“The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court.”

Through a series of judgments, beginning from Senthil Balaji case (August 7, 2023) to quashing of the remand order of Prabir Purkayastha (May 15, 2024), the Supreme Court has been finally able to introduce as well as cement the safeguard of providing grounds of arrest to an accused being arrested under the UAPA [Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967] as well as the PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002].

Arrest under these two stringent laws has led to a violations of many of the constitutional safeguards that had been put in place to protect the rights of the accused. These rights included the right of an accused to be provided information regarding the grounds of their arrest, based of which their legal counsel for challenge the arrest of the accused. However, while arresting under PMLA and UAPA, authorities would not provide the grounds of arrest to the accused, a practice which had not previously been made mandatory by the Supreme Court of India.

On May 15, the Supreme Court of India had declared the remand and arrest of Newsclick founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha to be “invalid in the eyes of the law”.  The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta had set aside and quashed the remand order issued against him, justifying his arrest and police custody, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Notably, the impugned remand order had been passed against Purkayastha on October 4, 2023 by a special judge at the Patiala House court for seven days of police custody. The order was challenged by Purkayastha before the Delhi High Court on the grounds that the arrest was illegal and a gross violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and 22(1) & (5) (right to be informed of grounds of arrest and right to be represented by a legal practitioner) of the Constitution.

On October 13, the Delhi High Court had upheld the said remand order. Pursuant to the same, Purkayashta had moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench had, while quashing the remand order, pointed to procedural irregularities in the case. The order of the court was based on the reasoning that the copy of the remand application was not provided to the appellant or his counsel before passing the remand order on October 4, 2023.

While pronouncing the judgement, the bench noted that “There is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that a copy of the remand application, in the purported exercise of the communication of the grounds of arrest in writing, was not provided to the accused-appellant or his counsel before the passing of the remand order dated 4th October, 2023, which vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand of the appellant. As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody by applying the ration of the judgment rendered by this court in Pankaj Bansal.” (Para 50)

It is to be noted that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, had relied heavily on Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India and Others (2023). In this judgment, interpreting Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Supreme Court had held that if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused person at the time of his arrest and before remanding him to police custody, the continued custody of the accused is rendered grossly illegal and nullity in the eyes of law. The reasoning behind the same formed Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which provides that “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”

In addition to this, the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji vs. The State represented by Deputy Director and others (August 7, 2023) also formed a foundational stone in the argument of ‘informing’ the arrested person of the grounds for his/her arrest. In Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court had noted that the information of the grounds of arrest should be ‘served’ on the arrestee. While the premise was set in the said case, the Court had not elaborated on that issue as the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing to the arrested person in that case.

With the aforementioned three cases, the Supreme Court has been able to cement, and also extend the requirement to cases filed under both UAPA and PMLA, requiring the authorities to supply the accused with ground of arrest. It is to be noted that in the matter of Senthil Balaji, who was arrested under PMLA, the Supreme Court had noted that there was an absence of consistent and uniform practice that was followed by the ED as written copies of the grounds of arrest are furnished to arrested persons in certain parts of the country but in other areas, that practice is not followed. The Court had also pointed to how discrepancy on a case-to-case basis also existed as in some cases the grounds of arrest are either read out to them, while in other cases the ground of arrest is being allowed to be read by them.

But, with the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the Prabir Purkayastha, one main thing has been established- the provisions on the ground of arrest either under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have the same constitutional source, i.e., Article 22(1) and must thus be uniformly construed.

Notably, the comparison between Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43A and 43B of the UAPA was made by the court by holding that these two provided had the same requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused being arrested. In furtherance to this, the Court had also observed that both the aforementioned provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Grounds of arrest vs reasons for arrest: Prabir Purkayastha

In the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the bench has explained the difference between reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest. It is to be noted that it was the case of the accused that they had been arrested and provided with an arrest memo, which was in a computerised format and did not contain any column regarding the ‘grounds of arrest’ of the appellant.

The Court said that the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail and thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.

“We find that the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B (1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA.” (Para 18)

With this, the Court emphasised the need for the uniform application of those provisions which lay down the crucial constitutional safeguard, which finds its source under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, of providing the document of ground of arrest to the person arrested for committing an offence either under the PMLA or under the UAPA. In specific regards to the case of arrest and remand of Purkayastha, the Court had also rejected the submission of learned Additional Solicitor General that in a case of preventive detention, the grounds of detention need not be provided to a detenue in writing. The cold held the same to be “ex facie untenable in eyes of law”.

“Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the interpretation of statutory mandate laid down by this Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal on the aspect of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in writing has to be applied pari passu to a person arrested in a case registered under the provisions of the UAPA.” (Para 19)

With the said judgment, the Supreme Court clarified every doubt regarding the supply of grounds of arrest in the writing to any person arrested on allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA. Notably, the court also held that a copy of such written grounds of arrest will also have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.

“The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” (Para 20)

In Purkayastha’s case, the Supreme Court also highlighted the procedural irregularities that took place during the entire exercise of Purkayastha’s arrest. Referring to the same as “a blatant attempt to circumvent the due process of law” the Supreme Court bench had pointed to the attempts by the authorities to confine the accused to police custody without informing him the grounds on which he has been arrested. As per the judgement, the act of depriving the accused of the opportunity to avail the services of the legal practitioner of his choice and not sending the chosen advocate the remand order and the grounds of arrest in a timely manner affected his right to oppose the prayer for police custody remand and seek bail.

“Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Noncompliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.” (Para 30)

The complete judgment can be read here:

What did Delhi HC say on “grounds of arrest” in Purkayastha’s case?

It is essential to note that on October 13, 2023, the Delhi High Court had rejected the plea moved by Purkayashta against the remand order, by holding that the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing ED to inform grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under UAPA. Notably, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had held that under UAPA, the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds in written are not mandated under the enactment. The same judgment had then been entirely overturned in the Supreme Court. Let’s look at what the Delhi HC had observed on the applicability of Pankaj Bansal case:

According to High Court, the Preamble and aims and objects of PMLA are to prevent the offence of money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering. Holding that the PMLA is an enactment for maintaining the internal law and order in relation to financial crimes, the High Court observed that the sensitivity of the information/intelligence being gathered by the investigating authorities under the UAPA is of a greater significance having direct impact on the issues relating to national security. In view of the same, the Court stated that the ratio laid down by the Court of providing grounds of arrest to the accused in writing in the Pankaj Bansal case, which concerned PMLA, will not be applicable to UAPA.

“Thus, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) while relying upon V. Senthil Balaji (supra) which was purely in relation to the provisions of PMLA cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the cases arising under UAPA.” (Para 8)

“So far as the UAPA is concerned, no such similar statutory obligation is cast upon the authorities under the provisions of section 43A & 43B and thus, the ratio of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under the provisions of UAPA.” (Para 9)

The complete judgment can be read here:

Cases that formed the basis of the Supreme Court judgement?

1. Pankaj Bansal v Union of India

The Supreme Court of India had ruled that merely reading out the grounds of arrest by the Enforcement Directorate to an arrested person is not compliant with the procedure enshrined under the PMLA as well as the Constitution of India.

Brief facts of the case: An FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, Haryana, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the offences of corruption, bribery and criminal conspiracy against certain accused persons, including the M3M Group and one of its promoters. The Appellants, Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal were promoters/directors in the M3M Group. However, they were not named as an accused in the FIR or in the enforcement case information report (ECIR) recorded by the ED.

When ED raided the properties, seized bank accounts of M3M group and arrested one of the accused persons, the Appellants, apprehending arrest, secured interim protection from the Delhi High Court by way of an anticipatory bail. The ED approached the Supreme Court assailing the protection granted by the Delhi High Court. In the meantime, the ED recorded another ECIR against the same accused persons. However, yet again, the Appellants were not named accused in the second ECIR as well. Thereafter, the ED issued summons to the Appellants to appear. Whilst the Appellants were present at the ED office on the said date, Pankaj Bansal was served with fresh summons in connection with the second ECIR to appear before another investigating officer on the same day.

Subsequently, the Appellants were arrested on the same day in terms of Section 19 of the PMLA and then taken to the Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. There, they were served with the remand application filed by the ED. The Vacation Judge passed an order granting custody to the ED for five days, which was later extended and thereafter they were sent to the judicial custody. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which were dismissed. The Appellants challenged the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing criminal appeals before the Supreme Court.

Decision of the court regarding grounds of arrest: The Supreme Court noted that Section 19 of the PMLA, under which the appellants were arrested does not specify in clear terms as to how the arrested person is to be ‘informed’ of the grounds of arrest. Thus, the Court emphasised for there to be proper compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution which provides that no person who is arrested will be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, it is also important that the mode of conveying the grounds must be meaningful.

The Supreme Court further analysed the twin conditions set out under Section 45 of the PMLA, under which an arrested person could be allowed to seek release on bail. Notably, as per Section 45 of the PMLA, bail can only be granted when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence, and that the arrested person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Emphasising upon the strict and narrow nature of the bail conditions under PMLA, the Supreme Court held that it would be essential for an arrested person to know the grounds of arrest in order for him/her to be a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Through the case of Pankaj Bansal, the Court established that communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.

Furthermore, the Court had also pointed to the disparate procedure being adopted by the ED in informing the grounds of arrest to the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court observed that furnishing written grounds of arrest to an arrested person would be the advisable course of action as it would be in line with the constitutional obligations put on the authorities. The Court also noted that a mere oral recitation of the grounds of arrest would lead to the word of the arrested person being put up against the word of the authorized officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard, which would defeat the whole purpose of the arrest.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court then ruled that a copy of the written grounds of arrest must be furnished as a matter of rule and not exception, thereby ensuring due compliance of the mandate prescribed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PMLA.

The complete judgment can be read here.

2. Senthil Balaji v the State represented by Deputy Director and Ors.

In the said case, the Supreme Court had held that any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, which gives the authorities to exercise their power of arrest, would vitiate the very arrest itself. The Court had also held that such non-compliance would give benefit to the person arrested.

Brief Background of the case: A case was registered in the ECIR by the State against Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji in 2021 in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam. It was followed by a summons requiring his attendance in August 4, 2021 and October 07, 2021. A search was conducted by the Authorised Officer invoking Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at Senthil Balaji premises on June 13, 2023.

Citing non-cooperation by Balaji, the authority then invoked Section 19 of the PMLA by way of an arrest on June 14, 2023. It is noted that though grounds of arrest were furnished, Senthil Balaji had declined to acknowledge them. The information pertaining to the arrest was also intimated to his brother, sister-in-law and wife. Senthil Balaji was taken to the Tamil Nadu Government Multi Super Speciality Hospital, as he complained of chest pain. His wife rushed to the High Court and filed a Habeas Corpus petition on the very same day. After the said plea was dismissed by the High Court, the petition had been moved to the Supreme Court.

While arguments were being made in the Supreme Court in the Habeas Corpus petition, Balaji had stated that ED has not communicated the grounds of arrest to him, which would hold his arrest to be illegal. As submitted by Balaji, the grounds of arrest document and the Arrest Memo had conflicting stance. Balaji had also contended that the High Court had committed a serious error in rejecting the submission of the Petitioner with regard to non-communication of grounds of arrest.

Decision of the court regarding supply of grounds of arrest: While dismissing the writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this case, the Supreme Court had clarified in the judgment that any non-compliance of the authorities with the safeguards provided in Section 19 of the PMLA would vitiate the very arrest itself.

“To effect an arrest, an officer authorised has to assess and evaluate the materials in his possession. Through such materials, he is expected to form a reason to believe that a person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA, 2002. Thereafter, he is at liberty to arrest, while performing his mandatory duty of recording the reasons. The said exercise has to be followed by way of an information being served on the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19(1) of the PMLA, 2002 would vitiate the very arrest itself. Under sub-section (2), the Authorised Officer shall immediately, after the arrest, forward a copy of the order as mandated under sub-section (1) together with the materials in his custody, forming the basis of his belief, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope. Needless to state, compliance of sub-section (2) is also a solemn function of the arresting authority which brooks no exception.” (Para 39)

In addition to this, the Supreme Court had also held it to be the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that the authorities duly follow the process that is laid down under the PMLA as well as the constitutional safeguards put in place.

“Such a Magistrate has a distinct role to play when a remand is made of an accused person to an authority under the PMLA, 2002. It is his bounden duty to see to it that Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 is duly complied with and any failure would entitle the arrestee to get released. The Magistrate shall also peruse the order passed by the authority under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, 2002. Section 167 of the CrPC, 1973 is also meant to give effect to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 and therefore it is for the Magistrate to satisfy himself of its due compliance. Upon such satisfaction, he can consider the request for custody in favour of an authority, as Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002, does not speak about the authority which is to take action for non- compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002. A remand being made by the Magistrate upon a person being produced before him, being an independent entity, it is well open to him to invoke the said provision in a given case. To put it otherwise, the Magistrate concerned is the appropriate authority who has to be satisfied about the compliance of safeguards as mandated under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002.” (Para 68)

The complete judgment can be read here.

Related:

Examining Jurisprudential Shifts: The Evolution of Bail Provisions Under PMLA – Part II”

Supreme Court on PMLA: Section 120(B) of the IPC can’t be invoked by ED when criminal conspiracy not linked to schedule offence

Madras HC: Legal bar on ED’s detention, split verdict, PMLA case against Senthil Balaji

After spending 7 months behind bars, Supreme Court declares the arrest and remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha illegal!

The post Prabir Purkayastha Case: Mandate of providing grounds of arrest to PMLA/UAPA accused, some safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The order of the court was based on the reasoning that the copy of the remand application was not provided to the appellant or his counsel before passing the remand order on October 4, 2023. Therefore, the Court held that the arrest and the remand are vitiated.

While pronouncing the judgement, the bench noted that “There is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that a copy of the remand application, in the purported exercise of the communication of the grounds of arrest in writing, was not provided to the accused-appellant or his counsel before the passing of the remand order dated 4th October, 2023, which vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand of the appellant. As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody by applying the ration of the judgment rendered by this court in Pankaj Bansal.”

Pursuant to Prabir’s arrest and remand being declared invalid and being set aside, the bench ordered for the release of Prabir. However, release will be subject to Prabir furnishing bail and bonds set by the trial Court since chargesheet has been filed in the said case. The chargesheet had been filed in the court on March 30, 2024.

Directing for his release, the bench stated “Appellant shall be released from custody on satisfaction of trial court. Appeal allowed.”

It is to be noted that as the bench was pronouncing the judgment, ASG Raju had sought a clarification from the bench regarding the authorities being precluded being exercising their “correct powers of arrest”, to which Justice Gavai replied by stating that the bench has not said anything on that and that the authorities are permitted to take such action that is permitted under law.

Notably, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Purkayastha and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police. Prabir will be released based on the present order after spending 7 months in jail.

Arguments on illegality of remand:

It is essential to note that the present verdict pursuant to the conclusion of arguments in the case on April 30. During the hearing, the bench had questioned the hastiness in which Prabir was arrested and then presented in the Magistrate’s court, without supplying the necessary remand application and documents to the counsel of the accused.

Justice Mehta had asked ASG Raju “First please answer this, why did you not inform his lawyer? What was the hot haste in producing him at 6 AM? You arrested him at 5.45 PM previous day. You had the whole day before you. Why the haste?”

The bench had also questioned why the accused was not allowed to have his own lawyer and a state provided legal aid counsel was present at the time of magistrate’s hearing by reminding ASG Raju that “Principles of natural justice required that his lawyer was there. You could have produced him at 10 AM or 11 AM.”

As per LiveLaw’s live coverage of the hearing, Justice Gavai had further stated that “What was the need to produce him without his lawyer? If you could give him the remand application on WhatsApp, you could have given him at least one hour notice.”

When ASG Raju had raised the contention that the remand application had been sent to lawyer at around 7.07 am (the accused had been presented before the Magistrate at 6 am) and he had later sent the objections, the bench had objected to the same by holding the said argument to be redundant as by that time the remand order had been passed. On this, Justice Gavai had remarked “It is like giving an opportunity of hearing after the order was passed”.

Justice Mehta had also observed that “Without any reason, the whole process was done in hot haste.” He had further stated “Mr. Raju, at least before the remand application, the grounds of arrest must be communicated.”

It is also essential to note that the Court had also rejected the argument raised by the Delhi police, that the time recorded in the remand order (6 AM) was wrong and that it was passed after serving the counsel of the accused. However, the Court had asserted that it will go only by the time recorded in the judicial order.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had also responded to the arguments raised by ASG by bringing to focus the constitutional and fundamental safeguards provided to the citizens against arbitrary arrests as well as the precedents set by law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had stated that “What is the point of saying that I have the grounds at the time of arrest but I will not show it to you? What is the constitution reason for not informing me? The whole premise of the argument is wrong.”

He had also argued upon the differences that exist between UAPA and The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by highlighting that “When you are taking the liberty of the people, the discretion must have some basis…UAPA, to that extent is different from PMLA because under UAPA you would have that kind of information that you would not under PMLA.”

Brief background of the case:

Prabir Purkayastha has been in custody since October 2, 2023 after being booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Prabir had approached the Constitutional Courts challenging the legality of his arrest by contending that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him in writing as mandated by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India.

On October 16, 2023, Prabir had moved the Supreme Court against the October 5 order of the Delhi High Court, through which the Delhi HC bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had upheld the said remand order by stating that Purkayastha was indeed informed of the grounds within the “as soon as maybe” requirement.  Prabir had then moved the Supreme Court assailing said decision of the Delhi High Court. Notably, in today’s verdict, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment as well.

Co-accused and NewsClick human resources head Amit Chakraborty had also approached the top court challenging his arrest, but he was allowed to withdraw his plea after he turned approver for the Enforcement Directorate and was granted a pardon by the Delhi High Court.

While the case was pending, the court had directed the constitution of a board by the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) for Purkayastha’s independent medical evaluation. This report was received by the Supreme Court on March 20.  The Court had directed that a copy of the same be supplied to Prabir’s counsels.

Related:

Bail not Jail: SC tells Bombay HC to decide bail applications on priority, cites violations of personal Liberty, violation of Article 21

Unjust detention: Gautam Navlakha’s bail victory highlights insufficient evidence

Jammu & Kashmir HC: Fahad Shah granted bail after spending 21 months in jail

Punjab & Haryana HC: Duty of the court to be more onerous, bail cannot be denied just because serious allegations

The post After spending 7 months behind bars, Supreme Court declares the arrest and remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha illegal! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a joint statement issued on December 20, the Press Club of India, the Indian Women’s Press Corps, the Delhi Union of Journalists, the Press Association, the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, and the Working News Cameraman’s Association objected to the action taken “without any warning”, which had in one stroke deprived close to a hundred media persons and their families of a steady source of income.

“The salaries of all employees, including support staff, cannot be disbursed, including for the 19 days of work in December. This action by the I[-]T department also flouts basic norms of natural justice and labour laws. The portal has maintained that it has always complied with tax regulations and that there was no basis for the I[-]T department to freeze its accounts,” the statement said.

The organisations also said the development came on the heels of “sustained harassment in the form of ED [Enforcement Directorate] raids and I[-]T surveys in 2021 and the arrest of NewsClick’s founder Prabir Purkayastha and Administrative Officer Amit Chakraborty in October this year”.

“Both, Purkayastha and Chakraborty, have been booked under draconian clauses. It has been observed that such arrests of media persons have become the norm rather than the exception. Both continue to be in judicial custody for an indefinite period of time,” they said, adding that another area of concern was the indiscriminate seizure of electronic equipment under the pretext of investigations.

“While other independent media have also suffered such excesses with equipment being seized and confiscated for months altogether, in October, for the first time, electronic equipment like mobile phones and laptops of NewsClick journalists, ex-employees and even contributors was seized in an early morning operation which was unprecedented in itself,” the statement said.

“Many, who are single earners, had to buy new equipment in order to continue working as there was no assurance of their seized equipment being returned in a definite time frame and that too in an untampered state. In addition, the ‘summoning’ and ‘questioning’ for days altogether of NewsClick staff and reporters on the pretext of investigation has been another mode of sustained harassment by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police,” it said.

Further, organisations demanded that the “harassment of the media and media-persons in the form of raids, arrests under non-bailable draconian clauses, freezing of accounts without prior intimation and the seizure of electronic equipment sans any guidelines or parameters should stop forthwith”.

“As such equipment is the lifeline for persons operating in the media space, such seizures effectively target livelihoods. Just as the other pillars of our democracy need to be allowed to function independently, so does the media. An independent media strengthens democracy; demoralising and stifling it will have the opposite effect,” they said.

Related:

SKM: Farmers to protest against union government’s attempt to undermine farmers’ protest through Newsclick FIR 

Newsclick: Resounding voices of solidarity from all over in defence of press freedom

The post Media organisations criticise freezing of NewsClick accounts by I-T Department appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The NAJ, DUJ, KUJ and APWJF have further demanded a Media Commission of India in the lines of the First and Second Press Commissions, end to the Labour Codes and increasing attempts to gag the media.

Noting that “several journalists, including eminent editor Prabir Purkayastha, are in jail for exposing this government and the forces that control this government. Journalists such as Siddique Kappan are facing criminal charges, including UAPA charges, after spending years in prison. In Kashmir many journalists such as Fahad Shah, Sajad Gul, Irfan Mehraj, Aasif Sultan and Majid Hyderi have been arrested while most other journalists live in fear. Since 2010, as many as 15 journalists and two media managers have been charged under UAPA, seven are still behind bars. Sedition charges have been filed against leading journalists like Vinod Dua, Mrinal Pande, Rajdeep Sardesai and others.

Besides, defamation charges have been filed against journalists like Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair and many others. Raids on media, seizure of electronic devices and harassment of media employees is becoming another menace.”

The charter has stressed the fact that there has been no Wage Boards for the past 13 years, nor any willingness to constitute another one, or even grant interim relief.

The letter is timed with the current session of Parliament.

The detailed charter of demands, filed by all four unions representing 1,000 journalists relates to the Free Functioning of the Media and may be read below:

“The media has an effective role to play in a democratic society. Leaders of our national movement upheld this concept after Independence and the Constitution too values freedom of expression as a fundamental right. This concept was the base for passing the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (known as Working Journalists Act) and the Working Journalists (Fixation of rates of wages) Act in 1955 and 1958 by the Parliament of our country.

“The works of two Press Commissions were also broadly in this direction. The Parliament too has played a role in enriching this principle of ensuring a free press in the country and the rights and dignity of journalists and co-workers-all of which are being unfortunately negated lately.

“The term of the 17th Lok Sabha will end within a few months. This winter session will be the last full-fledged session of the 17th Lok Sabha. As the country is moving towards the next general elections in 2024, we, the media fraternity would like to make some submissions before the Parliamentarians and leaders of political parties.

“As trade unions of experienced journalists who cover and write about a myriad issues and problems in the country we have no qualms in saying that the last five years have been the most dangerous years for journalists and journalism in this country. The country’s ranking in the Freedom of Press Index has consistently declined during these years and stands as low as 161 out of 180 countries.

“Several journalists, including eminent editor Prabir Purkayastha, are in jail for exposing this government and the forces that control this government. Journalists such as Siddique Kappan are facing criminal charges, including UAPA charges, after spending years in prison. In Kashmir many journalists such as Fahad Shah, Sajad Gul, Irfan Mehraj, Aasif Sultan and Majid Hyderi have been arrested while most other journalists live in fear. Since 2010, as many as 15 journalists and two media managers have been charged under UAPA, seven are still behind bars. Sedition charges have been filed against leading journalists like Vinod Dua, Mrinal Pande, Rajdeep Sardesai and others. Defamation charges have been filed against journalists like Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair and many others. Raids on media, seizure of electronic devices and harassment of media employees is becoming another menace.

“Social media handles and YouTube channels of independent journalists are often forced to shut or censored for speaking or showing truth. Many of the independent YouTubers were leading anchors and editors who were forced out of TV news channels. Big corporate companies and other vested interests, have cemented their control over media, despite our warnings that cross- media ownership is dangerous for this country and its democracy. Journalists have been retrenched by managements under pressure from their corporate funders. Traditional family owned newspapers and media houses too are forced to bow before the pressure from the market or the governments.

“We deeply regret the weaponisation of sections of the media to spread hate. A rabid communal agenda has divided and polarized the people, threatening the unity and integrity of the Indian state. We hold the corporate media, particularly TV channels and their anchors and editors, culpable for these divisions and fissures in society as much as politicians.

“On the other hand, we note with dismay the increasing attempts to ‘regulate’ the media, particularly the relatively independent digital media and social media through amendments and changes to the laws. The IT Rules, 2021, the Registration of Press and Periodicals Bill, 2022 and the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 are the most recent such moves that threaten democracy and free speech.

“The Union Government has also dealt journalism a big blow by submerging the two above mentioned Acts for journalists into the Labour Codes, reducing our rights. These Acts were the last resort for a journalist to fight the pressures from the management, the corporate advertisers or autocratic governments.

“It has been 13 years since the Centre accepted the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board, which was the last Wage Board for journalists and press workers. The Centre has not shown any willingness to constitute another Wage Board and this is impacting the lives of many journalists and workers.

“As trade unions, we believe that collective struggles should be launched along with workers, peasants, youth and students to protect the democracy of our country. We urge you to help us in raising the voices of independent press in Parliament and other forums.

“We have certain concrete suggestions to cross over this crisis of democracy. Here is our fourteen point charter of demands, which we request you to consider.

1. A law to protect journalists from arbitrary arrests and malicious prosecution is the need of the hour. Journalists cannot be treated as terrorists.

2. A recent amendment to the IT Rules, 2021 gives not just the Press Information Bureau but also all Union government ministries and departments the powers to demand that news they object to be taken down by social media companies. We demand that these Rules aimed at censoring the small, independent digital media be withdrawn immediately.

Other moves such as the reported inclusion of digital media in the draft Registration of Press and Periodicals Bill, 2022, to controls news and views carried on digital media through any electronic device, must be reviewed. The draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 which is meant to replace the Cable Television Networks (Regulation Act), will affect not just streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video but also individuals putting news and current affairs online on platforms like YouTube and WhatsApp. These bills must be discussed in the public domain, through public hearings and consultations with all stakeholders including journalists’ organizations before being passed.

3. Early setting up of a common Media Council for print, electronic and digital media, with representatives from the media, media unions and independent public persons.
4. Setting up of a Media Commission to study the entire media like the First and Second Press Commissions and to recommend remedial measures, in view of sweeping changes since the onset of imperialist globalisation and the deplorable condition of journalists and non-journalists in media establishments.
5. Putting responsible checks on cross-media ownership.
6. Immediate steps to help the growth of national language news and feature agencies through a National Newspaper and Feature Agencies Development Corporation.
7. Repeal the four Labour Codes. Restore previous pro-labour legislations. Restore the two Working Journalists Acts with a simple amendment to include broadcast and digital media.
8. Implement the last Wage Board recommendations as per the historic Supreme Court ruling of February 7th, 2014. Set up fast track courts with time bound implementation in view of pendency of cases. Constitute a new Wage Board at the earliest. Interim relief is overdue.
9. Proper Risk Insurance cover for media workers and their equipment as well as a decent Pension Scheme. Currently, the contributory pension that journalists get is a pittance, seldom more than a couple of thousand rupees.
10. Ensure a one-year package to the premier national news agency United News of India to help sustain regular payment of long delayed salaries and payments to retrenched employees including their gratuity and other dues. Some of them are in critical condition. The once virtually self-reliant UNI Urdu news service is barely surviving, amidst celebrations of 200 years of the Urdu press. Attempts to discriminate against another premier national news agency, the PTI, must stop.
11. India’s record of imposing Internet bans is the worst in the world, with 741 shutdowns from 2012 to July 2023. Shutdowns seriously impede the work of journalists who are unable to send their news reports, stories and photographs at such times. Shutdowns have been imposed for everything from riots to stopping cheating in exams! This abuse of law must be stopped through appropriate rules and guidelines.
12. The laws relating to Sedition, Defamation and arbitrary detention laws like the UAPA are being increasingly misused to arrest and prosecute journalists. Journalists have been booked even for tweets and Facebook posts. These laws should be reviewed and repealed to prevent their misuse.
13. Given the increasing tendency of media companies to outsource work, provisions need to be made for freelance journalists, stringers and consultants, to ensure that payments by media companies are both timely and adequate. The number of such media workers is growing by the day but there are no proper legal provisions for their welfare and social security.
14. And lastly, but most importantly, release all the journalists, academics and activists arrested arbitrarily.

We sincerely hope that you will consider our demands and respond to them with the earnestness and immediacy they deserve. Today journalism, independent journalism in particular, is battered and bruised as never before. Surely immediate steps are needed to save it and ensure that the print, broadcast and digital media are allowed to co-exist and flower and bloom in a responsible manner.”

The statement has been signed by S.K.Pande, President-DUJ,  Sujata Madhok, General Secretary –DUJ  A.M. Jigeesh, President- NAJ,N.Kondaiah, Secretary General-NAJ, G.Anjaneyulu, General Secretary-APWJF and  R.Kiran Babu, General Secretary –   KUWJ

Related:

SKM: Farmers to protest against union government’s attempt to undermine farmers’ protest through Newsclick FIR 

Newsclick: Resounding voices of solidarity from all over in defence of press freedom

DUJ Protests freezing of media accounts

The post Stop treating journalists like terrorists, media unions tell government as the 17th Lok Sabha begins appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 75 year old Purkayastha, who had been arrested in 1975 during the Emergency, is an engineer, activist for pro people science and technology and is President of the Free Software Movement of India.

In this excerpt from his autobiography, “Keeping Up the Good Fight: From the Emergency to the Present Day”, he talks about the new censors of today:

My earlier ‘emergency encounter’ was in the context of the students’ resistance in JNU. D.P. Tripathi, Ashoklata (usually called Ashoka), Sitaram (Yechury) and others were among the key figures in that resistance.

My encounter in the current ‘emergency’ took place in rather different circumstances. NewsClick, a relatively small outfit, was somehow perceived to be a ‘problem’. Perhaps the problem was not so much NewsClick as the range of movements it covers. Just prior to the government’s unwelcome attention, NewsClick had covered the farmers’ movement quite thoroughly, coverage that drew significant viewership, and not just in India.

But then again, NewsClick was not, and is not, unique in its coverage. Many other digital platforms, and even certain mainstream media, have covered assaults on people, livelihood and reason, as well as the public protests that take place in response. Like us, some of these media organisations are very much under the Government’s scanner.

I do not want to go into the various cases that NewsClick and I continue to face; or the campaign unleashed against us by a hounding variety of media. The legal matters are in the courts and we will fight the cases there. I have no desire to become the news. Nor does NewsClick; its job is to cover the news. It will continue to do what it has done from the time it was set up: follow people’s movements on the ground and amplify the voices of those who are rarely heard in our society.

For many years now, I have taken part in an annual ritual in the month of June — of looking back to when democracy was last in a state of suspension. The Emergency was declared on June 25, 1975, and remained in effect till March 21, 1977. The intervening 21 months made up a grim period in India’s post-independence history. There were widespread arrests and ‘preventive detention’ of the opposition, from political leaders to students. Protest and dissent were crushed, the media was censored, and there was fear in the air, a sense of persecution and paranoia. In short, fundamental rights were curtailed to the extent that they seemed, in these months, absent.

This development was all the more shocking because till the Emergency, India was proud of the fact that it was a democracy — the reigning cliché of the time, world’s largest democracy, remains much in use — and was also proud of the fact that it had become a democracy immediately after independence in 1947.

It was as if, in one stroke, dissent, free speech and all the other characteristics of a democracy could be struck down by the administrative machinery of the state. . . .

. . . . Undoubtedly, the 1975 Emergency was an acid test for many sections. The media, the bureaucracy and a number of political parties and personalities were found wanting. The highest judiciary in the country, the Supreme Court, failed to show even the courage the High Courts did, sanctioning the formal butchery of our fundamental rights to life, liberty and free speech.

But for many others, the Emergency was also a time to assert their beliefs. Some resisted quietly, out of the public eye. Others expressed their opposition more visibly. For the generation born after the freedom struggle, this was arguably the first big political test. While the people, the Indian citizenry in general, passed this test, the same cannot be said of some of the more elite sections and bourgeois institutions.

The Indian people are quite often mistaken to be passive. They do not rise up in revolt periodically against the terrible burden of oppression that they carry; this is a criticism commonly levelled against them. Yet, this mass of ‘passive’ people routed Mrs Gandhi in 1977 and asserted the primacy of Indian democracy. This forced Mrs Gandhi to apologise to the people for the Emergency. Some have argued that if the verdict of 1977 was so unambiguous, how is it that the same people voted her back to power in 1980? The answer lies in the confidence that the people had acquired in 1977. They had taught Mrs Gandhi a lesson they were sure she was not going to forget. And to their credit, they were proved right — Mrs Gandhi did not re-impose an authoritarian regime.

But to get back to the question of then and now: To begin with, it appears that an ‘emergency’ — as a general description of repression — is a destructive situation that develops if the political dispensation of the time erodes people’s fundamental rights in numerous ways. This is one way to frame the similarities between then and now. But with each point of ‘similarity’, there are differences as well. Some are rather stark, such as that of the ideology driving the attack on citizens’ rights in the present.

Some of the differences are, perhaps, more nuanced — in, for example, the ways in which authoritarianism is expressed.

Let me, as a ‘midnight’s child’, consider the situation in India today, not just keeping in mind the 1975 Emergency to compare two aberrant periods, but also keeping in mind the larger context of 75 years of the secular, diverse, democratic, constitution-guided republic of India.

THE MEDIA THEN AND NOW

Among the most enduring memories of the Emergency (other than enforced vasectomies) are those of a scared, docile press. The administration had powers to muzzle the media — what the press wrote had to be submitted to censors. Everyone recalls L.K. Advani’s chastising remark to the press after the Emergency: ‘You were asked only to bend, but you crawled.’

But we also have to remember and salute honourable exceptions that didn’t bow down, or carry government propaganda. The Indian Express managed to operate within the new constraints. Its blank editorial was a powerful symbol of protest against the attack on the role of the fourth estate. Smaller organisations also resisted the bully censor; for instance, the journal Seminar run by Romesh Thapar. Of course, what they could do was necessarily limited.

How does the Indian media scene today compare with those times? Media then meant mainly the print medium — the ‘press’. We have a number of platforms today, and it’s certainly much harder to control them all.The media is much more heterogeneous; and the agenda for media has been set differently. Earlier, print media set what made news. The headline of the day would determine what the news was. Now that we have 24×7 news channels on television, the news has changed. Watching prime-time news ‘debates’ can give us a preview of the news cycle.

Social media has completely changed the landscape of what was earlier considered news or commentary, and so also with the influence and reach of media. Social media even sets the news now — what issues will be discussed and commented upon by both journalists and readers. This is, obviously, much more difficult to control. Which is why, despite the best efforts of the BJP and Modi acolytes, you do hear other voices.

Of course, the government and its cohorts are anxious to control the large number of individuals using social media; to do this, they have to come up with measures different from what sufficed during the earlier Emergency.

In other words, a technological change has taken place which makes the task of muzzling the press rather different from what it used to be. If you want to muzzle a million or more people, you cannot use the Emergency instrument, which was direct censorship.

What are the new censors — official and unofficial —to do?

They make an example of a few to create a chilling effect. They make people afraid; self-censorship becomes the norm. They make use of continuous harassment, by filing FIRs all over the country; what used to be called lawfare in other jurisdictions. Remember the case of the artist M.F. Husain? Cases were filed against him practically everywhere. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him for allegedly hurting public sentiment with his paintings. Groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal issued threats against the 90-year-old painter. Finally, unable to take it anymore, Husain left the country and lived in self-exile till his death.

Extracted with permission from “Keeping Up the Good Fight: From the Emergency to the Present Day” by Prabir Purkayastha, LeftWord Books, New Delhi, 2023

Courtesy: https://freespeechcollective.in

The post How The New Censors Muzzle A Million People! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pursuant to the raids and sealing of the Newsclick office, on October 4, a statement was released by Newsclick wherein they firmly condemned the action undertaken by the Government “that refuses to respect journalistic independence, and treats criticism as sedition or “anti-national” propaganda.” They provided that no FIR has been submitted to them and the electronic devices seized from the houses of journalists without any adherence to law.

The complete statement can be read here.

A copy of the FIR was supplied to the Newsclick on October 5 on the order of the Delhi Court.

Since the news of massive searches surfaced multiple protests have been organised and statements of solidarity have been extended. Students, journalists, media organisations, politicians, etc. spanning across the length and breadth of the country expressed their anguish and surprise at the crackdown, and took to streets and social media to show camaraderie with the ones that were (and still are) targetted. For those protesting, the searches were clearly aimed at suppressing dissent and controlling the remaining independent media houses that are critical of the Modi government.

1. Protest at Jantar Mantar

On October 4, a protest was called by All India Students’ Association (AISA) at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. The said protest saw the participation of a large group of civil society members- journalists, students and citizens. Protestors could be seen carrying banners at the protest, bearing the messages “We will neither bend nor crawl”, “Release Prabir Purkayastha” and “Stop attack on press freedom”. As per reports, the said protest saw the participation of more than 500 people.

Shabnam Hashmi, sister of historian Sohail Hashmi whose house was also raided by the Delhi Police was quoted by the Print as saying, “These attempts will not deter us from standing for what is right.”

Furthermore, Neha, secretary of the AISA’s Delhi unit, had addressed the protest gathering and stated that “This is a blatant attack on the democratic values of India. The government is targeting the journalists who raised their voice in support of the farmers’ issue. We condemn this attack on press freedom in the country.” She had further called for a citizens’ collective effort to fight back against the illegal police action.

1 of 3

2. Protest outside the Press Club of India

On October 4, several journalists expressed their angst and protested at the office of Press Club of India to show solidarity. The said protest saw the participation of Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who was himself interrogated as a part of the raids for being a contributor at Newsclick, MK Venu, Siddharth Varadarajan, author Ramchandra Guha, Mukul Kesavan and author Arundhati Roy. The protesting journalists had held banners demanding press freedom and end to misuse of anti-terror laws against independent and free thinking journalist.

Journalist Thakurta had also shared his experience with the questioning and behaviour of the police. “The entire staff of Delhi’s Special Cell asked me a set of many questions. However, their behaviour was very decent. They asked me if I needed tea and ordered lunch for me as well. As for the two — Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty —who have been arrested, I feel the police also behave in a decent way with them,” Thakurta said, as per a report of the New Indian Express.

 Protest outside the NYT office in New York

A protest was held in New York, USA in front of the NYT offices to extend support to Newsclick and journalists under attack. The solidarity protest also voiced their anger against the New York Times (NYT) which had published an ‘investigative piece’ in August, alleging NewsClick received funding from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which had formed the basis of the police action. The protestors could be seen carrying yellow placards that read “NYT lies leads to Modi’s crimes against the Press”, “Stop NYT Slander against anti-war voices”, and “Hands off NewsClick and independent media.” The protestors also called out the Modi government’s stance against press freedom.

A video from the protest can be viewed here:

Hands off NewsClick!

A recent New York Times hit piece smeared leading Indian progressive outlet @newsclickin as part of a “Chinese propaganda network”. This week the Modi gov’t cited this pretext for mass raids & arrest of journalists — we protested outside the NYT in response! pic.twitter.com/BsOyWJzagJ

— Party for Socialism and Liberation (@pslnational) October 4, 2023

4. Protest at Kolkata Press Club

On October 5, a solidarity protest was called by the Kolkata Press Club wherein hundreds of journalists had gathered. As per media reports, the protesting journalists had taken out a rally from the Press Club premises to the Gandhi Statue. The protesting journalist could be seen donning black badges and carrying placards saying, “Journalists are not terrorists”, “Defend press freedom”, etc.

Participating in the protest were renowned members of the media fraternity such as veteran journalist Rantideb Sengupta, Subhasish Maitra, ALTnews founder Pratik Sinha, senior journalist Monideepa Banerjee (former regional director of NDTV), Calcutta Journalists Club president Prantik Sen, associate editor of Bengali daily, Ganashakti, Atanu Saha, Press Club Kolkata president Snehasish Sur and secretary, Kingshuk Pramanik.

5. Protest at Freedom Park, Bangalore

A protest was held at the Freedom Park, Bangalore which saw the participation of several prominent citizens and civil society organisations. Journalists and lawyers had led the protest. Arvind Narrain, president of the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Karnataka, was also a part of the said protest and had pointed out that the recent raids and arrests mirror those that marked the beginning of the Emergency of 1975-77.

6. Candlelight Vigil at Mumbai Press Club

Various media organisations in Mumbai came together to hold a candlelight vigil in solidarity with the NewsClick journalists on October 5 within the premises of the Mumbai Press Club. The event was backed by the Mumbai Press Club, Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh, TV Journalists Association, Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists, Bombay News Photographers Association, and Mantralaya Vidhimandal Vartahar Sangh.

The participating protesting media organisations expressed their collective concern and emphasised the need for an impartial investigation into the allegations. They also called upon the authorities and the Delhi Police to cease actions perceived as a targeted campaign of harassment against these journalists.

Journalists in Mumbai protests against the BJP centre govt & its police coercive actions against journalists under draconian law. Journalists condemned the Delhi police act of seizing the mobile phones and laptops of the journalists. pic.twitter.com/cogix7O0B0

— Sudhir Suryawanshi (@ss_suryawanshi) October 5, 2023

Speaking at the protest, senior journalist Nikhil Wagle compared the current crackdown on independent dissenting voices to the ones that took place during the emergency.

Senior Marathi journalist Nikhil Wagle (@waglenikhil) condemns crackdown on journalists by #Modi govt and compares it to the “declared emergency in 1984” #NewsClick #Mumbai. #JournalismIsNotACrime pic.twitter.com/vt3oJNCIBS

— Anmol Alphonso (@AnmolAlphonso) October 5, 2023

1 of 4

7. Protest by journalists in Hyderabad

On October 5, a protest march was held by the Indian Journalists Union in Hyderabad to condemn the raids. The protest began at Desoddharaka Bhavan in Basheerbagh and ended near the Ambedkar statue near Tankbund.

Journalists protest rally in #Hyderabad against #DelhiPolice oppression raids on #NewsClick in #Delhi ##NewsClickRaided @MahtabNama @ShabnamHashmi pic.twitter.com/WnLCaQxkvr

— Mubashir.Khurram (@infomubashir) October 5, 2023

8. Demonstration and reading of a memorandum to the PM in Indore

On October 5, a demonstration against the attack on journalists was held in Indore, Madhya Pradesh wherein around 50 people assembled in front of the commissioner’s office near Gandhi Hall. The protest began with exhortation of slogans and display of posters denouncing the abusive police action and led to the crowd marching gathering at the entrance of the commissioner’s building.  On behalf of the organizers, Vineet Tiwari (National Secretary, Progressive Writers’ Association) read out the memorandum of the protest addressed to the Prime Minister which had raised questions regarding the harassment of journalists by authorities, the allegations of terrorism and anti-nationalism levied against Newsclick and the erosion of fundamental rights.

1 of 4

Many conscientious citizens, intellectuals, artists, journalists associations – both nationally and internationally have also come out in solidarity with newsclick.

9. Statement by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and international support

On October 3, the CPJ had called for the immediate release of arrested Prabir Purkayastha. The international organisation had also asked the Indian authorities to “stop trying to intimidate journalists through tactics such as Tuesday’s police raids on the Delhi office of Indian news website NewsClick and the homes of at least 12 staff and journalists with ties to the outlet.”

Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, also stated that “This is the latest attack on press freedom in India. We urge the Indian government to immediately cease these actions as journalists must be allowed to work without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

As per The Hindu, a similar statement was also issued by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia, urging the authorities to respect the fundamental rights of journalists and uphold the principles of press freedom and freedom of expression as per the Indian Constitution.

On October 4, 2023, the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights had also expressed serious concern over the ongoing assault on media freedom in India and the detention of journalists, saying, “Our office is troubled by reports of raids, arrests and detentions, and seizures of property of journalists in Delhi yesterday (Tuesday).”

As per a report of the Wire, the spokesperson in the office of the Human Rights Commissioner had said: “We have previously expressed concern about the shrinking of civic space in India, in particular for independent journalists and activists, and yesterday’s events may have a further chilling effect.”

10. Students of Columbia School of Journalism speak out

On October 5, the students of Columbia Journalism School also issued a statement condemning the persecution of journalists in India. In their statement, they highlighted the falling position that India holds in the Freedom Press Index and the worrying trend of using anti-terror laws against journalists to silence the truth.

11. Statement by Amnesty International India

Aakar Patel, chair of board at Amnesty International India, also issued a statement on consistent targeting of Newsclick and the recent raids. He said “Journalism is not a crime. The NewsClick raids and the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty are the latest attempts by the Indian government to decimate independent and critical media. Authorities must immediately release Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty and allow them to carry out their work without any reprisals.”

In his statement, Patel further highlighted the grave attack on human rights by employment of UAPA, a draconian law which violates fair trial rights with impunity, and urged for the immediate release of journalists detained on trumped-up or politically motivated charges and solely for their critical reporting.

12. Statement by the Press Club of India, the Editors Guild of India and other news organisations and associations of jo

The Press Club of India (PCI) and the Editors Guild of India (EGI) issued statements expressing solidarity with the journalists being questioned and arrested in the Newsclick case. have urged the government to provide details.

The EGI had issued a statement stating that it was deeply concerned about the raids at the residences of senior journalists. The organisation had called the said raids to be an attempt to muzzle the media. “We remind the government of the importance of an independent media in a functioning democracy and urge it to ensure that the fourth pillar is respected, nurtured and protected. While we recognise that the law must take its course if actual offences are involved, the due process has to be followed. The investigation of specific offences must not create a general atmosphere of intimidation under the shadow of draconian laws, or impinge on the freedom of expression and the raising of dissenting and critical voices,” the guild had said.

The PCI had expressed their deep concern regarding the raids by taking to ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter) and stated “The PCI stand in solidarity with the journalists and demand the government to come out with details.”

The Press Club of India is deeply concerned about the multiple raids conducted on the houses of journalists and writers associated with #Newsclick.

We are monitoring the developments and will be releasing a detailed statement.

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) October 3, 2023

A statement was also released by the Indian Women’s Press Corps on social media through which they had expressed outrage and argued that the repeated targeting of certain media outlets for their criticism of government policies that are not people-friendly reflects poorly on a government that represents the world’s largest democracy.

We at @IWPC express strong outrage at the targeting of our members and other journalists.

We stand in solidarity with them and demand they be released and harassment stopped pic.twitter.com/2rPWyje765

— Indian Women’s Press Corps (@iwpcdelhi) October 3, 2023

The National Alliance of Journalists, the Delhi Union of Journalists, and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists (Delhi Unit) had also issued statements condemning the act of the Delhi police, emphasising the far-reaching impact that such raids will have on press freedom. Furthermore, the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) had demanded that usage of stringent anti-terror laws such as the UAPA indiscriminately to target journalists should be prohibited.

A joint statement was also issued by ten independent media organisations of West Bengal wherein they had highlighted the abuse of law against journalists, using spywares as well as increasing raids by government agencies like ED and the CBI to harass journalists.

Ten independent media organisations of West Bengal come together to support #NewsClick and attacked independent journalists pic.twitter.com/uL9Qy8gVOy

— Nagorik.net (@netnagorik) October 4, 2023

The Press Club of Bangalore in a statement said that it was deeply concerned over the raids by the Delhi police on the residences of journalists. “The Press Club of Bangalore urges for an unbiased and fast-tracked investigation in the matter while pushing for all authorities to uphold the freedom of press,” it had said.

13. Renowned intellectuals speak out

On October 5, a joint statement was issued by renowned writers and activists, including International Booker Prize winner Geetanjali Shree, Ramon Magsaysay Award winners P. Sainath and Aruna Roy, writers K.R. Meera, Perumal Murugan, Ramachandra Guha and V. Geetha, and singer T.M. Krishna. Through the statement, they condemned the Delhi Police’s UAPA case and action against the editor, staff members and contributors of Newsclick. in their statement, they have emphasised that “criticism is essential for a democracy and any attempt to mute voices is an assault on India’s democratic spirit.”

An open letter renouncing the employment of repressive tactics by the Indian government, issued by the International media outlet Peoples Dispatch, was signed by over 300 journalists, political leaders, artists, academics, and progressive activists from around the world. The statement provided that “NewsClick is exactly the kind of media outlet which strengthens a democracy, shining a light and giving a voice to those marginalized and silenced sectors of society which clamor for dignity and change.”

14. Statement by political parties and leaders.

In a joint statement, the INDIA alliance, a coalition of 28 opposition political parties, expressed their dismay over the raids conducted and  alleged that the Narendra Modi government has persecuted the media over the past nine years by using investigative agencies against them. As reported by the Hindu, the coalition had said, “The coercive actions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government are directed against only those media organisations and journalists that speak truth to power.”

The statement can be accessed here:

INDIA stands against any form of intimidation or silencing of journalistic voices. We are on the side of democracy, not dictatorship.

This is nothing but yet another distraction from the most important question in India today – of a nationwide caste census. pic.twitter.com/FG1UWXWbrT

— K C Venugopal (@kcvenugopalmp) October 3, 2023

Many leaders of the opposition parties have also been putting out separate posts on social media to show their continuous support with the journalists and defending their rights.

On October 5, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor also pointed finger at the Delhi Police and called the raids “unfortunate and a disgrace to democracy and traditions of freedom”

“Freedom of the press is fundamental to any democracy…In our country, we have a very long record of Supreme Court judgments upholding the freedom of the press in our country. I believe the government erred. If there is a charge of foreign funding that is illegal or improper, there are right ways to investigate it. But confiscating journalists’ laptops and depriving them of access is not right,” Tharoor told the media.

The video of Tharoor addressing the media can be viewed here:

#WATCH | Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala: On Delhi Police conducting raids at different premises linked to #NewsClick, #Congress MP #ShashiTharoor says, “Freedom of the press is fundamental to any democracy…What happened yesterday was not only unfortunate, it was a disgrace to our… pic.twitter.com/XkAJshrNjc

— NewsMobile (@NewsMobileIndia) October 5, 2023

Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan tweeted his condemnation

Condemn the efforts to stifle alternative media that highlight issues sidelined by mainstream media. Criticism of Delhi Police’s moves against @newsclickin should be taken seriously. Silencing opposing voices is a fascist tendency. GoI should uphold the freedom of media to…

— Pinarayi Vijayan (@pinarayivijayan) October 4, 2023

15. Joint letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by Digipub

On October 4, a letter was addressed to the Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, requesting for judicial intervention to “put an end to the increasingly repressive use of investigating agencies against the media”.

“During your time at the Supreme Court, you have seen how on numerous occasions, the country’s investigating agencies have been misused and weaponised against the press,” the letter said. “Sedition and terrorism cases have been filed against editors and reporters, and multiple, sequential and/or frivolous FIRs have been used as an instrument of harassment against journalists.”

The letter urged for the courts to consider three points: the framing of norms to discourage the seizure of journalists’ devices; guidelines for seizures and the interrogation of journalists; and finding ways to ensure accountability of state agencies. Through the letter, the media organisations also highlighted that these raids are an attack against the democratic structure of our country and its fourth pillar by stating that “…ad hoc, sweeping seizures and interrogations surely cannot be considered acceptable in any democratic country.”

Notably, the said letter was signed by a coalition of 24 media organisations, including the Press Club of India, Digipub News India foundation, The Indian Women’s Press Co., Foundation for Media Professionals, Chandigarh Press Club, Kerala Union of Journalists, among others.

Letter from the media to D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, on the Delhi police raids at the homes of journalists and seizure of devices.

“…ad hoc, sweeping seizures and interrogations surely cannot be considered acceptable in any democratic country.” pic.twitter.com/AY1idO1Oao

— DIGIPUB News India Foundation (@DigipubIndia) October 4, 2023

16. Statement by the PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties)

On October 3, a statement was released by the PUCL condemning the raids as well as shocking usage of draconian terror sections against journalists. The statement highlighted that the raids have been carried out by the Delhi police “in order to influence public opinion and the court” as the 2021 cases of ED against the news portal and its founder were listed to be heard by the Delhi High Court after a week.

Additionally, the PUCL deemed the police action to be “nothing other than an egregious abuse of state power utilized to build a fairy tale narrative that Chinese money was being used by the raided journalists and media professionals for purposes of terrorism!”

The complete statement can be read here.

17. Statement by the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD)

On October 4, the NPRD released a statement strongly condemning the raids against Newsclick as well as the arrest of Amit Chakravarthi, who is a polio survivor and person with disability using crutches. In their statement, the international commitments of India to protect people with disabilities from inhumane treatment and torture was emphasised upon. The NPRD urged the authorities to make all reasonable accommodations for Amit Chakravarti while he remained in custody and take care of his accessibility needs. The statement, signed by general secretary Muralidharan, also said that the portal has been consistently championing the cause of the marginalised sections, including disabled people.

NPRD statement demanding #reasonableaccommodation for #disabled #polio survivor Amit Chakravarti of @newsclickin covered in @thewire_in https://t.co/hvQe3NEEkZ @armanaly @ncpedp_india @drag_org @vjayakumar @DisabilityIndia @SNAMBURAJAN @handicareindia @AmbikaPanditTOI

— National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (@NPRD_IN) October 5, 2023

18. Statement by the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR)

On October 5, a strongly-worded statement was released by the CASR condemned the raids against Newclick journalists, associated activists and NIA raids all over the country in the name of national security as well as the arrests made after these raids. CASR’s statement painted a concerning picture of the broader repression occurring across India. The CASR also demanded for the immediate end to the raids and for the immediate release of all political prisoners arrested after these raids. They also urged all democratic organizations and activists to come together in a united struggle against ‘Brahmanical Hindutva fascism’.

19. Memorandum submitted to Delhi Police Commissioner by National Union of Journalists (India)

On October 5, under the leadership of NUJI President Rash Bihari, a delegation of journalists submitted a memorandum to Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora to ensure that there is a fair investigation and that no journalists are misbehaved with by the police during interrogation. Notably, the NUJI is affiliated with the International Federation of Journalists. It was also asserted by the NUJI that it has always been in favor of independent, impartial and transparent journalism and strict action must be taken against anyone that is producing fake news, but no innocent journalist should be put behind bars.

20. Press Release by the All Indian Kisan Sabha (AIKS)

On October 5, the AIKS released a statement strongly criticizing the fascistic assault on NewsClick and other independent media organisations who are critical of the Narendra Modi led BJP regime. The statement provided that “The hounding of NewsClick based on false allegations is part of a larger design by the Modi regime to eliminate all forms of dissent. It is a blatant attack on press freedom.”

The AIKS highlighted the tireless role that the news click played in covering the stories of Farmer’s protest against the three farm laws, the killing of the dairy farmers by cow vigilantes, the role of the Sangh parivar in delhi riots, depicting “Newslick’s journalistic integrity and commitment to the masses”. An appeals was also made by the AIKS to the Indian peasantry “to intensify their struggles and align with democratic forces to fight this undeclared emergency.”

The complete statement can be read here.

There are reports of multiple protests from across India even as this piece is being published.

Related:

What is behind the synchronised Income Tax “survey” at NewsClick, Newslaundry? 

113 hours raiding multiple locations, it is still not clear why the ED is investigations Newsclick

ED Raids & NewsClick: Weaponising law by Criminalising Free Speech

85 hours and counting: Raid continues at NewsClick, editor’s health deteriorates

ED questioning of NewsClick Founder continues, while staff’s electronic gadgets seized

Truth shall prevail, have full faith in legal system: Newsclick

The post Newsclick: Resounding voices of solidarity from all over in defence of press freedom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

NewsClick Editor-in-Chief and Founder Prabir Purkayastha continued to be ‘questioned’ by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) office on February 11, 2021, to discuss the accusations against the organisation for “financial irregularities,” . 

The independent news organisation witnessed ED personnel raid its office, as well as Purkayastha’s house on February 9 to find clues of alleged money-laundering. The raids began at technology columnist Bappaditya Sinha’s home in Chittaranjan Park on Tuesday. He was finally released at 1.30 AM on Wednesday despite the fact that Patna High Court had held in 2012 that continuous search and questioning by the income tax department for 36 hours amounted to torture and violation of human rights.

Commonwealth Writers’ Prize winner Githa Hariharan was also held in his house, who owns shares in the PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt Ltd that owns the website. Hariharan runs the Indian Cultural Forum on the premises.

Meanwhile, Editor Pranjal Pandey and HR Head Amit Chakraborty were allowed freedom of movement. According to news reports, ED officials took their phones and laptops as well as other electronic devices, including two hard drives, from their office and homes.

To those who have visited the organisation’s office such as Columnist Aunindyo Chakravarty, the news comes as greatly disturbing.

In a tweet Chakravarty said, “I have been making videos for @newsclickin for more than a year now. Used to visit its office every week till Covid came. It is so small that as a visitor, I felt I should wash the cup that I was given tea in. Obviously, such an organisation must be of great interest to the ED.

“I mean this quite literally. I saw everyone washing their cups and putting it back on the rack in a small kitchen. I too followed suit. It is cash-strapped and can’t afford to subscribe to video services. Yet, everything they produce is under creative commons for everyone to use.”

The Telegraph said that the ED handed questionnaires to people and at least one person faced tangential queries and remarks on their proximity to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPM or the farmers’ movement.

Regardless, the raids have drawn widespread condemnation from journalists, activists, political organisations, people’s organisations and even the Bharatiya Kisan Union – Ekta Ugrahan, one of the leading farmers’ organisations. Their statement of solidarity also drew parallels between the ED raids and the cases filed against journalists covering farmers’ protests.

Similarly, the Editors Guild of India demanded that NewsClick’s news operations, journalists and stakeholders should not be undermined or harassed under the garb of measures that “measures to suppress free and independent journalism.”

Responding to the events so far, NewsClick said in a statement that the raids’ purpose appeared to be to cow down an independent voice. It claimed that the present raids seem to be along the same lines as the actions of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the National Investigation Agency in the recent past.

“NewsClick will continue to report and record voices of the unheard and unseen people of India, and the world, who are struggling to build a life of dignity and well-being,” said the portal.

Related:

Truth shall prevail, have full faith in legal system: Newsclick
Enforcement Directorate raids NewsClick.in
Condemn targeting of Newsclick
Journalist Mandeep Punia granted bail by Delhi Court
Solidarity is the biggest need for Indian journalists today
FIR against senior journalist Siddharth Varadarajan 

The post ED questioning of NewsClick Founder continues, while staff’s electronic gadgets seized appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Istanbul Blasts, ISIS and the West

Courtesy : Newsclick and TRNN

How will the ISIS terror/Istanbul Airport bombings affect Turkey’s relations in the region, western European countries on the one hand, Russia on the other?

Vijay Prashad discusses Turkey's ambiguous relationship with Russia, its more unambiguious Cold War past, and the insurgency in Syria. 

Prabir Purkayastha, editor Newsclick interviews Vijay Prashad, a professor of international studies at the Trinity College.

Among the many books he has authored are The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World and Arab Spring, Libyan Winter.
He also writes regularly for Asia Times Online, Frontline magazine and Counterpunch.
 
 

The post Erdogan and Turkey in the Terror Net: Video Interview appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For Rajnath Singh, the current Home Minister, whose Ministry has cooked up this special Geospatial Bill, the 19th century yardstick might itself be a huge step forward. For the rest of us, such a mindset is not only completely regressive, but also designed to cut India out of the 20th, let alone the 21st century.

As per the draft Geospatial Bill, for anyone publishing any geospatial information on India, we will need a license from a Security Vetting Authority. No, we did not invent this Kafkesque name, it is actually there in the Bill. Neither is this a one time license that would need to be sought. Such ‘permissio’ would be required, every time we want to publish any such data and it applies to every bit of geospatial data we generate – from a map showing, say drought or an earthquake in a newspaper (or a website), to a paper to be published in a journal. Or even a geotagged photo you take on your smartphone and publish on your Facebook account or on Instagram. All of them, if this Draft is allowed to become law, will need an application, payment of license fees and waiting for the Vetting Authority to clear your application. The failure to obtain a license can lead to a fine up to Rs. 100 crore or 7 years in jail!

This is not just a downright stupid move, but is also designed to divest all geospatial data out of any development activities; or even in our daily lives. No research either on geographical differentiation, urban geography, or anything to do with location as a parameter in development.

Not only is the overreach only in terms of what it limits, it is also in terms on who it will apply to. Any Indian anywhere and any entity in or outside India will be affected by this law if it is passed. This extra territorial reach of Indian law is again unworkable.
Geospatial information is any information that has some geographical location tied to it. It could be for example, land records, electoral data, spread of disease in an epidemic, location of restaurants, road maps, etc. All of them have have a geographical component and therefore can be displayed on maps. But they are much more than maps. When we use a GPS system with Google Maps, we are using data such as roads, street addresses, etc., on Google Maps, and our location on such maps derived from GPS signal on our mobile phones to navigate to the destination we want to go. This is an example of geospatial application, where data from different sources are meshed together to produce an application that helps us perform certain tasks. Without such systems, Ola or Uber, the cab systems would not exist – their application rides on top of mapping software, uses the GPS signal and is able to provide a way for the cabbie to reach a customer.

The problem with the proposed Geospatial Bill is that the Ministry of Home believes that all these applications are really maps, and any “map” should be vetted and any cleared before its use. They think publishing is printing, and therefore this function of vetting maps is akin to pre-censorship of any sensitive printed material. While we have rejected such pre-censorship in print, they think it should apply to all maps to ensure that the borders displayed are correct and all sensitive information pertaining to defence are removed. It does not recognise that maps today are a part of our everyday lives in myriad ways.

Yes, we need maps to show our borders correctly and not have detailed maps and images of sensitive areas. But we also need to understand that this should function by exception – unless it is a border or a sensitive area, no map needs to be vetted. And the only vetting required is of those areas and if sensitive installations are being shown. Asking for licensing of all maps and all geospatial data is like licensing each stalk of hay in the haystack for controlling the use of just the needle.

There is also the Hindutva mindset – the minute you say nation, you seem to get a Pavlovian reaction from its mass base. We only have to see the comments on various websites on this issue to realise that the BJP has a one-dimensional view of the world, where everything is a danger to the nation: from beef eating, to students asking from freedom from hunger and discrimination. The world is indeed a dangerous place for the ignorant, and their only answer is jailing all the dissidents and censoring the rest.

The difference between the Geospatial Bill and the existing mapping policy as given in our National Mapping Policy (NMP) of 2005, is that NMP applies only to maps. It describes what is not to be done – do not show wrong borders and do not show sensitive areas. It also makes a distinction between Open Series maps and Defence Series maps, with few restrictions on Open Series maps. Anybody using a map that conforms to the NMP provisions can overlay what they want on top of such a map. This means that only the underlying map has to conform to NMP, there are no further restrictions on what can be overlaid on top of it. We can put street maps, restaurants, our research data, or any other geospatial information of interest that we want.
Almost at the same time that the Home Ministry has come out with its desire to put all map makers behind bars, we have a very different document from the Department of Science Technology (DST), in the National Geospatial Policy, April 2016. While one can argue about the role of DST, and its failure to administer properly the mapping activity of the Survey of India, its policy document is at least a recognition that geospatial information is vital to development of the country. It also recognises that software, data and maps are all a part of today's geospatial world, and we need to take all of them into account when framing a geospatial policy. It has also tried to get the Ministry of Defence, and Department of Electronics and Technology (DeitY) on board in such a policy formulation. What is missing here is Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), which is the only one that out of all the government institutions, have provided geospatial information with its satellite imagery and Bhuvan program.

The problem the Government policy has is that it has fallen way behind what is happening in the world of geospatial data, satellite imagery, converting images to vector form, mashing other data including maps on to such images. These are available from various platforms such as QuickBird, WorldView or GeoEye platforms – 0.5 metre resolution satellite images along with software that allows us to develop detailed plans using maps, and on such images. It is not that India is not launching similar satellites, but what we are offering needs to be supplemented by other data that are now commercially available.

Today, no government department can plan without using Google Maps/Earth to check what they are doing. For engineering projects – building bridges, drilling tunnels, alignment of railway tracks, this is not enough, but it is still a start, to be backed up by detailed on-the-ground surveys.

When any project is done today, it requires high resolution satellite imagery. The procedure to get any imagery data below 1 metre resolution is cumbersome and have to be routed through a National Remote Sensing Centre and a Committee for vetting all such proposals. It typically takes 3 months, in some cases even longer.

While all these are bottlenecks, we seemed to have progressed gradually towards a more open policy for geospatial data, a grudging acceptance of its utility and various government departments working together to create a workable geospatial policy. With the Geospatial Bill, we are back to the middle ages, where the only purpose of a map was military and demarcating the borders of countries. It is this one-dimensional view of the country, to see everything through a defence or a police lens that is the characteristic of the BJP's medieval view of the nation.

There is no point in even trying to get some modicum of sanity in the Bill. We need to throw it out lock, stock and barrel. It has no understanding on what it is trying to do. If protecting its borders or not making sensitive information is the objective, then the National Mapping Policy already has that. Provide it more teeth if you want, but do not confuse it with geospatial data.

We do need a Geospatial Policy for the country. The DST's document could be a start, but it needs ISRO and its satellite imagery programs to be folded into such a policy. We need the government to integrate the police, defence, development and the public interests views to create such a policy.

Just to remind the Modi Government – the Gujarat government during Modi-Xi Jingping's discussions in Ahmedabad in September 2014 had annexed maps of India with the wrong Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh borders. Should the officials including the CEO of Gujarat (presumably the Chief Minister) been charged with criminal offence and put behind bars for 7 years? That is what this Bill wants. Time to think Mr. Modi?

Courtesy: Newsclick

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Newsclick

The post Geospatial Bill, the Monumental Stupidity of the Home Ministry appeared first on SabrangIndia.

They did not succeed. We held out for quite some time, then marched through the streets of Muzzaffarpur. The march ended in the office of one of the left parties, CPI (ML-Liberation) and a meeting was held in their compound., All of us spoke. The Nagrik Manch, a platform of the citizens of Muzzaffarpur that had organised the meeting, held a press conference condemning the attack and promising to continue their activities.

Why do words threaten the RSS? Why are they afraid of other voices, other viewpoints? Why are they unable to tell the people their concept of the nation instead of believing in silencing all voices different from theirs?

Forty years back, as students in JNU, we took on Mrs. Gandhi's Emergency. During a 3-day strike in JNU against the expulsion of SFI student leader Ashoklata Jain, I was kidnapped from the campus by a group of plainclothes police lead by P.S. Bhinder, then DIG (Range). Bhinder was indicted by the Shah Commission as one of the key figures in Delhi during the Emergency, and a close confidant of Sanjay Gandhi. On the second day of the strike, we stopped Maneka Gandhi — then the crown princess of Emergency, now a Cabinet Minister in the Modi Government — from attending class in the School of Languages. Soon after my detention, I was joined by D.P. Tripathi, then President of the Students Union and now a Rajya Sabha Member of the NCP. I remained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) for a year.

The student movement in JNU has always been about what is happening in the country, not just about the internal issues of the university. Yes, struggle for hostels, better mess and other facilities are a part of the students’ movement on the campus. But there has always been a vital connection to the wider struggles of the working place, women, dalits and the adivasis in the country. Even now, the JNU Students Union is in the forefront of student protests against the huge cutbacks in Higher Education introduced by HRD Minister Smriti Irani.

 
The story of JNU spans many decades of student activism, but this is not the reason for the attack on JNU. The BJP and its mother organisation, the RSS, are desperate. They are desperate for a plank that will replace the 2014 election jumlas people are unable to forget. They are desperate to erase from our memories Rohit Vemula – a dalit student who dared to dream of the stars – and the role that two BJP ministers played in his death. They want to erase from our memory the fact that two cabinet ministers of the Modi government – Smriti Irani and Bandaru Dattatreya – wrote to the Hyderabad Central University calling him anti-national, paving the way for his expulsion. They want to divert our attention from the failure of the economy, shrinking industrial production and exports, and the increasing crisis in agriculture.

That is why a desperate RSS and the BJP need a target. A small enough target that they can hope to demolish and create a fear psychosis: submit or else.

JNU is a small university by Indian standards. It has about 8,000 students. It has been always an intellectually vibrant place where every issue under the sun is discussed and debated. Where teachers and students can sit across a table or in a classroom, and discuss the most controversial topics without fear. That is what a university stands for, or should.

In such a place, if your beliefs cannot withstand critical analysis, it is hard. While radical ideas have done well in JNU, the ABVP has fared badly. Those wanting a discourse of unthinking hatred and divisions find JNU a difficult place.

The RSS claims it is nationalist and the JNU students are not. The Home Minister, the Finance Minister, and the Human Resources Minister – three cabinet ministers of this government – are spending much of their “nationalist” time on attacking JNU rather than governing the country. The RSS has expressed its “dismay” over JNU’s anti-national activities. This is taking out the big guns for a small target; certainly a much smaller target than Delhi and Bihar, where they have been soundly whipped by the people.

Why does the RSS need to display its “nationalism” by attacking a small university? Why can't it display its nationalism through its record instead of attacking others for not being nationalist enough?

The answer is simple. It does not have any nationalism to fall back on. The only political force in the country – apart from the Muslim League – that played no role in the struggle against British colonial rule was the RSS. The RSS not only opposed the national movement, but it also condemned it for uniting all sections of the people, and all religions against the British. It also opposed the national flag: the green and the white represented other religions. According to the RSS, the only permissible colour in the national flag was saffron, the bhagwa jhanda that the RSS worships.
 
Even Savarkar, their only nationalist hero, had actually sought clemency while lodged in Andamans' Cellular Jail. In his letter asking for forgiveness dated November 14, 1913, he described himself as a ''prodigal son'' longing to return to the ''parental doors of the government''…

The RSS never accepted the Constitution either. For them, the Manusmriti should have been the basis of the Indian constitution, and not what the Constituent Assembly decided in 1949.

The RSS vision for India has always been the Hindu nation, a nation in which people of other religions will be second class citizens. In which the Bramhins will be the only leaders of thought. A militarised nation in which critical thinking and questioning will have no place. Only strait-jacketed minds, with violence as the only mode of debate. This is what we saw in Muzzaffarpur yesterday. And in the Patiala House courts earlier.

The RSS cannot impose such a militarised nation on the people only through its goon squads. It needs the support of the state. It needs the police to act on its behalf, and the judiciary to protect it from the consequences of its violence. It needs the inaction of others.

This is what the fight is all about. Can the BJP bend the state machinery and the judicial apparatus to its will, while its armed goons take on the opposition? Will those who feel they are outside the nationalism debate fight for the rights of others to speak? 

To paraphrase Pastor Niemöller,
First they came for Akhlaq, and I did not speak out–
As I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for Rohit, and I did not speak out–
As I was not a Dalit.
Then they came for Kanhiya, and I did not speak out–
As I was never in JNU.
What happens now, when they come for me–
Who will then be left to speak for me?
 
Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Why the RSS is afraid of Words appeared first on SabrangIndia.