New Delhi: President Droupadi Murmu has given her assent to the Bill passed by the Gujarat Assembly that empowers the police to register cases against persons who stage protests in violation of Section 144 (prohibiting unlawful assembly) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), reports PTI.

Passed by the Gujarat legislative assembly early last year, in March 2022, ‘The Code of Criminal Procedure (Gujarat Amendment) Bill, 2021’ makes any violation of prohibitory orders under Section 144 a cognisable offence under Section 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This Bill harks back to an u democratic colonial era, concentrating unchecked power in the police.

The said law, in effect, amends Section 195 of the CrPC, which states that no court shall take cognisance of any criminal conspiracy for contempt of the lawful authority of public servants except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned.

Now, with this new regressive legal regime in place, the police in Gujarat can register cases against those who protest without informing local courts in writing, which has been the case thus far.

Thestatement and objects of the Bill lays this out: it states that the Gujarat government, police commissioners, district magistrates are vested with powers to issue prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC, directing any person to abstain from a certain act or to take a certain order to prevent disturbance of public tranquillity or a riot or an affray to maintain public order on various occasions.

Further, thelaw acknowledges that police officers deployed on such duties encounter instances of violence requiring them to take appropriate legal action against the violators under Section 188 of the IPC.

“However, Section 195 of the CrPC, 1973 makes it mandatory for the public servant issuing such orders to be the complainant against the violators thereby creating an impediment for taking cognizance of violations…. Section 195 (1) (a) (ii) CrPC prohibits the jurisdictional courts from taking cognizance of the offences except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned,” the statement said, according to The Hindu.

Now, under this new regime that openly criminalises protests, any violation of prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 will be a cognisable offence under Section 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the IPC. The maximum punishment under Section 188 is six months in jail.

Related:

Why Judiciary and Executive must heed President Murmu’s serious concerns on prisoners’ rights

Subaltern Faces to sustain the Sanatan Core: The Murmus, The Kovinds,  and the Kalams

The post President Draupadi Murmu gives her assent to Gujarat Bill empowering police to criminalise protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Former Jharkhand governor, and noted tribal rights activist Draupadi Mumru could become India’s first President hailing from a Scheduled Tribe. Mumru, from Odisha’s Mayurbhanj district, will also be only the second woman to become President of India. She is National Democratic Alliance (NDA)’s candidate for President.

And while, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) might feel they are checking all the right boxes by nominating her, they would be foolish to ignore how Mumru has exercised her agency, authority and wisdom in the past to protect and defend the rights of Adivasis (India’s indigenous tribes).

One can therefore hope that the government will honour their presidential candidate by finally delivering on several pending promises made to Adivasis and forest workers.

Who is Draupadi Mumru?

Draupadi was born on June 20, 1958 to Biranch Narain Tudu in Uparbeda village, located about 25 kilometers from Rairangpur in Mayurbhanj district of Odisha. She excelled in school and went on to graduate from Ramadevi Women’s College in Bhubaneshwar. Before joining politics, she was a teacher. She also advocated for rights of tribals, women and children at this point. Tragedy struck when she lost her husband Shyan Charan Mumru and two sons.

As a politician, Murmu was elected councilor in the Rairangpur Nagar Panchayat in 1997. She also served as vice-president of the Scheduled Tribes Morcha of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). She has been elected Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) twice, from Rairangpur – once in 2000 and then in 2009 on a BJP ticket. She has also led the state ministries of Commerce, Transport, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry during the tenure of the BJP-BJD coalition government.

However, it was during her tenure as governor of Jharkhand, that Mumru truly distinguished herself.

Defending tribal rights

In 2017, while serving as Jharkhand governor, she refused to give her assent to two bills approved by the state legislative assembly seeking amendments to the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, and the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. There had been widespread protests when it was discovered that the amendments could enable use of tribal lands for commercial purposes. Mumru did her research, listened to the people and sent back the bills!  

She told Down to Earth, “Three things are needed for development: education, money and power. But tribals only have land. They feel when land is there they can work and will be able to live. But if land is taken away, tribals will not be able to survive.” Further explaining why tribal lands needed to be protected, Mumru told the publication, “They (tribals) consider land as God. For centuries, tribal people have been closely linked with their lands, forests and rivers. It has always been their way of life. To alienate them from this ecosystem would be a crime. Development agenda should not lose sight of this fact. Tribal communities should not be alienated from their lands.”

While most people see the post of Governor as a rubber stamp position, Mumru used her power to prevent exploitation of tribal populations.

It is noteworthy that nearly a quarter of the population of both, her home state of Odisha and that of Jharkhand falls under the Scheduled Tribes (ST) category.

Mumru has also been a vocal supporter of the Forest Rights Act (2006), as well as legislations and reforms pertaining to Adivasis and forest workers.

In 2017, when she was Governor of Jharkhand, she had told DTE, “According to the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, tribals should be given patta (land rights documents).” She had also raised important issues pertaining to forest produce, “The government should directly purchase minor forest produce (MFP) from tribal people. They should be allowed to collect mahua and tendu,” adding, “I suggested otherwise. We must approach MFP as a source of income for tribal people.”

Laws requiring BJP’s urgent focus

When it comes to land and forest rights of Adivasis, tribals, forest dwelling communities and forest workers, the law that needs the Centre’s immediate attention is the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. Though the legislation has been around for over 15 years, its implementation has been slack.

But grassroots movements led by groups formed by Adivasis and forest workers themselves, such as the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP), with which CJP works closely, have been at the forefront of a sustained campaign to reclaim land rights by filing community land claims. The Centre needs to expedite the process for clearing such community land claims if it truly wants to empower Adivasis and forest workers.

The second matter that requires urgent focus is Minor Forest Produce (MFP). The Centre needs to step in and formulate policies that enable economic empowerment of forest workers and people who collect and sell forest produce for a living. If the government were to directly purchase forest produce from tribals at predetermined rates, it would prevent their exploitation by middlemen and vested interests.

This would be particularly helpful when it comes to Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) such as nuts, leaves, berries, nectar, honey etc. Many of these commodities are used in production of other processed and unprocessed food items, thus making them valuable. Then there are other commodities such as rubber, resin, lac, wax, fibre etc. that are in demand as raw materials for manufacture of industrial products.

Another matter pertaining to Scheduled Tribes (ST) that requires urgent focus is reservations. In some states, there are reservations in education and employment for certain STs, but not in others. This becomes inconvenient when ST families migrate to states outside their home states as it impacts their mobility in a day and age when everyone else freely explores greener pastures. It also impedes their ability to access schemes that benefit tribal communities in the state where they work. This imbalance needs to be corrected immediately to ensure implementation of social justice schemes specially designed to empower tribal communities.

If the BJP acts on the above it could reap rich political dividends in states where Assembly elections are due this year such as Gujarat, that also has a significant tribal population.

Related:

Forest Land Claims filed in Chitrakoot: AIUFWP and CJP make history!

Only 8 states use the Institutional Support for Tribal Produce scheme

MHA exempts MFP and NTFP from lockdown

The post Will Draupadi Mumru’s presidency finally push the BJP to walk the talk on ST and Forest Rights? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) sent a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind on ‘Daman Pratirodh Diwas’ February 24, 2021 along with many other associated organisations who sent a similar memorandum from the taluka and district level.

People from hundreds of locations demanded an end to repression on protesting farmers and their supporters. Accordingly, the letter sent to Kovind demanded:

1.       Immediate and unconditional release of innocent farmers who were jailed during the course of the farmers’ struggle.

2.       Dismissal of all false charges against farmers, individuals and organizations supporting the struggle.

3.       Immediate cancellation of notices sent by the Delhi police, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and other government agencies against farmers.

4.       Opening of all roads near farmers protest sites along Delhi borders.

The SKM also condemned Bihar police in Sitamarhi for registering cases against protestors who participated in the rail roko protest to decry the three farm laws: the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance & Farm Services Act, the Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.

“We ask for an immediate withdrawal of all such cases,” said SKM leader Darshan Pal.

Further, leaders welcomed Disha Ravi’s bail and release “in the frivolous and unacceptable toolkit case” as well as the many observations of Judge Dharmendar Rana.

“We demanded immediate action against the Delhi police in this case who flouted many norms and arrested Disha Ravi in an illegal and extra constitutional manner,” said leaders.

Similarly, they denounced Delhi Police Special Cell’s intimidation tactics against Communist Party of India-Marxist Leninist (CPI-ML) Delhi Secretary Ravi Rai, its pursuit of Navkiran Natt of Trolley Times and flouting of legal norms.

Related:

Falsely implicated, as I was successful in generating support for farmers: Nodeep Kaur
Family of Bhagat Singh participates in Pagdi Sambhal Diwas
Gurmukh Singh: Beaten but not broken
Farmers celebrate a wave of support from distant countries to local villages
Mahapanchayats to branch out to other states by the end of February: SKM
87 US groups declare support for farmers’ struggle in India
Farmers announce Kisan Mazdoor Ekta Diwas on Feb 27 

The post Dismiss false charges against farmers: SKM to President on Daman Pratirodh Diwas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Venezuela finds itself with two presidents engaged in a high-stakes game to control the country’s future. The country has also had two “national assemblies” and many questions about how the constitution should be applied. So, how did it find itself in this position?

Miguel Gutierrez/EPA
President Nicolás Maduro claims to be Venezuela’s constitutional president because he won the
presidential election in July 2018.

On January 23 2019, Juan Guaidó, one month after becoming president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, disputed Maduro’s legitimacy and declared the presidency vacant. He then took an oath to serve as the interim president of Venezuela.

Guaidó v Maduro

Although involved in politics since 2009, Guaidó was until recently little known outside political circles. A member of the Voluntad Popular (“Popular Will”) party, he was an understudy to Leopoldo López, the party’s leader who is currently imprisoned for allegedly encouraging violent protests seeking the ousting of Maduro.

The 1999 Bolivarian Constitution, written in the first year of the administration of former president Hugo Chávez, fulfilled a promise Chávez made in his successful 1998 presidential campaign to replace the constitution of 1991. Most Venezuelans had come to see the earlier constitution as a democratic façade, serving the interests of a corrupt, wealthy ruling elite that controlled the only two parties with any chance of winning power through elections.

Maduro was Chávez’s vice president and the clear choice to succeed Chávez after his death in March 2013, only five months after winning an election for a third term. Elections during the Chávez years were criticized by observers, such as the Carter Center, for the government favoritism in the campaigns, but most saw the vote count as honest.

Chávez won easily due to strong support among the country’s poor majority, who benefited from social programs funded by the country’s oil bounty – which, before Chávez, had mostly gone to the wealthy and middle class.

Maduro’s unusual elections

The Maduro era has seen more questions arise about the fairness of campaigns, but also about official results. Despite Chavez’s blessing, Maduro barely won the special election to replace the deceased leader, winning only 50.6% of the vote.

Maduro’s political standing plunged further in mid-2014 when the price of oil, which can vary from 20 to 40% of GDP in any given year, collapsed, falling from US$130 to US$30 per barrel in late 2015.

In December 2015 Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) suffered a severe defeat in the National Assembly elections of December 2015. The opposition won a super majority of seats, enough to undo the programs of the Chávez era. Much of the opposition had participated in a failed coup in 2002 and never accepted the 1999 constitution – but all now embraced it as a tool to try to remove Maduro.

They gathered enough signatures to force a recall election upon Maduro, but the PSUV used delaying tactics to ensure that an opposition win would result in the vice president taking over. The recall effort faded away.

The opposition-controlled National Assembly began to act to slow or end Chavez’s programs and to limit Maduro’s power. The country’s Supreme Court, filled with PSUV appointees, used a dispute over the election of three assembly deputies to rule that the body was unconstitutionally abusing its power and threatened to close the unicameral Congress down.

A legislature stripped of its powers

Maduro instead decided to convene a new National Constituent Assembly (NCA) to rewrite the constitution and create what Chávez himself had called the “communal state”. This state would theoretically shift much power over policies and state spending (generated almost entirely by oil exports) to local and regional citizens’ councils.

To do this, Maduro used a vague phrase in Article 348 of the constitution that says: “The initiative for calling a National Constituent Assembly may emanate from the President of the Republic sitting with the Cabinet of Ministers.”

The opposition refused to participate in the election (turnout was 41%) of delegates to the NCA – as a result it is almost entirely composed of Maduro supporters. On August 8 2017 the NCA took legislative powers for itself, away from the National Assembly, under Article 349 of the existing constitution, which is intended to avoid obstruction of a constitutional assembly’s work.

Venezuela’s electoral authorities scheduled the May 2018 presidential election half a year early. Though constitutional, the timing made it difficult for the deeply divided opposition to choose its candidate. A large faction boycotted the vote; another backed a candidate, the governor of an important state.

Maduro won with 67.8%. The turnout was 46.7%, low by Venezuelan standards. Maduro claims this election makes him the legitimate president and accuses the opposition, the United States and other foreign governments of fomenting a coup.

Guaidó claims to be the constitutional interim president after the National Assembly declared the presidency to be “vacant” under Article 233 of the constitution, which allows for an interim president to replace a sitting president “upon abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly”.

Guaidó defends his action as a constitutional route out of the country’s economic and political crises – and his move has been endorsed by much of the mainstream news media in liberal democracies. Maduro has highlighted that he won an election – and Guaidó has not. Guaidó promised he would call elections once he has actual control of government.

Why did both presidents try so hard to justify their status as “constitutional” when almost everyone agrees the military holds the keys to power? For one thing, many in the military feel it’s their job to uphold the constitution. And both sides wanted to appeal to international public opinion.

Both sides wanted the support of Venezuelans in the poor urban neighborhoods and countryside, who see the 1999 constitution as guaranteeing their right, won under Chavez, to be politically included in determining the country’s future.
 

This article was originally published in Spanish

Courtesy:The Conversation
 

The post Venezuela crisis explained: a tale of two presidents appeared first on SabrangIndia.

JNU is immersed in celebrations as reportedly the administration backed panel has been defeated by the “progressive” panel backed by Left forces. This has led to a complete decimation of the administration backed panel supported by the VC Jagadesh Kumar.

The panel led by Atul Sood from the School of Social Sciences won as Atul was chosen the President by the collective will of those who voted. Milap Punia from SSS who led the other panel for the post of President lost. Reportedly, Prof. Punia had fought the election “opposing the negative approach of the former representatives of the JNUTA that they have meted towards the true interests of teachers.” Prof. Punia’s panel has alleged that there was an “absence of dialogue” between the administration and the JNUTA.

Prof. Sood’s panel had said that the greatest challenge that they will face after winning would be to resist the ongoing institutional consultation between the various stakeholders of the university.

Rejoicing their victory, the JNUTA progressive panel also came up with a video:
https://www.facebook.com/ayesha.kidwai.9/videos/1919853631438346/

While appealing for votes the JNUTA had said, “We seek your vote to fight a ‘national waste’ and restore the running of the university.”

It had flagged off several issues saying that the JNUTA didn’t represent the administration but the “collective will of the teachers.”

It said that the policies were being ‘announced’ and not ‘decided. It had alleged that the VC was “hand-picking” and that “elected teachers, students, officers, and statutory bodies are not acknowledged, treated as misconduct, made the grounds for removing Chairpersons and other penalties.” The JNUTA has also been seriously questioning the contradictions in the administration’s approach where it is callous about basic facilities like water on campus while at the same time it envisages “paying the debt-servicing of a Rs. 515 crore HEFA loan, to spend crores on an online examination, and to rush to sign an MoU with MHRD that will put the seal on privatization.” It had alleged that students were being made to live in a “slum like condition”. It had questioned Library rules and budget cuts apart from the degrading quality of courses.

The JNUTA had demanded that the authorities should immediately restore the functioning of the faculties, boards, schools, councils as per the JNU act.

The JNUTA, over the last four years has consistently “fought against the undoing of the university” as experienced by several groups on the campus. It is being felt that the JNUTA results will embolden the struggle against forces that seek to “dismantle the JNU.”

The complete results are as follows:

*JNUTA 2018-19 Elections Final Tally* (after including postal ballots)

Total Votes Polled: 518

_President_
Atul- 359
Milap- 152

_Vice-President (2 posts)_
Ajith- 349
Chirashree- 340
Gautam- 149
Poonam- 139

_Secretary_
Avinash- 369
Pravesh- 142

_Joint Secretary (2 posts)_
Ameeth- 331
Parnal – 329
Anirban- 175
Ajmal- 144

_Treasurer_
Rakesh- 346
Arnab- 165

_School Rep SSS_  
Prachin- 113
Chittibabu- 120
Manoj- 35
Invalid- 0

_School Rep SIS_
Mandira- 58
SN Malakar- 58
Soumyajit- 23

_School Rep SL_  
Ajmer- 84
Hemant- 93
Sushant- 34

 
https://sabrangindia.in/article/jnu-teachers-voice-strong-dissent-against-ccs-conduct-rules-reportedly-meant-curb-university
https://sabrangindia.in/article/esma-ugcs-new-trick-dissolve-autonomy-public-universities
 

The post Progressive and left-backed panel defeats Administration-backed panel in JNUTA elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Why this break from tradition ? This year, Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu will be the chief guest at the ceremony being organised at Vigyan Bhavan in Delhi on Tuesday. President Ramnath Kovind will, however, be hosting the teachers at Rashtrapati Bhavan later in the day. Seious questions are being raised about this ‘change’ especially since the ruling BJP made much of the fact that President Kovind is India’s second Dalit President.  But sources in the Rashtrapati Bhavan, are, however, insisting to the media  that not much should be “read into this change in ceremony – where the VP will present the award instead of the President. The President has invited the awardees to personally interact with them.”

As many as 219 teachers, including 124 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) teachers, will be presented the award. The ceremony will take place in the presence of Minister of Human Resource Development Prakash Javadekar, MoS HRD Satyapal Singh and MoS Upendra Kushwaha. There are 366 awards, out of which 20 are reserved for Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic teachers. There is also an earmarked quota for each state/ union territory/ organisation based on their number of teachers.

The recognition is extended to teachers of CBSE-affiliated schools, independent affiliated schools situated abroad, ICSCE, Sainik School, KVS, NVS, CTSA and schools run by the Atomic Energy Education Society. This year, for Teachers’ Day celebrations, the government has asked the state governments to hold district/ block/ cluster level competitions based on cleanliness.

The post President Kovind, India’s 2nd Dalit President Won’t Present Teachers Day Awards Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A high-level meeting of India’s top rights  group, mines, minerals and People (mm&P), has decided to represent to President Pranab Kumar Mukherjee and Prime Minister Narendra Modi to implement the concept of "intergenerational equity” to make sure that the next generations are equal shareholders of the natural resources.

This unique concept, which is directed against corporate houses and other business interests seeking to mine away the natural wealth, has been coined by Goa Foundation, a Goa-based voluntary organization. The concept states, those who depend on natural resources alone are their rightful owners.

Participated by 236 activists, experts, grassroots workers and bureaucrats, the meeting at Kotagiri, Nilgiri Hills, Tamil Nadu, saw Rahul Basu of the Goa Foundation state that society and the government “must not forget that they are just trustees of natural resources and not their owners.”

Referring to what he called “aggressive mining activities and profit mongering crony capitalists' hunger for profit out of natural resources”, Basu stressed on the "public trust" doctrine and the "intergenerational equity" concept – which, he claimed, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as part of the Right to Life.

"The concept of "intergenerational equity would make sure that the next generations are also the equal shareholder of the natural resources”, he said, adding, "As a result of the recommendation from the Goa Foundation, the Supreme Court of India directed that the creation of the Goa Iron Ore Permanent Fund meant to be utilized for the future generations as equal shareholders of the natural resources.”

Following his intervention at the mm&P, the meeting passed a unanimous resolution on "intergenerational equity based on the understanding on public trust doctrine, calling for declaring minerals as shared inheritance.”

Addressed to the President and the Prime Minister of India, participants from all the 20 states signed the resolution, demanding for "intergenerational equity" policy in each and every mining area, and ensuring that it is implemented.

Participated, among others, by former deputy director, Geological Survey of India (GSI), Krishna Murthy, waterman of Rajasthan Rajendra Singh, and Gujarat’s veteran Gandhian tribal leader Ashok Choudhury, the meeting saw the participants regret that the concept of community rights over natural resources was “dying down.”

Krishna Murthy, former deputy-director of GSI expressed his concern over the impact of coal mining on environment and wildlife, saying, the growing demand for electricity for commercial purpose has led to corporate greed for more coal-based power plants, and this is “uprooting millions of lives and livelihoods.”

Speaking the way natural resources are being fleeced, Singh said, while the poor are forced to migrate due to the scarcity of water, private companies are granted permission to extract as much water as they can for their commercial use.

Choudhury regretted that both the Central and state governments are not respecting the rule of law and implementing the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA, 1996) in the tribal areas to empower tribals to have a complete say over natural resources.Speaking on the occasion, environmental activist CR Bijoy reminded the participants that only five out 17 states with sizable tribal population have so far framed PESA rules, while the rest are hesitant. “Most states are in fact displacing tribals from their lands", he added.
 

The post Hand Over Mining Wealth to Locals with Right to Inheritance Demands MM&P Rights Group appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ambedkarite students of the University of Hyderabad (UoH) have in a detailed and strongly worded memorandum to the President of India, substantiated by 26 authenticated annexures, demanded that he exercise his powers as Chancellor of the university and remove Podile Appa Rao as ViceChancellor . The memorandum also appeals for directions to the Government of Telangana to implement SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Act in the criminal case (Cr.No 20/2016, Gachibowli Police Station) against the authorities pending in the High Court

The memorandum says that there is a direct link between VC Podile Appa Rao’s actions and the death of Rohith Vemula

The searing letter of Rohith Vemula, dated December 18, 2015 addressed to the Vice Chancellor speaks of the bitter humiliation suffered by Dalit students and sarcastically advises how very Dalit student should be given a hangman’s noose and bottle of sodium azide on admission

Further humiliation was heaped on research scholars including Rohith Vemula after he sent the letter, including expulsion from hostel rooms and being barred from the library and other parts of the university

Podile Appa Rao by not responding to the communication and further humiliating the scholars, demonstrated not just his bias, but his unfitness to hold such a responsible position

The detailed memorandum, signed by three close colleagues of Rohith Vemula, Dontha Prashanth, Vijay Pedapudi and Seshaiah Chemuduguntha is meticulously prepared and states how a sub-standard academic was chosen for the post of Vice Chancellor over more deserving candidates simply because of his connections to central minister Venkaiah Naidu and him being part of the politically strong Kamma caste

Further, it details how the Modi Govt and its Ministers crudely, through the appointment of a one man Roopanwal Commission, tried to untruthfully establish that Rohith Vemula was not a Dalit even as the competent authority of the District Collector had already incontrovertibly proved his caste status

The Memorandum also traces the vicious influence exercised by members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) over the administration of the university

What emerges is, again the alleged chain of command responsibility into the institutional murder (suicide) of research scholar Rohith Vemula on January 17, 2016: Humiliation and unfair treatment meted out by Podile Appa Rao at the instigation and abetment by Bandaru Dattatreya, a Central Minister,N.Ramachander Rao, Krishna Chaitanya, Nandanam Susheel Kumar and Nandanam Diwakar which caused to the death of Rohith Vemula along with injuring the lives of other four Scheduled Caste Research Scholars namely, Dontha Prashanth, Vijay Pedapudi, Seshu Chemudugunta and Sunkanna Velpula

The text of the Memorandum released today may be read here:

To,
His Excellency
Honorable President,
Republic of India,
 
Respected Sir,
 
Sub: Sub: Seeking your kind intervention in the removal of Prof Podile Appa Rao as the Vice Chancellor, Hyderabad University, and his arrest under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
As you are aware, the sad demise of the brilliant research scholar Rohith Vemula on January 17, 2016, following extreme casteist harassment induced by Podile Appa Rao on behest of BJP leaders has shocked the people of this country, triggered nationwide protests and sullied India’s image in the international community as a democratic republic where the rights of the meek are protected by a robust and progressive Constitution. 

The facts of the case, which we have summarized below, lucidly point to a grand conspiracy executed through the Hyderabad University’s Vice Chancellor Podile Appa Rao and hatched by ABVP and BJP to persecute and humiliate a group of law-abiding, Scheduled Caste students, one of whom was Rohith Vemula. 

Podile Appa Rao’s appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), on September 21, 2015 had raised many eyebrows as several candidates, immensely more qualified than Podile Appa Rao, were overlooked and he was chosen solely because his political patrons (Venkaiah Naidu) in BJP on caste (Kamma) lineages had faith that he will pursue their agenda while running the affairs of the university (Annexure – 1). 
 
In the following days after this political appointment, Podile Appa Rao set upon the task that his political masters in the BJP had chosen: destroy the anti-sangh Ambedkar Students Association. Without even conducting an enquiry, he passed orders banning Rohith Vemula and four ASA colleagues from hostels, common areas and contesting in the elections.

The despotic, casteist and patrisan attitude of Appa Rao Podile made Rohith Vemula write him a letter on December 18, 2015 (Annexure -2). Dripping with sarcasm, the letter needs to be quoted in full to establish the levels of despondency to which Rohith Vemula had been pushed:

“To,
The Vice Chancellor
Subject: Solution for Dalit problem
Sir,
First, let me praise your dedicated take on the Self-Respect movements of Dalits in HCU campus. When an ABVP president got questioned about his derogatory remarks on Dalits, your kind personal interference into the issue is historic and exemplary. 5 Dalit students are “socially boycotted” from campus spaces. Donald Trump will be a lilliput in front of you. By seeing your commitment, I am tempted to give two suggestions as a token of banality.
1. Please serve 10mg Sodium Azide to all the Dalit students at the time of admission. With direction to use when they feel like reading Ambedkar.
2. Supply a nice rope to the rooms of all Dalit students from your companion, the great Chief Warden.
As we, the scholars, PhD students have already passed that stage and already members of Dalit Self-Respect movement unfortunately, we here are left with no easy exit, it seems.
Hence, I request your highness to make preparations for the facility “EUTHANASIA” for students like me. And I wish you and the campus rest in peace forever.”

As a follower of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, being a member of Dalit Self-Respect movement, Rohith Vemula strongly felt that the social boycott and the punishment leveled against Five Dalit Research Scholars belonging to Ambedkar Students Association was a direct attempt to choke the voices of Schedule Caste students who are reading Ambedkar and who are asserting their self-respect. 
He also expressed that arrangement of facility such as “Euthanasia” for him can make Appa Rao Podile and campus rest in peace forever, which explicitly shows the amount of harassment induced against Rohith Vemula and Four ASA colleagues by Appa Rao Podile. 

Rohith Vemula was found dead in the afternoon of January 17, 2016, hanging by the neck in a friend’s room. There was a letter found in the same room written by Rohith Vemula which makes it amply clear that he felt deeply dehumanized at multiple levels note made it amply clear that he felt deeply dehumanized at multiple levels. Read along with his earlier suicide notice to Podile Appa Rao exactly 1 month before i.e December 18, 2015, in which he suggests that the administration should provide a rope to Ambedkarite students to kill themselves instead of following Ambedkar’s teachings, clearly points to the discriminatory atmosphere created by the administration, and to all those who pressured him and robbed him of his dignity in this process and in society, as the cause for his suicide.
 
We see this as an institutionally sanctioned murder, where the institution persecuted him and passed a casteist order of social boycott intended to humiliate him and lead him into a state of resignation. 
Instead of protecting a student, who was being pressured furiously by the BJP and the Central Government, who in turn were acting in affiliation with their student group ABVP rather than behaving professionally as non-partisan governers of the public, the University administration issued a punishment without providing any material proof of wrongdoing.

The former Vice-Chancellor, R P Sharma and the Medical Officer of the University had visited the complainant ABVP student — Nanandam Susheel Kumar who is from a family of BJP leaders — in the hospital. The medical records shown to them at the hospital clearly stated that the ABVP leader had been operated for appendicitis (Annexure -3). The medical records showed no evidence of beating or external injuries.

These facts were duly noted in the interim report of the Proctorial Board, which concluded that there was no evidence to prove that Nandanam Susheel Kumar had been assaulted. However, bucking under immense political pressure (Para-2, Page No. 10), the final order summarily suspended five ASA leaders including Rohith Vemula.

This order was revoked in less than three days as it was found that the entire process was vitiated by the fact that the enquiry committee did not have a single SC/ST member, did not summon either the complaint ABVP leader or the ASA leaders who he had falsely charged with assault. The orders were revoked on the condition that the entire enquiry would be conducted afresh.

Podile Appa Rao was introduced to the campus as the Vice Chancellor — overlooking many superior scholars — at this crucial stage by the Ministry of Human Resources Development with the objective of executing a sinister plan. He influenced an order by the Executive Council — banning Rohith Vemula and his four ASA colleagues from hostels and common areas — without conducting a fresh enquiry. It is with the objective of vitiating the fresh enquiry that Prof Apparao was selected out of turn by the Ministry of Human Resources Development.

This arbitrary, unjust and politically motivated order was supported by the Vice Chancellor Appa Rao despite the fact that it was based on an order that had been nullified by the previous Vice Chancellor on the grounds that the procedure employed was unfair and violative of the principles of natural justice. 

The five ASA leaders including Rohith Vemula — the targets of the Vice Chancellor — were brilliant research scholars, in the prime of their youth with dreams of reforming society based on the ideals of the Indian Constitution and Dr B R Ambedkar. Each of the five was also a first generation university entrant, raised in extreme poverty and dependent on State support for his education. 
By expelling them from the hostel, Podile Appa Rao cut off a crucial lifeline for these students and by banning them from public spaces, he subjected them to the worst form of social exclusion. The order passed by Podile Apparao effectively banished the students from the university community.

He did not care about the evidence before him. He did not even give the ASA leaders a chance to present their side of the story.

What can explain this cruelty besides the fact that it was motivated by extreme hatred? It is a hatred of an ancient kind; the kind that was outlawed by the Indian Constitution and subsequently the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. What Podile Apparao committed was an act of caste hatred intended to lower the social standing of the five Scheduled Caste scholars in front of the entire elite of the academic community.

There is a direct link between Podile Appa Rao’s actions and the death of Rohith Vemula. He must be held both ethically and criminally responsible.

We had hoped that Rohith Vemula’s death would stir the conscience of the government and law enforcement agencies and result in the swift delivery of justice. Hon’ble Chief Minister of Telangana, Sri. K.Chandrasekhar Rao had made a statement in the assembly on 26/03/2016, that he would ensure for recall of Podile Appa Rao, Vice-Chancellor, University of Hyderabad and subsequently would speak to the Prime Minister on the same. Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi shed crocodile tears when students of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University protested against BJP during convocation on the incident of Rohith Vemula Suicide, where he said “Mother India Lost its Son”.

However, what happened later only exposes the hypocrisy, casteism and despotic nature of BJP in persecuting Dalits, infact they witch hunted Rohith Vemula’s mother Radhika Vemula who declared a fight seeking Justice for her son Rohith Vemula against BJP and Podile Appa Rao. Despite National Commission for Scheduled Castes having declared Rohith Vemula as Scheduled Caste, despite the competent authority such District Magistrate having declared Rohith Vemula as Scheduled Caste, BJP led centre in an utmost cruel and inhuman manner formed and directed a one-man commission led by Ashok Kumar Roopanwal to deliver the utmost unjust verdict, by terming Radhika Vemula as one who faked her identity. Such highhandedness by BJP was displayed in order to save their henchmen and their ministers from the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Since, Rohith Vemula’s institutional murder, almost a year has passed without the culprits having to face even the slightest inconvenience. 

Indeed, it is our case that the people responsible for pushing Rohith Vemula toward suicide have been protected from the law and rewarded for their mercenary actions with unwavering political patronage. On the other hand, the students of Hyderabad University, who employed peaceful means to agitate for justice for Rohith Vemula, were systematically harassed by the Central and State governments, the Telangana police and the university administration. There were cases registered against both students and faculty, and they were sent to Charlapally Central Prison for registering their dissent against Prof.Podile Apparao who returned as Vice-Chancellor on 22nd March 2016 with the blessings of Venkaiah Naidu.

We also would like to elucidate a brief timeline of events explaining the episode around Rohith Vemula’s suicide and the intervention of BJP and Central Cabinet Ministers leading to the Social Boycott of Five Dalit Research Scholars.

03rd August 2015:
Ambedkar Students Association (ASA), University of Hyderabad (UoH) organized a protest gathering “Against ABVP attack on Montage Film Society” at University of Delhi, New Delhi. At the protest the ASA also raised the issue of the harassment of the students of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune and Pondicherry University. 

On the same day, Nandanam Susheel Kumar — a student of UoH and President of the UoH unit of the Akhila Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and the son of a BJP leader ( Nandanam Vinaya ) — posted a comment about the agitating Dalit students of ASA on Facebook at about 09:18 PM in which he said: “ASA GOONS ARE TALKING ABOUT HOOLIGANISM – FEELING FUNNY” (Annexure -4). 

The derogatory and provocative statement was posted with the sole aim of humiliating Scheduled Caste students and typecasting them as antisocial elements. 

While reinforcing the centuries-old negative stereotyping of Scheduled Caste communities, the comments by the ABVP president created an air of hatred, enmity, and ill-will toward these marginalized communities. 

Although deeply outraged, ASA members decided that it was best to solve this issue using peaceful methods. In the presence of Duty Security Officer Dilip Singh (Annexure – 5), Nandanam Susheel Kumar was asked to explain why he had referred to a group of students, who expressly follow the teaching of Dr B R Ambedkar and tenets of the Indian Constitution, as “Goons”. He failed to explain his actions and subsequently agreed to issue an unconditional apology in writing (Annexure -6).

04.08.2015 
In less than 24 hours, the grand conspiracy, hatched by a powerful political party, against the ASA, which has no political affiliations besides its commitment to the teachings of Dr B R Ambedkar, began to unfold. 

First, about 100 activists of Bharatiya Jana Yuva Morcha (BJYM) led by Bharatiya Janata Party MLC, N Ramchandra Rao blocked the main gate of the university alleging that ASA students had assaulted Nandanam Susheel Kumar. N. Ramachandra Rao even went inside the administrative building and threatened the then V.C Prof. R.P.Sharma that “if action is not initiated against the students of ASA, outsiders will teach them a lesson”. This fact is recorded by the Office of Vice-Chancellor in the detailed minutes of the meeting on 04.08.2015 (Annexure -7). 

In a coordinated move, two formal complaints against ASA leaders were filed — one with the Gacchibowli police and the other with the university management. 

In the police complaint, Nandanam Susheel Kumar falsely accused ASA members D Prasanth, Ch Seshaiah, V Sunkanna, Vemula Rohit and P Vijay Kumar of assaulting him and police registered a case (Crime number 296/2015) under Sections 448 (trespass), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) r/w 147 (rioting) of the IPC (Annexure -8).

Simultaneously, General Secretary of the ABVP, Mr.Krishna Chaitanya, submitted a complaint to the university management, alleging that Nandanam Susheel Kumar was assaulted the previous night by ASA leaders Rohith Vemula, Dontha Prashanth, K.Vincent, Sunkanna Velpula, Vijay Pedapudi and Seshaiah Chemudugunta (Annexure -9). 

That this was a well planned move, is borne out by the fact that Krishna Chaitanya was not even present when Nandanam Susheel Kumar submitted an apology to ASA students.
Following this false and frivolous complaint, several students, including the ASA, demanded a probe into the incident and the matter was referred to the Proctorial Board.

August 5, 2015
The Vice Chancellor along with the Chief Medical Officer of the university and other officials visited the hospital where Nandanam Susheel Kumar was admitted and claiming that he was receiving treatment for the injuries sustained during the alleged attack by ASA students. However, when they perused the medical records, they discovered that a surgery had been performed on Nandanam Susheel Kumar not for injuries but to remove an inflamed appendix (Ref.Annexe -2). This discovery should have been enough to establish the charade that Nandanam Susheel Kumar and his patrons in the BJP were trying to play. But that was not to be the case.

On 10th August, 2015
Sri Nandanam Diwakar, Vice President, BJP, R.R. District, wrote a false, frivolous and malicious letter to Sri Bandaru Dattatreya, Minister of State, Labour& Employment, Government of India, falsely accusing students of ASA and framing false charges aimed at ruining their careers (Annexure – 10).

On 13.08.2015 
The university Registrar, basing on the Interim report of Proctorial Board issued a strong warning to N. Susheel Kumar for posting objectionable comments on Facebook against the ASA. Strangely, and despite the fact that the Proctorial Board found no evidence of violence against Nandanam Susheel Kumar, the Registrar warned Rohith Vemula, Dontha Prashanth, K.Vincent, Vijay Pedapudi for seeking apology instead of complaining to appropriate authorities (Annexure -11 ).

On 17th August 2015
Bandaru Dattatreya, Union Minister for Labour and Employment precipitated matters further by writing a letter to Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani, then Minister of Human Resource Development persuading the ministry to intervene in to the affairs of the university and take action against members of Ambedkar Students Association (Annexure -12). Subsequently, on 03rd September 2015 Ramjee Pandey, Under Secretary to MHRD sent the letter of Bandaru Dattatreya to Registrar, University of Hyderabad through E-Mail (Annexure -13).

On September 8, 2015
The political pressure had its intended effect. Contrary to the findings of the Proctorial Board in the interim report, the final report deemed the five research scholars of the ASA guilty and they were summarily suspended. It is pertinent to note that the committee which passed the orders did not have a single SC or ST member (Annexure – 14).

On September 10, 2015
Citing the glaring lapses in procedure, including the fact that no evidence of beating Susheel Kumar was found, Murala Rupa, General Secretary of ASA, wrote to the Vice Chancellor seeking immediate revocation of the suspension and the establishment of a separate enquiry committee or a Proctorial Board with different set of members for an impartial enquiry (Annexure -15). 

On September 11, 2015
Based on the on Murala Rupa’s representation, the suspension order was revoked subject to afresh enquiry to look into the incident that took place in the intervening hours of August 3 and 4 (Annexure 16).

On September 21, 2015 
Professor Podile Appa Rao was appointed as new Vice-Chancellor by MHRD overlooking several candidates who were far more qualified than him (Ref. Annexe – 1).
 
On September 24, 2015
Subodh Kumar Ghildiyal, Deputy Secretary, MHRD addressed a letter to Registrar, University of Hyderabad with the following Subject line: “Antinational activities in Hyderabad Central University premises – Violent attack on Sri Nandanam Susheel Kumar, Ph.D. student and President of ABVP – reg.” Taking a clear stand in favor of the BJP, ABVP and Nandanam Susheel Kumar, and without any direct access to the material facts of the case, Mr Ghildiyal sought an expeditious report on the imaginary attack that took place in the intervening hours of August 3 and 4 (Annexure -17).

On 06th October 2015 
Subodh Kumar Ghildiyal sent a second letter, this time to the political appointee, Vice Chancellor Podile Apparao expressing non-receipt of facts/comments on earlier letter dated 24-09-2015 and requested for expedition of the process (Annexure -18). 

On October 20, 2015
Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, Joint Secretary, Central Universities and Language, sent a letter to Vice Chancellor Podile Appa Rao asking him to personally initiate action against the ASA students on the basis of the letter written by Bandaru Dattatreya to Smriti Zubin Irani (Annexure -19).
 
On November 19, 2015
Further pressure was applied, through a letter written by Ramji Pandey, Under Secretary, MHRD addressed to Podili Appa Rao (Annexure – 20). This letter referred to the letter written the previous month by Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and instructed Podile Appa Rao to follow up on the matter. Again, the letter made it clear what the MHRD’s political view was on the subject line, which read: “Antinational activities in Hyderabad Central University premises – Violent attack on Sri Nandanam Susheel Kumar, Ph.D. student and President of ABVP – reg.” 
NOTE: None of these letters of duress from powerful officials acknowledged the fact that no evidence had been found against the ASA leaders and that Nandanam Susheel Kumar had been hospitalized not injuries but for an appendicitis surgery.

On November 27, 2015
Podile Appa Rao performed precisely the kind of task he was chosen for by his political masters. As chairman of the Executive Council, he put pressure to take action against the Scheduled Caste students who had been falsely accused. At his prodding, its 167th meeting, the Executive Council passed orders banning the five ASA students from accessing the hostel, other common areas, the administrative building (Annexure – 21). The social boycott of these students from the university community was completed by barring them from contesting the student body elections.
It is of great significance that this unjust order — passed without a proper enquiry and without giving the defendants a chance to respond to the allegations — was issued by a committee that did not have a single SC or ST member.
 
On December 04, 2015
Keeping with the script, Podile Appa Rao approved the order passed by the Executive Council. He took this hasty step knowing full well that the EC’s order was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without giving the students a chance to respond in their defence. 
With this one act, Podile Appa Rao compromised the autonomy of the university with the sole purpose of endearing himself to his political masters in the government.

On December 17, 2015
The beneficiaries of this fraudulent action of the Vice Chancellor, the ABVP, heaped further insult on the ASA students by putting up posters across the campus titled: “Fitting Verdict to Goondas” (Annexure – 22). The text of the said posters was equally derogatory and once again described ASA activists as “Goons”. A jubilant Nandanam Susheel Kumar, President, ABVP also shared the digital version of this poster on Facebook.

On December 18, 2015
Rohith Vemula along with other students submitted a representation to Chief Proctor in which a strong protest was lodged against the humiliating and provocative posters circulated by the ABVP (Annexure -23). On this occasion, Rohith Vemula also stressed that ABVP is clearly trying to instigate unrest and distort the peace on campus. But no action was taken against N.Susheel Kumar, ABVP and others.
On the same day, dejected and depressed at the biased, arbitrary and blatantly discriminatory attitude of Podile Appa Rao, Rohit Vemula addressed a letter to him expressing his unease and displeasure at the commitment and personal interest shown by the VC to persecute Dalit students. 

Dripping with sarcasm, the letter needs to be quoted in full to establish the levels of despondency that Rohith Vemula had been pushed:
“First, let me praise your dedicated take on the Self-Respect movements of Dalits in HCU campus. When an ABVP president got questioned about his derogatory remarks on Dalits, your kind personal interference into the issue is historic and exemplary. 5 Dalit students are “socially boycotted” from campus spaces. Donald Trump will be a lilliput in front of you. By seeing your commitment, I am tempted to give two suggestions as a token of banality.
1. Please serve 10mg Sodium Azide to all the Dalit students at the time of admission. With direction to use when they feel like reading Ambedkar.
2.Supply a nice rope to the rooms of all Dalit students from your companion, the great Chief Warden.
As we, the scholars, PhD students have already passed that stage and already members of Dalit Self-Respect movement unfortunately, we here are left with no easy exit, it seems.
Hence, I request your highness to make preparations for the facility “EUTHANASIA” for students like me. And I wish you and the campus rest in peace forever.”
But nothing could move the VC and the five students had no option but to start living in the open in the harsh winter without access to food, water and sanitation.

On January 14, 2016 
The Joint Action Committee for Social Justice comprising Students’ Union 2015-16 (officially elected body), and all students organization except ABVP requested the Vice-Chancellor to terminate the illegal order imposed upon Five Scheduled Caste Students. The demonstration had absolutely no impact on Podile Apparao.
Rohith Vemula, whose family depended on money that he sent home, became increasingly restless as he was barred from entering the administrative building and submitting his claims to fellowship. Some unseen hands had choked up his funding and he had not received his fellowship for 7 months. Several students are witness to the fact, and willing to testify before anybody, that Rohith Vemula was haunted by the financial troubles imposed on him by the university management. He was also severely dispirited in his last days and repeatedly spoke of the futility of fighting for social change against an all-powerful political adversary.

January 17, 2016
Rohith Vemula was found dead in the afternoon of January 17, 2016, hanging by the neck in a friend’s room. His suicide note made it amply clear that he felt deeply dehumanized at multiple levels (Annexure -24). Read in context with his note to Podile Apparao exactly 1 month before, suggesting that he should provide a rope to Ambedkarite students to kill themselves when repeatedly encountering such blatant violations of their dignity in the University, it clearly points to the actions of the administration, and to all those who pressured him and robbed him of his dignity in this process and in society, as the cause for his suicide.
 
January 18, 2016
A complaint was lodged by Dontha Prashanth at Gachibolwi Police Station registered as FIR : 20/2016, against the harassment, atrocities. Humiliation, injustice by Podile Appa Rao at the instigation and abetment by Bandaru Dattatreya, N.Ramachander Rao, Krishna Chaitanya, Nandanam Susheel Kumar and Nandanam Diwakar which caused to the death of Rohith Vemula alongside injuring the lives of other four Scheduled Caste Research Scholar namely, Dontha Prashanth, Vijay Pedapudi, Seshu Chemudugunta and Sunkanna Velpula (Annexure -25)
It distresses us to bring to your notice the fact that Podile Appa Rao is not just a casteist criminal but a substandard scholar as well. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Prof Apparao is a plagiarist (Annexure – 26). 

Against this backdrop and on the basis of facts summarized above, we sincerely urge you to remove Prof.Podile Appa Rao as Vice-chancellor of University of Hyderabad with a subsequent direction to the Government of Telangana to implement SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Act in the matter related to Cr.No 20/2016 at Gachibowli Police Station.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
(DONTHA PRASHANTH)
(VIJAY PEDAPUDI)
(SESHAIAH CHEMUDUGUNTA)
(The memorandum will be dispatched to the President of India tomorrow)

 
 Related Articles:
 

1. A Letter that Should Shake our World
2. Rohith’s Death: We are all to Blame
3. Calling Smriti Irani's Bluff: Twisted Truths in Parliament
4. When Police act as Sangh’s private army
5. HRD Ministry should not be Converted into Hindu Rashtra Development Ministry: CPM
6. A Letter that Should Shake our World
7. HCU Bows to Campus Outrage: Suspension of 5 Students Revoked 
    

The post Rohith Vemula’s Colleagues Appeal to President of India to sack “Dalit-hating” HCU vice-chancellor Podile Appa Rao appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

The media and mass movements: Notes of an activist

As a human rights activist, one stands committed to the right to freedom of expression and in turn to the freedom of the press. However, the shrinking space in the media for movements for people’s rights remains a growing concern for citizens of the country committed to democracy. On the one hand there is a segregation of news into the regional pages of newspapers, limiting important coverage to locales and regions. On the other hand there appears to be a dominance or monopoly of so-called national and world news.
 

In Chhattisgarh we find newspapers bringing out city editions. As a result, the news from a particular region in the state is reported in the respective city editions and barely carried in other editions. So a citizen sitting in Raipur does not get the opportunity to read significant news emerging out of the Bilaspur region or for that matter any other region in Chhattisgarh.
 

Take for example the Shaheed Niyogi Diwas observed at Bhilai, the steel city of Chhattisgarh, on September 28, 2006. Eight thousand workers, peasants, women and youth from various parts of the state gathered to pay homage to the martyr, reflecting also that a dynamic movement like the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha was alive. This significant mobilisation was restricted to a news item – although a prominent one – only in the Bhilai edition of almost all newspapers published from Raipur, Chhattisgarh’s capital city. In contrast, the visit of a national political leader like Sonia Gandhi to Chhattisgarh a few days later was prominently placed in all editions of all newspapers published from Raipur.
 

Only a decade and a half ago, the media’s response to democratic movements was enthusiastic and palpable. While the era of globalisation and neo-liberal policies has prised open consumerist lust and competition, it appears to have dampened media interest in democratic movements. Last month a mass-based organisation held a press conference to speak about its proposed campaign against the use of machines in farming like the harvester, which renders jobless thousands of agricultural workers who are then forced to migrate to other parts of the country. It also provided case studies of bonded labourers in Mahasamund district who were released by the Supreme Court of India way back in April 1988. Many of them were present to narrate their stories about how the state government had failed to comply with even the minimum requirements for providing them with reasonable work and land for livelihood.
 

The press conference was held at the Press Club in Raipur. But the next day only one of the morning newspapers published from Raipur carried a report of the press conference. The argument offered was that the press conference was ill timed as it was held on the eve of Diwali. The timing did not prevent newspapers from carrying news of certain religious and social functions in full detail. Media preference was clear. A democratic movement’s protest against a policy that would render hundreds of thousands of labourers jobless went unreported. But a large portion of the state’s dailies did have space for and were full of Diwali advertisements – displaying greetings by political leaders or commercial enterprises!

Media bias is revealed when the response to a mass rally or protest is contained in box items that decry the manner in which entire roads were blocked and the public suffered because of the adamance of agitators resulting in traffic jams…  The evidence of shrinking democratic space is visible in the limitation of public rallies and meetings to a cordoned off area by the law and order machinery and in the fact that the media finds such mass protests an eyesore
 

The capacity of the media to put forth the facts and place these in the correct perspective is also on the decline. This may be attributed largely to the commercialisation of the media. In common parlance one often hears of the "newspaper industry". It is not without reason that the heads of newspaper houses also occupy top editorial posts. This is a pattern visible in the past 15 years or so. There is a definite connection between patterns of responsibility and ownership and the shrinking space for democratic movements in the media.
 

In small towns there is yet another trend that has become a permanent yet disturbing characteristic of newspapers. The person who owns the agency for distribution of a newspaper is also the "local correspondent" of the publication. In most cases the newspaper agency is in the hands of a local trader or contractor who is sometimes also a local politician. So it is no surprise that local rights-based movements and agitations hardly find any space in the newspapers. If and when they do get some space it is with a particular bias against the organisations or individuals thus creating a climate of hostility and anger against such people’s movements.
 

During the struggles for the identification, release and rehabilitation of thousands of bonded labourers in Chhattisgarh’s Mahasamund district, the focus of the news was more on the fact that it happened to be Christian social activists who were leading the campaign. A people’s movement was thus sought to be communalised with motives such as "converting these labourers to Christianity" being attributed to the activists. The media reported these baseless allegations uncritically, thus failing in its role. For three years, from 1986-1988, we witnessed a struggle for the release of these bonded labourers as a result of which the Supreme Court of India delivered landmark judgements leading to the release of 4,000 bonded labourers from a single district in the country. Yet the media did not even relate or report these historic judicial pronouncements on the rights of citizens kept in bondage for generations.
 

Thus, shamefully, a democratic movement whereby slaves became aware of their rights and in turn gained a new identity and selfhood as citizens of a free country went unreported in the regional press. That none of the released bonded labourers from Mahasamund has gone back into bondage is due largely to their unionisation. This solidarity and mobilisation led to the next stage of their struggle, the unique zameen satyagraha that enabled them to occupy thousands of acres of fallow land and till it for their livelihood. The media continues to remain silent, refusing to reflect this vibrant democratic movement that remains only as a subject matter of study for academic institutions to be published in the coursebook for Indian Administrative Service, IAS trainees at Mussourie.
 

Why has the media decided that this story of self-empowerment is unfit for space and public consumption? Could it be because the story would so inspire that it would actually unfold a new democratic consciousness among the deprived and the marginalised sections of society? Twenty years into this unique people’s movement for freedom from slavery has seen not one individual converted to Christianity but this does not find any mention in the free Indian press. Yet while the struggle against a centuries old bondage was under way, prominent stories in four columns appeared on the so-called ‘grand international conspiracy to convert them to Christianity’.
 

Media bias is revealed when the response to a mass rally or protest is contained in box items that decry the manner in which entire roads were blocked and the public suffered because of the adamance of agitators resulting in traffic jams. No such comments are passed when religious rallies cause similar inconveniences. The evidence of shrinking democratic space is visible in the limitation of public rallies and meetings to a cordoned off area by the law and order machinery and in the fact that the media finds such mass protests an eyesore.
 

This is not to eschew or undermine many committed journalists who remain on the staff of several newspapers and even television channels. The relentless forces and trends of globalisation restrict their spaces and rights as can be observed from the media response to small but significant acts of democratic mobilisation such as celebrations of the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh or Shankar Guha Niyogi. There appears to be a distinct fear lest public opinion be mobilised on issues of justice and rights. It is not without reason that democracy is found to be dangerous both to the forces of globalisation and communalism. Both these trends are two sides of the same coin, complementary to each other’s draconian design to derail democratic development for justice and peace.
 

 Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2006. Year 13, No.120, Cover Story 6
 

The post Studied silence appeared first on SabrangIndia.