On November 11, the Supreme Court ordered for the immediate release of six convicts who are serving life sentence for more than three decades in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. They are:  Nalini, Ravichandran, Jayakumar, Suthenthiraraja @ Santhan, Murugan and Robert Pius.

A bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and B. V. Nagarathna noted that the state concerned, Tamil Nadu’s State Cabinet had recommended their release in a communication to the Governor in September 2018. The Governor then, instead of taking a call, had passed on their files to the Centre. The Governor was bound by the advice of the Cabinet in cases of murder as their convictions under the now-lapsed Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act had been aside by the apex court.

On May 18, in in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the SC had granted premature release to the former co-convict, A Perarivalan. The present order relies on this ruling of May 18, 2022 that had concluded that the State of Tamil Nadu, and not the Union, had exclusive power to recommend remission in the case. n in the case.

Shortly after the release of Perarivalan, Nalini and Ravichandran had approached the apex court for parity. The other four convicts had joined in by filing separate applications in the Supreme Court.

Ordering them to be “set at liberty forthwith”, Justices Gavai and Nagarathna also took into account the fact that each of the six convicts had individually exhibited satisfactory conduct during their 3 decade long incarceration. They had earned postgraduate degrees and diplomas while serving their sentence. Santhan had published poems and articles and won awards in France and Germany. In Nalini’s case, the court said she was a woman and had already spent more than 30 years in incarceration.

A recent affidavit filed by Tamil Nadu, represented by advocate Joseph S. Aristotle, had agreed with the petitioners when it said the State Governor was bound by the advice of the State Cabinet, proposing the premature release of convicts Nalini and others in September 2018.

The State had contended that the Governor, instead of acting on the recommendation of the Cabinet to remit their life sentence, had kept the files pending for over two and half years before finally forwarding it to the President in January 2021.

The State said the President had also not taken a decision for the past one year and nine months. It said Nalini has been incarcerated in the Special Prison for Women, Vellore, for the past 30 years, four months and 25 days.

The Madras High Court had in June dismissed the writ petitions filed by Nalini and co-accused Ravichandran, who had sought a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to release them forthwith without waiting anymore for the Governor’s nod to a September 9, 2018 Cabinet recommendation. Holding that the Governor’s signature was sine qua non under Article 161 of the Constitution, the High Court had also observed that it could not exercise extraordinary powers under Article 142 to pass an Order similar to the one which released Perarivalan.

In its judgment in the Perarivalan case in May, the apex court had held that the State Cabinet’s advice was binding on the Governor under Article 161 (Governor’s power of clemency) of the Constitution. The Governor had no business forwarding the pardon pleas to the President after sitting on it for years together.

“The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation/remission of sentences under Article 161. No provision under the Constitution has been pointed out to us nor any satisfactory response tendered as to the source of the Governor’s power to refer a recommendation made by the State Cabinet to the President of India. In the instant case, the Governor ought not to have sent the recommendation made by the State Cabinet to the President. Such action is contrary to the constitutional scheme,” the Supreme Court had held.

It said the Governor’s delay to decide Perarivalan’s pardon for over two years compelled the court to employ its constitutional powers under Article 142 to do justice to him.

The post Supreme Court orders release of all six convicts: Rajiv Gandhi assassination  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 28, 2022, the Madras High Court modified its order rejecting a petition by Nalini, one of the seven convicts in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, for premature release without the consent of the Governor under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution.

The Madras High Court’s first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala on June 28, 2022 modified the order as prayed for. The petition by another convict, Ravichandran, for premature release without the consent of the Governor was also rejected by the court. The home secretary said the premature release fell within the ambit of Article 161 of the Constitution, and the same was in the exclusive domain of the State government. Therefore, it was the Governor who could exercise the power to remit the sentence of life imprisonment based on the Cabinet resolution dated September 9, 2018. The contention, however, was recorded as if the reference made by the Governor to the President was correct and Governor had rightly done it, he pointed out.

Another contentious point related to the conviction of Nalini under 302 of the IPC and other Acts. The home secretary said no such submission had been made on behalf of the department and the same had been recorded inadvertently. He sought the removal of the inadvertent observations from the order, reported The Indian Express.

Madras High Court’s Modification

The first bench of the Madras High Court on June 28, 2022 modified and deleted a portion of its June 17, 2022 order relating to Advocate-General R Shanmugasundaram’s submissions in Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict Nalini Sriharan’s petition seeking premature release without the consent of the Tamil Nadu Governor. The bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice N Mala, deleted this portion of its judgment delivered on June 17, 2022.

The Madras HC on June 28, 2022 Wednesday had then held the writ plea of Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven convicts in the case and serving life term (presently on parole) to order her premature release without the consent of the State Governor, was not maintainable. The bench was conceding the plea of the Joint Secretary of the State Home department, seeking modification of the June 17 order by deleting certain observations in paragraph Nos.11, 13 and 21, insofar as it related to the observations of the petitioner’s contention that the mercy petition filed by Nalini was rightly referred by the then Governor to the President of India.

The Petitioner said that such a submission was not made on behalf of the Home Department and the same seems to have been inadvertently recorded in the order. The issue squarely fell within the ambit of Article 161 of the Constitution and the same is in the exclusive domain of the State government. Hence, it is the Governor who can exercise the power to remit the sentence of life imprisonment based on the resolution passed in the Cabinet Meeting held on September 9, 2018. It appears that certain observations regarding the contention of the petitioners herein have been inadvertently recorded to the effect that the reference made by the Governor to the President, is correct, the petition added.

Madras High Court’s June 17, 2022 Order

The Madras high court on date June 17, 2022 Friday, held that the writ plea of Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and serving life term (presently on parole), to order her premature release even without the consent of the Tamil Nadu governor is not maintainable. The plea was not maintainable as the previous ones — two writ petitions and the last one a habeas corpus petition, all on the same issue — had been dismissed on various occasions. Her prayer for release by the government on its own pursuant to the recommendation of the council of ministers cannot thus be directed. The release cannot be directed even by the court in the absence of the acceptance of the resolution by the governor. The recommendation of the council of ministers has otherwise been sent to the President.

“Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the directions sought by the petitioner cannot be given by the court, as it otherwise does not have power similar to what the Apex Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable,” the first bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice N Mala said, reported Hindustan Times.

Nalini and Rajiv Gandhi Assassination

Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Nalini and six other people were sentenced to life imprisonment in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. In May 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) suicide bomber during an election rally in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. The attack also left 14 other people dead.

Related:

SC grants bail to A.G. Perarivalan convicted for aiding Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination
I firmly believe there is no need for capital punishment: AG Perarivalan

The post Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Madras HC modifies order in petition seeking premature release of convicts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A.G. Perarivalan, one of the seven convicts serving a life sentence in connection with the May 1991 assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, was granted bail by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai. The Bench took into consideration that the applicant has spent over 30 years of his life in prison. He has been lodged in Chennai’s Puzhal Central Prison for nearly 32 years.

Who is Perarivalan?

AG Perarivalan, or Arivu as he is also known, is the son of Tamil poet Kuyildasan. He was born on 30 July 1971 in Jolarpet, Tamil Nadu. He was 19 years old living in Chennai at the time of assassination and had just completed a diploma in electronics and communication. He completed his bachelor of computer applications and master of computer applications degrees through the Indira Gandhi National Open University while serving his sentence in prison. 

The Arrest and Conviction

Perarivalan, was arrested on June 11, 1991, and was accused of having procured a set of 9V batteries for Sivarasan (the LTTE operative who masterminded the conspiracy). These batteries were used to build the bomb that was packed into the vest of the Gandhi’s assassin, a suicide bomber named Dhanu, who wore it to his rally in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, on the evening of May 21, 1991.

The CBI filed a case against 41 people, including Perarivalan in 1998, under the now repealed Terrorism And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). Later in 1998, a trial court convicted Perarivalan along with 25 others and sentenced them to death. On an appeal to the Supreme Court of India, only 7 were sent to the death row and 19 accused got acquitted.

Twist and Turns

In 2013, Perarivalan’s case took a turn after V. Thiagarajan, a former superintendent of police in the CBI, admitted to having altered his confession. Thiagarajan told documentary-makers from the People’s Movement Against Death Penalty, an organisation founded by the late Supreme Court judge V.R. Krishna Iyer, that he did not take down his statement verbatim.

“Arivu told me that he did not know why they asked him to buy that [the battery]. But I did not record that in the confessional statement. Then the investigation was in progress, so that particular statement I did not record. Strictly speaking, law expects you to record a statement verbatim… we don’t do that in practice,” Thiagarajan  had said, as quoted in a report in The Hindu. 

Perarivalan remained on death row until 2014, when the Supreme Court in its Judgement dated February 18, 2014 commuted his sentence as well as those of two others to life imprisonment on account of 11-year delay on the part of the President to respond to their mercy petition.

Before passing of the September 2018 Order by Supreme Court, V. Thiagarajan, a former superintendent of police in the CBI, submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court in the year 2017, stating that Perarivalan was “totally in the dark as to the purpose for which the batteries were purchased.”

Mercy plea

Perarivalan had told the court that he had filed his mercy plea before then Governor K Rosaiah on December 30, 2015. The question of remission of his sentence remains pending due to the larger question of which authority can actually consider the petition – the Tamil Nadu Governor or the President.

Special Leave Petition

Perarivalan had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court in 2016 against the refusal of Madras High Court to entertain his plea for seeking commutation of sentence.

In the order passed on September 6, 2018, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and K M Joseph had noted that Perarivalan had filed an application before the Governor under Article 161, and that “the authority concerned will be at liberty to decide the said application as deemed fit.” The Petition is kept pending to decide the larger issue relating to the appropriate authority to decide the matter of remission – Governor or President.

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the state Cabinet had decided on September 9, 2018, to recommend to the then Governor (BL Purohit) to remit sentences of all seven convicts serving life terms in the case, including Perarivalan. This recommendation made by the Tamil Nadu State Government for remission of the sentence had been pending before the Governor for 2 years.

On January 22, 2021, the Supreme Court asked the Governor to decide the Petitioner’s application for remission. On February 4, 2021, the Centre informed the Supreme Court that the Tamil Nadu Governor has proposed that the President of India was the competent authority to deal with the request of remission of sentence in case of AG Perarivalan.

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan is representing Perarivalan in the Special Leave Petition no. 10039 of 2016 filed before the Supreme Court. While making his submissions, the advocate brought it to the Court’s notice that the mercy petition was filed before the Governor in December 2015 which was noted by the Constitution bench; and also that in September 2018, the State Government made a recommendation to the Governor to tender pardon to Perarivalan. However the Governor kept the matter pending.

The advocate made further submissions stating that Perarivalan had been granted Parole twice and was also on parole at that time. There were no complaints of his conduct during his release. He further submitted that Perarivalan had acquired his educational qualifications while serving his death sentence.

The Supreme Court, on hearing the stand of the Union of India that the State Government does not have the power to entertain a mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, even after the death sentence of the applicant is commuted to life imprisonment, felt the matter needs to be heard.

 The Supreme Court, upon considering the applicant’s behaviour during his long incarceration in the jail, his educational qualifications acquired during his sentence, ill health and also that he had already spent more than 30 years of life in prison, decided to release the applicant on bail.

Supreme Court held that:

“There is sufficient material that has been produced on behalf of the applicant about his conduct during his long incarceration in jail, acquisition of educational qualifications and his ill health. Taking into account the fact that the applicant has already spent more than 30 years in prison, we are of the considered view that he is entitled to be released on bail, in spite of the vehement opposition by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General.”

Perarivalan was released on bail as per an Order dated March 9, in an Interim Application no. 53784 of 2021; by the Supreme Court, in a matter presided by the Division Bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai. The Bench stated the conditions of the bail as follows:

“The applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the Designated Special TADA Court, Chennai. In addition, the applicant shall report to the Jolarpet Police Station, in the 1st week of every month. He shall not leave the State without seeking permission of this Court.”

The Court will hear the contentions in the Perarivalan’s Special Leave (Criminal) Petition no. 10039 of 2016 on April 27, 2022.

The Supreme Court Order may be read here:

Related:

Ishrat Jahan, fiery activist moves court for bail: UAPA Case
When rights weigh down laws and bail is granted
Genesis of Rights against handcuffs in India

The post SC grants bail to A.G. Perarivalan convicted for aiding Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

1984 Anti-Sikh Massacre. Photo courtesy: Caravan Magazine

A number can also tell a story. Yes. A number. A digit. It is immaterial whether the story makes you feel sad or it brings a smile on your lips. But a number can be associated with some names, some places, some details and many other things. And those elements are enough to build a story.

I am going to share with you the story of a number that is permanently etched on my memory. But I am sure it won't make you happy. Knowing that, I still would like to share it with you. It's not that I want to make you feel sad. All I want is to make you think, so that you get offended and angry. Why? I will tell you later. First let me tell you the story. And by the way, it's a story based on real events and not a fiction. 

The number that is on my mind is four. Yes. Number "4"; that reminds me of series of numbers that continue to haunt me.

The very first combination of digits that remind me of number 4 is 1984. How? Very simple. Add them all. 1+9+8+4. That makes it 10+12 = 22. Now add 2 and 2 and you will get 4. Therefore, I associate "4" with 1984, an unforgettable year.

For me number four is not just a reminder of ominous political events but also a key to keep our memory alive to make people in power accountable.

I was fourteen at that time. We lived in Amritsar, the holiest city of the Sikhs. The most sacred shrine of the Sikhs, the Golden Temple complex, is in that city. The temple had come under military invasion that year in the month of June. The then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had sent army to the temple to flush out handful of militants who had turned it into a fortress.

They were angry with the government that was not listening to the demands of the Sikhs, who were fighting against discrimination and seeking some rights and privileges. The Hindus felt threatened by the militants who carried out armed insurgency from inside the shrine. While Hindus make 80 percent of the Indian population, they are only 40 percent in Punjab where Sikhs are in the majority. The Sikhs makes only about two percent of the national population. These numbers too explain a lot, but I need to focus on number 4.

Political killings and the mass murders of Hindus resulted in the army invasion on the temple leaving many devotees dead and the buildings inside the complex destroyed. The Sikhs were outraged and there were angry protests across the world. Sikhs felt that the attack was avoidable and was planned to please Hindu majority to win the forthcoming national elections.

After the siege was lifted and people were given access to the Golden Temple, our family also visited the place. The image of destruction inside shook me completely. Since I was born and raised in a Sikh family, as a teenager I could not control my emotions after seeing in front of me bullet marks everywhere. 

In October that year, the news came that Indira Gandhi has been murdered by her Sikh bodyguards who were seeking revenge for the invasion. But the story did not end there. Following her murder, Sikhs outside Punjab came under organized attacks by mobs led by the members of her Congress Party. We were always told that the Congress is a secular party that believes in equality and denounces religious fanaticism. But now, everything seemed to have gone wrong. Sikh men were being burnt alive and their women being raped by goons incited by Congress men. An entire community was being taught a lesson for the murder of Indira Gandhi by just two Sikh men.

We were worried about our relatives outside Punjab. Fortunately, nothing untoward happened to them, but they had to live through fear. They survived mainly because of their Hindu neighbours, who not only ensured their safety but also because they stayed indoors during the violence.

Why was the government doing this to its own citizens? First it invaded their place of worship and now it was targeting ordinary Sikhs everywhere? The mystery was over soon. It was election time and Indira's son Rajiv Gandhi was elected to power with a brute majority. His slogan for "national unity" in the wake of his mother's death paid him the dividends.

The invasion of the Golden Temple was justified in the name of national unity. The Sikh militants were accused of getting support from foreign powers, who the government claimed were bent upon dividing India. Indira Gandhi's assassination was also seen by her supporters as a terrorist act committed under international conspiracy. No evidence was needed to prove that Sikhs were targeted to win the election that followed these horrible events.

Survivors of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy march for justice. Photo credit: Indian Express

Before we move further I want to quickly add here that the year 1984 was also very painful for the people of Bhopal. In December that year, following large-scale repression of Sikhs a month earlier, one of the biggest industrial disasters struck the city. Gas leakage at the Union Carbide plant killed many people and left many blinded and the drinking water contaminated.

The CEO of the company Warren Anderson who was from US was allowed to leave the country. Slowly it became visible to everyone that the plant was constructed at a wrong place despite warnings of a possible accident in future. This could only have happened in exchange of favours given by the owners of the plant to the corrupt leaders of the Congress who ruled both in Delhi and in Madhya Pradesh, the state where Bhopal is located.

Obviously, Anderson was given a safe exit as part of cover up. A similar cover up was used to hide the complicity of the government in the massacre of Sikhs. Both the poor slum dwellers who lost their lives in Bhopal and the Sikhs who were systematically murdered became numbers that remain irrelevant for the privileged society and the ruling classes of India whose constitution guarantees social and economic equality.

In his first public reaction to the criticism of violence against Sikhs, Rajiv Gandhi shortly after assuming the post of the Prime Minister had remarked, “When a big tree falls, earth around it shakes a bit.” The statement itself was a part of the cover up. Gandhi tried to make everyone believe that it was a reaction of people over the death of their beloved leader. Clearly, he did not want to acknowledge the complicity of the state machinery in the massacre.

His big lie could not cover another historic reality.

Photo credit: The Hindu

The year 1948 again reminds me of number 4, a much bigger tree had fallen, but the earth did not shake at all.

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by a Marathi Hindu extremist. That Gandhi, like it or not, was much more respected than Indira and Rajiv. Yet, Marathi Hindus did not become target of such madness. For that matter when Rajiv Gandhi was killed by Tamil separatists in 1991, Tamil Hindus were not punished by the mobs belonging to his Congress party.

Both the Sikhs and the sufferers of Bhopal tragedy continue to await justice. No senior Congress leader has been convicted until now. HKL Bhagat, one of the top-notch leaders involved in the carnage, died after illness while others continue to move around freely. Anderson too remained unpunished.

The precedent of dividing people, letting big shots involved in deaths of civilians go scot free and allowing impunity for crimes was already set by the year 2002. You read it right; 2002 that also equals 4.

Photo credit: Firstpost

I had moved to Canada by then. The current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat back in that time.

The birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi – who was opposed to Hindu theocracy and was murdered for this reason – went up into flames. Muslims became target of violence by the supporters of Modi’s Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that believes in Hindu theocracy. Not surprisingly, some of its hawkish leaders consider Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi as their hero. The BJP happens to be the political wing of the ultra-Hindu supremacist group Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) that was banned after Mahatma Gandhi’s death. Godse was an RSS man.

In 2002, the 1984 technique that was applied on the Sikhs to avenge the assassination of the then prime minister was repeated to terrorise Muslims.

The massacre followed the burning of a train bringing Hindu pilgrims from the disputed site of Ayodhya. The Hindus believe that it is the birthplace of their revered god, Lord Rama. The BJP supporters claim that the original temple built there was demolished by Babar – a Muslim emperor long ago to build a mosque. The BJP has always desired to build a grand Ram temple at the exact location [Editors’ note: The Ram temple became an issue for the BJP only in mid-1980s]. In 1992, they gathered there and razed the Babari mosque. Since then the place remains a point of conflict.

The Hindu pilgrims were returning from Ayodhya after performing prayers at a make shift Rama temple in February 2002. Some of the supporters of BJP had harassed Muslim passengers and vendors at railway stations along the route. Under these circumstances, a compartment of the Sabarmati Express caught fire leaving over 50 passengers dead. Though one commission of enquiry found that it was an accident, the Modi government blamed Muslim extremists allegedly supported by Pakistan.

Hell broke out on Muslims throughout Gujarat after the mobs were given free hand to kill and loot with the help of police.  

Modi won another round of Assembly election for the BJP in the aftermath of the massacre with a huge mandate. He also fought the election on the plank of threat to national security from Pakistan-based terrorists. Much like Rajiv Gandhi, he also tried to rationalise the bloodshed and violence by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In a way, he was using a similar argument with some variation to cover up the complicity of the state in crimes against humanity.

The events of 2002 are the culmination of politics of hate started much earlier. Down the road I won’t be surprised to come across more such connections.  

I have not shared these details to promote numerology or suggest that number four is unlucky. This is just my story. Because I associate the number with these gory incidents it does not mean that number four should be considered ominous by all. You may have some sweet memories associated with the number four. Likewise, for others some other numbers might bring worse memories than the ones I shared.

For the oppressed groups, like Dalits or so-called untouchables, the LGBT, the tribals, the indigenous peoples, women and the disabled every day is an ugly reminder of structural violence and injustice. For them my version of number four or the events related to the years, 1948, 1984 or 2002 might not mean anything. From their perspective, much worse incidents might have occurred between 1948 and 2002 and continue even now.

This is not to suggest either that the incidents I have listed were the only tragedies that happened during those years. The story I have shared is more to do with keeping our memories alive however painful they might be, because those in power want us to forget. They want to erase these memories to deny us justice. For me number four is not just a reminder of ominous political events but also a key to keep our memory alive to make people in power accountable.
 

The post Why Number ‘4’ is Ominous for Me appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said-

"That (Nehruvian) model of development was the reason India couldn't get up to a growth rate of even 1 percent in those early decades," Jaitley said in Mumbai at a discussion on the Good and Services Tax regime (GST

Here is a random list of achievements of Congress under the leadership of Nehru-Gandhis to build a poverty-stricken, illiterate, disunited resourceless India in 1947 into a modern nation, virtually from the scratch, brick-by-brick, institution-by-institution, project-by-project:

1. The Constitution of India (the very Foundation of our Nationhood)
2. Integration of 600-odd small and big Prncely Kingdom to create the Indian State
3. Abolition of Zamindari
4. Enactment of The Hindu Code Bill
5. Set up Planning Commission
6. Built Huge Dams (Bhakra, Hirakud, Idukki, Narmada, Tehri, Ukai, Indira Sagar, Sri Sailam, etc)
7. Expansion of Rail Network, including Konkan, Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramullah links, etc
8. Built Chandigarh and Bhubaneshar Cities and several State Secretariat Buildings
9. Huge Bridges (across Ganga, Brahmaputra, Yamuna, Mahanadi, Krishna, Godavari, Kaveri, AND Bandra-Worli Sea Link, Farakka, Vikram Shila, Rajendra Sethu, etc)
10. Built and/or expanded several Ports
11. Massive Expansion of Highways, Rural Roads and Border Roads and Highway to Burma
12. IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology)
13. IIMs (Indian Institutes of Management)
14. CSIR (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research)
15. AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences)
16. IARI (Indian Agricultural Research Institute)
17. UGC (University Grants Commission)
18. NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training)
19. AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education)
20. DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organization)
21. Massive Expansion of Ordnance Factories
22. ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization)
23. IMC (Indian Medical Council)
24. IAE (Indian Atomic Energy Commission)
25. BARC (Bhaba Atomic Energy Commission)
26. ISI (Indian Science Institute, Bangalore)
27. Airports Authority of India
28. IMA (Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun)
29. NDA (National Defence Academy, Kadakvasla)
30. NHAI (National Highway Authority of India)
31. SAIL (Steel Authority of India: 1. Bhilai Steel Plant, 2. Rourkela Steel Plant, 3. Durgapur 32. Steel Plant, 4. Bokaro Steel Plant, 5. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant)
33. Shipping Corporation of India
34. Ship building, including Submarines, Aircraft Carrier
35. HEC, (Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi)
36. HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore)
37. HMT (Hindustan Machine Tools, Bangalore)
38. Coal India Ltd
39. Locomotive Factories
40. Fertiliser Corporation of India
41. Cement Corporation of India
42. Rajasthan Canal Project
43. Engineers India Ltd
44. Indian Forest Institute, Dehra Dun
45. ISI ( Indian Standards Institution)
46. UPSC (Union Public Service Commission)
47. IAS/IFS/IPS/IRS pTraining Academies in Mussorie and Hyderabad
48. National Library, Kolkata
49. National Museum, New Delhi
50. Sports Authority of India
51. Indian National Science Academi
52. Sahitya/Lalita Kala/Natak Academi
53. Indian Film & Television Institute, Pune
54. National School of Drama, New Delhi
55. Zonal Cultural Centres (in Five Zones)
56. Children's Film Society
57. Expansion of All India Radio
59. Doordarshan
60. Space Exploration and Satellite Programs
61. Food Corporation if India
62. Expansion of Civil Aviation
63. Construction of New Modern Airports
64. NBCC (National Building Construction Corporation)
65. ITDC (India Tourism Development Corporation)
66. STC (State Trading Corporation)
67. KVIC (Khadi and Village Indutries Commission)
68. ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Commission)
69. IOC (Indian Oil Corporation)
70. MMTC (Mines and Metals Trading Corporation)
71. BHEL (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd)
72. NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation)
73. MTNL (Mahanagar Telephone Network Ltd)
74. GAIL (Gas Authority of India Ltd)
75. Bharat Electronics
76. Bharat Earth Movers
77. National Fertiliser Corporation
78. Hindustan and Cochin Shipyards
79. NTDC (National Textile Development Corporation)
80. IIPA (Indian Institute of Public Administration)
81. IGNOU (Indira Gandhi National Open University)
82. NID (national Institute of Design)
83. New Central Universities
84. Agricultural Universities
85. Green Revolution
86. White (Milk) Revolution
87. Abolition of Privy Purse
88. Bank Nationalisation and expansion of Banking services
89. CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education)
90. Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Schools
91. Computer Revolution
92. Telecommunication Revolution
93. Auto Revolution
94. MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme)
95. RTI (Right To Information)
96. RTE (Right To Education)
97. Right To Food
98. Land Compensation Act
99. Adult Literacy Mission
100. Minorities Commissions
101. Metro and Mono Rail systems
102. Introduced AADHAR Identity Cards
103. Established Boards to promote Coir to Coconut to Cashewnut
104. Massive expansion of Food Processing Industry
105. Conducted First Nuclear Test
106. Nuclear Deal with USA
107. Manifold increase in production of electricity

INTRODUCED ECONOMIC REFORMS/LIBERALISATION BY CONGRESS IN 1991
# Opened up India's Equity Market in 1992 for investment by Institutional Investors
# Established SEBI Act in 1992
# From 1994 the National Stock Exchange (NSE) emerged as a Computer-based trading system, which served as an instrument to leverage reforms of India's other Stock
# Exchanges. By 1996, the NSE emerged as India's largest Exchange.
# Massive Foreign Direct Investment
When Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister, 65% of country's population was below poverty line.
# By 2013, it has come down to 25%.
# Similarly, literacy has Increased by 30-35%.
# Longevity has also gone upto 67+ years
# India is Self-sufficient in food/Second largest food producer in the world
# First in Milk production
# Fourth largest producer of Steel in the world
etc

Jaitley are you unhappy that GST will always be credited to Congress?!

‪#‎JaitleyWhatHasRattledYou‬

Response to Vasudevan's post on social networking sites-

Prerna Bindra– I would also list the legal protection to wildlife, forests, Project Tiger. the many sanctuaries and tiger reserves -thanks to which we have whatever forests and wildlife left today. a fraction of it is here:

Malreddy Shankar Reddy- Indira Gandhi brought Land ceiling act which was major reform against the big and influential/feudal landlords.But what is the progress made by BJP/NDA government in their 8 1/2(Eight and half ) of their regressive rule except trying to bring back the draconian British Land Acquisition Act of 1894.?

G Pandarang Rao– Jaitley lives in la-la land. He really believes in the RSS line. And the BJP seems to have its own version of the truth or history, which says that India had no development until two years ago.

Aparajita Krishnan– There is a pattern to this madness. This govt too must be discredited to Nehru.

Rakesh Thind- Don't be unfair to Modi. Dekho Kaam toh Yeh bhi kar raha hai.

Robin Roy– He has gone senile

The post JAITLEY CHARGED WITH ‘SEDATION’ – Vasudevan Narayanpillai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

If the battle for secularism con-tinues to be fought on present lines, we are destined to lose. Unless the struggle against minority communal-ism is as determined and con-sistent as against majority communalism, we simply cannot win. Today, in the public perception, the battle for secularism appears as a fight against the sangh parivar alone, whereas it ought to be a fight against communalism of every hue.

For instance, if the Congress(I) party forms a government in alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala, what does this mean? Communalism is basically the misuse of religion and religious identity for political mobilisation. How else can communalism be defined? The very mandate of secularism in a multi–religious, plural society is against such manipulation of religion and religious identity. Since emotions related to religion run high, genuine secularism mandates against the use of religious identity as a basis for political mobilisation, or to suit the purposes of a political party.

What did the Muslim League do before 1947? It questioned the identity of every Muslim who was not with it, and doubted people’s ‘Muslim’ credentials simply because they did not believe in the politics of communalism that the Muslim League epitomised. Now, if a national party like the Congress (I), enters into a political alliance with a party with such a past and such politics based on religious identity, it certainly affects the credibility of its proclaimed fight against communalism.

The campaign for secularism will be won or lost in the minds of those whom we call the middle ground. The large majority of Indians are not communal, they are not affiliated with the sangh parivar — i.e., the BJP, RSS, VHP etc. But, when they see that those in the vanguard of the campaign for secularism, those who politically raise their voices against the sangh parivar, are at the same time making political alliances with the Muslim League, not only do such parties lose their credibility, the secular principle itself comes into question.

Middle India is simply not ready to digest the theory that the sangh parivar is more dangerous than the Muslim League. Here we have to treat this as a generic term, the Muslim League means not only a particular party by that name; it also applies to many other outfits with a similar mindset and who, too, base their political life on religious identity alone.

If the sangh parivar believes in a Hindu Rashtra (Hindutva), such Muslims believe in Milli Tashakush. Basically, it is the same issue of the use of religion–based identity in politics. There is no difference in their worldview, or methodology, or mechanism of organisation: the basic methods/mechanisms whereby we describe the sangh parivar as "communal", are also the same methodology/mechanism that is followed by them.

Politicians with communal mindsets who function within mainstream political parties also do a lot of damage to the struggle for genuine secularism. There are for instance individuals in the Congress party, who, in the wake of the Shah Bano controversy came out with a book titled, ‘Muslims At Home in India’. The basic philosophy of the book suggests that only a Muslim can represent Muslim interests. By the same logic, only Hindus can and must represent Hindu interests. Now, if I do not consider myself capable of representing the interests of those whose religion differs from mine, on what grounds can I ask for their votes? But members of the Congress, a party that espouses secularism, continue to practice such warped politics.

Though I do not think that the situation in India today is entirely hopeless, I do feel the need to emphasise that the real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress.
 

There is of course the other major problem — that in India there are many in public life who spoke of secularism in the past but who were not genuinely wedded to the idea and the principles of secularism. This section within mainstream politics – the best example of this sort that I can find is George Fernandes — also saw Indian polity in terms of Hindus and Muslims though their perspective was somewhat different.

In their short–sightedness, this lot had engaged in duplicitous politics in the past, viewing Hindus as caste groups (not as a single community), but Muslims as a single religious group. When this section realised in recent years that the ground reality had drastically changed and that Hindus, having acquired a consolidated identity, would not relate or respond to caste appeals, it had no problem shifting over to the BJP. Fernandes, the man who used to speak of the "fight to the finish" against communalism in the past, today does not even raise a voice (nor do any of the other NDA allies) when the BJP brazenly flouts the commonly agreed agenda of the National Democratic Alliance.

These sections have been ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ to minority groups in the past. But today, when they see numbers on the other side, they have no qualms in not only keeping silent but in espousing filthy politics even after a carnage like the one in Gujarat last year.

As I see the secularism debate unfold today, I recall my conviction and the stand I took in 1986 on the Shah Bano controversy. I had strongly felt then that the mistake made by the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi would prove too expensive for India, that it might even lead to an irretrievable situation. Today it is apparent that the apprehension and fear that I had then, and had expressed publicly, were justified.

In 1986, my staunch opposition to the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, was not simply opposition to a solitary piece of legislation. What I was dead against was the central government — the Indian State in other words — giving legitimacy, respectability and credibility to communal elements within the minority community. What the sangh parivar or others describe as "appeasement" is not appeasement of the Muslim community at large, but an attempt no doubt to woo and win over a vocal section of the community that could and did speak a language that was and is communal, threatening and forceful.

It was the Congress government’s enactment of this legislation in 1986 that gave credibility to the politics of communalism. I felt strongly then that if this did happen, and the new law was enacted, the winners would not be these small groups, the ultimate winner will be the BJP. This is exactly what happened. And 1986 started a whole chain of events that continue in their chilling spiral, even today.

The Congress and the entire national political leadership has been responsible for projecting, time and again — whether through the allotment of Rajya Sabha seats or anything else — only this face of Muslims, the communal face. Now, if you are a secular party interested in a genuine battle for secularism in a fight to the finish, which section of Muslims would you or should you try and project and strengthen?

The so–called secular national leadership has played the villain’s role. Why? Because, unfortunately, you just need to scratch the surface of any one of these leaders and you find that they harbour strange ideas about Muslims, about the issues that Muslims respond to, etc. To them, the past has shown, especially the pre–Partition past, that Muslims, especially the large number of them who came under the sway of the Muslim League, responded to issues of faith more than issues of bread, butter and survival.

Post–1947 India under the Congress makes a fascinating study. The work of independent scholars like Prof. Bipin Chandra and Aditya and Mridula Mukherjee reveal the utter sidelining of Muslim freedom fighters from the political ranks of the Congress. Why? Should these not have been the natural allies of a secular formation like the Congress? But, no. Post–Independence, when communal representation in electorates was dropped and electoral constituencies drawn on territorial lines, politicians had to fight their political battles with an eye to the constituents that resided within. While the front rankers of the Muslim League (ML) had migrated to Pakistan, the third and fourth rankers remained. These were, however, very defensive, given the carnage of Partition. They were men of small stature while the freedom fighters stood tall among the people. But, come election time, Congressmen chose to enter into crude negotiations with the ML types rather than support Muslim freedom fighters. This was done in the belief that whenever it came to important issues, Muslims would respond to narrow and sectarian slogans of the ML rather than to secular and broader issues. This association with the League types, Congressmen thought, assured them of votes more easily.

Given this background, I feel that the damage caused in 1986 is near irretrievable. Why? For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress. Ever since 1857 (when they played a critical role in India’s first war of Independence), the British had sidelined them. Then came the Aligarh movement under Sir Syed with it’s emphasis on modern English education, which rendered their situation unenviable. By then the clergy had been reduced to an object of ridicule within the Muslim community. But through one simple piece of legislation introduced by the Rajiv Gandhi regime, the entire social process was reversed and once more, the Muslim clergy was brought back to centre–stage. It is a position that they enjoy even today and this has helped the BJP tremendously.

In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress showed that the party does not relate to the Badruddin Tyabjis and the Khwaja Ahmed Abbases of the Muslim community, it does not respond to the voices of Muslim professionals who spoke out against the Muslim Women’s Bill, but prefers instead the obscurantist Muslim clergy for credibility, association and alliance. And the Congress continues to function in the same self-serving and shortsighted manner even today. How can the battle for secularism ever be won from a position that has been so compromised?

However, if I still believe strongly that the secular battle will not be so easily lost, it is because the past decade and a half has seen the upsurge of the depressed castes in Indian society. Having tasted power and gained political clout through the democratic process for the first time, these sections are unlikely to simply let it go. I do not believe that the end of democracy is in sight because there are just too many sections in Indian society today that have a stake in its continuance.

Another real problem with the debate on secularism is the fact that progressive sections have simply been unable to engage with and come to an understanding about caste realities and deprivations. The secular-communal debate needs to encompass the reality of India as a caste–driven society where caste-based divisions, justified in the name of faith, have created discriminations and deprivations.

Caste is so strong in India even today that a casteist vision permeates even Muslims and Christians. Secularism is not simply a Hindu–Muslim issue. Significant sections of the deprived and oppressed castes also have a stake in secularism and democracy. For this battle to be waged on both fronts, those concerned about secularism need to understand and relate to the issue of caste. This, too, is an issue that continues to dodge the secularists. 

(As told to Teesta Setalvad.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 1

The post The road not taken appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The late scholar and historian, Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande’s research efforts exploded myths on Aurangzeb’s rule. They also offer an excellent example of what history has to teach us if only we  study it dispassionately 

The Muslim rule in India lasted for almost 1,000  years. How come then, asked the British historian Sir  Henry Elliot, that Hindus “had not left any account which could enable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them?” Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight–volume History of India from with contributions from British historians (1867). His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with ‘Muhammedans’, generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions, their idols were mutilated, their temples destroyed, they were forced into conversions and marriages, and were killed and massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, and scores of other Empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, and their lies became history.

However, the noted Indian scholar and historian, Dr Bishambhar Nath Pande, who passed away in New Delhi on June 1, 1998, ranked among the very few Indians and fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a little careful when dealing with such history. He knew that this history was ‘originally compiled by European writers’ whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve their policy of divide and rule.

Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895–99 and Viceroy 1899–1904 (d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they should “so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened”.

Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884–88), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the “division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage”, and that he expected “some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material”.

“We have maintained our power in India by playing–off one part against the other”, the Secretary of State for India reminded yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862–63), “and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.”

In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr Pande said: “Thus under a definite policy the Indian history text–books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval (i.e., Muslim) period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no common factors (between Hindus and Muslims) in social, political and economic life.”

Therefore, Dr. Pande was extra careful. Whenever he came across a ‘fact’ that looked odd to him, he would try to check and verify rather than adopt it uncritically.

He came across a history textbook taught in the Anglo–Bengali College, Allahabad, which claimed that “three thousand Brahmins had committed suicide as Tipu wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam”. The author was a very famous scholar, Dr Har Prashad Shastri, head of the department of Sanskrit at Calcutta University. (Tipu Sultan (1750–99), who ruled over the South Indian state of Mysore (1782–99), is one of the most heroic figures in Indian history. He died on the battlefield, fighting the British.)

Was it true? Dr Pande wrote immediately to the author and asked him for the source on which he had based this episode in his text–book. After several reminders, Dr Shastri replied that he had taken this information from the Mysore Gazetteer. So Dr. Pande requested the Mysore University vice–chancellor, Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, to verify for him Dr Shastri’s statement from the Gazetteer. Sir Brijendra referred his letter to Prof. Srikantia who was then working on a new edition of the Gazetteer.

Srikantia wrote to say that the Gazetteer mentioned no such incident and, as a historian himself, he was certain that nothing like this had taken place. Prof Srikantia added that both the prime minister and the commander–in–chief of Tipu Sultan were themselves Brahmins. He also enclosed a list of 136 Hindu temples which used to receive annual grants from the Sultan’s treasury.

‘When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh (the elephant–headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat.’

It transpired that Shastri had lifted this story from Colonel Miles’ History of Mysore which Miles claimed he had taken from a Persian manuscript in the personal library of Queen Victoria. When Dr. Pande checked further, he found that no such manuscript existed in Queen Victoria’s library. Yet Dr. Shastri’s book was being used as a high school history text–book in seven Indian states, Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. So he sent his entire correspondence about the book to the vice–chancellor of Calcutta University, Sir Ashutosh Chaudhary. Sir Ashutosh promptly ordered Shashtri’s book out of the course. Yet years later, in 1972, Dr. Pande was surprised to discover the same suicide story was still being taught as ‘history’ in junior high schools in Uttar Pradesh. The lie had found currency as a fact of history.

The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658–1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a ‘fundamentalist’ too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948–’53), Dr. Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some firmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr. Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb’s fanatically anti–Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine firmans issued by Aurangzeb.

For Dr. Pande this was a ‘new image of Aurangzeb’; so he wrote to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies of any firman issued by Aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The response was overwhelming; he got firmans from several principal Hindu and Jain temples, even from Sikh Gurudwaras in northern India. These firmans, issued between 1659 and 1685, related to grant of jagir (large parcel of agricultural lands) to support regular maintenance of these places of worship.

Dr Pande’s research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non–Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.

One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr. Pande unravelled the reason for it. “While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.

“Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis (palanquins). They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja (worship) all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.

“When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh (the elephant–headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat.”

The Rajas demanded salutary action, and “Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant (head priest) be arrested and punished”. (B. N. Pande, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987).

Dr. Pande believed in the innate goodness of human nature. Despite all that senseless hate and periodical outbreak of anti–Muslim violence after independence, he remained an optimist. When one of the worst riots took place in 1969 in Ahmedabad, in which more than 2,000 Muslims were killed and 6,000 houses burnt, Dr. Pande travelled there to see whether there was “any humanity still alive”.

Yes, it was in one locality, Mewabhai Chaal, where he found that all the houses had been burnt down. Did they all belong to Muslims? No. Only 35 belonged to Muslims; some 125 belonged to Hindus, he was told. So, it meant, the arsonists came in two different waves; one destroying the Muslim houses and the other the Hindu houses? No, it was only one wave, said Kalyan Singh. That one, there, he pointed out to smoke billowing from what used to be his house and his tyre-shop. He was a Hindu and he had lost property and business worth 200,000 rupees.
The miscreants had asked him to point out the Muslim houses so they could spare the Hindu houses. Kalyan Singh refused, and watched as the mob set fire to all the houses – including his own. How could I betray my Muslim neighbours? he asked Dr. Pande rhetorically.

Dr. Pande also went to the Muslim students’ hostel. One–third of its residents were Hindus. “Come out all you Hindu students,” yelled a murderous mob gathered outside the hostel. No, we won’t, shouted back the Hindu students and locked the gate from inside. In the event, the entire hostel was evacuated by the army and then left to the mob to loot and burn. The Hindu students were told they could take with them their books and research papers. Dr. Pande met a young DSc scholar, named Desai, who had left behind his more than three years’ labour, a ready–for–typing dissertation, to be burnt by the arsonists. Desai said he couldn’t think of saving his thesis while some of his Muslim friends were in similar position with their theses. A noble soul! Dr. Pande who had been looking for humanity found it there as well.

The inhumanity did not lie in the Indian nature, but the nature had fallen victim to the evil heritage of colonial history. Few realised how 1,000 years of their history had been stolen from them. Many tended to buy the fake and doctored version handed down to them as part of their colonial heritage. Some even saw a little political advantage in this trade. Dr. Pande heard a leading Hindu Mahasabha politician and religious leader, Mahant Digvijaynath, telling an election meeting that it is written in the Qur’an that killing a Hindu was an act of goodness (thawab). Dr. Pande called upon the Mahant (High Priest) and told him that he had read the Qur’an a few ti mes but didn’t find such a statement in it, and he had, therefore, brought with him several English, Urdu and Hindi translations of the Qur’an; so would he kindly point to him where exactly did the statement occur in the Qur’an?

Isn’t it written there? said the Mahant. I haven’t found it; if you have, please tell me, replied Dr. Pande. Then what does it say? It speaks about love and brotherhood, about the oneness of mankind. 

What’s jihad then? What is jizyah? How then India got partitioned? The Mahant went on asking, and Dr. Pande kept on explaining, hoping the Mahant would correct himself.

However, the Mahant’s ideas were fixed, in prejudice and in ignorance. Dr. Pande himself had been a senior member of the ruling Congress party which he had joined at a very young age. He was a disciple of Gandhi, a friend of Nehru; he had taken part in each and every non–cooperation movement against the British and gone to jail eight times. The Congress was supposed to be an all–Indian nationalist platform and yet Dr. Pande’s party was hardly free from the bias and ignorance of a cleverly deconstructed history. The rise of militant Hindutva tendency is only recent, but before it all became overt, the Congress itself was doing the same, albeit a little covertly. All the horrific anti–Muslim carnage took place during more than four decades of Congress rule. The doors of the Babri Mosque were opened for Hindu worship during the tenure of Nehru’s grandson, Rajiv Gandhi. The Mosque itself was pulled down during the regime of another Congress Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao.
Dr. Pande was, however, just one individual. That made his work all the more important, not just from the Muslim but from the point of view of the entire country. India’s deconstructed history is like a time bomb; unless it is defused, India cannot survive in one piece. Not for very long.

(Bishambhar Nath Pande born on 23 December 1906 in Madhya Pradesh of Umreth; member UP Legislative Assembly (1952–53); member UP Legislative Council (1972–74); twice member of the Rajya Sabha (1976 and 1982); governor of Orissa state (1983–88); recipient of Padma Shri (1976); author of several books, including The Spirit of India and The Concise History of Congress; died in New Delhi on June 1, 1998).           

The post A historian sans blinkers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The leadership of the Congress in Punjab has appointed a dis  ciplinary   committee to recom  mend action against Brahm  Mohindra, a senior leader of the party — a former Punjab minister and a member of the AICC. Mohindra had publicly opposed the decision that the Congress would celebrate the tercentenary of the birth of Khalsa (and take out a deg, teg, fateh procession). His allegation that this important decision was not taken by the executive of the party but by the president himself has been refuted.

By and large, the matter is an internal affair of the Congress. That, however, is no reason why those outside the Congress should not express their opinion about the merit or otherwise of the decision, because it concerns public and political life as a whole.

In our opinion, the decision is clearly wrong and harmful. In the words of the Supreme Court, a party should either be a political party or a religious one. The Akali party has been functioning as a political as well as a religious party. The Congress has been generally criticising the Akalis for that. It has strongly been opposing the Akali thesis that as far as the Sikhs are concerned, religion and politics cannot be separated. However, for opportunist electoral considerations it has been compromising its principles, including secularism and anti–communalism. The late Rajiv Gandhi did so in relation to the Babri Masjid–Ram Mandir issue. His calculation that it would help the Congress proved utterly wrong. It helped the BJP. In Punjab, the late Giani Zail Singh as the chief minister did the same. He hoped to weaken the Akalis by fighting against them on their own turf. Laying of the Guru Gobind Singh Marg was a part of this strategy. Speaking on this issue, this writer (then a MLA) had publicly warned that the attempt would prove counter–productive and strengthen not the Congress but the Akalis. Subsequent developments proved this assessment to be correct.

The government headed by Sardar Prakash Singh Badal took the initiative and decided to observe the tercentenary of the birthday of the Khalsa officially. A top Congress leader, who is now demanding action against Mohindra, was the first to criticise the government’s decision. His argument was that to observe such religious landmarks was not the job of a secular government. This could be done by some religious organisation. Congress president Amrinder Singh and other leaders sharing his views, however, thought otherwise. The decision referred to above was thus taken. No convincing argument in support of it has been forthcoming. The mere fact that Sonia Gandhi has approved this decision does not prove it to be correct.

Punjab is inhabited not only by Sikhs, though the Sikhs are in a majority. Hindus are a big minority, Buddhists and Jains too inhabit Punjab. Will the Punjab government and Congress observe the major occassions of these religions too? No clear answer has been given to this very valid question. Some have argued that Sikhism stands on a different footing: In what way? True, unlike Islam and Christianity, it was born on Indian soil — but so were Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. In any case, to make any distinction on this ground goes against the Indian tradition and can only lead to the disintegration of the country.

The fact is that the Congress calculated that chief minister Badal’s decision was motivated by a hope of political gain and the Congress decided to do the same. Once again, this will prove counter–productive. It will strengthen not the Congress but the Akalis.

Besides, there is also the fact that Congress leaders did not realise the Akali game. The decision taken by Badal was not merely on account of electoral considerations. His not–so–hidden second motive was to beat down Gurcharan Singh Tohra in the factional fight between the two. Undoubtedly, there is even more to the Punjab government’s decision. This government, in which Akalis are the senior partners (having gained a large majority on their own in the Assembly), has been functioning as if Sikhism was the official religion of the state. Here are a few examples:

In government offices, in hospitals, etc. you will find photos of only Sikh Gurus and none of even the national leaders.In government schools, besides the National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana), Deh Shiv Var Mohe ihe, Shubh Karman se Kabhoon na Daron, is increasingly becoming compulsory. These shabads of the tenth Guru are indeed very inspiring and excellent. But the Saraswati Vandana, too, is said to be excellent. Incidentally, these shabads were sung on government functions too — on the occasion of August 15, 1997 as well as on Independence Day last year (at least in functions held at Amritsar). Will the Punjab government introduce such songs from every religion in government schools in Punjab and in other government organisations? In Amritsar at least, on more than one occasion, this writer saw on working days practically none on duty in almost all the district level government offices and district courts even on working days. The reason? There was an Akhand Path going on on the premises of the district courts. What will happen if Hindu employees start Akhand Paths of Ramayana, Gita  etc., on working days? Incidentally, in the district courts at Amritsar, I found very few employees at the Akhand Path, most were just enjoying themselves in one manner or another.

There have been Akhand Paths and Gurmat Chetna camps on the premises of the municipal corporation of Amritsar too. At least once some Hindu employees wanted to start a parallel Akhand Path of Ramayana. They were wisely persuaded by some BJP leaders not to do so. Some government schools have started holding Akhand Paths on the eve of examinations. (It is believed that this would help students to pass/do well in the examinations.) More examples can be given, but that is not necessary. It is sufficient to recall one fact. Simranjit Singh Mann’s criticism that the Akali Dal (Badal) after coming to power, had given up its goal of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. The reply given by one top leader of the Akali Dal (Badal) was that the Resolution was being implemented (slowly but steadily). The Resolution stands for a Sikh theocratic state though within India. The decision of chief minister Badal that the Punjab government officially celebrate the 300th birthday of Khalsa is also a part of the ongoing effort to have a Sikh theocratic state in Punjab. Many out of sheer opportunism may not like or may fear to say so, but the fact is not difficult to see. It cannot but have very negative effects for the country in the long run.

A relevant question is: Why does the BJP not object? In fact, the BJP welcomes this because it will help it to realise the objective of a Hindu Rashtra which the RSS has openly declared and refused to give up more than once. There seems to be an unwritten agreement between the BJP and the Akalis that the latter would not object to the Hindu Raj at Delhi and the BJP will not object to Sikh Raj in Punjab, that is, Khalistan within India. After all, the BJP, which strongly opposed the “religion and politics cannot be separated” thesis of the Akalis when Khalistani terrorists had their headquarters in the Golden Temple, are now ardent champions of the same thesis.
The Left must oppose this dangerous game as well as the Congress’ opportunism. At least the Left must not allow the long–term interests of the country to be sacrificed for some narrow electoral gains. In India everyone must have the right to profess the religion of his/her choice and also to worship according to it. However, neither the government of India nor the government of any state should have any religion. State and religion as well as politics and religion must be kept apart.

It is time to have a national debate as to whether religion–based parties should be allowed to take part in elections. Also, whether candidates for elections should also be required to sign a declaration that they don’t believe in theocracy. Coming back to Punjab, Amrinder Singh and others would have been perfectly correct had they set up a non–party committee to celebrate the tercentenary in suitable ways, for example, by running a mass campaign and taking out massive demonstrations against the caste system and in support of such other teachings of the Sikh Gurus which are relevant even today.   

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999. Year 6  No. 54, Comment

The post Khalistan within India? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shah Bano died over a dozen years ago. But the issue that she raised and which made her a housej
hold name in India — a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance from her former husband — refuses to fade away. It’s now 13 years since the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, buckled under the pressure of Muslim men to enact a special law for Muslim women — Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The new Act gave the impression to most Muslims and even others that through their countrywide agitation they had successfully established the ‘Islamic’ principle that since marriage is only a civil contract, once a Muslim male divorces his wife, he is not liable to pay her any maintenance beyond the three–month iddat period.

To begin with, several petitions filed by secular individuals and groups challenging the very constitutional validity of the 1986 act are pending before the Supreme Court. Secondly, divorced Muslim women with nowhere else to turn to, despite the pious promises of the orthodoxy, have continued to plead for justice from the courts. In the last few years, some high courts have interpreted the same 1986 law to mean that the former husband is obliged to provide for his divorced wife beyond the iddat period. The latest such ruling to refocus attention on the issue has been the verdict of a division bench of Mumbai High Court delivered in early May.

Zaitunbi Mubarak Shaikh of Satara district in Maharashtra was deserted by her husband, Mubarak Fakhruddin Shaikh, in 1980. In response to an application filed by her under Section 125 CrPC, the local magistrate ruled in June 1981 that her husband pay her Rs.60 per month for maintenance. Then on October 6, 1986, Zaitunbi filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance sum to Rs.500 p.m. She prayed that she had not been keeping good health and the amount of Rs.60 was not even enough to pay for her medical bills and also that her husband who had a stable job could easily afford the enhanced amount.

Unfortunately for Zaitunbi, the Muslim Women’s Act, had been passed six months before her application. Taking recourse to the same, Mubarak informed the court on November 11, 1986 that he had divorced his wife (by registered post!) on October 29 (that is, 23 days after his deserted wife’s application), paid her the mehr amount of Rs.125 and Rs.150 towards maintenance for the iddat period. And so, according to the new Act, he was not obliged to pay any further maintenance. The petition came before the division bench after the sessions court, Satara, had ruled in Mubarak’s favour.

Section 3 (1) of the Muslim Women’s Act says a divorced woman shall be entitled to:

a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband;

b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children;

c) an amount equal to the sum of mehr or dower amount agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage according to Muslim law; and

d) all the properties given to her before or at the time of her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.

It is the first of these clauses pertaining to "reasonable and fair provision and maintenance" which has tended to be interpreted differently by different high courts in the country.

The very first judgement under the amended Act was given by the Lucknow magistrate, Ms. Rekha Dixit. She awarded Rs. 68,000 to a divorced Muslim wife in a final settlement of all dues. In more recent years, the Gujarat, Kerala and now Mumbai high courts have interpreted the clause to mean the wife is entitled to payment from her former husband even beyond the iddat period. On the other hand, by a majority of two to one, a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh high court has ruled that the Act does not envisage any payment of maintenance beyond the iddat period.

Having looked up the separate dictionary meanings of the words provision and maintenance, Justices A.V. Savant and T.K. Chandrashekhara Das of the Mumbai high court have concluded that while passing the new law, the legislative intent — an important consideration while interpreting any law — was to provide for a woman beyond the iddat period.

Clearly, the ball now lies with the Supreme Court of India. For now, women’s organisations and other secular groups have welcomed the Mumbai court’s ruling, but there is some apprehension whether the basis on which the judges have arrived at their ruling — intention of the legislature while framing the law — will stand scrutiny in the Supreme Court. After all, wasn’t the frenzy of the Muslim clergy the political backdrop to appease whom Rajiv Gandhi piloted the new bill? On the other hand, stands a ruling of the Dacca high court of 1995, which argues entirely within the confines of Islam that the Quran very clearly enjoins upon Muslims to pay maintenance to their divorced wives until such time as they remarry. (See accompanying excerpts). In most other Muslim majority countries today, the former husband is obliged to pay maintenance to the former wife for different lengths of time beyond the iddat period. The Muslim male in India, in other words, demands privileges from secular India which are denied to his counterparts even in most states that claim to be run according to Islamic principles.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999. Year 6  No. 54, Special Report

The post Wages of divorce appeared first on SabrangIndia.