“The bedrock of all civil services in any democracy worth the name is their independence, neutrality, non-adherence to any political ideology in the discharge of official duties, the freedom to articulate their views to the political executive and the security of knowing that they would not be subjected to arbitrary actions for adhering to these values.

“These foundational characteristics had been forcefully expressed by Sardar Patel in his address to the Constituent Assembly in October 1947 in the following words:

“There is no alternative to this administrative system…The Union will go, you will not have a united India if you do not have a good All India Service which has the independence to speak out its mind, which has the sense of security that you will stand by your work…If you do not follow this course, then do not follow the present Constitution…Remove them and I see nothing but a picture of chaos all over the country.”

“Contrary to the above exhortation, we fear that the government, of which you are the constitutional head, is now attempting to distort this basic framework and historical understanding.  

Further,  measures are being taken that threaten the unique federal design of the IAS and the IPS, which underlies Sardar Patel’s vision of a permanent civil service that would  both bind the country together and enable it to maintain a balance between the interests of the Union and the interests of the States. There are noticeable attempts to pressurise officers to show exclusive loyalty to the Union rather than to the ‘parent’ state cadre to which they are allotted. On occasion, arbitrary departmental actions have been taken against those who refuse to do so. Service Rules are sought to be amended to compel central deputations without the consent of either the officers concerned or their state governments, effectively undermining the authority and control of Chief Ministers over their officers. This has disturbed the federal balance and left civil servants torn between conflicting loyalties, thereby weakening their ability to be impartial.

“In the past governments have permitted lateral recruitment at senior levels and many such officers have distinguished themselves. Lately, however, there has been opacity in the recruitment process at mid-levels and concerns that candidates are being chosen based on their ideological predilections. The consequences of this for the future of an independent civil service requires no comment.  

The CCG has also flagged certain concerning statements by high functionaries.

“The actions and words of some very senior functionaries of the central government increases our concern on the future of the civil service and the consequent danger to democracy in India.

“In this context we would like to mention that the National Security Advisor (NSA), while addressing IPS officers at their passing out function in 2021, had emphasised that they should treat civil society as the “fourth  generation of warfare, that can be subverted, suborned, divided and manipulated to hurt the interests of the nation”.  Such sentiments are antithetical to any democratic dispensation and aim at placing civil society in a position of conflict with the state.

“On the April 21, this year, the Prime Minister addressed a gathering of civil service officers on Civil Services Day. The address was unremarkable and comprised largely of a litany of the achievements of the present government over the past nine years, with a proforma acknowledgement of the contributions of the civil services. What was disturbing was his exhortation to the officers to be firm in dealing with malfeasance of political parties while in power. Though couched neutrally, the intent and objective were unmistakable.”

The bureaucrats have stated that their “concern about the future of the civil services is heightened by the reaction of some civil servants.

“The Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie (LBSNAA) is the foundational training institute for All India Services and Central Services. In a recent op-ed, the Director of the LBSNAA wrote, “The task of defining an Indian ethos for the civil servants began in the 75^th year of India’s independence, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address where he spelt out the country’s vision….”. Such unwarranted encomiums to the Prime Minister, by the Director of the premier academy for training future civil servants, are deeply disturbing.”

The group states further that they” apprehend that moves are afoot to redact Sardar Patel’s vision of an independent and apolitical civil service and replace it with apparatchiks and foot soldiers whose loyalty shall be to the ruling party and not to the Constitution of India. “

Who is the CCG?

The CCG is a group of former civil servants of the All India and Central Services who have worked with the Central and State Governments in the course of our careers. Both as individuals and as a group, we believe in impartiality, neutrality and commitment to the Constitution of India. We do not owe allegiance to any political party.

At a time when politics is leaning dangerously towards a centralised, authoritarian, national security state with a leadership  seemingly amenable to abandoning, without demur, the fundamental principles on which our Constitution is based, it has become critical for citizens to ensure that institutions and systems like the civil services which can check this frightening erosion of constitutional values in the manner envisaged by the great Sardar are protected and strengthened. By virtue of their allegiance to the Constitution and not the government of the day, the All India Services, particularly the IAS and IPS, have a critical role to play. As the Constitutional Head of the Republic, we appeal to you to convey our concerns to the Union Government and caution them that this attempt to change the character of the civil services is fraught with extreme danger and, as Sardar Patel had warned many years ago, will spell the death of constitutional government in India.

Constitutional Conduct Group (82 signatories, as below)

The post Indian Civil Services should be neutral not adjuncts of governments in power: Former bureaucrats, CCG appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr Sandeep Mittal a Tamil Nadu cadre Indian Police Service officer is upset that he has been unfollowed by the IPS Association after his tweets supportive of the right wing narratives. Mittal is not known to be subtle about his political affiliations, but this time the biggest critique has come from the IPS Association itself. In a public act of distancing itself from the senior policeman, after the bureaucrats’ group unfollowed him on Twitter apparently, as reported by Daily Thanthi, after his explicit right-wing views shared online. Dr. Sandeep Mittal, IPS has expressed his reaction openly, “IPS Association belong to us. Can @IPS_Association tell me who took the decision to unfollow @smittal_ips . Is it being run like a private company?”

कुछ पत्रकारों ने सूचित किया है कि #UrbanNaxals सहयोगी कई अखबार संपादकों को @smittal_ips के विरुद्ध अभियान चलाने के लिए कहा है क्योंकि उसने @khanumarfa & @pbhushan1 के विरुद्ध लिखा है। कल इन विशेष अखबारों में मेरे खिलाफ मुहिम चलेगी & मुझे बदनाम करने की कोशिश की जाएगी। देख लेंगे। pic.twitter.com/jllXMabUot

— Dr. Sandeep Mittal, IPS (@smittal_ips) September 13, 2020

Service rules for IPS officers specify that they can write articles in publications only for scientific, cultural and literary purposes, and always have to issue a disclaimer that these views and opinions are personal. Perhaps in the current advancement of social media platforms, maybe these rules apply in some measure on online microblogging portals as well.  According to the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, rule 1A, states, “Every member of the Service shall maintain:- (ii)  political neutrality”; There is a sub-rule, in the Conduct Rules, 1968, that states, “No members of the service shall be a member of, or be otherwise associate with any political party or any organisations which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, or subscribe in aid, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or political activity.” The rules may be read here: https://ips.gov.in/ActsRules/Revised_AIS_Rule_Vol_I_Rule_10.pdf

However, Mittal, now an additional DGP attached to the Central government, posted in Delhi, has always posted social media opinions and statements, which are seen to praise, and support the Bharatiya Janata Party, and other members of right wing outfits. Most recently he tweeted “congratulations” to the Delhi Police after the arrest of anti-CAA-NPR-NRC activist Dr Umar Khalid.

दिल्ली पुलिस को बहुत-बहुत बधाई।#UrbanNaxals देश के लिए सबसे बड़ा खतरा हेैं। @DelhiPolice को उनके साथियों पर विदेशी फंडिंग की भी जांच करनी चाहिए। @NIA_India & @dir_ed भी साझा जांच पड़ताल करें। https://t.co/s3nCDSq4me

— Dr. Sandeep Mittal, IPS (@smittal_ips) September 12, 2020

He has also been using hashtags such as #UrbanNaxals, so far only used by RW followers to troll those who dissent. He also  targeted tweets at senior journalist Arfa Khanum and senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

His handlers should be identified and interrogated to unveil the deep conspiracy further. https://t.co/1T2qeTPou4

— Dr. Sandeep Mittal, IPS (@smittal_ips) September 13, 2020

कुछ पत्रकारों ने सूचित किया है कि #UrbanNaxals सहयोगी कई अखबार संपादकों को @smittal_ips के विरुद्ध अभियान चलाने के लिए कहा है क्योंकि उसने @khanumarfa & @pbhushan1 के विरुद्ध लिखा है। कल इन विशेष अखबारों में मेरे खिलाफ मुहिम चलेगी & मुझे बदनाम करने की कोशिश की जाएगी। देख लेंगे। pic.twitter.com/jllXMabUot

— Dr. Sandeep Mittal, IPS (@smittal_ips) September 13, 2020

He had earlier targeted journalist Rana Ayyub, and even the BBC calling them “anti social elements” and accusing them of spreading “one way and false news, spreading social anarchy, adding ghee to the fire” This was when news and analysis of the North east Delhi’s communal riots were being reported.

The Daily Thanthi reported that Mittal’s open support of the RSS ideology had already raised eyebrows. However, as expected Mittal denied any affiliations and told DT that he will “not allow anybody to paint me any colour. I am not supporting any political party. I am a person of Tricolour. I just want to know why they unfollowed me on Twitter.”

Incidentally the senior IPS officer is not new to online controversy. Last year he was noticed for allegedly ‘liking’ porn content from his social media handle. This was noted by those following his comments against actor Farhan Akhtar, during the anti-CAA protest. However the IPS officer had clarified that his “handle had been ‘hacked’”.

That was widely reported in 2019. The Hindi news portal Lallantop had one of the most detailed reports. It stated that Mittal, considered a cyber security expert, had locked horns with poet lyricist Javed Akhtar, and his son actor Farhan Akhtar and challenged them to show the law that forbade police from entering  university campuses. He had even altered Mumbai police that action could be initiated against Farhan Akhtar and he can be tried for Sedition, by the NIA.

However after the alleged porn ‘likes’ came to light, Mittal alleged that his account had been hacked, apparently because, or after he questioned the Akhtar duo. This is the screenshot shared by Lallantop then.

However, a ‘hacker’ account then came up on the timeline and stated that Mittal’s account was not hacked at all. The hacker shared how he reached that conclusion after some digital digging. The Lallantop published that screen shot too.

Recently Twitter removed an offensive tweet that was posted by former IPS officer and CBI Chief Nageshwar Rao soon  after the death of spiritual leader and social activist Swami Agnivesh. He had posted a highly offensive and insensitive tweet “celebrating” the vertan leader’s demise. After mass reporting against the tweet by several senior journalists and activists, Twitter took it down on Sunday. Swami Agnivesh, a world renowned  activist known for standing up against social injustices, especially bonded labour, had died of liver disease and complications arising out of multiple organ failure in Delhi on Saturday evening. He had been a thorn in the side of right-wing extremists for decades, and had even been brutally attacked by them in Jharkhand two years ago leading to serious injuries that may have gotten complicated over time leading to his death. Rao had celebrated the death in the most crass manner.

He too had cried ‘freedom of speech’,

Bedrock of democracy is FoE which Voltaire aptly said:

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

But of late, it is honoured more in breach due to increasing intolerance of dissent, which is the real danger to democracy anywhere.

— M. Nageswara Rao IPS (@MNageswarRaoIPS) September 13, 2020

Related:

Former IPS officer’s insensitive comment on Swami Agnivesh’s death: New low for the Right-wing

Twitter bids good riddance to bad rubbish!

Brinda Karat demands ex-CBI chief be chargesheeted

The post Why do top cops not abide by service conduct rules when online? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: PTI

Our Constitution stands for democracy, sovereignty, socialism, secularism, republicanism, equality, liberty, justice, dignity of the individual and unity of India. The Hindutva ideology of the Sangh Parivar is the negation of every basic feature of our Constitution. Though the Supreme Court of India has declared the basic feature of our Constitution as unalterable and not amendable. And despite the unanimous view of the Parliament and the Legislatures, the BJP–RSS–VHP–Bajrang Dal combine have acted in the way Hitler did in Germany: subverting the Constitution and the law from within by resorting to perversions and distortions and by destroying them from without by openly violating and defying every legal and constitutional provision and authority through its volunteers and mobs.

So far we had some glimpses of their ‘Hindu agenda’. Now we have their entire agenda fully unfolded and acted upon without any fear, scruples and remorse in Gujarat. Let us see how Narendra Modi’s ‘One day cricket match’ was played in Gujarat.

The tragedy of the Bharatiya Janata Party is that its defeat starts from the first moment of its victory. Once it comes to power on a communal platform of anti-Muslims and anti–Pakistan, it loses its raison d’etre, as it has no other people–centred socio-economic program of governance, despite its big talk. It cannot continue to bank upon communal riots for its strength and legitimacy because communal riots then tend to be counter–productive. Frequent riots, if unchecked, will cast doubts about its capacity to govern. And if attempted to be checked, it will antagonise the rioting Hindus by its police actions to control them.

The same tragedy overcame the BJP’s Keshubhai–led government earlier. Once riots were not on their agenda, it had nothing to offer except hollow promises in highly sanskritised words, like ‘Bhay, Bhukh, Bhrastachar Mukt Gujarat’ (Fear, hunger, corruption–free Gujarat), Gokul Gram Yojana, etc. All it could really offer to the people of Gujarat was insensitive and inefficient management of natural calamities like cyclone, drought, earthquake, and man–made maladies, criminalisation of politics, gross violations of human rights both by state agencies and dominant castes, communalisation of police and administration, rampant and all–pervasive corruption, least concern for social justice and healthy environment. In short, an almost
total absence of any kind of governance.

When the BJP high command realised that Keshubhai’s BJP government was fast losing ground, as was clearly evident from its defeat in the Panchayat elections and a few by–elections, and there were hardly 12-15 months left for the next Assembly elections due in February–March 2003, they decided on a change of guard. Modi, the sangh pracharak, who was brought in as the new chief minister of Gujarat gave a new slogan: ‘Apnu Gujarat, Aagvu Gujarat’ (Our Gujarat, unique Gujarat).

The induction just 10–12 months before the Assembly elections of a staunch RSS pracharak, a hyped–product of the mass media, an organisation man without any exposure to or experience of government or administration, and a special favourite of the RSS–VHP–BJP was the surest indication of the direction in which Gujarat was to move: a laboratory for the Hindutva agenda. As the BJP was losing elections in one state after another – it ended up in the third position behind the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party in UP — its hawks started attributing its defeat to the dilution of the Hindu agenda.

Narendra Modi, “a textbook case of a fascist and a prospective killer” (first recognized a decade ago by Ashish Nandy – Seminar, May 2002) was ordered to march into Gujarat, not to reform or improve governance or to provide a just, responsive and people–centred government that works, but to saffronise Gujarat, implement the Hindutva agenda and offer a model of a Hindu state for the next round of elections, first in Gujarat in 2003 and then in India in 2004.

On assuming the reins of power in Gandhinagar amidst boisterous Hindu mobs chanting ‘Jai Sia Ram!’ and ‘Modi, March ahead, we are with you’, Modi significantly projected his short stint in power as a ‘one day cricket match’ in which he had to prove himself. For some time he fumbled, unable to get a grip over the government and the administration. While he managed to win his own election with a slender majority, he lost two other by–elections to the state Assembly. He tried to avoid Panchayat elections in the name of ‘Samras Yojana’, which meant unanimous or uncontested elections, by offering monetary incentives. He was about to lose his lustre. And then, suddenly but not so unexpectedly, in the midst of the rising crescendo of the Ram Shila Nyas program of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, came the Godhra carnage of ‘kar sevaks’ on February 27. This was followed by a call for a Gujarat Bandh by the VHP–BD and supported by the BJP on February 28 to voice ‘people’s reaction, resentment and anger’ against the Godhra killings. This provided the golden opportunity that Modi and his ministers had been eagerly awaiting.

Thus, under the stewardship of Modi, Gujarat witnessed in Year Two of the 21st century a new kind of communal barbarism, where the chief minister and his government virtually presided over the well–organised and systematic liquidation of the life, liberty, property, business and dignity of lakhs of Muslims across Gujarat. Clearly anticipating the RSS’ Bangalore message to the Muslims that “the Muslim minority can live in India only if they can win the goodwill of the Hindu majority.”
After the Godhra killing of Hindu kar sevaks, Muslims in Gujarat — remember, not just the culprits of the Godhra incident — lost the ‘goodwill of the Hindu majority’ and therefore had to pay a price for it.

And what a price they paid: Hundreds of innocent Muslims were burnt alive; women were raped, molested and killed, even pregnant women were not spared; children and old people were butchered; thousands of homes, buildings and business houses with their belongings were looted and destroyed; a large number of Muslims’ religious places were razed to the ground and replaced by Hindu temples or thoroughfares; more than 2 lakh people were forced to leave their houses and to live in relief camps, without  adequate relief facilities and with no hope of just resettlement  and rehabilitation; the police continued  to act  in a partisan manner, indulging  in indiscriminate firings, arbitrary arrests, ruthless combing, abuse of criminal law process, refusal to start criminal proceedings against the criminals and closing the doors of justice  to the  victims. As if Modi was impatient to finish his ‘One–day cricket match’ well before the allotted number of overs.

Earlier, Prime Minister Vajpayee announced at election rallies in UP that the “BJP does not want Muslims votes for its victory.” The subsequent revised version was, “We will win even if Muslims do not vote for us”. Gujarat’s chief minister Modi perverted it into: “We do not care, not only for your votes, but even for your lives.” He converted ‘Apnu Gujarat’ (‘Our Gujarat’) into ‘Maru Gujarat’ (‘My Gujarat’), claiming to speak as the sole defender of the image, prestige and honour of Gujarat; and ‘Aagvu Gujarat’ (‘Unique Gujarat’) into Hindu Gujarat reducing Muslims to helpless victims and second–class citizens.

Once the polity is controlled by the Sangh Parivar and civil society is substantially communalised and polarised in terms of ‘We’ and ‘They’, and ‘They’ are identified with international Islam, Pakistan and terrorism and branded as anti–national, the threat is more open, direct, serious and dangerous for the forces of democracy, rule of law, secularism, justice and pluralism.

And now he is planning for early elections in Gujarat trying to capitalise on the communal divide and hostility to win a majority in the elections, as if winning elections even with a greater majority, with Hindu support, would legalise and legitimise the killing and looting of the Muslim minority and the gross violations of their basic human rights. Modi is hailed by many as ‘Chhote Sardar’ (Junior Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel) but in fact he is only a ‘Chhote Hitler’.

The question which agitates the minds of hundreds of well–meaning people in Gujarat, in India and elsewhere in the world is: What explains the successful arrival of ‘Chhote Hitler’ in Gujarat? Why the macabre dance by the killers of Mahatma Gandhi in the land of Gandhi himself? Why this Hindu tribalism and medievalism in ‘Nay Gujarat’ in the 21st century? What is still more disturbing and horrifying is the boast of the elite of Gujarat and the fear of those who are committed to democracy, secularism and social justice, namely, “What Gujarat is today, India will be tomorrow.” The elite claim with pride that Gujarat is always “a path–breaker for India.” Will this turn out to be true?    

The commonly accepted picture which emerges from various writings and reports is that what we have witnessed in Gujarat are not the ordinary communal riots between Hindus and Muslims Gujarat has had many in the past. Nor are they a mere product of the communal divide surcharged with intense mutual hatred and hostility, something we have had in abundance in our history. What is significant and striking is that these communal disturbances, commonly described as Hindu–Muslim riots, are qualitatively different from earlier Hindu-Muslim riots.

Since Independence and particularly during 1969 and thereafter,  Hindu–Muslim riots have been by and large one–sided, causing larger casualties and losses to the Muslims in general. But the recent riots in Gujarat are perceived to be nothing but a kind of genocide and ethnic cleansing, comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany.

These trends were increasingly visible and discernible with each successive riot, particularly after the rise of Hindutva in the ’80s. Now they have emerged so distinctly, visibly, intensely and in accentuated and aggravated form that the quantitative difference has now become a qualitative difference, amounting to a distinct phenomenon. It is not merely a question of more violent and more widespread nationwide riots, but of a clear and present danger of fascism, threatening and undermining the very basis of our constitutional system.

What happened in Gujarat after February 27 has no parallel in India; it is even worse and more dangerous than the Emergency of 1975-77. The latter was certainly a gross abuse of the constitutional system for avoiding a direct threat to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s power and authority in the name of the poor and for saving the country from chaos threatened by “reactionary forces.” And yet it maintained some semblance of constitutionalism.

Moreover, it was in a way a ‘coup’ by a handful of Indira Gandhi’s supporters, led by Sanjay Gandhi. But there was a lot of discontent even within the ruling Congress Party and large sections of civil society in India were totally opposed to the Emergency. It led to a very powerful JP–led people’s movement for democracy.

The Emergency could not take root in society and was perceived even by Smt. Indira Gandhi to be nothing but a temporary phenomenon, to be removed when circumstances were favourable, as she well knew that her steps to remain in power were so inherently against the basic values of democracy, civil liberties, rule of law, independence of judiciary and resistance to any form of authoritarianism.

These values were so well understood and accepted in the polity and society that the authoritarian super-structure sought to be created by Mrs. Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi was bound to face cracks or to collapse sooner or later. Realising this, Indira Gandhi, on the basis of intelligence reports which turned out to be incorrect, declared elections and lost power. The constitutional system was soon restored.

But the communal carnage carried out in Gujarat after February 27 was an expression of majoritarian communalism nurtured, developed and consolidated by the Hindutva forces in civil society, winning substantial support among Hindus, and with the open support, assistance and participation of the BJP government, administration and police. During the Emergency, a vibrant civil society resisted state power. But in Gujarat,the communalised state acted in close collaboration with the support of a large number of Hindus, while the rest of Hindu society remained silent or passive as Muslims were made the targets.

Once the polity is controlled by the Sangh Parivar and civil society is substantially communalised and polarised in terms of “We” and “They”, and “They” are identified with international Islam, Pakistan and terrorism and branded as anti–national, the threat is more open, direct, serious and dangerous for the forces of democracy, rule of law, secularism, justice and pluralism.

The Hindutva ideology of the RSS parivar, namely, India is Hindu and Hinduism is nationalism, of the ideal of a Hindu state within which Hindutva is seen as constituting the national mainstream or cultural nationalism, a state in which Muslims and Christian are minorities and second–class citizens and can live only if they win the goodwill of the majority, cannot be implemented in India through the constitutional system we have. Both cannot co–exist. And therefore the Gujarat situation is a direct subversion of the Constitution and presents a permanent threat, which if not defeated will destroy the Constitution itself.

Courtesy: AFP

Let us briefly describe what happened in Gujarat after February 27.

• The government of Gujarat failed to discharge its elementary constitutional obligation, viz., protecting the life, liberty and properties of its citizens, irrespective of their caste, religion or community. Modi’s government did not act as a constitutional government but a government of the Sangh Parivar, meant for the implementation of the Hindutva program and only for the protection and defence of the Hindu community.
• The government and its administration directly participated in the communal holocaust in aid and support of the marauding mobs of the Hindu fanatics, attacking members of the Muslim community throughout Gujarat and looting or destroying their property, thereby violating its constitutional obligation of non–discrimination as enjoined by the Constitution of India.
• Even though the BJP is a ruling party having its own government in the state, it openly declared support to the ‘Gujarat Bandh’ of February 28 declared by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, even though bandhs have been declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India.
• Modi is most reliably reported to have instructed the officers and  police personnel not to come in the way of what he called the natural reaction of Hindus to the Godhra killings. The government of Gujarat directly and openly violated and infringed upon the basic rights of the Muslim minority under the Constitution of India, resulting in the killing of hundreds, destruction of houses and places of business, desecration of Muslims’ religious places, thereby violating Art.14, Art.19 (1))(g), Art.21 and Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
• Instead of accepting responsibility for the mass killings and mass destruction, of the Muslims, Modi’s government justified the killing and destruction thereby taking sides with one community only. The law and order machinery itself participated in the communal violence against Muslims either directly or by remaining indifferent and passive in controlling the mobs.
• The government originally discriminated between the victims of Godhra violence even in respect of payment of compensation. Subsequently it was forced to withdraw the discrimination.
• The government also failed in providing efficient, effective and speedy relief to the victims belonging to the minority community and also did not take effective steps in providing rehabilitation to the inmates of the refugee camps. A few ministers of Modi’s government and almost all important leaders of BJP, the party in power, participated in the violent activities perpetrated by Hindu mobs throughout Gujarat.
• The government condoned and justified the attacks by the Hindus upon Muslim women, thereby encouraging them to violate the fundamental duties regarding gender equality and regarding respect for women.
• The ruling party and its allies threatened all secular forces and also attacked some of them so as to prevent them from exercising their fundamental rights in the society.
• The government has openly abused the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and has failed to enforce the criminal law, blocking the filing of proper FIRs and proper investigation into the crimes, and by appointing its own party men as police or public prosecutors. This has resulted in a denial of justice to  members of the minority community even in respect of crimes committed against them by the ruling groups.
• Modi continued to attack the mass media for their factual reportage of the communal carnage in Gujarat, branding them as anti-Gujarat, anti–Hindu and even foreign agents, thereby directly violating the freedom of speech and expression under Art.19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The chief minister attacked the Parliament of India, particularly the leaders of the opposition parties by making all sorts of allegations against them for their visits to Gujarat and their observations on the happenings and the continuance of violence in Gujarat.
• The Modi government abused every legal and constitutional machinery for its partisan ends. For example, it imposed SSC and HSC examinations, ignoring the all–pervading atmosphere of fear and insecurity only in order to show that everything had become normal. Similarly, in order to pre–empt any allegations or accusations against him for his direct responsibility for the riots, the government even abused the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act by appointing a commission, which was not generally acceptable to the independent citizens of the state.
• The government, through its agents, tried to malign even the National Human Rights Commission through a public interest petition in the Gujarat High Court, making all sorts of wild allegations against the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.
• Modi’s government also made it very clear by its various actions that Muslims cannot enjoy equality with Hindus and must be content to live as second–class citizen at the mercy of the Hindu majority.
• The administration and the police to a substantial degree were communalised thereby violating the basic principle of a constitutional government, viz., objectivity and impartiality of the administration and law and order machinery.
• The central government controlled by the BJP failed to exercise its constitutional obligations under Art.356 of the Constitution of India and failed to protect the members of the minority community from the violence perpetrated against them by Hindu militants with the support of the state government. Not just that, the BJP government at the Centre abused the so–called principle of state autonomy, not for protecting the people but for protecting Modi’s government.
• The government deliberately did not  call the meeting of the state Legislative Assembly to avoid any discussion over the government’s failure. Instead it dissolved the Legislative Assembly even though the term of the legislature was to expire only in March 2003. This means that the government abused its power by dissolving the Legislative Assembly and deprived the people of Gujarat of an elected legislature by totally unjustified premature dissolution.
• Modi’s government also tried to abuse Art.174 of the Constitution, going so far as trying to force the Election Commission to hold elections in Gujarat at a time chosen by the BJP Government irrespective of ground realities where free and fair elections are not possible.
• On the one hand, the government of Gujarat has humiliated, alienated and destroyed the economic backbone of the Muslim community. On the other, it has created an atmosphere of insecurity in the minds of the Hindus by encouraging rumours of reprisal and terrorist attacks from the Muslim community. Thus the whole of Gujarat society has been polarised into two warring groups.
• Even the judges of the High Court, sitting or retired, were not spared. No steps were taken for their protection, thus making even the highest judiciary in the state feel insecure. Even top officers belonging to the Muslim community were not saved.

Thus every institution and authority, whether constitutional or legal, has been abused and perverted by Modi’s government in the implementation of its Hindutva agenda. At the same time, the government has encouraged and supported Hindu militant groups acting outside the law and the Constitution to pulverise the Muslim community. All these lead to one irrefutable conclusion – the Sangh Parivar cannot implement the Hindutva agenda legally within the framework of the Constitution because it directly attacks and violates every basic feature of our Constitution.

What has happened in Gujarat cannot therefore be described as “temporary aberration”, “transitory disruption” or “momentary insanity”, but has to be understood and accepted as an inherent and inseparable part and parcel of the Sangh’s Hindutva agenda. It is either the Constitution or Hindutva; there is no way the two can co-exist.

What has happened in Gujarat cannot therefore be described as ‘temporary aberration’, ‘transitory disruption’ or ‘momentary insanity’, but has to be understood and accepted as an inherent and inseparable part and parcel of the Sangh’s Hindutva agenda. It is either the Constitution or Hindutva; there is no way the two can co-exist.

What happened in Gujarat was not within the legal and constitutional framework or parameters. It was completely outside the law and the Constitution — a kind of Hindu terrorism. It was not merely a question of the misuse of state institutions committed to constitutional principles; it was nothing short of a calculated and well–planned experiment to superimpose a Hindutva-inspired state over the present democratic, secular, republican State apparatus. And the Hindutva forces have actually demonstrated, successfully to an extent, their vision of a ‘secular Hindu’ state. It is not just a competing vision of modern India within the Constitution, but an alternative vision totally outside and hostile to the constitutional framework.
Gujarat, therefore, offers us distinct and clear glimpses of a Hindu fascist polity working within a totalitarian Hindu worldview. To achieve this goal, even to attempt this in a single state in a federal country is very difficult, particularly when the Union government is of a different complexion. But the Gujarat experiment was possible because the NDA government in New Delhi was effectively a BJP government, supported by weak allies.

Even the benevolent principle of state freedom or autonomy was grossly abused, not for protecting the Constitution and for discharging the constitutional obligations of the Union under Art. 355 and 356, but for protecting the BJP’s Modi–led government, granting it the freedom to act as it wished.

This was the most treacherous behaviour of the Union government led by Vajpayee and Advani — a most shameful betrayal of the Indian Constitution. Double–dealing, double–speak, cunning, hypocrisy, blatant lies mark the conduct of the top BJP ministers and leaders at the Centre, whose motive was and is to show the entire nation what a full–fledged BJP government can do ‘for the Hindus’, to extract political mileage from the genocide of Muslims and to project the real face of Hindutva in the next Lok Sabha elections in 2004.

The fight then will not be an ordinary electoral contest between political parties, but a clash between two visions of our nation, two alternative processes of nation–formation. It is to be a struggle for the protection, preservation and defence of the Constitution against the naked bid for the perversion, desecration and subversion of the Constitution. If we lose the elections, it will not be a loss of one battle — we would have lost the war.

The true character and design of the Sangh Parivar in all spheres of our polity, society, economy and culture are now clearly, distinctly, unambiguously and nakedly exposed, leaving no room for doubt. Gujarat has revealed the true nature of Hindutva not only ideologically or theoretically but also in actual practice. This is what they stand for and this is what they want to do. Our ideology, our policy, programme and strategy must effectively respond to this and counter it.

In this context, therefore, our approach should be total, comprehensive and clearly focused, not merely fragmented or diffused. Hence how the riots actually broke out, the causes and consequences of the Godhra incidents, the nature, extent, intensity and dimensions of violence, the magnitude of the damage and loss to Muslims, the Muslims’ poverty, illiteracy and backwardness, or the Hindus’ sense of insecurity or neglect, the absence of social interaction or tolerance or understanding between different communities, police action or inaction, adequate or unjust rehabilitation, the recourse to courts, though important in themselves must not be dealt with or treated in isolation from one another. Their importance lies in exposing the true character of the menace we are facing.

Therefore, any partial or issue–based approach or strategy, no doubt important and necessary in its own way, will not be sufficient, adequate or effective. It is the new fascist threat of the 21st century combining authoritarianism, sectarianism, religious   fanaticism and an amoral economic policy of self–aggrandisement, cultural hegemony and brute force. They are operating both constitutionally and extra–constitutionally, inside the Parliament and courts and outside in the streets, and working on people’s minds. But the Gujarat events must not defeat, disillusion, disappoint or frustrate us, but must charge and unite us, open our eyes, shake off our complacency and prepare us for defeating them. In this sense, the Gujarat tragedy could retrospectively prove to be a blessing in disguise, in that it warns us of the impending danger and disaster in 2004.

The elections to the Lok Sabha in 2004 without the backdrop of the Gujarat riots would in a way have been deceptive and misleading. Gujarat at least has rid us of that illusion. Modi and his BJP-VHP-RSS want to replicate Gujarat throughout the country. It is for us to prevent this. The issue is no longer confined to Gujarat. It has become an issue for the entire nation. For Modi, it was a ‘One-day match’ finished in good time. For us now, it is a full 5-day Test. Either they win or we win. Even a draw will be ruinous for the country.        

Archived from Communalism Combat, September 2002, Anniversary Issue (9th), Year 9  No. 80, India Modi-fied

The post India Modi-fied appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The recent happenings in Gujarat have raised many questions about various institutions of the Indian State. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid, it is these happenings that have posed the greatest challenge to the basic values of our Constitution. It is only values like the spirit of tolerance, respect for the point of view of others, even–handed treatment of all sections that ensure the existence of a progressive and modern Indian nation. All those who are concerned about the continuation of a democratic dispensation governed by the rule of law have had their faith in the State severely shaken by the pogrom against the minorities in Gujarat.

While Gujarat has raised many issues, I will deal with those pertaining to the police force. As a police officer, I have always felt that my primary objective should be to try and put my own house in order before pointing fingers at others — the political class, the civil administration etc — however culpable they may also be.

• The incidents in Gujarat are not unique. The law enforcement agencies have shown their apathy and callousness towards the performance of their primary responsibility of upholding the Constitution in riot after riot. The objective of the Constitution is the creation of a society where all citizens, irrespective of religion, caste, class and gender will enjoy the equal protection of the State, can be realised only if institutions like the police behave in an impartial and fair manner. Unfortunately, this premise has been demolished repeatedly by the actions of the police.
• The crying need for police reform has been repeatedly ignored by all sections of Indian society that matter. It is only very rarely that senior politicians, bureaucrats, members of the judiciary, teachers, writers and other people involved in decision–making or in the formulation of public opinion deliberate on issues related to police reforms. I feel that this question of reform is intrinsically linked with remedying the problem raised in the earlier paragraph.
• On every  occasion that the police have failed in their primary duty, whether in  l984, when thousands of Sikhs were massacred all over the country, or in 1992 when the mosque in Ayodhya was demolished in full view of tens of thousands of policemen, commissions set up to enquire into these incidents have always indicted the police for their partisan behaviour, their deliberate inaction in providing protection to the lives and properties of the minorities and their criminal involvement in violent and murderous attacks and looting of property. But the sections of society mentioned earlier have never made sustained and concerted efforts to bring the guilty to book and award them exemplary punishment. If criminal actions on the part of those who are entrusted with the mandate of fighting crime go unpunished then what hope is there for the maintenance of law and order and the ensuring of justice?

At its meeting in Srinagar, Kashmir, in l968, the National Integration Council had recommended that the onus for the breakout of communal rioting should rest squarely on the shoulders of the district magistrate and superintendent of police who should be punished if a riot occurs in their area of jurisdiction. Punishment being meted out to a government functionary, be it a police officer or a magistrate is, however, a rare exception to the rule.

Unless we make it dangerous for the police to behave in the way that they did with some honourable exceptions in Gujarat, each repetition of such behaviour will become more and more outrageous until the very fabric of our society is rent beyond repair.

As far as I am concerned, the most effective way to ensure the containment of communal violence is to institutionalise this doctrine of responsibility and culpability of those in charge of the government machinery. Police action is the first state intervention in a situation of rioting and therefore the role and behaviour of the police is of the utmost significance in either instilling confidence in those who are being attacked or in destroying it.

There are voluminous reports and recommendations on the subject of police reform. The need for sensitisation of the force, changes in recruitment patterns to increase the representation in the force of members of minority communities, ways and means to preserve the independent functioning of the police hierarchy and implementation of norms in transfer policy are all very important components of this agenda. However, the punishment of erring officials and those who commit crimes of dereliction of duty, murder, loot and collusion during times of communal conflict is the first priority as far as I am concerned.

There is absolutely no justification for these offences to be treated any differently than they would in normal circumstances. In fact, they should be treated with greater severity when they are committed at a time when the constitutional mandate of the police personnel concerned is to protect the minorities and to behave and act in a manner exactly opposite to what is being resorted to.

Unless we make it dangerous for the police to behave in the way that they did with some honourable exceptions in Gujarat, each repetition of such behaviour will become more and more outrageous until the very fabric of our society is rent beyond repair.            

(The writer is a senior IPS officer).

Archived from Communalism Combat, September 2002, Anniversary Issue (9th), Year 9  No. 80, Partisan police

The post Law and order: Who cares? appeared first on SabrangIndia.