another murder, by attacking a tenacious Pune area activist with concrete blocks.
 
Maharashtra is the state which has both received by far the highest  number of RTI applications among states over 2005-2015, (46.2 lakh, merely a lakh less than the central government)  and has also recorded  25 per cent of  the total murders of RTI seekers countrywide,   since the Act’s inception (16 out of 66). Maharashtra is also the state which has recorded the highest number of attacks on RTI users. The correlation between heightened use of the law, and vulnerability to attack, is clearly discernable. (CHRI data).
 
2. In 2015 the Central Government submitted an affidavit opposing the decision of  the Central Information Commissioner in June 2013 to bring political parties as public authorities under the RTI Act.
 
3. The year 2017 began with an Information Commissioner seeing a transfer of the ministries under his charge, queries in relation to which he was handling.  This was after he allowed a plea seeking examination records relating to the period when the prime minister graduated from Delhi University. Was this request particularly subversive? This IC is a former law professor and the only Information Commissioner out of 14 members of the Central Information Commission who is not a former bureaucrat. 
 
4. The people chosen by the government system to deliver the right to information through the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions are increasingly former bureaucrats, though the Act says  they should be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. Administration and governance feature at the bottom of the list.
 
Currently 91.6 percent of the serving Chief Information Commissioners in the states are retired bureaucrats, as are 93 per cent of Central Information  Commissioners. 
 
5. Pointers to weakening of RTI in the states:
 

• In Karnataka  personnel sections of 34 ministers of the state have not declared public authorities under them.
• Telangana has not created a state information commission as yet. 
• The Kerala chief minister has gone in appeal to the state high court against an order by the state information commissioner.
• Information Commissions of Manipur, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh have not published any annual report on their website till date.

 
6. Pendency
The pendency of second appeals and complaints as on April 1, 2016 stood at 34,982 cases.  RTI activists say these numbers need to brought down to ensure that the applicants get information without any delays. (The Wire)
 
7. Rejection
The highest proportion of RTI applications were rejected not under the permissible exemptions under the RTI Act such as Sections 8, 9, 11 or 24 but under the category of “others”. At 43% rejections recorded under this category, more than four out of every ten RTI applications rejected were for reasons other than those permitted by the RTI Act. (CHRI data)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERNET SHUTDOWNS
 
The Internet was  shut down 31 times in India in 2016, and 14 times already in 2017.  Twelve shutdowns in 2016 were as preventive action, 19 as reactive action. In 2017, 9 shutdowns were preventive action, 5 reactive action.
 
 
Most internet blocks in India are taking place under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, which gives the state government the power to stop unlawful assemblies of people to prevent public disorder, rioting and so on. It can be brought into force by a notification signed by the district magistrate or a commissioner of police in a metropolitan area. However, legal experts have been arguing against the constitutional validity of imposing internet shutdowns, especially under Section 144 of the CrPC.
 
One argument is that Section 144 does not even contain the appropriate legal power to order a suspension of Internet services, since the power to regulate telegraphs (or the internet in this case) is vested with the Union and not with the state. In that context, any internet shutdown should really take place under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. (The former empowers the Union government to intercept or prevent the transmission of messages under certain circumstances and the latter refers to the blocking of specific websites.)
 
 
Statewise Shutdowns
 

 
(Source: SFLC.in)
 
Longest shutdown:   Jammu& Kashmir in 2016-17.
Following the killing of BurhanWani, Kashmir valley and the Jammu region experienced a suspension of mobile internet services to check the spread of rumors on 9th July, 2016.  Mobile internet services were restored in Jammu region on 26th July, 2016; after being suspended for 17 days. Mobile internet services were reported restored in the Kashmir valley on 19th November for post paid connections and on 27th January, 2017 for pre-paid connections.
 
 
 
Reasons for shutdowns
 
Kashmir
 

• To check rumor mongering
• On operational and security grounds and to prevent law and order situations
• broadband services suspended in light of re-polling in 38 stations of Budgam district.
• Due to bandhs being declared in the Chenab valley

 
Gujarat
Patidar agitation
 
UP
Communal tensions
 
Odisha

• Communal tension,
• To prevent rumour mongering over a social media post

 
Rajasthan

• Communal tension,
• Stabbing of a VHP activist,
• Social media post

 
Haryana
Jat agitation
 
Bihar
Communal clashes
 
Jharkhand
Communal clashes
 
Arunachal
Death of a former chief minister
 
Manipur
Law and order turmoil over economic blockade by the United Naga Council (UNC).
 
Nagaland
Unrest over reservation in local body elections
 
 
 
 
 
CENSORSHIP OF THE ARTS IN 2016-17
 
 

 
 
A SNAPSHOT
 
Issues on which Indian films were censored or blocked by CBFC or citizenry:
 

• Homophobia (KaBodyscapes, Aligarh, Moonlight, Mama’s Boys)
• Distorting history (Padmavati)
• Depicting female fantasies (Lipstick under my Burkha)
• Using Pakistani artistes (AeDilHaiMushkil)
• “Steamy” scenes  (AeDilHaiMushkil,  Wazir, Unindian,)
• Abusive language (Houseful 3,
• Showing a community in bad light (Parched, Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd)
• Showing a state in bad light (Udta Punjab)
• Baring body parts (Parched, Kathakali)
• Showing female inner wear (BaarBaarDekho)
• Using the F word (Raaz Reboot)
• Satirising religious epics (Mama’s Boys)
• Resemblance to PM, impending elections (ModikaGaon)
• Portraying communal riot of 1946 (Danga – The Great Calcutta Killing of 1946)
• References to political figures (Coffee with D)
• Too close to real life, could disturb peace in (Power of Patidar, SalagtoSawal)
• May disturb peace (SharanamGachchami)
• The director’s accent ('Serendipity Cinema')

 
 
Censorship on television
Pakistani serials  (Dropped from Zindagi channel)
 
 
Censorship of events

• Udaipur Film fest venue changed after ABVP complaint
• Issue:This whole event is not good for society. The event is being organised by people who have communist ideology”

• Shiv Sena seeks cancellation of RahatFateh Ali Khan’s concert in Ahmedabad.
• Issue: Country and Gujarat facing severe drought

• FIR against comedians for show telecast on TV channel
• Issue: Hurting religious sentiments by mimicking Sirsa-based DeraSachchaSauda’s head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

• Opposing Kerala Litfest
• Issue: Festival had an “anti Muslim attitude.”

• Screening of film on Kashmir in IIT Delhi disrupted
• Issue: Anti-national

 
 
Censoring theatre
Jai Bhim, Jai Bharat
Issue: Words like ‘Khairlanji’, ‘Hindutva’, ‘Ramabai Nagar’, ‘kutra’ (dog)
 
 
Films denied certification:
Lipstick under my Burkha
Missing on a Weekend
MohallaAssi
 
Arts censorship in the states
 
In Punjab the ruling coalition  raised many objections to Udta Punjab,  a film portraying the drug culture in the state, and the CBFC order 94 cuts. The Bombay High Court stepped in however, to order that the film should be released with a single cut.
 
In Kaithal in Haryana in January 2016 television actor KikuSharda of the show‘Comedy Nights With Kapil’, was arrested for mimicking DeraSachaSauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh on his show, and sent to 14 days judicial custody.
 
In January 2016 the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notices to the government of India, Information and broadcasting ministry, censor board and the directors and actors of film 'BajiraoMastani' over its release without showing the script to the decedents of the royal family.
 
In February in Uttar Pradesh residents of Aligarh found that the film Aligarh
had been banned from being screened in the city after ShakuntalaBharti, the BJP mayor, protested against its screening. She felt the film would  defame the city by linking it “with homosexuality". 
 
In March 2016 the CBFC muted words in the  Kannada film KiragoorinaGayyaligalu which is an adapation of a novel fo the same name. Audiences inKarnataka  found themselves watching a  film interspersed with muted words.
 
In July in Kerala the Mammootty starrer-“Kasaba,” ran into trouble right after its release  with the  Kerala Women’s Commission today issuing notices to the actor, the movie’s director and producer for  allegedly “portraying women in a poor light” through some scenes and dialogues.”
 
In Tamilnaduin October 2016 The Madras High Court upheld an order of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), which had refused to grant certification to a feature film in Tamil directed by K. Ganeshan, titled PorkalathilOru Poo, based on incidents in the life of a LTTE journalist named IsaiPriya in Sri Lanka. FCAT upheld the CBFC order on the grounds that the film criticises India and the Sri Lankan Army and justifies Tamil Eelam. The firm also portrayed Sri Lankan war crimes.
 
But earlier in March a Sri Lankan film Muttrupulliya, a docu-drama that portrays the life of the Tamil ethnic population in post-war Sri Lanka, has won its appeal with the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in Chennai refused to certify it.
 
 
PERPETRATORS OF CENSORSHIP
 
Central Board of Film Certification
Suomoto censorship in cases of more
than 30 films which came for certification
 
Religious groups:
Hindu Sena
DeraSachchaSauda followers
 
Political organisations
MahrashtraNavnirmanSena
ABVP
Shiv Sena
SAD-BJP
 
Cultural groups
Shri Rajput KarniSena
The Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board
 
Courts
Bombay High Court
censors Jolly LLB after  CBFC clears it.
 
Individuals and families
Shahid Rafi, son of late playback singer Mohd Rafi,
taking objection to dialogue that purportedly
insulted the singer in AeDilHaiMushkil
MasrubhaiRabari , a BJP worker  from Anjar town  Parched
Peter Mukherjea and his sister ShangonDasgupta
Subhash Chandra, RajyaSabha MP from Haryana and chairman of Zee
 
Professional bodies
Cinema Owners and Exhibitors Association of India (COEAI)
Single-screens in 4 states ban films with Pakistani actors
 
 
UPHOLDERS OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM
 
Bombay High Court in case of Udta Punjab
Bombay High Court in case of Dark Chocolate
Delhi High Court in the case of Santa Banta Pvt Ltd
Kerala High Court in the case of KaBodyscapes
 
 
However in 2016 the government appointed  a committee headed by film maker ShyamBenegal to examine the issue of censorship which had become increasingly contentious. The committee recommended certification of films for viewing by different audiences instead of censorship by ordering cuts,  and by the end of the year the Hindustan Times was reporting that the hyperactive Central Board of Film Certification had cleared new ratings to allow adult content in films. The first quarter of 2017 has seen a marked drop in the number of films ordered to drop scenes.
 
CBFC annual report. No of films released with a certificate in 2015-16  were  135.
 
http://www.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/2015-2016-brought-a-strict-side-of-censor-board-135-hindi-films-were-given-a-certificate-268565.html
 
Urdu writers asked to declare: My book not against the govt, nation
2016-03-19 | New delhi, Delhi
Ref: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/urdu-writers-asked-to-declare-my-book-not-against-the-govt-nation/
The National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language (NCPUL), which operates under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, has introduced a form which requires authors of books NCPUL acquires annually to declare that the content will not be against the government or the country. The form, received by several Urdu writers and editors over the past few months, also asks authors to provide signatures of two witnesses. Originally circulated in Urdu, the form, accessed by The Indian Express, reads: “I son/daughter of confirm that my book/magazine titled which has been approved for bulk purchase by NCPUL’s monetary assistance scheme does not contain anything against the policies of the government of India or the interest of the nation, does not cause disharmony of any sort between different classes of the country, and is not monetarily supported by any government or non-government institution.”
 
Censoring the arts—humouring offended mobs
 
RESEARCH:
 
Sevanti Ninan
GeetaSeshu
ShilpiGoyal
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The post THE INDIA FREEDOM REPORT, JANUARY 2016-APRIL 2017 (THE HOOT) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Freedom is In Peril, Defend It With All Your Might: Jawaharlal Nehru, is the strapline quote below the masthead of the e-newspaper.
 
A press release of the Associated Journals Limited, a company founded in 1937 by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says:

“In keeping with the changing times, the newspaper group resumes phased publication as a multi-media outlet with a strong digital presence.  The digital website will follow the same editorial vision and principles as that of our Founder, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.  It remains committed to furthering the values it has always cherished and the best values of the Freedom Movement – that of building a modern, democratic, just, equitable, liberal and socially harmonious nation, free of sectarian strife.

 Launched in 1938 as a daily newspaper in the vanguard of the Indian Freedom Movement by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the National Herald proudly proclaimed its commitment on its masthead inscribed in Pandit Nehru's hand: 'Freedom is in Peril, Defend it with All Your Might'.  During its halcyon days even in decades after independence, the National Herald group of newspapers, including also Navjivan in Hindi and Quami Awaz in Urdu, lent its influential voice to the efforts of building such a nation striving for world peace and imbued with rationality and scientific temper that its Founder had inculcated.”

The lead story, Mr Jaitley, a few questions for you [Was the disruption of the economy caused by scrapping Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 denomination notes motivated by sound economic reasons, or prompted by extraneous considerations?] has an interesting tidbit:

“Rumours of demonetisation have been circulating in banking circles since April this year, when the State Bank of India chairman Arundhati Bhattacharya publicly blamed the rumours for an unprecedented surge in cash withdrawals. In an interview to The Economic Times, she had, in fact, stated that for the first time ever deposits in SBI had lagged behind advances…..
 
Some of these questions, posed by experts and the common man alike, are the following:
                    

• Who are the Indians who transferred Rs 30,000 crore abroad between June 2015 and May 2016?
• Is it true that the Government was influenced by Pune-based NGO Arthakranti Pratishthan, believed to be close to the RSS, and ignored expert advice? The NGO has been advocating demonetisation of currency notes of high value denomination, abolition of income tax, restricting cash transactions to Rs 2,000 and promoting all transactions through banks. Experts however had dismissed the proposals, pointing out that the country has a long way to go before it could hope to become a cashless economy. The NGO’s claim that it motivated the PMO to take the decision has not been denied yet. Does it mean that the PMO and the Finance Ministry plan to act on the other proposals also made by the NGO?
• The rest of the story may be read here

 The RSS-BJP’s hatchet man Subramaniam Swamy had trained his eye on the newspaper and in 2014, the court in Delhi, took up the issue of where the assets of Associated Journals (AJPL) who published The National Herald were distributed after the closure of the paper. Earlier in 2012, Rahul Gandhi had said that he would sue over allegations that his company, 'Young Indian', acquired Associated Journals (AJPL) improperly. On August 17, 2015 it was reported that the Enforcement Directorate had decided to close the case citing "technical reasons". Subsequently on September 18, 2015 the Enforcement Directorate decided to reopen the case.

The post  Is the Re-Birth of the National Herald a Call to Arms by the Congress ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Jammu and Kashmir is again in the news for violence and counter violence. Again, several solutions are proposed. Any such exercise, however, needs a reality check if peace is to return in the state in the foreseeable future.

The present unrest began after killing of Burhan Wani, a local commander of Hizbul Mujahidin, an organisation that vows to liberate Kashmir by unleashing suicide bombers in Kashmir (Times of India, 4 September 2016). The unrest is restricted to the Kashmir valley comprising 7.1 percent of land and 54.9 percent of population of the state numbering 6.8 million (Census of India, 2011). In a fresh round of bloodshed over seventy people have died and thousands are injured.

To defuse the situation, among the solutions being offered is merger with Pakistan and 'freedom' from India. The third solution — status quo — is supported by the major political parties, though with differing caveats.

Merger with Pakistan

The merger with Pakistan is incongruous for the simple reason that Kashmiris will be an additional minority group in Pakistan that already has a disturbing record towards its ethnic and sectarian minorities including Mohajir, Baloch, Pashtun, Ahmadis and Hazaras. Many of these people are forced to seek refuge in other countries.

According to latest figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Pakistanis are the sixth largest group seeking asylum in Europe following Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis. Australian immigration report 2013-2014 reveals that the largest number of people who sought humanitarian visa on arrival came from Pakistan (Elibritt Karlsen: 2014, Parliament of Australia).

Pakistan's human rights record on Baluchistan has also been disconcerting. Since the last decade about 18,000 people have allegedly ‘disappeared’ in the province. According to the Voice for Baloch Missing Persons, 157 mutilated bodies were found and 463 people disappeared in the state in 2015. (Balochwarna News, 3 January 2016). The prime suspects in these incidents are the security forces.

Pakistan administered Kashmir is no better. Of the $38bn proposed investment in energy sector on the  China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Gilgit-Baltistan has not received any allocation as compared to other provinces (The Dawn, 12 May 2016). On the contrary, the planning minister of Pakistan warned the protesting farmers of the region that the terrorism act would be invoked against them if they obstructed the project (Times of India, 18 August 16).

Freedom

The option of freedom for J&K is equally fraught with problems. If freedom is a demand for all the five regions of the state, then it seems a non-starter given the Indian and Pakistan position on it; and if it relates only to the Indian part then without taking into consideration the views of the people of Jammu and Ladakh region it is unlikely to move any farther.

The demand of freedom for only the valley of Kashmir is fraught with a moral dilemma in light of about a half a million Kashmiri pundits' virtual exile from the region. Besides, freedom for Kashmir will have a ripple effect in Muslim majority districts of Poonch and Rajouri, and Kishtwar and Doda, separated by Hindu majority districts of Jammu and Udhampur, which will further add to the instability in the region.

Another difficulty regarding freedom for Kashmir is the use of violence and terrorism as a method to achieve it. Contemporary history shows that a violent movement does not produce a sustainable democratic state as is seen in many African countries which were inspired by various violence based ideologies.

And finally, there are reports that mosques are being used for mobilisation of people and ISIS flags are being waved in rallies in Kashmir (Indian Express, August 21, 2016). Successful culmination of such a movement can only lead to a theocratic state that would be against the spirit of 'kashmiriyat', which has already suffered considerable erosion in the valley.

Way Forward

The central government owes it to the Constitution of India to restore civil liberties by withdrawing the laws like AFSPA from civilian areas in the Valley, ensure accountability for human rights violations, secure transparent governance, launch de-radicalisation programs and identify a genuine leadership in the valley for a dialogue. Nationally, toning down ‘saffron nationalism’ might greatly assist. It is the only way forward for a humane and democratic Kashmir.

(Pushkar Raj is a Melbourne based author of Kahsmiri origin. Formerly he taught political science in Delhi University and was the national general secretary of PUCL. He can be reached at raajpushkar@ gmail.com).
 

The post Restoring Civil Liberties, Respecting Human Rights the Only Way Forward in Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com)

Cover Image Credit: TV18.com

The post Gau Rakshaks’ have brought Shame to India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This Testimony on the eve of Modi's address to US Congress highlights his administration's active contribution to religious freedom violations in the face of judicial ineffectiveness

The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC – iamc.com), today joined representatives of internationally recognized institutions such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to testify before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in Washington DC at the hearing titled 'Challenges & Opportunities: The Advancement of Human Rights in India.' 
 
IAMC's testimony, delivered by its Communications Director, Mr. Musaddique Thange, was a forthright exposition of the role played by India's current administration and its espousal of the divisive Hindutva ideology in brutal human rights violations of religious minorities. The testimony included recommendations on how the US could play a constructive role in improving the situation while respecting India's sovereignty.
 
Besides IAMC, other witnesses that testified at the hearing were Mr. Jeff King,President, International Christian Concern; Mr. John Sifton, Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch; Mr. T. Kumar, Asia Advocacy Director, Amnesty International; Ms. Martina E. Vandenberg, Founder & President, The Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center; Mr. Raj Cherukonda, Representative, Dalit American Federation and Mr. Ajit Sahi, human rights activist & investigative journalist, formerly with the Tehelka Magazine

.

The hearing, chaired by Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and Rep. James McGovern (D-MA), sought to "provide concrete recommendations for how U.S. policy makers can most effectively encourage the protection of human rights given the strategic importance and continued growth of the U.S. – India bilateral relationship."
 
Mr. Musaddique Thange, Communications Director of IAMC provided oral testimony to the commission and submitted a written testimony detailing the systematic erosion of the legacy of respectful coexistence of many faiths. In a passionate plea to the commission, Mr. Thange called for human rights to be included as part of the annual US-India Strategic Dialogue and called out the ineffectiveness of the Indian judiciary as enabling and perpetuating the human rights violations.

A link to the oral testimony can be found here
 
The written testimony also recommended the recognition of the work of the vast network of NGOs that are at the forefront of upholding the constitutional values despite persistent targeting and harassment by the Modi led government. It also appealed to take up at the highest levels of government, for USCIRF and other institutions to be able to freely assess the situation in India first hand, without any hindrance from the government of India.

Congressional Letter to Speaker on Human Rights in India
 
In a separate development, eighteen members of the United States Congress led by Rep. Trent Franks and Rep. Betty McCollum wrote a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan urging him to take up the issue of rapidly eroding religious freedom in India. 
 
"Human rights groups in India have reported extensively on these types of attacks, and have traced many of them to Hindu nationalist groups and to government officials supportive of those groups.  As a result of those groups and officials supporting extremists, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and other religious minority communities continue to experience incidents of discrimination, intimidation, harassment and violent attacks. Unfortunately, because of India's current climate of impunity with regard to such attacks, many victims may never receive justice." asserted the congress persons in their letter.

"In February of this year, 34 Members of the House and Senate wrote to Prime Minister Modi urging him to take steps to ensure the fundamental rights of religious minorities are protected and perpetrators of such violence are held accountable. In 2015, President Obama acknowledged concerns related to religious freedom in his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast following his visit to India, stating, '…in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance.'" the letter further stated.
 
IAMC welcomed the letter as a much needed reminder to Prime Minister Modi on the deteriorating situation of human rights under his regime.
 
Indian American Muslim Council is the largest advocacy organization of Indian Muslims in the United States with chapters across the nation. For more information, please visit our website at: http://iamc.com/

The post Modi’s Administration Oversees Violations on Religious Freedoms: IAMC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sign the Petition here: Stand with JNU

We, the students of Mumbai extend our support to and express solidarity with the students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), who are under systematic attack from the Delhi Police and certain sections of the media. We disagree with the slogans raised by a small section of people on the JNU campus, during a protest and do not identify or sympathise with those who provoke violence against the people of India and the state. However, the manner in which the Government has dealt with this situation is alarming and distressing.

The JNU Student Union President Kanhaiya Kumar has been arrested by the police under charges of sedition. From all videos and eye witness accounts that have surfaced after the protest, it is clear that Kanhaiya Kumar was not part of the group chanting the slogans and can be called a bystander or observer at best. A video of his speech has emerged where he makes it clear that he was not supporting that particular group of protestors and in fact asserts his faith in the Constitution of India.

Keeping this is mind, we must ask: what is the formal pretext under which he has been arrested? We do not believe it is acceptable for a police force to enter a University, which is intended to be a forum for debate and discussion, and arrest a student leader and lock him up in jail even though he has not broken any law. The media has been imploring the Delhi Police Commissioner to release evidence that suggests Kanhaiya Kumar raised slogans along with the group of protestors concerned. The police has so far not released any evidence against Kanhaiya. He has been charged under the Sedition law, which cannot be applied to anyone unless there has been incitement of violence against the state, and Kanhaiya has done anything but that. The arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional arrest of a student from a University seems to be a gross misuse of political power to stifle opinions that differ from those of the ruling establishment.

The larger problem is the way sections of the media and the Government are using this episode to tarnish JNU as a whole with one brush, calling it a 'den of anti-nationals'. This kind of irresponsible rhetoric that maligns an educational institution of the country, is unfair and appears to serve a political narrative that does not tolerate dissenting voices. The assault of JNU students, staff and journalists by lawyers and BJP MLA OP Sharma outside Patiala House Court has only proved how those associated with the University are being victimized by those in the ruling dispensation. The refusal of the police to take action against the culprits of the Patiala House attack, and the determination to keep Kanhaiya behind bars, sends out a disturbing message to students across India : If you do not toe the line of the Government, a pretext will be found to punish you. This environment is not at all conducive for any educational institution.

We appeal to the conscience of the Prime Minister and request him to end this farce being enacted in JNU and release Kanhaiya Kumar. There is a problem with the slogans that were raised by some students of JNU and it needs to be addressed with the sensitivity it deserves and after sufficient thought has gone into it. Knee-jerk reactions like arresting a student leader can never be the solution.

This is a petition to the Government of India from a collection of students from Mumbai colleges. The chief petitioners are students of a Mumbai college and can be contacted at studentswithjnu@gmail.com. 

Only college students from Mumbai should sign this petition. Your identity will not be revealed if you so wish.

The post Campaign: Mumbai College Students Stand with JNU appeared first on SabrangIndia.