On April 4, 2022, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government challenging the order dated November 26, 2001, passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in case of State Vs. Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi and Five Others.

In the year 2000, an FIR was filed against Swami Sacchidanand Har Sakcchi (a.k.a Sakshi Maharaj) and five others wherein it was alleged that he had kidnapped the victim from a medical clinic along with his associates and bodyguards, and assaulted and raped her in Udaitpur Ashram. It was alleged that thereafter, other associates of Sakshi Maharaj also raped her continuously for nine days. The accused persons were charged under IPC sections 149, 366, 342, 392, 376, 506.

On Monday, the bench comprised of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the trial court’s order as it found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

On conducting an inquiry, the trial court had found all the allegations made by the victim to be false and unsupported with any cogent evidence. After considering the material on record, the trial court discharged the accused persons from the allegations of kidnapping, loot and rape on account of lack of evidence in support of such allegations.

The trial court’s findings:

1. Regarding allegation of assault and rape allegedly committed by the accused persons, the informant has not produced any medical evidence;

2. Regarding allegation of kidnapping of informant from clinic of Dr. Natthu Singh Baghel was not found true as the said doctor in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has denied that such incident took place in his clinic;

3. The witnesses of the alleged kidnapping, who were produced by the police as eye witnesses, have not named the accused opposite parties;

4. There was no identification parade of the accused persons, nor any allegation was made specifically against the opposite party No. 1-Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi (aka Sakshi Maharaj).

AGA Abhi Shukla, State counsel, submitted in its revision petition to the Allahabad High Court that while passing the impugned order, the trial court committed an error by not considering the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further argued that the trial court also committed an error of law by placing reliance on the affidavit filed subsequently by the informant which was in contradiction of her earlier statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which might have been obtained under threat and pressure.

Considering the fact that it is the state of Uttar Pradesh that is and was the prosecutorial agency in the case, be it the Sessions Court or the High Court, it would have been both relevant and prudent for the High Court to have interrogated the stance of the state prosecutor before the Sessions Court and what he/she did in exploring this crucial aspect of possible intimidation.

Shri Vipin Kumar, the learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the trial court committed no error in passing the impugned order, adding to this he stated that there was no evidence available on record to prove the that the subsequent affidavit filed by the informant was obtained under threat and pressure.

Many such allegations have been previously made against BJP leader Sakshi Maharaj. He has been booked for Hate Speech and has roughly 34 criminal charges levelled against him.

The said order may be read here: 

What’s most concerning with the High Court’s dismissal of the revision petition against the discharge order is that it is dismissed despite having the power to correct the infirmities of the prosecution/investigation that haven’t led to gathering thorough evidence. By simply stating that evidence was inadequate yet doing nothing about it when they have the powers to both lead evidence and order further investigation under section 173(8) and 311 of the CrPc, the courts are failing in their basic duty i.e. deliverance of justice to the victim of crime and to the public at large, ensuring that such crimes are checked by power and authority.

Section 311 of the CrPc read with section 165 of the Evidence Act, give powers to the presiding judge to summon witnesses, and pro-actively intervene during trial. Section 173(8) empowers the court to ensure that the agencies investigating the case leave no stones unturned to tie up the loose knots in criminal cases.

IPC Section 311: “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re- examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case”.

IPC Section 173(8): “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2)”.

Section 311 of the Code does not confer any party any right to examine, cross-examine and re-examine any witness. This is a power given to the Court not to be merely exercised at the bidding of any one party/person but the power conferred and discretion vested are to prevent any irretrievable or immeasurable damage to the cause of society, public interest and miscarriage of justice.

Section 173(8) is a crucial section under the Code that gives the court and the prosecution the legal say in ordering further investigation to actually strengthen the case.

Judicial precedents:

V.N. Patil Vs K. Niranjan Kumar [CrA 267 OF 2021]

…The aim of every Court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under 10 Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.

State vs. Tr N Seenivasagan LL 2021 SC 136 [CrA 231-232 of 2021]

“In Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan, a two-Judge bench of this Court noted that an application under Section 311 could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case had been pending for an inordinate amount of time (ten years there). Rather, it noted that “the length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record. In other words, the age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness”, the bench noted while allowing the appeal”.

Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 (5) SCC 518].

..In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence and may have to adopt an active and analytical role to ensure that truth is found by having recourse to Section 311 or at a later stage also resorting to Section 391 instead of throwing hands in the air in despair. It would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.

Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar [1999 (2) SCC 126]

The lapse or omission is committed by the investigation agency or because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of the Courts getting at the truth by having recourse to Section 311, 391 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act at the appropriate and relevant stages and evaluating the entire evidence;

…It is no doubt true that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court and the acquittal has been upheld, but if the acquittal is unmerited and based on tainted evidence, tailored investigation, unprincipled prosecutor and perfunctory trial and evidence of threatened/terrorised witnesses, it is no acquittal in the eye of law and no sanctity or credibility can be attached and given to the so-called findings. It seems to be nothing but a travesty of truth, fraud on legal process.

Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble: (2003) 7 SCC 749.

Justice has no favourite, except truth. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.

Zahira Habibulla Sheikh v.s State  of  Gujarat,  (2004) 3 SCC 158

“ …Discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying existence of courts of justice;…

“In a criminal case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as a community and are harmful to the society in general. The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice – often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law’”.

“…The trial Court should have exercised power under Section 311 of the Code and recalled and re-examined witnesses as their evidence was essential to arrive at the truth and a just decision in the case.  The power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the “Evidence Act”) was not resorted to at all and that also had led to miscarriage of justice.

“..The power of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e. (i) giving a discretion to the Court to examine the witness at any stage and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the Court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the Court

“If a criminal Court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a more recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves.  Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators”

“The principles of rule of law and due process are closely linked with human rights protection. Such rights can be protected effectively when a citizen has recourse to courts of law. …… It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson’s eye to the needs of the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm……  “  

The court “has a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself… If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can  be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the frame work of law. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice

The Trial/First Appellate Courts cannot get swayed by abstract technicalities and close their eyes to factors which need to be positively probed and noticed. The Court is not merely to act as a tape recorder recording evidence, overlooking the object of trial i.e. to get at the truth. It cannot be oblivious to the active role to be played for which there is not only ample scope, but sufficient powers conferred under the Code. It has a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself.

Related:

Hate Offender Yati Narsinghanand violates bail conditions, calls for communal violence

Hate Offender: Actor-turned-‘godman’ Kali Swami

BJP MLA Raghvendra Singh’s hateful diatribe continues, CJP moves SEC again

Hate Offender: Meet Pramod Muthalik of Rashtriya Hindu Sena

Hate Offender: Hyderabad BJP MLA T Raja Singh threatens UP voters

The post Allahabad HC dismisses revision petition against discharge order of BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sakshi Maharaj

Similar opinion
Some months ago, the former UP Chief Minister expressed similar opinions. Akhilesh Yadav said that people should ‘ find a drain and a ‘kadhai'(utensil) to fry ‘pakodas’ if bjp comes to power in 2019 ( There will be No Further Elections if BJP is Voted Back to Power in 2019 , says Akhilesh Yadav , by Quzi Faraz Ahmed, September 14, 2018 , news18.com) . He said that the government is trying to kill democracy. Many activists have also expressed fears of increasing trend of fascism.

Crucial elections
Thus, the present elections are crucial not only for upholding of democratic values but also protecting constitution. As Amartya Sen opined, ” We must express opposition to autocracy, we must fight against their autocratic trends, we must criticise the issues where we need to oppose the non- communal right wing forces , but we must nit take back our hands when it comes to fighting communalism which is the biggest threat ( Non- Communal Forces Must Ally, Democracy In Danger: Amartya Sen, updated 27 -8 -18 , the quint.com). He also said that every political question cannot be interpreted through leftist and rightist prism and a party with ill – motives came to power in 2014. He said that we can do the rectification.

Hence, as the campaign begins, all social and political activists should make people aware of the dangers and impress political parties to come together and unite to defeat the forces of communalism and casteism and corporate- friendly anti- people politics. The need of the hour is to prevent fascist forces to regain power.

Sheshu Babu is a political commentator

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post Indication of Fascism….? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One tasteless visual was of union minister Sakshi Maharaj waving to supporters during a sombre and grief filled funeral march. Navakal the Maharashtra Daily boxed a slogan “Modi Go Back” sharply criticising the prime minister for addressing an election rally (SIC) in Yavatmal when the cremation of two of the martyred CRPF jawans was just miles away in neighbouring Buldanha district of Vidharbha.

The mortal remains of two CRPF jawans from Maharashtra, who were martyred in the Pulwama terror attack, were brought to the city of Aurangabad and sent to their native places in Buldhana district on Saturday. The bodies of Nitin Shivaji Rathod (36) and Sanjay Singh Dixit (Rajput) (47) were brought to the Chikalthana airport around 12.25 pm. on Saturday, February 16.

 
While Rathod hailed from Chorpangra village in Lonar tehsil of Buldhana, Rajput belonged to Malkapur in the same district.”Rathod’s body was sent to his village in a CRPF van, while Rajput’s mortal remains was taken to his native place in a chopper,” Inspector General of CRPF, Raj Kumar said. It was precisely around the time of the last rites that the prime minister was busy addressing election rallies and inaugurating projects!
 
Earlier the prime minister had even skipped the all party meet held in the capital to discuss the national united response to the Pulwama attack. Modi was busy attending election rallies in Maharashtra.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Sakshi Maharaj was reportedly caught smiling and waving at the crowd during CRPF jawan Ajit Kumar’s funeral procession on Saturday, February 16. Kumar was among the dozen jawans killed when a terrorist rammed a bomb-laden vehicle into their bus in Pulwama on Thursday.

Kumar’s mortal remains reached his family in Unnao on Saturday. The local residents gathered on the streets to pay their last respect during his funeral procession, India Today reported. Maharaj, the local Unnao MP, was standing on the truck in which his mortal remains were being carried. He was seen waving at the crowd, smiling and folding his hands. It seemed Maharaj thought that he was participating in a BJP roadshow.
The video was shared by a journalist on social media.

Another shameful act was Union Minister Clicks Selfie With Slain Pulwama Jawan’s Coffin  The minister’s act was criticised on social media. Union Minister Alphons Kannanthanam clicked a selfie in front of the coffin of CRPF jawan Vasanthakumar, who was killed in the February 14 Pulwama attack and posted the picture on social media.

The Minister of State for Tourism posted the picture on his Facebook page on Saturday with the caption: “The funeral of jawan V.V. Vasanthakumar was held at the soldier’s home and it is because of soldiers like him that citizens of the country can live peacefully.” The minister reportedly took down the post later after facing criticism.

CRPF jawan Vasnathakumar was cremated with state honours at his ancestral home in Thrikkaipeta village in Wayanad, Kerala on Saturday. Twitter users slammed Alphons for posting the picture.

On Kannanthanam’s Facebook page the same picture was uploaded on Sunday without any caption along with a few other images. The minister was again slammed by social media users for seeking publicity.

BJP President Amit Shah’s rally speceh in Assam took the politics of terror to an all time low as he hysterically said that “Its not a Congress govt, but Modi in power at the Centre, so watch our response.”
 
 

The post How the Ruling Party Responded to Pulwama appeared first on SabrangIndia.

BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj escaped any chastisement from prime minister Narendra Modi in his August 26, 2017 telecast of Mann ki Baat.

“One person has complained of rape against Ram Rahim. Crores others believe he is God. Who do you think is right?” Sakshi Maharaj said, alleging a “conspiracy to defame not only Ram Rahim and other saints, but also Indian culture.” “One person has complained of rape against Ram Rahim. Crores others believe he is God. Who do you think is right?” Sakshi Maharaj said, alleging a “conspiracy to defame not only Ram Rahim and other saints, but also Indian culture.” The BJP member of parliament has also warned that “if even bigger incidents take place, court will also be responsible not just Dera people,” saying, “There is so much of ruckus over it, law and order has been disturbed, people are dying…Shouldn’t this be a consideration?” Ram Rahim, he said, “is a simple man so he is being harassed.”

BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj made this statement in defence of Baba Ram Rahim, who was convicted in a rape case on August 26. A day later prime minister, Narendra Modi grabbed the headlines when he chastised, there was not even one word of public censure for a Member of Parliament of his own party who had by his statement not just triviliased the criminal offence of rape, incited BJP/ Baba Rahim’s followers to more violence and also committed contempt of the court’s decision.

Swami Sachidanand Hari, popularly known as Sakshi Maharaj, has had similar allegations of rape and murder charges on him as Baba Ram Rahim. Maharaj has a total of 34 criminal charges levelled against him, for which trials are ongoing. While one of the murder charges is still being debated in court, the gang-rape charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. Like Ram Rahim, Sakshi Maharaj’s political alliances are well known. He is currently a Member of Parliament under the Bharatiya Janata Party. He became a prominent face for Hindutva due to his involvement in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The trial for his involvement in the Babri Masjid demolition is still ongoing. The only time he broke away from BJP was when he was refused a party ticket to contest elections from Farrukhabad in Uttar Pradesh. Maharaj explained that he broke off from BJP and accused that the party’s policies were unfavourable to the poorer and backward sections of the society. He contested the seat as a Samajwadi Party candidate. He was at that time also accused of murder of Brahmdutt Dwivedi , a BJP MLA who also hailed from Farrukhabad. The charges, however, were again dropped, due to lack of evidence.

This Maharaj was even suspended from Rajya Sabha in 2006 on corruption charges. A sting operation had revealed that he had been misusing MPLADS (Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme) funds. Star News, who carried out the sting, had claimed that its reporters were able to gain assurance from Sakshi that he would provide money to a fictitious NGO for a “commission”.

Who is Sakshi Maharasj? Sakshi is the director of Sakshi Maharaj Group, under which he owns and operates 16 educational institutions and 44 ashrams across the country. In 2008, Maharaj was again found guilty of misappropriation of MP funds . He had granted Rs 25 lakh to a college he owned himself, even though the documents relating to the institute were found invalid.

Despite multiple serious criminal charges, Maharaj not only continues to be a Member of Parliament, he also successfully operates his own religious movement through the numerous educational institutes and ashrams he owns. His political power gives him the funds for his religious operations, and his huge fan following keeps him in political power. He is the most conspicuous result of the nexus between godmen and government. One of his institutions, Ma Madalsa Vidyalaya, was donated to the RSS.
Maharaj is perhaps known best for his inciteful hate speech.  From blaming Muslims for India’s population problem to saying cow slaughter should be punished with a death penalty or calling Godse a martyr , Maharaj has gotten away with it all, escaping Narendra Modi’s censure, yet again.

Is Sakshi Maharaj too big for the lawmen’s boots? There have been reports of a rape case being quashed by the police in Farrukhabad. The allegations were made by a disciple of his ashram. She still maintains that Maharaj took advantage of her and raped her in the ashram. When the case went to court, the police filed a report saying there hadn’t been any rape. Using his mob muscle, Sakshi Maharaj also has been reported of booth capturing during the elections, when he has been seen going around in a caravan of vehicles with armed guards to capture booths. Even after his weapons were seized, Maharaj won the seat.

India’s Godmen are a disturbing phenomenon —  men who are beyond the reach of the law and the government. These godmen can and have switched allegiances with political parties if any dispute arises, and maintain their power. There is none from the Indian political class who has the vision to take them on.
 

The post Shouldn’t Sakshi Maharaj have been pulled up in Mann ki Baat? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representational image. Photo credit: Reuters

The biases and misconceptions about conversions and population growth have been used by communal forces to divide the society. This became apparent once again when Minister of state of Home, Kiren Rijuju tweeted that that Hindu population is decreasing in the country as Hindus don't convert and that minorities in India are flourishing unlike in the neighbouring countries.

Threat of decline in Hindu population and increase in population of minorities is being propagated time and over again. As per the data of 2011 census figures, Hindu population now stands at 79.8 % and Muslim population at 14.23%. “The data on Population by Religious Communities of Census 2011 show that between 2001 and 2011, Hindu population grew by 16.76 per cent, while that of Muslims by 24.6 per cent. The population of both communities grew faster during the previous decade, at 19.92 per cent and 29.52 per cent, respectively. As a long-term trend, say demographers, the communities’ growth rates are converging.” This means that the decadal rates of growth of both communities is declining and converging closer to each other.

This is pointer to the fact that while charting out the future projections it is important to keep in mind that the rate of growth of Muslim population will be falling and will stabilise closer to that of rate of rise Hindu population. In the total population Muslims will remain a religious minority for the times to come. Interestingly, the population increase of Hindus during the period of 2001 to 2011 has been 133 millions, which is close to the total population of Muslims in 2001. The scare being spread through word of mouth campaign and through social media about Muslim population taking over the Hindu population holds no water, as there are clear trends of decline in the decadal rate of growth of Muslim population as well.

The demographers point out that the higher rates of fertility are due to lack of education and poor health facilities. Muslims in Kerala have a lower fertility rate than many Hindu communities in North India and even in Kerala. The economic profile of Kerala Muslims is much different than the Muslims in Assam, West Bengal, UP and Maharashtra for example. If we broaden this point we will see that the rise in population among Dalits (Schedule castes) and Adivasis (Scheduled Tribes) is much higher as such . As per the 2011 census STs are 8.6% while they were 6.23 % according to 1951 census. SCs now are 16.6%, while as per 1951 they were around 15%.

As such the whole truth will show us that the propaganda of communal forces has nothing to do with reality of society and deeper causes of the same. It is in this background that the likes of Praveen Togadia who said that two child norm should be imposed, while the likes of Sakshi Maharaj and Sadhvi Prachi have been extolling the Hindus to produce more children.

BJP president Amit Shah has given the 'Look North East' call to raise the scare about the Christian population in the North East. This primarily tribal area saw an increase in percentage of Christians in the decades of 1931-1951. The rise in percentage of Christian population has a lot to do with the spread of civil administration with Independence and also with the spread of education in the region. Countrywide we can see that the percentage of Christians has been static over the last few decades.

If at all, it has declined and stabilised. If we see from 1971, we see that Christian population was 2.60% (1971), 2.44 (1981), 2.34 (1991), 2.30 (2001) and 2.30 (2011).

In the meanwhile the propaganda of missionary activities and increase in the number of Christians has dominated the scene. Anti-Christian violence came to public attention with the ghastly murder of Graham Stewarts Staines (1999). Dara Singh of Bajrang Dal, which is affiliated to RSS, incited the local people that the pastor is doing conversions which is against Hindus.

Wadhwa Commission which investigated pastor Staines murder concluded that he was not involved in conversions and that in Keonjhar, Manoharpur Orrisa where the pastor was working, there was no increase in the percentage of Christian population.

Similarly Kandhmal anti-Christian violence was unleashed on the pretext of murder of Swami Laxmananand. Gujarat also saw anti-Christian activities again due to propaganda that the missionaries are converting. At the same time we see that the national population of Christians remains static. Some people do allege that conversions to Christianity are there but the converts are hiding their religion, this is again a matter of conjuncture and nothing definite can be said. Any way it cannot be a large number in any case.

As such conversions have been a part of the agenda of Hindu nationalism times and over again. During freedom movement two parallel processes of conversions were going on. One was Tanzeem, which was to convert people to Islam, the other was Shuddhi which was aimed at those who were supposed to have left their 'religion-home' and were converted to alien religions.

The premise was that conversion to other religions has made them impure so they need to be brought back through a process of purification. Last several decades RSS-VHP-Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram have been active in what is called Ghar Wapasi (returning home) to bring back the Dalits and adivasis who it is alleged have been converted through force (to Islam) and allurement or fraud (to Christianity). This Ghar Wapasi campaign has been undertaken through many newly devised rituals like bath in hot spring or rituals around fire. This has been rampant inAdivasi areasand in slums-villages.

Adivasis are animists, while RSS claims they are Hindus. To Hinduise them Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram now runs a growing network of schools and hostels in large numbers in North East. Such assertions and accompanying activities have more to with politics rather than social welfare as such. The attempt of RSS combine is to link religion with nationalism.

(This story was also published on People's Voice).

The post Why the ‘hum paanch, hamare pachees’ canard against Muslims is a myth appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The poll watchdog said it did not find the MP's reply satisfactory, "because in the Commission's considered view, supported by observations of the Supreme Court, any statement to the effect of promoting enmity between different classes of society in connection with election on the grounds of religion made during electioneering or otherwise is violative of MCC".

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) came into force on January 4 when the Commission announced schedule for Assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Manipur and Goa.

Standing by his remarks, Sakshi Maharaj had told the Commission that the statement was not made in a public or an election meeting but at a saints' conclave and hence could not be considered violative of the model code.

"Now, therefore, the Election Commission hereby, censures you for violating…MCC and Supreme Court decision…and expects that you, being a reputed political leader/MP, shall be more circumspect in your public utterances during election time.

"You may also take a note that in case of any violation of MCC in future, the Commission shall take stern actions against you, using all powers available to it," the order said.

At a 'sant sammelan' in Meerut last week, Sakshi Maharaj had said there are problems in the country because of the growth of population. "Hindus are not responsible for that. Those responsible are the ones who talk of four wives and 40 children."

The BJP MP's remarks had come days after the Supreme Court ruled that political parties and candidates can't seek votes in the name of religion or caste.
 
 

The post EC Censures BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj for Inciteful Speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Credit: DNA

In the build-up to Assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh, this is what the BJP MP said in his speech at a public gathering in Meerut on Friday:

"If the population is growing astronomically, if the problems are rising, let me tell you that the Hindus are not responsible for it… The people responsible are those who talk of having four wives and 40 children," the BJP MP said while addressing a gathering in Meerut. 

He proceeded to state: “Strict laws are required in this country if we really want to curb population. Parties need to rise above politics and take decision for the sake of the country,” he added.
The offensive remark has come within days of the Supreme Court’s January 2 verdict barring candidates from seeking votes in the name of religion.

Following a complaint filed by Congress leader Shehzad Poonawala, the Election Commission has sought a report from Meerut district magistrate over Sakshi Maharaj's speech. 

Sakshi Maharaj maintained that since he was not speaking at any election rally he cannot be prosecuted. He also claimed that he was speaking up for gender justice.

"I only talked in favor of women who have been made machines in the name of producing children and shameful practices like triple talaq. I should be rewarded for the fact that he and his four brothers have not married and therefore not added to the already exploding population," Sakshi Maharaj he said. 

The BJP, meanwhile, has distanced himself from statements made by the MP, clarifying that it was not the stand of the party.

Excerpts from Congressman Poonawalla’s with the Election Commission:

“I would like to draw the urgent and immediate attention of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) towards an extremely reprehensible and offensive set of remarks, violative of various sections of the Indian Penal Code,1860  made by Shri  Sakshi Maharaj , MP of the Bharatiya Janta Party, for his hate-inciting, communal remarks aimed at polarising the electorate on religious lines. These remarks are a blatant violation of IPC 1860, Model Code of Conduct and the recent verdict by Supreme Court that prohibits politicians from using religion to garner votes.

“The following offensive remarks, brimming with vitriol, were made by Shri Sakshi Maharaj: ‘Population is increased by those who support the concept of four wives and 40 children…

“In the past, whenever elections have taken place in Uttar Pradesh such statements have been made by leaders of the BJP. For example: recently Parvesh Verma of BJP made a communal statement upon which I filed a complaint. Amit Shah, BJP President, during 2014 Lok Sabha polls spoke of "Apman ka Badla" or Yogi Adityanath, BJP MP made statements about ‘Love Jihad’. Both these issues were raised by me before ECI and NCM and despite notices being issued the state authorities failed to act against them as per the law.

“The above statements may seem innocuous on being read without context. But the audience and the location at which these remarks have been made, reveal the sinister design of the said leader/s and party to exploit wounds of the recent communal conflagration in Western Uttar Pradesh.

“This is not a one-off remark made by Shri Sakshi Maharaj . There have been a series of remarks that have been made by various leaders of BJP and Sangh Parivar that show a deliberate attempt on their part to vitiate the atmosphere in the aftermath of the Muzaffarnagar riots and prior to the elections of 2017.

“The above said remarks find no basis in fact and are in flagrant violation of section 153, 153A, 153B, 505 of IPC 1860 and they deliberately, intentionally and maliciously calculated to incite hatred/ill will between communities and cause public mischief. It has violated the recent SC verdict in this regard too. These statements only aim to polarise the electorate along communal lines and have no basis in facts. 

“These statements are also a violation of the Model Code of Conduct set in place by the Election Commission of India and violates section 125 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 which prohibits promotion of enmity between classes in connection with elections and warrants immediate action under the law. The above said offences are both Cognizable and Non-Bailable and are serious in nature. Given that elections are a very serious affair, the implications of such statements on maintenance of law and order and ensuring free and fair elections can be adverse.”

The Complaint makes the following prayers:

a) Direct the registration of an FIR in the instant case against Shri Sakshi Maharaj for violation of various sections of IPC,1860 and the Model Code of Conduct. Also he must be arrested and prohibited from campaigning further in Uttar Pradesh. 

b) Direct the Election Commission of India to take necessary steps against the Bharatiya Janata Party for these remarks made by Shri Sakshi Maharaj as it is violative of various provisions of the Representation of People’s Act,1951 and the Model Code of Conduct.”

The post BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj at it yet again: spews hatred against India’s Muslims. appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Is it only the UP state elections that have prompted the Modi-Shah combine to act?
 
The most recent of such verbal offenders from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was of course, promptly removed from the regional head of the party in charge of eastern Uttar Pradesh. Remember polls are due, and the co option of Dalit leaders and through them votes is paramount.
 
Dayashankar Singh used the most objectionable language to describe a tall leader among Dalits, chief of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) Ms Mayawati. Calling her a prostitute and accusing her of selling tickets (assembly and parliament) Dayashankar Singh who now finds himself out in the political cold for six years, revealed a pathetically narrow and vicious mindset.

This time the BJP was prompt and Amit Shah-Modi combine must have lost some hours of sleep on what this may mean given the unravelling of the Gujarat model in their home state where Dalit protesters have held persistent protests since last Monday (July 18) over the lynching and humiliation of Dalit tanners on July 12.

But what about the other influential powerful verbal abusers within the BJP, in Parliament and even in the Modi cabinet? Why were and are they not given the same peremptory stern treatment that Dayashankar was? This is not the first time that filthy and objectionable verbal use has sounded out from the top echelons of the powerful in this Regime.
 

Sakshi Maharaj, BJP MP, “Madrassas Give 'Education of Terrorism'

September 14, 2014
"Education of terrorism is being given in madrassas. They (madrassas)… are making them terrorists and jihadis….It is not in national interest," the MP from Unnao constituency told reporters in Nademau in Kannauj district in Uttar Pradesh, 120 km from state capital Lucknow.
 

Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, MOS Food Processing and Industry,

“Decide whether you want Ramzadaon or Haraamzadon ki Sarkar”
December 4, 2014
Addressing voters in west Delhi’s Shyam Nagar, the Union Minister told voters, “Aapko tay karna hai ki Dilli mein sarkar Ramzadon ki banegi ya har**zadon ki. Yeh aapka faisla hai (you have to decide whether Delhi will get a government of those born of Ram or of those born illegitimately).”
Niranjan Jyoti still maintains her political clout and power, she is Minister of State(MOS) for Home, Food Processing and Industry
 

Mahesh Sharma, Minister, Culture, “At least Akhlaq’s Daughter was Not Touched”

October 4, 2015
"It (the murder) took place as a reaction to that incident (cow slaughter). You must also consider that there was also a 17-year-old daughter in that home. Kisi ne usey ungli nahin lagaayi,"… Gaay ke maans par hum logon ka… andar se aatma hilne lagti hai (On beef… our soul starts shaking). You can kill other animals, mutton, and people don’t (react)… (but) when you name cow… We have linked the cow with our mother,"
Mahesh Sharma did not stop at that.

‘Abul Kalam a Nationalist and Humanist Despite Being a Muslim”
September 13, 2015
"Aurangzeb Road ka nam bhi badal kar ek aise mahapursh ke naam par kiya hai jo Musalman hotey hue bhi itna bada rashtravaadi aur manavtavadi insaan tha  – APJ Abdul Kalam, unke naam par kiya gaya hai.”
(The name of Aurangzeb Road has been changed to the name of a great human being who, despite being a Muslim, was such a great nationalist and humanist – APJ Abdul Kalam, we have named it after him)

VK Singh MOS External Affairs, “Just like a Dog”

October 23, 2015
Two days after upper caste Rajputs allegedly set fire to the home of a Dalit family in Sunpedh, killing two young children aged two years and nine months (Vaibhav and Divya) sleeping within, the minister of state for external affairs made remarks that invited widespread condemnation. The incident took place at a village
 near Faridabad barely an hour’s drive from Delhi, India’s capital  Singh who was in Ghaziabad at the time was quoted by The Indian Express on October 23 as saying, “ “To har cheez par, ki wahan par pathar maar diya kutte ko to, sarkar jimmewaar hai. Aisa nahi hai. (For everything…like if somebody throws a stone at a dog, then the Central Government is responsible…it is not like that)”.
 

Yogi Adityanath, BJP MP Gorakhpur, For One Hindu Girl I will take 100 Muslim Girls

August 2015
“If ‘they” take 1 Hindu Girl, ‘we’ will take 100 Muslim Girls”, Adityanath
This is a chilling documentary on the pogrom of a section of Hindus, lead by Yogi Adityanath of 

There is more
 
Controversial BJP MP & Minister Water Resource, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation Sanjeev Baliyan visits jail to meet Muzaffarnagar riots accused
Union minister Sanjeev Baliyan visited the district jail and met few of the accused in the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, officials said on December 7, 2014. In January 2015, Baliyan had gone to meet the riots accused, following which Muslim prisoners were allegedly threatened by jail authorities and even family members of these minority inmates faced harassment during visits.
Earlier in November 2015, a local court had issued bailable warrants against Baliyan, BJP MP Bhartendra Singh, party MLA Suresh Rana and VHP leader Sadhvi Prachi for failing to appear before it in connection with Muzaffarnagar riots case.

He remains in the Modi cabinet

The post Sex Workers, Dogs, Presstitutes, Haraamzaada, What More Should We Expect from the BJP? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
How the BJP and Its Allies in the Parivar broke the Law
 
The Form of the Kar Seva
 
By late November (1992) the political authorities had started showing symptoms of failure and the Courts seemed to provide an escape route. There were pending contempt cases for violation of Court orders during the July 1992 kar seva. The Supreme Court, therefore, asked the UP government on November 24, 1992 to specify steps on the compliance of orders, namely, prohibiting "any construction" and "any permanent construction" on 2.77 acres of land. The Prime Minister is reported to have picked on this straw immediately on November 26, 1992, when he told the Congress parliamentary party, "No one can do kar seva now to build a temple on the proposed plot in Ayodhya since there is a stay order in force".[1] He reportedly termed the planned kar seva 'illegal' and declared the government's commitment to implement the Supreme Court orders and to uphold the Constitution. The UP government refused, in a discussion in the state legislature, to be pinned down regarding the form of the kar seva.
 
The U.P. Counsel in the Supreme Court, K.K. Venugopal, assured the court that the State government would not allow the ground situation in Ayodhya to build up to a situation which resulted in violation of court orders. However, to a suggestion by the Attorney General[2] that extensive preparations were going on for kar seva, the court announced: "Preparation is not an offence. Only on our fullest satisfaction before us that state government has failed in its duty will we pass any orders". The VHP-BJP leaders showed apparent reasonableness in stating that kar seva would not involve any violation of court orders. On  November 28, 1992, recitations from the Gita were started on the disputed site even before the court passed its final orders on kar seva. The Court asked the UP government to file an affidavit after consultation with the VHP and to provide further guarantees that construction materials and machinery would not be kept near the disputed site. The submission of the Attorney General on the ground realities cited in the affidavit on kar seva and the deteriorating situation was brushed aside. So, on November 29, 1992, the Supreme Court finally passed its order on the carrying out of 'symbolic kar seva' and provided for its own observer to monitor the situation in Ayodhya and report on the same. The separation of the Judiciary and Executive moved a stage further. A division, in the appreciation of the ground realities, between the local administration and the judicial observer was created.
 
The `sangh parivar' had succeeded in neutralising any benefit that the Union government could have claimed from the orders of the court. The VHP took the UP government assurances as a tactical move. The Bajrang Dal Chief was more emphatic: "Supreme Court ruling can apply to an individual but not to an entire society." He stated on November 29 itself that kar seva was not just bhajans but temple construction also. L.K. Advani and M.M. Joshi were to take part in the planned kar seva. A BJP press release on the same day described the movement of building a temple at Ayodhya as "not the culmination but the commencement of national reassertion" and the proposed presence of these national leaders as "symbols of the party's commitment to national reassertion". In Ayodhya, Mahant Nritya Gopal Das stated that "a section of the Janambhoomi movement is so committed to the Hindu cause that if they decide to take matters into their own hands even the saints would be powerless to stop them". He also stated that a section of the Bajrang Dal could not be controlled. A half-way court order was, thus, foredoomed to fail in its objective. In any case, there were too many organisations involved and all of them were not party to the undertaking before the court directly or indirectly.
 
The confusion regarding the contents of the kar seva continued until December  6, 1992. Thus, the main task of mobilising the kar sevaks could be carried out without any problem. L.K. Advani is reported to have launched his march to Ayodhya from Varanasi with the announcement that kar seva would not be limited to `bhajans and kirtans'. By the time he reached Ayodhya, he was reported to have said firmly: "We will really construct the temple and not confine ourselves to symbolic kar seva of bhajans and kirtans." M.M. Joshi was more forthcoming. He asserted that the "Court can define and interpret the constitution and the laws but not the nature and the format of the kar seva", and that during the kar seva "everything, right from puja to construction can be done". The sadhus-sants on December 5, 1992 told the huge gathering of kar sevaks that kar seva would begin at 12.15 pm on the next day, there would be no construction on the 2.77 acres of disputed land, and that they should follow the instructions of the sadhus in regard to modalities of kar seva. The VHP General Secretary is reported to have stated, "The construction will be carried out but at its own pace and in conjunction with the advice of experts, not on the court's instructions".
 
The kar sevaks were given a clear message that the Court order was not sacrosanct. There need not be any construction on 2.77 acres of disputed land but elsewhere. It was not necessary to have construction material and equipment at or near the site; transportation from places of storage nearby would not be a problem. The court observer's report was confined to the area of dispute and activities there, and therefore monitoring would not interfere with any of the arrangements planned. In any case, the Court had already ruled that preparation alone was no offence.
 
The Fate of the Structure
 
The failure to restore status-quo-ante in the Babri Masjid structure had made any development possible. The Puri Sankaracharya was not the only one who demanded that it should be demolished. This was implicit in the repeated efforts of Chief Minister, Kalyan Singh, to persuade Muslims to agree to relocate the mosque outside the boundaries defined by the VHP. By November 20, Vinay Katiyar announced that there was, "no guarantee for the safety of the existing structure". While RSS Joint Secretary, Rajendra Singh, promised that the masjid would not be damaged, General Secretary H.V. Seshadri announced that "pre-construction work" involving levelling of land, cleaning and watering outside the disputed area would be carried out. L.K. Advani is reported to have said in Varanasi: "We do not want to destroy any Masjid and make a Mandir. There was never a Masjid at Ramjanambhoomi Site". Simultaneously, M. M Joshi was noting unambiguously that the proposed construction of Ram temple was impossible without demolishing the Babri Masjid.
 
The implications of such stances on the local situation in Ayodhya were to create a real risk to the old structure. The Home Ministry was is aware of this risk, as is abundantly clear from the guarded language of the letter to the Chief Minister of U.P. on December 5, 1992 which was also leaked to the press. He went to the extent of stating: "The possibility of some mischievous elements using explosives to damage the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure cannot be ruled out". The local police were apprehending construction at the site of the Babri Masjid from November 28, 1992 onwards. On December 2, it was noted that Shiv Sainiks along with others could be expected to destroy the disputed structure. On December 3, 1992 one Manas Maharathi Tyagi is reported to have told the kar sevaks that the disputed structure should be destroyed with a blow (jhatka). In the public meeting on December 5, resentment was expressed calling the place of rest of "Ram Lalla" a Masjid, with the assertion that this would be tolerated no longer. Slogans calling for demolition of the Masjid were heard in the night of December 5-6, 1992.
 
The fate of the Babri Masjid was sealed. Demolition was not off the agenda. Construction was on the agenda and it was to be on land covered by the Supreme Court judgement. Clearing, levelling, and watering had been planned. Engineering advice required had been arranged. Kar sevaks in large members were present not to do 'physical labour', but to immobilise the police and the administration, central as well as State. This was the scenario for the collapse of state authority on the eve of kar seva of December 6, 1992.
 
Central Intervention in Uttar Pradesh
 
Central government intervention would have had the potential of reducing the risks inherent in the developing situation at a number of stages. The sangh parivar' was aware of it and it took all steps to ensure that its government in UP remained in position. That was the insurance for total collaboration from the administration. That was the necessary condition for the larger mobilisation of kar sevaks.
 
The Centre could have intervened to give directives under Article 256 and 257 (1) of the Constitution for the misuse of the Land Acquisition Act in a way that heightened the communal divide, but this was not done. The Court orders were violated in July 1992, but there was no intervention as provided for under the Constitution when the State Government had failed to carry out its legal obligations. There was wholesale violation of laws, in demolishing religious structures, in terrorising mahants, in levelling land, but the administrative machinery remained collusive or, at the Union level, inactive.
 
The BJP and its allied organisations blew hot and cold to ensure that Central intervention was averted under all circumstances. As early as November 6, 1992 Chief Minister Kalyan Singh stated, "If the centre forcibly tries to confront my Government over the Mandir issue, it should be ready to face the consequences. I am not bothered about confrontation. I am ready to face it". On November 20, 1992,  Vinay Katiyar indicated that their plan was based on the assumption that the Centre would sack the U.P. government before the start of kar seva onDecember 6. By  November 22, when the BJP combine declared the boycott of the NIC, the VHP General Secretary claimed that the Centre was considering dismissal, and another functionary speculated that the UP government would be dismissed by 26 November. The Janata Dal and Left Front joined the issue on 23 November. "I see no other alternative but to dismiss the state government", said Jyoti Basu, "if it violates the Constitution and the court order". V.P. Singh added: "If necessary the Kalyan Singh government has to be dismissed". There was no response from the Union Government.
 
L.K. Advani threatened on  November 27, 1992 that his party would bring proceedings in both Houses of Parliament to a halt if the U.P. government was dismissed prior to the resumption of kar seva. The Attorney General had cited an IB report to the Supreme Court judges on November 27, to prove that the facts given by the U.P. government in their affidavit were incorrect. The Centre had, therefore, a duty to intervene as provided for in Article 355 of the Constitution. The Centre showed an extraordinary reluctance to intervene. The call for a "Challenge Day" (Lalkar Diwas) fromNovember 29, 1992 was another opportunity for intervention under Article 355. On December 4, the Home Minister was still stating in the Lok Sabha that the matter was at a delicate stage and he should be left to deal with it appropriately, stating "I do not know why such doubts are being raised. Government has no reason to disbelieve U.P. C.M who said he would protect the mosque."
 
The proceedings in the Supreme Court on November 26, when intervention by the Union Government was sought by some parties, brought the following observations from the Court: "What prevents the central government from taking such action as advised, taking into account the gravity of the situation. Why a Court Order?" Since the Union government failed to act on the basis of information at its command, L.K. Advani announced on December 3, that the BJP government would, under no circumstances, use force to prevent the kar seva from taking place. The BJP had succeeded in keeping its government in U.P. in position, to fully facilitate the implementation of the plans of the Sangh Parivar.
 
 (The report of the Citizens Tribunal was published in May 1994; the Amici Curiae were : K. G. Kannabiran, A. G. Noorani, Lotika Sarkar; the Secretariat Members were : Anuradha Chenoy, Achin Vanaik, E. Deenadayalan, Gautam Navlakha, Raju Damle, Sumanto Bannerjee, Tapan Bose)

The post Then and Now, a brazen violation of the Rule of Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.