The Kerala High Court has issued directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Amani, Lakshadweep, for the release of island residents who were detained by the administration in connection with protests against the proposed controversial regulations that includes a ban on beef, disqualification of panchayat poll aspirants who have more than two children, and introduction of an Anti-Goonda Act.

Without entering into the merits of the case, Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Dr Kauser Edappagath said, “The most important concern for us is the liberty of the persons who are in custody. They shall not be deprived of the means of access to justice.”

The writ petition filed before the court contended that although the offences invoked against the detained protesters are bailable, the Executive Magistrate remanded them for no reason. The counsel appearing for Lakshadweep submitted that the Station House Officer and the Executive Magistrate were prepared to release them on bail but they refused to get released on bail. This was denied by the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate R. Rohith, who alleged that no such attempt was made either by the Executive Magistrate or the Station House Officer.

The Bench took up the case of protesters on June 1 and observed, “It is appropriate in such circumstance to direct the CJM, Amini, to take up the case of the persons, who have been in custody pursuant to registration of the case by SHO of Kilthan Island by 3pm today. The physical production of the persons in custody is not necessary. The fourth and fifth respondent are directed to take steps for the production of accused persons before the CJM through video conference.”

Further, the High Court also said that the Chief Judicial Magistrate can hold sessions through video conference through the nearest National Informatics Centre or by using any other convenient mode like Google Meet, WhatsApp video call etc. “The CJM can order release of such persons on execution of self-bond or on conditions he deems fit to impose”, said the Bench.

Bharatiya Janata Party leader Praful Khoda Patel has suggested some draft rules, which includes some proposals that would give him powers to remove or relocate islanders from their own property for town planning or development. The rules also allow some businesses to sell alcohol, which is seen as offending religious sentiments of the islanders and ignoring the socio-cultural context of the area.

The matter will be heard today, on June 2.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Lakshadweep: Beef Ban, Goonda Act proposed by Administrator Praful Khoda Patel
AIKS calls for the sacking of Lakshadweep administrator Praful Patel

The post Kerala HC orders the release of people detained for protesting new rules in Lakshadweep appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed Magistrates to release such persons from custody in cases where the guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar judgement were not followed.

The bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Atul Sreedharan had taken cognisance of the overcrowded jails in the state on May 7. The bench had passed orders for releasing prisoners as per the Supreme Court’s directive that they should be released as per the  High Powered Committee’s (HPC) guidelines from last year for 90 days.

The amicus curiae Adv. Sanklap Kochar and Senior Advocate CU Singh submitted before the bench that despite the latest recommendations of the HPC after their May 12 meeting, there are still 45,582 prisoners across jails in the state as against their total capacity of 28,675. They both suggested that the HPC ought to consider recommending release of all such convicts on parole, who have either served out one-third of the substantive sentence awarded to them or if sentenced to life imprisonment, have completed incarceration of seven years or more.

They also suggested that the HPC should also consider recommending release of all women prisoners, both convicts and under-trial, regardless of the offence for which they have been convicted and the sentence awarded to them or the maximum sentence that may be awarded to them upon conviction. In response to this suggestion, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) and the Director General of Prisons stated that they will collate the data under all these three categories and provide the same to the HPC within 3 days.

CU Singh and Sankalp Kochar also submitted that the police are not following guidelines of arrest as laid out by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273. To this, the court responded, “This explains why there was an enormous increase of approximately 8,000 under-trial prisoners in different jails of the State during the period of lockdown even after release of about 7,500 prisoners-convicts on parole and UTPs on interim bail”. The AAG submitted that he would seek instructions on whether or not the Arnesh Kumar guidelines were being followed.

In Arnesh Kumar judgement, the apex court had observed that the law mandates for the police officer, before making an arrest should record his satisfaction as mandated by Section 41of CrPC that the arrest is necessary:

(i) to prevent such person from committing any further offence;

(ii) for proper investigation of the offence;

(iii) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with evidence;

(iv) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any witness from disclosing facts to the court or to the police officer &

(v) and that unless such person is arrested, his presence in the court when required cannot be secured.

The court had further stated that if in his opinion, the arrest does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, the Magistrate is duty-bound not to authorize his further detention and release the accused after recording his own satisfaction. The apex court had also highlighted the importance of Section 41-A of CrPC which provided that where arrest was not required, the police officer should issue a notice directing the accused person to appear before him at a specific place.

The details of the Arnesh Kumar judgement may be read here.

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 of the Code for effecting arrest. The Supreme Court observed that it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Code and is persisting with its colonial approach despite six decades of independence, as the power of arrest is being used as a tool of harassment and oppression of the citizen, which is “one of the lucrative sources of police corruption”.

The bench pointed out that “all these directions issued by the Supreme Court were intended to put a check on the arbitrary power of police in mechanically arresting a citizen accused of committing offences of rather lesser gravity, either without adequate sensitivity or with oblique motive.”

The court, thus, directed the DGP to immediately issue fresh directions to all the Police Stations in the State to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar judgement in letter and spirit. The court also directed all the Judicial Magistrates, upon the accused being produced before them by the police for authorizing further detention, shall mandatorily examine whether or not stipulations contained in both Sections 41 and 41A of the Code, have been followed.

The court stated that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the mandate of both or any of those provisions has not been complied with by the police, he/she shall refuse to authorise further detention of the accused and shall direct immediate release of the accused. More significantly, the court ordered thus,

“if any arrest has been made without adherence to the aforesaid guidelines, the accused concerned would be entitled to directly apply to the court of competent jurisdiction for his regular bail on this ground alone.”

The court also directed the Registrar to again circulate the copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar judgement along with a copy of this order to all the District Judges of the State, for being served upon the Judicial Magistrates. Further, the court directed the Director of the State Judicial Academy to organise online/virtual programme for sensitising Magistrates and police officers accordingly. The court put the onus on the Director of the state’s police academy to coordinate with the Director of State Judicial Academy to work out the modalities for sensitising the police officers and put the onus on the DGP for compliance.

The amicus curiae and Adv. CU Singh also brought to the court’s attention the order passed by the apex court in its suo moto case of last year, whereby all the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) and Children’s Courts were directed to proactively consider whether a child or children should be kept in the Child Care Institutions considering the best interest, health and safety concerns. This included directing JJBs to consider releasing children alleged to be in conflict with law, residing in Observation Homes, on bail unless there are clear and valid reasons for the application of the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Accordingly, the court directed Secretary of the MP State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur to require the Member Secretaries of the respective District Legal Services Authorities to move an appropriate application through their Legal Aid Counsels before the respective Juvenile Justice Boards on behalf of the children in conflict with law, for their release from Observation Homes. The court directed that such applications be decided within 3 days of filing.

The court directed that the copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, State of M.P., Bhopal; Director General of Prisons, Bhopal; Member Secretary, M.P. State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur; Director, MP State Judicial Academy, Jabalpur; Director, MP Police Academy, Bhopal and the Registrar General of MP High Court, Jabalpur for necessary action.

The court will hear the case next on May 31.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

Maharashtra: HPC directs re-release of prisoners amid Covid-19
SC orders re-release of prisoners from jail amid Covid-19 surge
UP govt challenges HC order granting bail on apprehension of contracting Covid-19

The post Release persons not arrested as per Arnesh Kumar guidelines: MP High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Punjab-based journalist and former Information Commissioner appealed to the Indian government to release physically challenged scholar Professor GN Saibaba from jail on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.  

In no uncertain terms, Chander Parkash from Bathinda said in a live interview with Burnaby-based Spice Radio on the international day of persons with disabilities on December 3 that the mistreatment of Professor G.N. Saibaba is both unfortunate and a blot on the Indian democracy.  

His son Yashveer Goyal has established himself as a role model for the Indian youth in sports and Information Technology, in spite of being born with a hearing disability. He had come to the support of the former Delhi University lecturer, who continues to face inhuman conditions in the Indian jail after being convicted in 2017.  

Saibaba was first arrested on trumped up charges in 2014 for merely speaking out against the repression of religious minorities and the Adivasis or indigenous communities being evicted from their traditional lands by the extraction industry with the backing of the Indian government. He was given a life sentence after being branded as Maoist sympathiser. Notably, the Maoist insurgents are active in the areas inhabited by the Adivasis.    

Even though the United Nations has asked for his release due to his deteriorating health, the government remains adamant. So much so, he was neither even given parole to see his mother on the death bed nor attend her last rituals.  

Yashveer was born with hearing disability in 1999. His father noticed it when his child remained unresponsive to the loud sounds of firecrackers in the neighbourhood on the night of Deewali – the Indian festival of lights.

However, his undeterred parents brought him up with a lot of care despite many challenges. Young Yashveer had to face discrimination in school in a conservative society, where ostracising of children with disabilities is very common. But his parents made sure that he concentrated on education and extracurricular activities that helped him to master badminton and chess, besides Information Technology.  

After winning many championships and competitions in these fields, both at the provincial and higher level, Yashveer was given a national award for the Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities in 2019, under the Role Model Hearing Impairments (Male) category.

Yashveer had asked the Prime Minister of India to make arrangements for the release of wheelchair bound Saibaba.  

Since the outbreak of Covid-19, the vulnerability of inmates like Saibaba, locked up in overcrowded Indian jails, has grown.      

Yashveer had written on his Facebook page, “As I am a special child with absolute hearing impairment so I know the life of specially disabled persons. I have come to know about the plight of Saibaba, facing hellish conditions in jail and also under danger due to Covid-19”.

Reiterating similar views on his son’s behalf who cannot speak, Chander Parkash told Spice Radio that the natural justice demands that Saibaba must be released. He added that whatever may be the political ideology of Saibaba but his condition does not allow him to stay in jail anymore. He added that he and his family are ready to face any consequences for defending the human rights of someone who deserves sympathy. 

More by Gurpreet Singh:

Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest: Justin Trudeau
If Modi really cares about Nanak’s teachings, he must treat farmers with respect 

The post Release Prof. Saibaba NOW! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it, social democracy,” these words of Babasaheb Ambedkar form the foundation of  the International Solidarity for Academic Freedom (InSAF India). The group, along with the Global Diaspora Alliance recently released a video statement, to express international solidarity for academic freedom in India. The message was recorded by academics living and working in universities at various locations from across the world.

The coalition of diaspora indians supporting academic freedom, has joined thousands of voices rising in unison and demanding the release of academics, artists and activists such as GN saibaba, Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Anant Tentumble, Shoma Sen, Hany Babu, Vernon Gonsalves, Mahesh Raut, Rona Wilson, Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Navlakha, Arun Ferreira, Varavara Rao, Jyoti Raghoba Jagtap, Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe, Ramesh Muralidhar Gaichor, Stan Swamy, Umar Khalid, who have been imprisoned for speaking truth to power, “and for choosing the side of the most marginalised and most oppressed in indian society.”

Taking their names out loud and listing them as the ones who stood up for the marginalised and were punished for it was an important highlight of the statement. Names that should continue to be read out loud till they are all released from prison. InSAF India (International Solidarity for Academic Freedom in India) is an international coalition supporting academic freedom in India and campaigning for the release of jailed academics.

The academics have put on record their demand that the “Indian government refrain from any political intervention into the autonomous functioning of any educational institution” They sent a reminder that it is “the Constitutional duty of the state to ensure that education and research can flourish as a public good,” and have call upon the international community to “publicly address cases of violations in academic freedom in any collaborations with Indian educational institutions and government agencies.”

Academic freedom, they stated, is the “right of all members of the academic community to ask questions, conduct inquiries on any subject, without fear, or restrictions of a political nature and to express opinions in public. Academic freedom is the autonomy of all academic collectives institutions and their departments and sub sections, to fulfil the mandate for which they have been established and accredited, without interference from state or private forces.”

It is crucial to remember that “it is the Constitutionally anchored obligation of the government to safeguard and guarantee academic freedom to its citizens and its institutions of learning.” The academics reiterated that history records the fact that attempts at repressing academic freedom is a known feature of authoritarian regimes, “from the burning of books in Nazi Germany, to China’s ‘cultural revolution’ and to the recent persecution of thousands of academics in Turkey. 

Since Independence from British colonial rule, India has been building its academic institutions and its own practises and cultures of academic life against all odds and on a stunning diversity of terrains. The group of academics said many of them “have been beneficiaries of the public education system in India and many indian scholars have established themselves with repute in educational institutions around the world.” 

However they added, “In the more recent past, under the aegis of the current ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which grew out of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a dominant-caste, militant masculinist version of religious nationalism, existing infrastructures of academic freedom are being systematically assaulted. Institutional activities are placed under surveillance, Institutional leadership is manipulated through political appointments, campuses are militarised, teachers and scholars are threatened and arrested, their writings are banned and their publications are confiscated.”

Research on certain sensitive issues is not given clearance from governmental bodies, said the academics highlight that among those targetted are a significant number of Dalit Bahujan scholars and scholars from minority communities. “When academics are sent to jail for asking difficult questions, and for defending the rights of the disenfranchised, then society cannot be called free,” they said.

However, what is at stake, is not just academic life in isolation said the academics, “at its roots, the growing repression against academics in india dovetail neatly with the logic of social excommunication in a patriarchal caste society, with its unconditional ‘castigation’ and ‘trials’, equivalent to what Babasaheb Ambedkar called ‘punishment in the penal code’ in both its ‘magnitude and and its severity.”

And today in India, “the very institutions that were envisioned to dismantle the caste system, the Parliament, the judiciary and the legislature, are in danger of becoming instruments for protecting and reproducing caste injustices, gender injustices,  and all other forms of social, economic, and ecological injustices.” 

They added that it is also important to recognise that the “jailing of academics is not simply a concern for an individuals freedom of expression”. The issue at stake here is a radical conception of social justice that is linked to our social self, “we don’t exist as individuals in a society. In a society, there can only be social selves. It is therefore necessary to connect the freedom of expression to social justice and highlight that the imprisonment of academics, not onl cancels their social self, but also suspends the idea of the social itself through suspending knowledge production and formation.”

InSAF India (International Solidarity for Academic Freedom in India) oined the call of the Global Diaspora Alliance to “end the violence and structural discrimination against minorities, including caste-based violence.” They called upon the Government of India to repeal the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and to release all the political incarcerated prisoners.

The video may be viewed here:

Related: 

Activists, Opposition parties demand release of Bhima Koregaon accused
CJP, other groups, activists and citizens condemn Fr. Stan Swamy’s arrest
Fr. Stan Swamy: The Jharkhand Priest who made People his Religion

The post Repressing academic freedom is a known feature of authoritarian regimes: InSAF appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A significant group of 146 academics and scholars from across the world have come together to ask the Indian government to release 80-year-old Telugu poet Varavara Rao from prison. Varavara Rao is currently in Mumbai’s Nanavati Hospital for neurological and urological treatment. He has also tested positive for COVID-19 when he was brought to Mumbai last week.

Rao, one of the unfortunate victims of political vendetta and a political prisoner, has been seriously unwell in prison over the last month, and his family has alleged that his medical condition was ignored and allowed to worsen by the authorities. It was following several appeals from his family, rights activists and lawyers that Rao was moved to a hospital.

Among the signatories of the statement are Naom Chomsky, Barbara Harris-White, Jan Breman, Alpa Shah, Gyanendra Pandey, Christophe Jaffrelot, Ania Loomba and others. In the past weeks, several appeals have been made for the poet’s release, arguing that it is unethical to keep the undertrial octogenarian in jail in the midst of a global pandemic, especially given his frail health.

Rao, who has been in jail since August 2018, is one of 11 human rights activists and lawyers who have been arrested in the Elgar Parishad case and accused of inciting violence against Dalits at Bhima Koregaon on January 1, 2018. The police also claims that they have “Maoist links”.

In 2018, under the BJP-ruled government in  Maharashtra, the local Pune police was assigned the investigation in the case. The police had then claimed different theories and had branded arrested persons as “urban Naxals”. Among several theories floated by the Pune police, those arrested were also accused of plotting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assassination. This claim was made in a press conference, but strangely never investigated or made a part of the two bulky chargesheets filed in the case.

In December 2019, soon after the coalition government of the Shiv Sena, the Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress took over, the case was swiftly taken away from the local police and handed over to the central agency, NIA. This was a unilateral action  of the Modi 2.0 government.

The list of signatories with the statement may be read below.

“Varavara Rao, poet, writer, activist and long-time speaker of truth to power has been imprisoned for two years now, along with ten other scholar-activists. They have been charged with inciting violence in Bhima Koregaon, a charge widely regarded as false, and over the past two years the government has failed to bring the charges to court and start the trial. Conditions in the jails in which these prisoners of conscience have been kept are said to be unhealthy and the threat of spread of infection has grown. Mr Rao, who is 80 years old, has now tested positive for COVID-19 and is seriously ill with several co-morbidities. His condition suggests clear neglect of his health by the authorities. We join other international scholars in appealing for the immediate release of Varavara Rao and the other Elgar Parishad activists.

Signed:

Barbara Harriss-White, FAcSS, Emeritus Professor and Fellow, Wolfson College, Oxford University, UK

Dr Hugo Gorringe, Co-Director Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Edinburgh, UK

Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics emeritus, MIT, USA

Jan Breman, Emeritus Professor University of Amsterdam, Honorary Fellow of the International Institute of Social History, Netherlands.

Jens Lerche, Reader in Agrarian and Labour Studies, Dept of Development Studies, SOAS, London, UK

Dr. Indrajit Roy, Senior Lecturer-Global Development Politics, Department of Politics, University of York, UK

Patricia Jeffery, Professor Emerita, University of Edinburgh, UK

Jonathan Spencer, Regius Professor of South Asian Language, Culture and Society, Edinburgh University, UK

David Mosse, Professor of Social Anthropology, SOAS, London, UK

Dr Shubranshu Mishra, Lecturer, Politics and International Relations, University of Exeter, UK

Kalathmika Natarajan, Teaching Fellow in South Asian History, University of Edinburgh, UK

Radhika Govinda, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr. Deana Heath, Reader in Indian and Colonial History,  University of Liverpool, UK

Anisha Palat, PhD Student, University of Edinburgh, UK

Roger Jeffery, Professor of Sociology of South Asia, Associate Director, Edinburgh India Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK

Colin Leys, Emeritus professor, Queen’s University, Canada

Dr. Lotte Hoek, Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology, University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr Kanchana Ruwanpura, Reader, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr Nandini Sen,  Researcher, Heriot Watt University, UK

Arnab Bhattacharjee, Professor, Economics, Heriot Watt University, UK

Meena Dhanda, Professor of Philosophy & Cultural Politics, University of Wolverhampton, UK.

Dr Amogh Sharma, Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford University, UK

Sebastian Schwecke, Associate professor, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Kolkata and Centre for Modern Indian Studies, Göttingen University, Germany

Dr Krithika Srinivasan, Lecturer, University of Edinburgh, UK

Barbara Smith, Associate Professor in Agricultural Ecology and Public Science, Coventry University, UK

Dr Maryam Aslany, Post-doctoral Fellow, Wolfson College, Oxford, UK

Dr Alessandra Mezzadri, Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, Department of Development Studies, SOAS, London, UK

Ravi Ahuja, Professor of Modern Indian History, Centre for Modern Indian Studies, University of Göttingen, Germany

Dr Alfred Gathorne-Hardy, Lecturer in Sustainable Resource Use, University of Edinburgh, and Senior Research Fellow, Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development, University of Oxford, UK

Ben Rogaly, Professor of Human Geography, University of Sussex, UK

Dr Vasudha Chhotray, Associate Professor, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK

Dr Devanshi Chanchani, Global Challenges Research Fellow, Brunel University, UK

Rashmi Varma, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literary Studies, Warwick University, UK

Susan Newman, Professor and Head of Economics, Open University

Dr. Mukulika Banerjee, Director, South Asia Centre, London School of Economics, UK

Projit Bihari Mukharji, Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania, USA.

Alberto Toscano Co-Director of the Centre for Philosophy and Critical Theory. Goldsmiths College, London, UK

Dr Subir Sinha, Sr lecturer in Institutions and Development, SOAS, London, UK

Dr Madhumita Dutta, Assistant Professor, Geography, Ohio State University, USA

Dr Feyzi Ismail, Senior Teaching Fellow, SOAS University of London, UK,

Balmurli Natrajan, Professor, Anthropology, William Paterson University of New Jersey, USA

Suraj T. PhD student, Department of Development Studies, SOAS, London

Jonathan Pattenden, Associate Professor, Politics and Development, University of East Anglia, UK

Deepa Kurup, D Phil Student, Oxford University, UK

Lalit Vachani, Centre for Modern Indian Studies, (CeMIS), University of Gottingen, Germany

Dr Alice Clark, Principal, Clark Research Associates, El Cerrito, California, USA

Alpa Shah, Associate Professor, London School of Economics, UK

Adam Hanieh, Professor, SOAS, University of London, UK

Dr Jacob Copeman, Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology, Edinburgh University, UK

Radhika Desai, Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, Canada

Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Professor of Economics and International Development Studies, Trent University, Canada

Ania Loomba, Catherine Byrson Professor of English, South Asian Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

John Harriss, Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver and Adjunct Professor, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

Kalyani Monteiro Jayasankar, PhD Student, Princeton University, USA

Durgesh Solanki, PhD Student, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Dr Bashabi Fraser, Professor Emerita, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Neil Fraser, Retired Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK.

Christopher Cramer, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS),Professor of the Political Economy of Development, SOAS, University of London, UK

Gilbert Achcar, Professor, SOAS, University of London, UK

Jonathan Galton, Research assistant, SOAS, University of London, UK

Sian Hawthorne, Senior Lecturer and Subject Head, Religions and Philosophies, School of History, Religions and Philosophies, SOAS, University of London. UK

Brenna Bhandar, Reader in Law, SOAS, University of London, UK

Tim Pringle, Senior Lecturer, Department of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, UK

Vanja Hamzić, Senior Lecturer in Legal History and Legal Anthropology, Associate Director of Research, SOAS, University of London, UK

Andrew Newsham, Senior Lecturer in International Development, SOAS, University of London, UK

Kenneth Bo Nielsen, Associate Professor of Social Anthropology and Coordinator of the Norwegian Network for Asian Studies, University of Oslo, Norway

Michael Levien, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Geir Heierstad, Director, Norwegian institute of urban and regional research, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Pamela Price, Professor Emerita, University of Oslo, Norway

Adrija Dey Postdoctoral Research Fellow, SOAS, University of London, UK

Hashim Rashid PhD, SOAS, University of London, UK

Sara Kazmi, PhD, SOAS, University of London, UK

Shailza Sharma, PhD, University of Essex, UK

Shailaja Paik, Associate Professor, University of Cincinnati, USA

Pranav Jani, Associate Professor of English, Director of South Asian Studies Initiative, The Ohio State University, USA

Rachel Sturman, Associate Professor, Department of History  & Asian Studies Program, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, USA

Ashwini Deo, Associate Professor, Linguistics, The Ohio State University, USA

Dr Shalini Grover,  Research Officer, International Inequalities Institute, London School of Economics, London, UK

Ashwin Subramanian, Centre for Modern Indian Studies (CeMIS), Göttingen, Germany

Nikita Sud, Associate Professor, University of Oxford

Dr Satoshi Miyamura, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, SOAS, London, UK

Rochisha Narayan, Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, USA

David Hardiman, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Warwick, UK

Dr Mayur Suresh, Lecturer,, School of Law, SOAS, London, UK

Dr Eleanor Newbigin,  Senior lecturer, Department of History, Religions and Philosophies, SOAS, London, UK

Malvika Gupta, DPhil candidate, International Development, Oxford University, UK

Ajantha Subramanian, Professor of Anthropology and of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, USA

Debjani Bhattacharyya, Associate Professor, Department of History, Drexel University, Philadelphiia, USA

Jonathan Parry, Emeritus Professor, LSE, UK

Jayant Lele, Professor Emeritus, Global Development Studies , Queen’s University, Canada

Raju Das, Professor, Department of Geography, York University, Canada

Mihika Chatterjee, Departmental Lecturer, University of Oxford, UK

Jan Toporowski, Professor of Economics and Finance, SOAS University of London, UK

Anupama Rao, History, Barnard College, Columbia University, USA

Hira Singh, Associate Professor of Sociology,  York University, Canada

Sejuti Das Gupta, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University, USA

Geoff Goodwin, Departmental Lecturer in Development Studies, University of Oxford, UK

Ajay Skaria, Department of History/Institute for Global Studies, University of Minnesota, USA

Gyanendra Pandey, Professor of History, Emory University, Atlanta, USA

Professor Leslie Elliott Armijo, International Studies, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Tapas Bandopadhyay

Meenal Shrivastava, Professor, Political Economy & Global Studies, Centre for Social Sciences, Athabasca University, Canada

Radhakrishna Sanka, Ph.D. Candidate, College of Engineering, Boston University, USA

Isabelle Guerin, Senior Research Fellow, French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), France / Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA

Deepak Kapur, Distinguished Professor of Computer Science. The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, US

Roli Varma, Carl Hatch Endowed Professor, School of Public Administration, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA

Raja Swamy, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, USA

Dr Dolores Chew, Faculty, History and Humanities, Marianopolis College, Montreal, Canada

Rochisha Narayan, Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, USA

S. Charusheela, Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell, USA

Christophe Jaffrelot, Professor of Politics, KCL, London UK, and Research Director, CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, France

Nitya Rao, Professor Gender and Development, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK

Ratik Asokan, Writer, The Baffler Magazine, UK

Ilan Kapoor, Professor, York University, Toronto, Canada

Gyan Prakash, Dayton-Stockton Professor of History

Princeton University, USA

Michael Nijhawan,  Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University, Canada

Sanjeev Routray, Department of Sociology, UBC, Canada

Shyam Ranganathan, Department of Philosophy,,York Center for Asian Research, York University, Toronto, Canada

Aminah Mohammad-Arif, CNRS-CEIAS research fellow, Paris, France

Sugata Ghosh, Professor of Economics, Brunel University London, UK

Nalini Iyer, Professor of English, Seattle University, USA

Himani Bannerji, Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar, Department of Sociology, York University, Canada

Nathaniel Roberts, Dozent, University of Göttingen, Germany

Rupa Viswanath, Professor, University of Göttingen, Germany

Michael Reinsborough, Lecturer, SOAS University of London, UK

Jostein Jakobsen, Researcher, Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Norway

Stephen Watts, Poet, London

Alf Gunvald Nilsen, Professor, University of Pretoria, South Africa

Urs Geiser, Associate Senior Researcher, Dept. of Geography, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Shreya Sinha, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Cambridge, UK

Dan Hirslund, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Pallavi Roy, Lecturer, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, SOAS University of London, UK

Anne Waldrop, Professor in Development Studies, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Joel Lee, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Williams College, USA

Sarmistha Pal, Professor of Financial Economics, University of Surrey, UK

Sheetal Chhabria, Associate Professor of History, Connecticut College, USA

Judith Heyer, Fellow Emeritus, Somerville College, Oxford University, UK

Santiago Izquierdo-Tort, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute of Temperate Forest Sciences, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada.

Dr Aparna Sundar, Contemporary Asian Studies, University of Toronto, Canada

David Gellner, Professor of Social Anthropology and Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford University, UK

Dr Nicolas Jaoul, CNRS /IRIS , Paris, France

Aman Bardia, Platform Cooperativism Consortium, The New School, New York, USA

Chinmoy Banerjee, Emeritus  Professor of English, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Srujana Katta, Researcher, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK.

Dr. Priyanka Basu Curator, The British Library, London, UK

The post Release Varavara Rao, 146 scholars tell Indian Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Courtesy: Photos taken on September 14 at Chutmalpur, Uttar Pradesh, Chandrshekhar Azad ravan’s Village

The state government on Thursday ordered the immediate release of Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar, alias Ravan, who was arrested, on false charges, for the clashes between Dalits and the police in Saharanpur on May 9, 2017, principal secretary (Home) Arvind Kumar said. In fact, it was the Bhim Army that did not led the Sahranpur violence deteriorate into Dalit-minority clashes. The state had booked Azad under the National Security Act (NSA) on November 2, 2017, a day after he was granted bail by the Allahabad high court. The NSA would have lapsed on November 1, 2018.

Photo Courtesy: Abrar Ahmed

A statement released by the government said that the decision was taken based on a plea filed by Azad’s mother, Kamlesh Devi. Along with Azad, two others, Shivkumar and Sonu, who had been booked under the NSA for their alleged role in the violence that took place in Shabbirpur, a village in Saharanpur district, in May 2017, will also be released prior to the NSA lapsing.

Ostensibly, the government moves comes from its claims that this was a response to Azad’s mercy petition. Kumar said the decision to release Chandrashekhar was taken after his mother filed a mercy application to the state government. He added that the situation in Saharanpur and other circumstances were also analysed before the decision. However, a robust battle in the Allahabad High Court and a petition in the Supreme Court had also been filed by the Bhim Army chief. Clearly ahead of next year’s polls, the Adityanath government does not wish to let Dalit anger work against it.

Chandrashekhar, the founder of Bhim Army — a group of Dalit youth — has been a leader with mass appeal thretening the established political leadership. In his village and neighbourhood in Saharanpur (especially Shabbirpur) where many consider him to be a crusader for social justice. His and his group’s growing influence in the region was seen to have been a part of a stronger Dalit voice that has risen in the last couple of years. His electrifying speech, where he stated that “India is Threatened by Brahmanism Not Muslims” (May 2017) had clearly threatened the estbalishment.

This Video may be heard here:

Chandrashekhar was falsely accused of sparking the May 9 clashes during a protest against the police cane charge on people protesting “caste violence” in Saharanpur’s Shabbirpur village on May 5.
Police had invoked the National Security Act (NSA) against Chandrashekhar, a lawyer by profession, after his arrest. He has been in jail since his arrest by UP Special Task Force from Himachal Pradesh on June 8, 2017. NSA was also slapped on five other members of the Bhim Army, of whom Sonpal, Sudhir and Vilas were released on September 6 and 7, Kumar said. Two others, Sonu and Shiv Kumar, will be released with Chandrashekhar, he added.

The NSA allows the state government to detain any person it feels poses a ‘threat to the security of India’ or could ‘disrupt public order’. Its application is to be renewed every three months if the government is of the opinion that the person continues to be a threat. The application of NSA on Azad was last renewed in July and would have lapsed again in November.
Now, according to police sources in Saharanpur, they are waiting for the order to reach them and will release the three accused as soon as it does. Members of the Bhim army and Azad’s family have gathered outside the Saharanpur jail.
 
This is a victory for us and the confidence that people had in Chandrashekhar Azad. I also appeal to people to celebrate this occasion but abide by the constitutional values that we stand by,” said Kamal Walia, district president, Bhim Army, Saharanpur.

Kumar said the order has been sent to Saharanpur district administration and their release was likely by Friday. While Chandrashekhar’s judicial custody was till November 1, 2018, that of Sonu and Shiv Kumar was till October 14, 2018.

Violence had broken out in Saharanpur last year after tensions had began in April over the installation of a Ambedkar statue in Shabbirpur. The Dalits wanted the statue to be installed in the Ravidas temple in the village and the dominant Thakur community objected. The police urged the Dalit community to not install the statue in the ‘interest of peace’. On May 5, 2017, the Thakur community took out a procession commemorating Maharana Pratap. The Dalit community objected because the “DJ was too loud”. This led to violence as a mob armed with swords, thick bamboo sticks, country-made revolvers and bottles filled with petrol ransacked the Dalit ghetto of the village, burning down 55 homes. Several Dalits were grievously injured. One member of the Thakur community died. Five Dalits were booked for murder.

A few days after the violence, the Bhim Army – a fast growing Dalit social organisation at the time led by Azad – called for a mahapanchayat in Saharanpur town to protest against the violence in Shabbirpur. The police denied them permission and the protest turned violent as vehicles were set ablaze, stones were pelted and a police post was damaged.

The post After 15 Months of Incarceration, UP Govt Orders Release of Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad from Jail appeared first on SabrangIndia.