Here is the Video that so pungently describes India’s Strings of Dirt and makes us stop. And think. Are we doing enough for Umar Khalid and the likes of him confined and chained? It is a wakeup call to you and to me, to also the media houses who have shut their eyes and ears to the reality that confronts us all.

If you have already seen this video, then watch it again.
If you haven’t, then watch it to Understand #UmarKhalid better.

मैल की बत्ती और उमर… #1000DaysOfInjustice

Part – 1 pic.twitter.com/FDMBbjR6hF

— Darab Farooqui (@darab_farooqui) June 9, 2023

“उमर खालिद जो नफ़रत के बदले प्यार की बात करता था वो जेल में है। लेकिन गोली चलाने वाला रामभक्त गोपाल बाहर है, भड़काऊ भाषण देने वाला कपिल मिश्रा बाहर है।”

दिल्ली दंगों का सच जानने के लिए देखिए @ShyamMeeraSingh की वीडियो: https://t.co/zJqKrlT6yw#1000DaysOfInjustice pic.twitter.com/YrqwxtHPDN

— Free Umar Khalid (@FreeUmarKhalid1) June 9, 2023

Here is another social media tweet from yesterday #ShyamMeeraSingh #1000DaysofInjustice

“उमर खालिद जो नफ़रत के बदले प्यार की बात करता था वो जेल में है। लेकिन गोली चलाने वाला रामभक्त गोपाल बाहर है, भड़काऊ भाषण देने वाला कपिल मिश्रा बाहर है।” दिल्ली दंगों का सच जानने के लिए देखिए @ShyamMeeraSingh की वीडियो:

Caravan Magazine put it presciently

Today, #UmarKhalid completes 1000 days in prison over a case connected to the 2020 Delhi riots.

From 2022, how Khalid’s trial can set a precedent for the treatment of all terrorism and sedition cases and for the state’s strategy to deal with dissent: https://t.co/8ZJmgxvSqW

— The Caravan (@thecaravanindia) June 9, 2023

Today, #UmarKhalid completes 1000 days in prison over a case connected to the 2020 Delhi riots. From 2022, how Khalid’s trial can set a precedent for the treatment of all terrorism and sedition cases and for the state’s strategy to deal with dissent:

On Friday June 9 afternoon, the courtyard of the Press Club was crowded with a solidarity group, packed as journalists, students, activists and academicians gathered to hear panelists talk as they marked 1,000 days of Khalid’s incarceration. The speakers included journalist Ravish Kumar and senior economist Prabhat Patnaik.Supreme Court advocate Shahrukh Alam, who spoke at the event, noted that the Station House Officer, instead of invoking sections of the law, had used the authority of his office to order the cancellation of the event. “There is no legal basis for such a request,” said Alam. She added: “We are not thinking in terms of constitutional and civil liberties. We are operating in terms of law and order and national security.”

Senior journalist Ravish Kumar on his You Tube channel has hostel this episode especially on the injustice behind Umar Khalid’s arrest and long incarceration. The venue for the event had to be changed at the last minute: around 9 pm on Thursday, Delhi-based activist Nadeem Khan shared a poster with journalists on WhatsApp asking them to attend an event marking 1,000 days of the incarceration of activist Umar Khalid. Khalid has been behind bars since September 13, 2020, under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, for his alleged involvement in the Delhi riots earlier that year.

The poster titled “Democracy, Dissent and Censorship: A Discussion by Concerned Citizens” said the event was scheduled for 3 pm on Friday. The venue: the Press Club of India at Raisina Road in New Delhi. Earlier the venue was Gandhi Peace Foundation at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg near ITO in the national capital. The poster, too, had a slightly different title: “Dissent Under Trial: 1000 days of Injustice”.But on Thursday, the IP Estates Police Station wrote to the office-bearers of the Gandhi Peace Foundation, a charitable trust, telling them to cancel the booking for the event, according to a copy of the letter accessed by Scroll.

This is the latest of efforts in the capital for the Delhi police that falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to restrict dissenting opinion and permissions in public spaces.

Related:

Delhi court rejects application to handcuff Umar Khalid & Khalid Saifi

Umar Khalid’s speech prima facie not acceptable, obnoxious: Delhi HC

Protest was secular, chargesheet is communal: Dr. Umar Khalid’s counsel

Umar Khalid bail hearing: Counsel points out “cooked up” witnesses

Chargesheet against me looks like a film script: Umar Khalid to court

The post Umar who spoke of love & justice is in jail for 1,000 days, hate mongers roam free #1000 Days of Injustice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Last week, courts in Haridwar refused to grant bail to two accused in the ‘Dharam Sansad’ case Yati Narsinghanand and Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly known as Wasim Rizvi) for delivering hate speeches at the religious conclave held between December 17 to December 19, 2021.

Tyagi was the first to get arrested in the case, and a few days later Narsinghanand was also arrested. It is apparent that both arrests were made after the Supreme Court took cognisance of a petition seeking criminal action in the case which was previously ignored by the Haridwar Police. Even now, the criticism is that important sections of the Penal code that apply in the case have not been invoked and that all the speakers of the event who made the incendiary speeches have not been arrested.

Narsinghanand was arrested on January 15 from Sarvanand Ghat where he was staging a ‘satyagraha’ against the arrest of Tyagi. Yati’s bail was rejected by Chief Judicial magistrate Mukesh Arya while Tyagi’s abil was rejected by the Sessions Court judge Ritesh Kumar Shrivastava.

Tyagi was booked under section 153A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer opposed the bail application stating that Tyagi had made several statements against a particular religion and had incited communal disharmony by making objectionable comments against Prophet Mohammad.

The court observed that Tyagi had criminal antecedents and was booked for similar offences in the past. Taking this into account and the graveness of the offences invoked against him, the court refused to grant him bail.

The Sessions Court order may be read here:

Narsinghanand was denied bail in two cases, one for making hate speeches in ‘Dharam Sansad’ and other for his derogatory remarks against Muslim women. In the latter, he was booked under sections 295A and 509 of the IPC. He had alleged that Muslim women acted as mistresses of politicians. He has been under judicial custody since January 16.

Narsinghanand stated in his bail application that the FIR was filed against him in a delayed manner and that the FIR does not mention the comments made by him.

The court observed that despite notices being issued against him under section 41A of CrPC, Narsinghanand continued to make inflammatory comments and there was a possibility that due to such comments, serious crimes could be committed in the area. The court rejected his bail noting that the offences against him were grave in nature.

In the case related to hate speeches made by him at Dharam Sansad, Narsinghanand made similar submissions. However, the court observed that as per the case diary, the statements made by Narsinghanand had the potential to disturb communal harmony in the area and that it is evident that his statements were inflammatory and could provoke communal disturbances and violence in the area as well. The court thus rejected bail noting that the allegations against Narsinghanand were grave.

The Chief Magistrate court’s order may be read here:

In related news, the Attorney General of India has granted consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Narsinghanand for making derogatory comments against the Supreme Court of India and for undermining  its authority.

Another accused in the Dharam Sansad case, Swami Prabodhanand Giri, has sought quashing of the FIR filed against him in the case and Uttarakhand High Court has issued notice to the state in the matter.

Related:

Narsinghanand arrested: Is it for Hate Speech or misogyny?
Contempt plea against Yati Narsinghanand receives AG’s consent
PM Modi’s maun over the genocide call speaks volumes

The post Dharm Sansad: Haridwar local courts deny bail to hate mongers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Delhi Court has questioned the Jamia Nagar Police, Delhi, for allegedly refusing to file FIRs against Dasna temple priest Yati Narsinghanand and Karni Sena Chief Suraj Pal Amu. 

Faisal Ahmed Khan, a Law professor, had filed two complaints against them for anti-Muslim communal speeches made by both these right wing leaders on separate occasion. However, even after three days, the police did not register FIRs against either of these hate offenders.

Khan, thus, approached Saket district court on August 7 seeking directions to the police to register the FIRs. Khan sought two separate FIRs, and for both to be charged under sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 298 (uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505-1 (whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report), 505-2 (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, reported The Wire.

When the case came up for hearing, Metropolitan Magistrate Rajat Goyal directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Jamia Nagar Police station, Delhi to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) in both cases.

The Court has posed the following questions for the police to answer in both cases:

1.       Whether any complaint has been made by the complainant in the police station
2.       If yes, whether any action has been taken on the said complaint
3.       Whether any investigation or inquiry has been conducted in this regard and if yes, then what is the status of the investigation/inquiry
4.       If any cognisable offence is made out, whether any FIR has been registered or not

The court has given the SHO time till September 27 to file the report.

Interestingly, Satish Kumar, Jamia Nagar Police Station SHO, told The Wire said that the “two matters were not of Jamia Nagar jurisdiction.”

Complaint against Yati Narsinghanand

Khan has complained against the statement made by Narsinghanand, in which he alleged that students of certain educational institutions, including Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Jamia Millia Islamia and Darul Uloom Deoband, cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Khan’s application to the Magistrate states that Narsinghanand, also President of Akhil Bharatiya Sant Parishad, called for a total boycott of Muslims and their religious texts and establishing a nation free/devoid of Islam or anything associated with it.

SabrangIndia’s sister organisation, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has previously approached different authorities like the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) against Narsinghanand’s actions. Recently, the NHRC has also registered a case against Narsinghanand for his hate speech against Islam made in April this year, on the complaint filed by Haji Mohd. Sameer Boghani, president of the Madariya Sufi Foundation.

Narsinghanand has been a notorious saffron-clad hate monger who has become too brazen for even BJP’s comfort. In July, he uploaded a video on his Facebook account threatening to destroy all mosques in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. He says in the video, “Agar kissi mandir ko hilane ki koshish jihaadiyo ne ki, toh uska itna tagra jawaab denge jiski koi had nahi.” (Translation: If any Islamic militant attempts to destroy our temples, we will respond in a manner that has no limits.)

In March, CJP wrote to MEITY and Ministry of Minority Affairs (MMA) against his speeches where he continues to appeal to all Hindus to protect their Dharam (religion), daughters and women as there is a Muslim “jihadi” everywhere, who is killing Hindus in every region of the world. In his video he has claimed that  the purpose Jihad is to kill a kaafir (non-believer) or a non-Muslim, and to take control of a non-Muslim man’s wife and property and also that Jihad is a synonym of ‘cancer’ which needs to be ‘operated’ or surgically removed, insinuating that Jihad needs to be destroyed worldwide as it is the most ‘dangerous thing’.

The Magistrate Court order in the Yati Narsinghanand case may be read here:

Complaint against Suraj Pal Amu

The complaint against Amu is for the speech he made at a Mahapanchayat attended by 50,000 people held in Indri, Nuh Haryana on May 30. The speech by Amu quoted in Khan’s application reads, “Those who are real Hindus please raise your hands. If there are any children of Pakistanis sitting here, they may also raise their hands. ‘Asif was killed by Patwari, Advani’…He was neither murdered by Patwari, nor by Advani. If he has been murdered, it is because of his deeds, dare to say this. We are not guilty, our boys are not guilty. They make nude photos/ videos of our sisters and daughters and we cannot even murder them?” Patwari and Advani mentioned here are persons accused in the Asif Khan lynching case, who was killed in Mewat. In Another Mahapanchayat held in Pataudi, five weeks later, Amu urged the crowd to destroy mosques and stop every attempt that is made at building mosques, states the application.

Promotional flyers for the event in Pataudi described it as a Mahapanchayat against “recent increase in cases of love jihad, market jihad, land jihad and religious conversions in the villages surrounding Pataudi,” with a focus on the subject of “love jihad”, the allegations that Muslim men lure Hindu women away from their families and forcefully convert them to Islam, reported NDTV.

“They (Muslims) cut their moustaches, we can cut throats… We will pick them (Muslims) off one by one (chun chun ke thokenge),”  Amu reportedly said in his speech at Pataudi mahapanchayat. “Agar Bharat hamaari maata hai, toh Pakistan ke hum baap hain, aur ye Pakistani… ko hum yahan ke gharon mein kiraye par makan nahin denge… In…ko is desh se nikaalo, yeh prastaav paas karo (If India is our mother, then we are the father of Pakistan, and we will not give houses here on rent to the Pakistanis… Remove them from this country, pass this proposal),” he added.

When Varun Singla, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Manesar, was questioned why the police had not lodged a complaint against Amu and event organisers for the inflammatory speech, he said no action can be taken since no complaint was filed, reported NDTV. This, despite hundreds of policemen present at the event and police can by themselves take cognisance of cognisable offences and lodge an FIR.

Amu, after making the speech, appears to have been rewarded when he was appointed spokesperson for BJP Haryana.

The Magistrate Court order in the Suraj Pal Amu case may be read here:

Related:

CJP approaches MEITy and Minority Affairs Ministry against Yati Narsinghanand
Yati Narsinghanand continues to spread hate
CJP approaches NCM against Vikas Sehrawat for his abusive statements against Muslims
UP: Right wing outfit Kranti Sena conducts drive to ban Muslim Mehendi artists and barbers

The post Delhi Court questions Police for alleged refusal to file FIR against right-wing hate mongers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Sessions Court in Delhi denied pre-arrest bail to Hindu Raksha Dal President Pinky Chaudhary who was involved in communal sloganeering at Jantar Mantar. No surprises that Chaudhary, a fringe group leader, who has been involved in hate speech earlier as well however, has always enjoyed the impunity of law. Even if a case is registered against him, he is either not arrested or is released after arrest. The denial of pre-arrest bail to him in this case is important considering the observations made therein by the Sessions Judge, however, it’s too soon to hail it.

The Magistrate court, Delhi has already denied bail to other accused in the case, Deepak Singh, Preet Singh and Vinod Sharma, who have been booked for hate speech. The three allegedly called for the slaughter of Muslims on August 8 as part of a rally organised by Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay under the “Bharat Jodo Movement” against colonial-era laws in the country.

In an area that is supposedly a high security zone, just a few kilometres from the Parliament, slogans like “Jab M***e Kate Jaenge, Ram Ram Chillaayenge” were chanted that have been recorded and widely circulated online. The Delhi Police had filed an FIR in the matter against “unknown persons” and subsequently arrested Ashwini Upadhyay and five others (including Preet, Vinod and Deepak).

Deepak Singh, is said to be president of an outfit called Hindu Force, and Vinod Sharma heads an outfit called Sudarshan Vahini.

Pinky Chaudhary’s bail application

The counsel for Chaudhary submitted that he did not organise the event, was not present at any protest and that he had not made any hate speech. All offences against him are bailable except the charge under section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of IPC. The counsel called into question the authenticity of the incriminating video but for the sake of argument stated that when read as a whole, no offence was made out under section 153A of IPC. He further argued that the right of freedom of speech was indefeasible and that it was not deliberate or intentional on the part of the applicant to incite any hatred or violence.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, SK Kain opposed the bail and submitted that the video clippings showed that hateful slogans were passed against a particular religion by the applicant. He further argued that recovery of mobile phone and other articles was still to be done and one of the accused is still absconding and if released, he may create unruly situation which will be prejudicial to public tranquility.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Anil Antil, after perusing the video and its transcript observed that the applicant’s interview is “impregnated with high octane communal barbs, laced with inflammatory, insulting and threatening gestures, ex facie indicative of the calculative design on the part of the applicant to promote hatred and ill will amongst other section of the community”.

The court said that freedom of speech is the most cherished natural right, but is not unfettered nor is it absolute. The court stated that the right cannot be extended to acts prejudicial to maintenance of peace, harmony and public order and not can it be permitted to invade erode the secular fabric of our society. “In the garb of libertarian concept of free speech, the applicant cannot be allowed to trample the constitutional principles which promote inclusiveness and common brotherhood,” the court said.

The court further said, “We are not a Taliban state. Rule of law is the sacrosanct governing principle in our plural and multi-cultural society. While the whole of India is celebrating Azadi ka Amrut Mahotsav, there are some minds still chained with intolerant and self centric beliefs”.

The court held that the applicant’s complicity in the alleged crime is prima facie apparent from the material before the court, and that the allegations are serious and the offence alleged is severe. “History is not immune where such incidents have flared communal tensions leading to riots and causing loss to life and property of general public,” the court observed.

The court also pointed out that the investigation is at nascent stage and persons acquainted with the facts of the case are yet to be identified, also entire incriminating material is yet to be seized. The court also noted that Chaudhary is the president of Hindu Raksha Dal and “taking note of the tone and tenure of the speech and the threatening words used therein via the alleged interview and analyzed in the backdrop of his stature and influence exerted, there is strong possibility, if released on bail, at this stage, the applicant shall hamper the investigation and shall influence and/or threaten the witnesses”.

The court said that keeping in mind these observations, custodial interrogation will serve the best interest of justice to unearth the entire conspiracy and hence the court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail and thus disposed the application accordingly.

The Delhi court order may be read here:

Who is Pinky Chaudhary

Pinky Chaudhary also known as Bhupinder Tomar, is the President of Hindu Raksha Dal. His infamy stems from the many communal incidents he has been involved in and brazenly owned to making such statements as well. Chaudhary is a former member of Bajrang Dal

For instance, in January 2020, Chaudhary had owned up to the attack on JNU campus, in a video he posted on twitter. “JNU is a hub of communists and we won’t tolerate this. They abuse our religion and our country. Their attitude towards our religion is anti-national. In future, too, we will take the same action in other universities if someone tries to indulge in anti-national activities,” he says in the video. In the attack on JNU, a masked group of people entered the JNU campus and vandalised the property with several students and teachers getting injured in the attack.

Hindu Raksha Dal was formed in July 2013 by Chaudhary, and has more than 1 lakh registered members, mainly in Delhi-NCR. Sanket Katara, the spokesperson told The Print that Hindu Raksha Dal fights against “love jihad”, works towards gau raksha (cow protection) and other “Hindu issues”.

In April, an FIR was lodged against Chaudhary for announcing reward of Rs. 51,000 for anyone who brings him Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan’s head. He had made this declaration in a Facebook live session.

Fringe outfit leaders and the law

While the Delhi Court rightly pointed to the egregious slogans raised by the men and refused to grant pre-arrest bail for hate speech, this brings to memory an incident of 2014 where a Muslim youth was killed and the mastermind of the incident, a Hindutva fringe outfit leader was granted bail in 2019 by the Bombay High Court. In June 2014 Mohsin Sadik and his brother on their way to offer namaz were assaulted by a group of men and motorcycles blurting communal slurs at them. They were assaulted with hockey sticks and Mohsin who was hit with a cement block succumbed to his injuries. The accused, Dhananjay Desai, founder President of Hindu Rashtra Sena had 17 cases under section 153A of IPC against him yet no coercive action was taken against him.

While chasing the victim and other Muslim men, the members of Hindu Rastra Sena were raising slogan such as “Dhananjay Zindabad”, and “Hindu Rashtra Sena Zindabad”.

A precursor to this incident was a hate speech made by Desai at a public meeting inciting feelings of hatred in the minds of Hindus against Muslims and urging people to wage a war against Muslims. He was thus, denied bail. After filing of chargesheet an application to discharge him was filed which was rejected by a Sessions Court in Pune, in June 2016. In December 2017, the Bombay High Court stayed the trial against Desai while admitting his revision application against the denial of discharge order. Since the trial was stayed against him and since 20 other accused in the case who were directly involved in the murder were already on bail, the court granted bail to Desai. At the time of granting bail, the single-judge bench of Justice SS Jadhav had imposed restrictions and taken an undertaking from Desai that he will not involve himself in any political activities for Hindu Rashtra Sena or otherwise and will not deliver public speeches until trial is completed. The chargesheet had stated that the accused had executed the attack on the behest of Desai.

Soon after his release, though, his followers carried out a processions and celebrated his release from jail. The Yerwada police booked him and his followers under several non-bailable sections of rioting and unlawful assembly but no arrests were made, reported The Wire.

The Bombay High Court order may be read here:

A careful reading of the Bombay High Court order granting bail indicates that bail was granted because trial was stayed. However, the exact reason for granting bail was not explicitly stated in the bail order. The reasons for which he was denied bail before the filing of chargesheet were not really taken into consideration, merely mentioned in the order. Desai was charged for inciting and being the mastermind behind the attack against Muslim youth in the bylanes of Pune, resulting in the death of Mohsin Sadik. In Delhi, Pinky Chaudhary has been denied bail for his inflammatory speeches against the Muslim community. Both, Desai and Chaudhary are leaders of hindu right wing fringe outfits that portray themselves as protectors of Hindutva and indulge in “cow vigilantism” and crusade against the whimsical phenomena of “love jihad”. While it’s too early to say for the case of Chaudhary and other accused who have been denied bail so far, whether or not they will be dealt with a free hand as the case progresses, only time will tell. It is too early to draw a comparison between Desai’s case and Chaudhary’ case, both of whom have had a fare share of hate speech and communal stirrings attributable to them. Both of them have largely stayed away from arrests due to their hardline positions. When Desai was jailed, Congress government was ruling in Maharashtra, yet the case did not gain much traction and the Mohsin’s family still awaits justice in the case.

Naturally, unless political parties take a stand against hate speech and targeting of minority communities, mostly Muslims, at least in states where non-BJP parties are ruling, the fight against hate speech will remain limited to human rights and other civil society organisations raising their voices against them.

Related:

Delhi Court rejects bail pleas of three accused in the anti-Muslim sloganeering in Jantar Mantar rally
Jantar Mantar rally: BJP leader, SC lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay among six arrested
Anti-Muslim hate speech at Delhi rally calls for communal violence

The post Court reminds hate mongers, India is not a Taliban State appeared first on SabrangIndia.