On Wednesday, renowned human rights activist Dr Sandeep Pandey spoke at a Congressional Briefing in Washington D.C, where he recounted not only his own experience with being persecuted and harassed by a vindictive regime, but also how many other Indians who dared to speak up against the government were made to suffer.

Dr Pandey has been a highly respected member of civil society and has raised his voice for a multitude of cause over the last 27 years. But just last year, he was placed under house arrest thrice! He recounted this saying, “I was put under house arrest in Lucknow, the capital of the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, on 11 and 16 August and 19 December 2019. The first two times on the issue of Kashmir and on the third occasion on the issue of the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens.” He added, “On 17 and 19 August 2019 and 15 January 2020 I was prevented from visiting Ayodhya. The ruling Bhartiya Janata Party government doesn’t want any alternative view on Kashmir, Ayodhya or CAA-NRC to be expressed.”

Brutality inflicted upon protesting students

He then went on to narrate how the police and security forces inflicted brutality on university students, saying, “The Government became the enemy of people who participated in protests against the CAA and NRC after the Act was promulgated in December 2019. The crackdown started with Jamia Millia University in New Delhi and Aligarh Muslim University in UP. The police used tear gas shells and stun grenades to attack students. Mohammad Tariq, a PhD student at AMU, had to get one hand amputated, Nasir lost one thumb and both hands of Tanzim were fractured. First Information Reports against 57 named and 1,200 unnamed were lodged and 26 students were detained on 15 December 2019, and were released after local protests and road blockades by people. Ahamad Raza Khan, a student of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti Urdu Arabi Farsi University in Lucknow was rusticated for merely giving a call for a demonstration.”

Persecution of activists

He also went on to narrate the plight of activists who were tortured in custody by the UP police. Pandey said, “On 19 December, when the call for nationwide protests was given, masked young men appeared from nowhere and indulged in arson and rioting during the peaceful protests in Lucknow. The police didn’t stop them in spite of activist Sadaf Zafar pleading with them, of which there is recorded evidence. Later activists like Sadaf Zafar and Pawan Rao Ambedkar were arrested along with a number of common people, some of whom participated in protests and some were just passers-by. Activist Deepak Kabir was arrested when he went to see Sadaf Zafar at the Hazratganj Police Station in Lucknow. Activist Robin Verma and ‘The Hindu,’ a prominent Indian newspaper, correspondent Omar Rashid were arrested by police on the evening of 19 December. Sadaf Zafar, Pawan Rao Ambedkar, Deepak Kabir and Robin Verma were subjected to torture inside the Hazratganj police station before being sent to jail and Omar Rashid was abused because of his Kashmiri background and then let off after some senior journalists were able to put pressure on the Chief Minister’s Office.” He also narrated how even the elderly weren’t spared saying, “Septuagenarians Advocate Mohammad Shoaib and retired Dalit Inspector General of Police S.R. Darapuri were arrested, even though they were detained at their homes on the day protests and violence took place and sent to jail. The time and place of the arrest of Advocate Shoaib and Darapuri were wrongly shown. Advocate Shoaib was not produced before any Magistrate nor did he sign any arrest memo.”

Targeting Muslims

Pandey then went on to reveal the regime’s insidious ploy to use the protests as an excuse to target Muslims in Uttar Pradesh and how all this transpired allegedly with Chief Minister Adityanath’s blessings. Pandey said, “The CM Yogi Adityanath in a meeting on the evening of 19 December with senior administrative and police officials spoke of taking revenge on people who had indulged in violence and later also said the cost of damage to public property will be recovered from the rioters. After this, police went berserk and indulged in brutal repression. They vandalized homes of well to do Muslims in Muzaffarnagar like Hamid Hasan, Intezar and Farooq in Sarwat and Naseem Ahmed and Ishtekhar in Khalapar, lathi-charged gatherings of Muslims coming out after performing Friday Namaz on 20 December in Meerut and even opened fire.” He added, “When the injured were taken to government hospitals, they refused to entertain them saying that there were instructions from the administration not to treat people with bullet injuries. A number of people injured in police firing did not go to any doctor for the fear of their names being included in the FIRs making them liable to pay for damage to public property caused due to rioting.”   

Pandey also said that the anti-Muslim narrative was spun with full support and willing participation from those in the highest echelons of power. He said, “Even though common citizens including non-Muslims participated in protests almost everywhere, the police and administration targeted only Muslims to create an impression that it was Muslims who created trouble. Prime Minister Narendra Modi even said that miscreants can be recognized from their dress. The ruling BJP was clearly indulging in politics of polarization and communalization by doing this.”

He concluded by saying, “It is a politics of divisiveness, polarization and communalization for political gains. The government has become an enemy to a segment of the population, Muslims and people who don’t agree with its views.”

The post Gov’t became enemy of the people: Indian activist at US Congressional briefing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many reports of violence have emerged from the state of Uttar Pradesh in light of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed all-India National Register of Citizens (NRC). Around 18 people, including an 8-year-old boy have died and police brutality has emerged to be one of the major causes for the same. The state administration has claimed that it has identified rioters and is now in the process of seizing their properties.

Seeing the current developments in the region, the Vice President of the Socialist Party (India) and Magsaysay Award winner Sandeep Pandey has written an open letter to Chief Minister of UP, Yogi Adityanath imploring him to deliberate on his government’s action against the violence during the CAA protests and requesting them to act more wisely keeping the sensitivity of the matter in mind.

In his letter, he asks the CM about why violence during CAA NRC protests broke out only in UP when protests of a larger strength took place at other places without any untoward incidents?

Speaking about the fateful day of December 19 on which heavy violence and police excesses were reported from the state, Pandey lay emphasis on the arrests of civilians, lecturers, lawyers and social and human rights activists like Advocate Mohammad Shoaib, SR Darapuri, Sadaf Jafar, Robin Verma and Deepak Mishra among scores of others pointing out that such arrests will only give a free rein to anarchist elements who are the ones actually responsible for the disruption of peace in the state.

He most importantly asked about the credibility of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) assurance to Muslims that they need to worry regarding the implementation of the CAA-NRC, especially when most of the people who died due to police excesses were Muslims and most of the FIR’s registered in response to violence were against Muslims.

His complete letter can be read below:

Respected Chief Minister,

I had sought your appointment on December 21, 2019. However, as I didn’t get a response I thought of writing my thoughts to you through this open letter.

I want to make some comments on the approach of government-administration on protests against Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens held in Lucknow and Uttar Pradesh. A pertinent question which needs to be asked is when lakhs of people assembled at other places in the country without any untoward incident why did violence break out in UP?

The vengeance with which UP government-administration is acting in response to the violence by anarchist elements which took place during protests is condemnable as more maturity and restraint is expected of any government-administration.

It is the anarchist elements which are responsible for violence but action is being taken against people who, all along their lives, have adopted peaceful means of protests and have faith in the Constitution of the country.

My friends Advocate Mohammad Shoaib and retired Indian Police Services officer S.R. Darapuri have been arrested, who like me were under house arrest in Lucknow on 19/12/19, the day on which maximum violence took place. Mohammad Shoaib was Secretary of City unit of Socialist Party when he was a student of LLB at Lucknow University in 1972 and at present is the State President of Socialist Party (India). He has been successful in getting 14 innocent youth, who were falsely implicated in terrorism related cases, acquitted from the Court after contesting their cases. He was attacked inside Court by advocates who didn’t want him to take up cases of the abovementioned youth but has not used violence against anybody in his life.

S.R. Darapuri is a human rights and Ambedkarite activist and has contested Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections from UP. In 2008, he and I were part of a fact finding team which had produced a report declaring Shahbaz from Lucknow innocent when he was picked up by Rajasthan police in the Jaipur bomb blast case, in which Shahbaz was recently acquitted by the Court too.

Robin Verma, a University teacher and a volunteer of Rihai Manch, of which Mohammad Shoaib is the President, has been beaten up badly by police before being sent to jail. Congress Party spokesperson Sadaf Jafar was till the last moment before her arrest trying to pacify the youth who were indulging in violence of which there is proof.

Similarly, Deepak Mishra is a creative cultural activist and Dr. Pawan Rao Ambedkar is a lecturer at Rae Bareli.

In Varanasi among the activists and students who have been arrested I personally know Anoop Shramik, Dhananjay Tripathi, Diwakar Singh, Ram Janam, Shivraj Yadav, Ekta, Ravi Kumar, Sanya Khan, Sriprakash Rai, Prashant Rai, Satish Singh, Raj Abhishek, Deepak Rajguru, Manish Kumar, Sanjeev Singh, Arpit Giri, Narendra Mani Tripathi, Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Shahid Jamal and Chedilal Nirala about whom I can say with confidence that they can only be involved in peaceful protests.

I’ve myself demonstrated peacefully against CAA-NRC outside Banaras Hindu University main gate on 14 December and outside my house under detention on 19 December.

If you’ll send social activists, who have faith in the Constitution, to jail because your police in unable to identify the anarchist elements then the space for peaceful means of expressing dissent with the government in a democracy will be eliminated and anarchist elements will be easily able to mislead the common people. Social activists have a useful role of providing creative options to people of expressing their opposition to the government on any issue. It is certain that if social activists will be able to influence the protests they will remain peaceful and in their absence there is danger of these protests turning anarchist.

I’ll leave it to your wisdom. If you think it proper please reconsider your decision and withdraw the cases against abovementioned activists and release all innocent people.

I’ve an additional comment. After the nationwide protests against CAA-NRC now the Bhartaiya Janata Party leaders are asking the Muslim citizens of country not to worry. But in the FIRs registered in response to violence during protests most of the names of accused are Muslims. For example, in FIR No. 600/2019 registered at Police Station, Hazratganj, Lucknow out of 39 accused, 36 names are those of Muslims whereas non-Muslims participated in the protests in large numbers and out of 16 youth killed in UP due to bullet injuries all are Muslims. If there will be a bias against Muslims in taking action then how can they be expected to have confidence in the government-administration?

I hope you’ll deliberate over my letter.

With regards,
Sandeep Pandey
Vice-President, Socialist Party (India)

Related:

Seizure of Properties in UP: Who paid for destruction of property in Gujarat Violence of 2002?
Lucknow Police detain and assault peaceful protesters, including women
Adityanath’s UP launched a brutal crackdown on HR defenders, Muslims: #anti-CAA, anti-NRC-NPR

The post Sandeep Pandey, VP Socialist Party (India) writes to UP CM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representation Image     India Today

When Narendra Modi, as prime minister of India, initiated his ‘Clean India’ (Swacch Bharat) campaign nobody would have conceived that it opened up murderous possibilities. The symbol being used for this campaign are Mahatma Gandhi's spectacles, a man who stood for non-violence, resolutely.
 
For that matter, a number of things were not imagined would actually take place after Narendra Modi's ascension to power – new reasons and tools to harass some people, some of which could become fatal.
 
For example, people would be beaten up, or could be even killed on the suspicion of having consumed beef. Then, if a Muslim boy and Hindu girl chose to marry, then in the name of ‘Love Jihad’, he (for sure) or sometimes, the couple may have to scurry for cover. The police have been especially empowered — if police suspected a man accompanying a woman of harassing her then Anti-Romeo squads were ready and waiting to jump upon him. Kashmiri students studying in other states of India could and have been beaten up at the slightest provocation, after being labelled anti-national, etc.
 
More serious intractable problems like famers' suicides, malnourishment of children, human trafficking of girls and women from Nepal and Bangladesh through India, people including children begging on major street crossings of national and state capitals, daily corruption at government offices, schools and hospitals have not been raised by the ever vigilante mobs allied to the current ruling dispensation.  To whip up a frenzied sense of ‘ultra-nationalism’, hunger, poverty and unemployment do not have potential; ‘Love Jihad’ and ‘anti-Muslim’ rhetoric is a far more potent weapon.
 
The manner in which Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) activist Zafar Khan was lynched to death in Pratapgarh, Rajasthan is not just shocking, the muted reaction against such increasing barbarism forces us to ask, what kind of society do we want to create?
 
On the morning of June 17, 2017 employees of Nagar Parishad of Pratapgarh were taking photographs of women belonging to the Mehtab Khan slum defecating in the open with the objective of ‘shaming them’. This deplorable act was part of government policy. Zafar Khan who was also a resident of this slum decided to protest. The accompanying Commissioner Ashok Jain instigated his Dalit sanitation employees to beat Zafar to death. A resurgent India under the new ruling dispensation has found a new reason to lynch people.
           
Do the women who defecate out in  the open enjoy doing so? When they don't have toilets at home where are they supposed to go to relieve themselves? If people don't have toilets who is supposed to build toilets for them? If anybody was to be punished for open defecation of women in Mehtab Shah slum it should have been the government officials whose responsibility it was to create these toilets in the first place. If the land on which the slum was built was government land and possibly personal toilets could not have been built on it then the government should have got a Sulabh toilet built there.
 
Let’s compare India's situation with her neighbours in South Asia: it becomes clear that successive governments in India have not given priority to construction to toilets. The figures are stark: In India, a mere 34% of the population has access to improved sanitation in 2010 compared to 92% in Sri Lanka, 64% in China, 56% in Bangladesh, 48% in Pakistan and 44% in Bhutan. Even Pakistan is better than India in this regard.
 
In India the caste system further prevents Dalits from using available toilets. For example, a number of Dalit domestic workers who do different chores like cleaning, cooking or baby sitting in mostly upper caste middle class or upper middle class households do not have permission to use the toilets inside these homes. They have to find some bush, tree or wall outside to relieve themselves.
 
It is the government officials who are responsible for the death of Zafar Khan. The Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje Scindhia, who termed it as an unfortunate incident, should have resigned taking moral responsibility.
 
The Commissioner of the Nagar Parishad of Pratapgadh, Ashok Jain follows a religion, which lays special emphasis on non-violence. Jains are known to take care so that no micro-organism gets killed because of them. The Jain monks tie a piece of cloth around their mouth and nose for this reason. Jains don't eat onion and garlic to keep their passions under check. Yet Ashok Jain didn't seem to have any qualms to instigate ‘his men’ to get Zafar Khan murdered.
 
Narendra Modi'a cleanliness drive has, by now, completed three years. Citizens have been charged with a new cess to fund this campaign. Large amountsof public money was spent. The ground reality, however, doesn't seem to have changed. The cows are eating as much plastic on the roads as they were doing before and the amount of untreated sewage that flows into river Ganga in Varanasi remains the same as before. The Clean India campaign is a complete and abject failure. People (celebrities) got themselves photographed with brooms. But these photographs were not taken with members of the the Valmiki community, actually responsible for the demeaning job of daily cleaning our sewers after entering them. The credit for whatever cleanliness we see around us goes to the Valmiki community.
 
In all likelihood, more money was spent in publicising rather than actual cleaning in the Clean India campaign.
 
The policy of Narendra Modi has created a new category of discrimination in India. It mostly overlaps the rich-poor or caste-outcaste divide – the toileted and the toilet-less. By eliminating the toilet-less people India can claim to have increased the percentage of population with access to sanitation. It is a lie that statistics even, can tell.
 
 

The post Swacch Bharat: A Policy to Eliminate India’s Toilet-less Peoples appeared first on SabrangIndia.

हलांकि कई लोग, जिनमें से इस लेख का एक लेखक भी शामिल था, काफी दिनों से यह सुझाव दे रहे थे कि भ्रष्टाचार कम करने के लिए बड़े नोटों, खासकर रु. 500 व रु. 1000 के नोट बंद किए जाएं लेकिन जो नरेन्द्र मोदी सरकार कर रही है वैसा नहीं सोचा गया था। यह माना गया था कि, भले ही काला धन नकद में सिर्फ 6 प्रतिशत ही है, बड़े नोटों का प्रचलन बंद हो जाने से बड़ा काला धन छुपाना व बड़ी घूस देना असुविधाजनक हो जाएगा। यह कभी नहीं सोचा गया था कि नए बड़े नोट पुनः अर्थव्यवस्था में ले आए जाएंगे। इन पर स्थाई प्रतिबंध की मांग की गई थी। नए बड़े नोटों को लाकर तो नए भ्रष्टाचार और काले धन को उत्पन्न करने की संभावनाएं खोल दी गई हैं। यहां यह भी स्पष्ट कर देना जरूरी है कि जिसे नोटबंदी कहा जा रहा है वह असल में तो नोटबदली ही है।

जिस तरह से आप अपना ही कितना पैसा निकाल सकते हैं और कितना जमा करा सकते हैं इसके नियम रोज-रोज बदले जाते रहे उसने पूरी वित्तीय व्यवस्था का मजाक बना कर रख दिया। पुराने नोटों को जमा करने की अंतिम तिथि से एक हफ्ते से भी पहले भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक ने घोषणा कर दी कि एक बार में सिर्फ रु. 5000 ही जमा कर सकते हैं। वित मंत्री ने कहा कोई सीमा नहीं होगी लेकिन जितना जमा करना है एक बार में ही जमा करें। दो दिनों तक स्थिति अस्पष्ट बनी रही और फिर दोनों ही निर्णय वापस ले लिए गए। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि कोई बहुत सोच-समझ कर निर्णय नहीं लिए जा रहे थे और प्रधान मंत्री समेत मंत्रियों व भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक समेत बैंकों में तालमेल का अभाव दिखा। भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक ने बड़ी मेहनत से अपनी जो एक स्वायत्त छवि बनाई थी, वह सारी घूल में मिल गई। अब वह प्रधान मंत्री व वित मंत्री के इशारे पर नाच रहा है।

एक तरफ कहा गया कि आप 49.5 प्रतिशत कर देकर काला धन जमा करा सकते हैं लेकिन जब कोई काला धन जमा कराने की कोशिश करता तो आयकर विभाग उसके पीछे पड़ जाता। लोग कतारों में खड़े होकर जब अपना पैसा निकालने जाते तो सरकार द्वारा घोषित सीमा तक भी नकद नहीं मिल पा रहा था। कुछ लोग शुरू की भीड़ से बचने के लिए थोड़ा बाद में लेकिन घोषित अंतिम तारीख 30 दिसंबर से एक हफ्ते पहले भी पहुंचे तो उनसे पूछा जाने लगा कि इतनी देर से क्यों आए? आपातकाल लागू होने को छोड़कर कभी भी स्वतंत्र भारत में सरकार ने खुद ही व्यवस्था को इस तरह बंधक नहीं बनाया है। अपनी घोषणाओं पर खुद ही नहीं टिकी रही और वादा कर पीछे जाती रही। बैंक व्यवस्था की विश्वसनीयता को दीर्घकालिक नुकसान पहुंचा है। अब लोग बैंकों व उनके निर्णयों को संदेह से देखेंगे।

नए नोटों के बाजार में आने के कुछ ही दिनों के अंदर ही बड़ी-बड़ी रकमें पकड़ी जाने लगीं जिसमें पूरे या आंशिक रूप से नए नोट शामिल थे। सवाल यह है कि जब बैंक व ए.टी.एम. से पैसा निकालने की सीमा क्रमशः रु. 24,000 व रु. 2,000 तय थी तो इतनी बड़ी रकमें आईं कहां से? क्या यह बैंक अधिकारियों की मिली भगत के बिना संभव है? लेकिन नोटबदली लागू होने के बाद लाखों-करोड़ों के साथ कुछ व्यापारियों या दलालों के पकड़े जाने की तो खबरें आईं किंतु उन अधिकारियों के खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही की खबर सुनने को नहीं मिली जिनकी वजह से लाखों-करोड़ों मूल्य के नए नोट बैंकों से बाहर आ गए। किसी जाने-माने पूंजीपति या व्यापारिक घराने, खासकर जो काला धन का कारोबार करने के लिए जाने जाते हैं के यहां छापा पड़ने की कोई खबर सुनने को नहीं मिली।

तो विचित्र स्थिति यह हो गई कि सामान्य नागरिक को तो बैकों को अपनी जायज आय के बारे में जवाब देना पड़ रहा था और नाजायज धन रखने वालों को छुआ तक नहीं गया। चूंकि ज्यादातर पुराने रु. 500 व रु. 1000 के नोट बैंकों में वापस आ चुके हैं अतः जिनके पास था भी उन्होंने काले धन को सफेद कर लिया है।

न ही किसी बड़े नेता या राजनीतिक दल के कार्यालय में छापा पड़ा जबकि इस देश में काले धन के संस्थागत अस्तित्व की मूल वजह उसका चुनाव में इस्तेमाल होना है। यह सार्वजनिक जानकारी है कि देश में सबसे ज्यादा अज्ञात स्रोत से धन दो राजनीतिक दलों, कांग्रेस व भाजपा को मिलता है। पिछले दस वर्षों में क्रांग्रेस व भाजपा को कुल मिलकर रु. 5,450 धन ऐसा मिला, जो अधिकांश शायद काला होगा, यानी उसपर कर नहीं दिया गया होगा। यह धन या तो बड़े व्यापारिक घरानों का होगा अथवा सरकारी योजनाओं या परियोजनाओं में हुए भ्रष्टाचार की देन होगा। लेकिन उन अधिकारियों के खिलाफ भी कोई कार्यवाही नहीं हुई जो राजनीतिक दलों के एजेंट के रूप में काम करते हैं और जिनकी सम्पत्ति उनके आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से निश्चित रूप से ज्यादा है।

इसके गम्भीर मायने हैं। चूंकि उन लोगों को छुआ तक नहीं गया जो चुनावों में लगने वाले काले धन का कारोबार करते हैं, तो चुनाव अभी भी भ्रष्टाचार से ही पोषित होते रहेंगे। फिर इस तमाशे की क्या जरूरत थी?
      
2015-16 में राजनीति दलों को जो रु. 20,000 से ऊपर का चंदा मिला उसमें भाजपा को 613 दानदाताओं ने रु. 76.85 करोड़ दिया जबकि कांग्रेस को 918 दानदाताओं ने रु. 20.42 करोड़ दिया। भाजपा को जो धन मिला वह अन्य छह राष्ट्रीय दलों, जिसमें माकपा, भाकपा, राष्ट्रवादी कांग्रेस पार्टी व तृणमूल कांग्रेस भी शामिल हैं के कुल चंदे से तीन गुना अधिक था। गौर करने योग्य बात यह है कि भाजपा को रु. 67.99 करोड़ 283 निजी कम्पनियों से मिला और कांग्रेस को रु. 8.83 करोड़ 57 कम्पनियों से। भाजपा को शेष रु. 8.86 करोड़ 330 व्यक्तियों ने दिया और कांग्रेस का शेष रु. 11.24 करोड़ 859 व्यक्तियों से आया। कांग्रेस को रु. 8.11 करोड़ देने वाले 318 लोगों के व भाजपा को रु. 2.19 देने वाले 71 लोगों के पैन कार्ड विवरण अनउपलब्ध थे। उपर्युक्त से पता चलता है कि भाजपा जिसको पिछले तीन वित्तीय वर्षों से ही कांग्रेस से ज्यादा चंदा मिलना शुरू हुआ है को पांच गुना ज्यादा निजी कम्पनियां सात गुना ज्यादा चंदा दे रही हैं। इसी तरह भाजपा को चंदा देने वाले व्यक्तियों की संख्या भले ही कम हो लेकिन वे ज्यादा बड़ी रकमें दे रहे हैं। भाजपा को चंदा देने वाला व्यक्ति व्यवस्था के नियम ज्यादा अच्छी तरह समझता है इसलिए नकद रहित व्यवस्था उसके ज्यादा अनुकूल है बनिस्पत बहुजन समाज पार्टी जैसी पार्टियों के पारम्परिक दानदाताओं के। कांग्रेस को रु. 20,000 के ऊपर धनराशि में कुल रु. 1.17 करोड़ नकद मिले जबकि भाजपा को सिर्फ रु. 51,000।
      
लेकिन बड़ा पैसा तो रु. 20,000 से कम वाले चंदों से आता हैे जिनके स्रोत अज्ञात होते हैं। यह धन पार्टी के कुल चंदे का आधे से ज्यादा से लेकर 80 प्रतिशत तक होता है। 2014-15 में भाजपा के रु. 970 करोड़ में से रु. 505 करोड़ अज्ञात स्रोत से था। क्रांगेस के रु. 593 करोड़ में रु. 445 करोड़ इस तरह की राशि थी। चुनाव आयोग के नियमों के अनुसार रु. 20,000 से कम के चंदे का स्रोत बताना जरूरी नहीं है।
      
असल में तो राजनीतिक दल जो काले धन का इस्तेमाल करते हैं वह घोषित अज्ञात स्रोतों से कहीं ज्यादा होता होगा।
      
सच तो यह है कि सभी दल काले धन का इस्तेमाल चुनावों में करते हैं। इसलिए सबने मिलकर अन्ना हजारे के जन लोकपाल बिल को अवरुद्ध किया। साफ है कि अन्य दलों की तुलना में भाजपा को ज्यादा अमीर लोगों व बड़ी कम्पनियों से धन मिल रहा है। वह उन्हीं के मुताबिक नीतियां बनाएगी। इसमें कोई आश्चर्य नहीं होना चाहिए कि नरेन्द्र मोदी ने भू-अधिग्रहण कानून में तीन बार संशोधन का प्रयास किया ताकि किसान की भूमि अधिग्रहित करना आसान हो जाए। मायावती ने उ.प.्र में रिलायंस फ्रेश के स्टोर नहीं लगने दिए और नीतीश कुमार ने बिहार में विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र नहीं बनने दिए। उनकी सोच कम्पनियों के दबाव से अपने को मुक्त रखना है। जबकि नरेन्द्र मोदी निजी कम्पनियों और अमीरों के लिए ही काम कर रहे हैं।

नरेन्द्र मोदी ने विदेशी बैंकों में जमा काले धन को वापस भारत लाने की बात की थी। वह तो हुआ नहीं उल्टे उन्होंने भारत से बाहर धन ले जाने की सीमा 75,000 डॉलर से बढ़ा कर ढाई लाख डॉलर कर दी। एक बार देश का पैसा बाहर चला गया फिर उसका हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था में योगदाम खत्म हो गया।

क्या काला धन ही हिन्दुस्तान की सबसे बड़ी समस्या थी?
      
जिसे देश में अभी लोग पूरी तरह से साक्षर भी नहीं हैं और जो हैं भी उनकी काबिलियत संदिग्ध है, जहां बहुसंख्यक आबादी किसान, मजदूर, छोटा व्यापारी, दुकानदार, थोक विक्रेता व अनौपचारिक क्षेत्र में लगे उद्यमी नकद का इस्तेमाल करते हैं वहां हमारी अपेक्षा है कि लोग मोबाइल फोन और कार्ड के सहारे पैसों का लेन-देन करें? इसमें लोगों के लिए क्या सुविधा होगी? हां, मोबाइल कम्पनियों और किस्म-किस्म की कम्पयूटर कम्पनियों जो मोबाइल या कार्ड से भुगतान करने की व्यवस्थाएं बना रहीे हैं उनका फायदा जरूर है। अब उन्हें अपना प्रचार करने की भी जरूरत नहीं क्योंकि सरकार ही उनका प्रचार कर रही है। लेकिन भारत का ग्रामीण और शहरी गरीब खासकर महिलाएं, आदिवासी, दलित इस व्यवस्था का हिस्सा बन जाएंगे यह कैसे सम्भव होगा? निरक्षर और गरीब लोगों के ऊपर इस तरह की व्यवस्था थोपना भी उनके साथ अन्याय है।
      
विश्व प्रसिद्ध अर्थशास्त्री ज्यां डेªज ने रांची में 85 दुकानकारों, ठेले वालों व व्यापारियों के एक सर्वेक्षण में पाया कि इस वर्ग की औसत आय जब से नोटबदली लागू हुई एक माह की अवधि में 46 प्रतिशत गिर गई, यानी आधी हो गई है। औसत लोगों को एक माह में 13 घंटे बैंकों व ए.टी.एम. के सामने खड़ा रहना पड़ा। कुछ लोग 30-40 घंटे भी बैंकों में खड़े रहे। रांची की अनौपचारिक अर्थव्यवस्था नकद पर चलती है और वह बुरी तरह प्रभावित हुई। किसान को दाम न मिलने के अभाव में अपनी उपज ऐसे ही बाजार में छोड़ देनी पड़ी, लोग जरूरी चीजें नहीं खरीद पाए, कुछ लोगों ने अपने यहां काम करने वालों को तनख्वाह न दे पाने की स्थिति में निकाल दिया और मजदूर को भी काम मिलने में दिक्कत आई। कुछ लोगों को तो खाने के भी लाले पड़ गए। कम बिक्री, कम आय, कम खर्च, कम रोजगार के दुष्चक्र से बाहर आने में समय लगेगा। रांची जैसी ही स्थिति देश के शेष शहरों और गांवों की है। नकदविहीन व्यवस्था लागू करने के चक्कर में सरकार ने लोगों के पास पैसा होते हुए भी उन्हें धनविहीन बना दिया है।
      
बैकों और ए.टी.एम. की कतार में खड़े पूरे देश में करीब सौ लोग अपनी जान से हाथ धो चुके हैं। सरकार कहती है कि जनता को काले धन के खिलाफ लड़ाई में थोड़ा कष्ट झेलना पड़ेगा। यदि जनता से यह अपेक्षा की जा रही है कि वह अपना कर्त्वय निभाए तो कतारों में खड़े लोगों की मृत्यु की जिम्मेदारी भी सरकार को लेनी चाहिए और सीमा पर शहीद हुए सैनिक या किसी दुर्घटना या प्राकृतिक आपदा में मरे लोगों के परिवारों की तरह इन लोगों के परिवारों को भी मुआवजा मिलना चाहिए। अखिलेश यादव ने तो उत्तर प्रदेश में मरे 14 लोगों के परिवारों को दो-दो लाख रुपए का मुआवजा देकर पहल की है लेकिन यह जिम्मेदारी तो मुख्यतः केन्द्र सरकार की है।
      
2013-14 से 2015-16 तक 29 सरकारी बैंकों ने निजी कम्पनियों का रु. 1.14 लाख करोड़ रुपए कर्ज माफ कर दिया। यह पिछले 9 सालों में माफ किए गए कुल कर्ज से ज्यादा है। दस बड़ी कम्पनियों ने सरकारी बैंकों व वित्तीय संस्थानों से कुल 6 करोड़ रुपए कर्ज लिए हुए हैं। सरकार के मुताबिक सरकारी बैंकों के 2,071 खातों में रु. 3.38 लाख करोड़ कर्ज दिया गया जिसकी वापसी की सम्भावना कम है। देश के सबसे अमीर लोगों के कर्ज सरकार माफ करती है और आम इंसान को दोषी बना कर कतारों में खड़ा कर, उसके लिए नकद की कृत्रिम कमी पैदा कर, उसके रोजगार पर संकट खड़ा कर परेशान करती है अथवा कुछ छोटे व्यापारियों या दलालों के यहां छापे डाल जनता की आंखों में धूल झोंकने का काम करती है।
      
जनता का छोटा-छोटा धन जबरन बैंकों में जमा करा सरकार निजी कम्पनियों और अमीर लोगों द्वारा बैंकों का पैसा हड़प जाने से पैसों की कमी को पूरी कर रही है और शायद पुनः वैसे ही लोगों को बड़े कर्ज में दे दिया जाए। वाह रे बैंकिग व्यवस्था। सरकार को बड़े कर्ज लिए हुए लोगों से वसूली करने के लिए जो उन्हें जवाबदेह बनाने का काम करना चाहिए वह करती हुई वह नहीं दिख रही। विजय मल्लया, ललित मोदी, सुब्रत राय या बाबा रामदेव के प्रति वह नर्म दिखाई पड़ती है। मजे की बात यह है कि ये सभी महानुभाव एक से बढ़ कर एक राष्ट्रवादी हैं। विजय मल्लया इंग्लैण्ड में निलामी में टीपू सुल्तान की तलवार रु. एक करोड़ देकर वापस लाए थे, ललित मोदी ने भारत में फटाफट क्रिकेट की प्रतियोगिता शुरू की जिसमें दुनिया भर के खिलाड़ी खेलने आते हैं, सुब्रत राय के मुख्यालय के सामने भारतमाता की बड़ी तस्वीर है और उनकी कम्पनी सहारा के एक साथ एक लाख से ऊपर कर्मचारियों का राष्ट्रगान गाने का विश्व रिकार्ड कायम किया गया है और बाबा रामदेव तो योग और आयुर्वेद की धाक पूरी दुनिया में जमा रहे हैं। शायद राष्ट्रवाद और बड़े पैसे खासकर कालेधन का आपस में कोई सम्बंध है?
      
कुल मिलाकर नोटबदली को लागू करने में सरकार के कुप्रबंधन का खामियाजा जनता को भोगना पड़ रहा है। जनता के गुस्से को सुनहरे सपने दिखाकर या राष्ट्रवाद का घूंट पिला कर नियंत्रित किया गया है लेकिन भविष्य कोई बेहतर होने वाला है इसके कोई आसार तो दिखाई नहीं पड़ते।
 

The post नोटबदली – जनता को परेशान कर सत्ता पर दीर्घकालिक कब्जे की तैयारी appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite the firm and compelling order of the Allahabad High Court ordering the re-instatement of Magsaysay awardee Dr Sandeep Pandey to the IIT at the Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Dr Pandey was not allowed to rejoin the IIT-BHU when he went to do so, on Saturday May 7.
 
Sandeep Pandey told Sabrangindia:
 
“When I went on 7 May, 2016 to rejoin IIT-BHU after a Allahabad High Court order dated April 22, 2016, which quashed my termination order as a Visiting Professsor there on January 6, 2016 , the Director Professor Rajeev Sangal informed me that the Vice Chancellor Professor Girish Chandra Tripathi, who also happens to be the Chariman, IIT-BHU Board of Governors, has not yet returned the file in which his advice was sought in the matter of my rejoining. Effectively, the VC has decided to delay the compliance of HC order.
 
As my contract with IIT-BHU was an annual contract which ends on 31 July, 2016, if continues, deliberately to dilly dally over my re-entry until that date (and effectively ‘uses up the time of 3 months that he has available to appeal the High Court’s Order in the Supreme Court), he will be successful in blocking my return to the IIT-BHU campus, which is probably what his intention is.”
 
In a landmark judgement that holds out of hope for free expression, and also quoting from Voltaire who famously said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” the Allahabad High Court today, ruled in favour of renowned Gandhian, professor and Magsaysay award winner, Dr Sandeep Pandey and quashed the decision of the IIT Banaras Hindu University (BHU) to pre-maturely terminate his contract.  The fact that the professor was not given a chance to explain the serious charges levelled against him was also strongly rebuked by the High Court. The path-breaking order can be read here.

Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and V.K. Shukla moreover also recalled the syncretic vision of the founder ot the Banaras Hindu University, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, saying, “…The (BHU) Founder's vision has been as follows; “India is not a country of Hindus only. It is country of Muslims, the Christians and the Parsees too. The country can gain strength and develop itself only when the people of different communities in India live in mutual goodwill and harmony. It is my earnest hope and prayer that this Centre of life and light which is coming into existence will produce students who would not be intellectually equal to the best of their fellow students in other parts of the world, but will also live a noble life, love their country and be loyal to the supreme ruler.”

The post BHU Refuses to Comply with HC Order, Tries to Block Sandeep Pandey’s Entry into the Campus appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This question assumes acute relevance after recent events at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). A meeting called to mark the anniversary of the hanging of Afzal Guru by another group has led to the JNU Students' Union President Kanhaiya Kumar being arrested on charges of sedition.
 
Afzal Guru was hanged for his role in the 2001 Parliament attack case. While pronouncing sentence, the Supreme Court of India admitted that there was no evidence to show that Afzal Guru was a member of any banned organisation nor had any of the 80 prosecution witnesses said that Afzal was associated with any terrorist organisation.
 
The judgement states, 'The incident which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will be satisfied (only) if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.'   We have to ask ourselves whether this kind of ‘satisfaction of the collective conscience’ can be a reason enough for ending somebody's life, in a civilised society?
 
Are there not to be even questions raised over this judgement? It would be a disservice to Indian democracy if we all assume the collective guilt of an unquestioning silence.
 
Afzal Guru did not receive a fair trial. He was not allowed to have a lawyer of his choice. Neither did the court hear his version. He was made to accept his crime under duress and threat by the police. Simply put, he was made a scapegoat.
 
The truth is, if he had not been hanged, a ‘feeling’ would have prevailed that India was or is not able to take strong action against the perpetrators of the attack on Parliament (2001). Somebody needed to be hanged and it was the misfortune of Afzal Guru that he was the most vulnerable among the four who were made the accused in the Parliament attack case.
 
The then Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah had sharply criticised the execution of Afzal Guru, saying clearly that it would reinforce the sense of alienation and injustice among Kashmiri youth. He asserted that the decision to hang Afzal Guru was more political than legal. It is this doubt over Afzal's hanging that persists even three years after his hanging. That is the reason why for some persons, he is even called a martyr.

There are people associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who would like to eulogise Nathuram Godse. Some even want to build a temple in his name. For those who would like to worship Nathuram as a hero, there can be no objections to others who consider Afzal Guru a martyr.
 
The NDA II regime has already termed the event(s) on JNU campus (having such a meeting to discuss the execution) as anti-national as there were some objectionable slogans raised.  It is time we asked some hard questions.  What will be considered to be more anti-national — ideologically motivated and uncritical defence of the hanging of a person whose crime was not conclusively proved or merely raising pro-Kashmiri and pro-Azadi slogans? It is this simmering sense of injustice done in the case of Afzal Guru (his hanging) that is reverberating in the form of slogans which (this time) happened to be raised at the JNU meeting.
 
It remains important to question the hanging of Afzal Guru so that no more such incidents occur in future.  
 
The right to free speech is under threat within Indian democracy today. The threat is posed from communal fascist forces. There are people associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who would like to eulogise Nathuram Godse. Some even want to build a temple in his name. For those who would like to worship Nathuram as a hero, there can be no objections to others who consider Afzal Guru a martyr.
 
The authorities are also suggesting that the permission for the event was withdrawn just before it was to take place. This is a time-tested tactic. A similar thing happened when a reputed journalist was recently invited to speak at Allahabad University on invitation of the Allahabad University Students' Union President Richa Singh on January 20, 2016. The Vice Chancellor there also withdrew the permission at the last moment.
 
I would like to ask a question to the current ruling dispensation and their aggressive champions. Those who have made it their business to assume sole defence of ‘nationalism’, the torch bearers of desh bhakti.  Did they take any permission to demolish the Babri Masjid in 1992, an incident that remains a blot on our constitutional, secular ethos and which has, forever and seriously, compromised India's internal security?
 
Or, (did they seek permission) before they killed Mahatma Gandhi? Or, when they allegedly carried out bomb blasts twice in Malegaon (2006, 2008), in Hyderabad (Mecca Masjid Blasts, May 18, 2007), then in Ajmer (October 10, 2007) and in the Samjhauta Express (February 18, 2007)?
 
Or, did the NDA I government led by Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the centre take even their own Defence Minister (George Fernandes) into confidence, not to mention Parliament, before testing nuclear weapons in 1998, an act which adversely affected and worsened South Asia's security environment?
 
For those associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) who believe, that by being in the seat of government, they have un-checked, arbitrary powers which includes dictating what others should or should not do; preventing ‘others’, even violently, from carrying out their activities, the next elections will surely bring a rude shock. The people in this country have never tolerated tyrannical ways. Hitler may be a hero for the RSS but he is not for the masses in India.
 
The treatment meted out to journalists and JNU students and professors at the Patiala House court yesterday, on February 15, 2016, by lawyers associated with the RSS, is shameful. If the violence resorted to by terrorists and naxalites is condemnable how can the police and the ‘nation’ stand spectator to hooliganism indulged in by the Sangh parivar members? No other mainstream political organisation(s) exhibit the kind of lawlessness that organisations associated with this supremacist right wing ideology do.
 
They and their ideological associates have allegedly committed serious crimes; like murders of Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi and have facilitated an atmosphere within which Rohith Vemula was forced to commit suicide, in addition to innumerable incidents when they are guilty of threatening and intimidating actions against people who simply do not agree with their ideology. This nonsense should not be tolerated in a democracy even if a price has to be paid for it. The RSS is hurtling this country towards a state of emergency which can only lead to civil war and anarchy.
 
The people who brought BJP to power with a thumping majority in 2014 must rethink their support and mandate. Is this party that is even fit to rule for five years?  Stalwart socialist leader Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia once famously said that “Live communities don't wait for five years” (the term of Parliament).  Today, these sharp and sagacious words must show us the way.
 
(Sandeep Pandey, a Magsaysay awardee for emergent leadership has trained in Mechanical Engineering but has been working on social justice issues; he is co-founder of Aasha)

The post Why the Controversy over Afzal Guru’s Hanging Refuses to Die appeared first on SabrangIndia.

-The decision taken by the Board for terminating the services of Dr Pandey sans any academic considerations and it is merely on account of conflict of ideologies and therefore if such a decision stands vindicated, it will surely pose a threat to the basic fundamental freedoms granted in the Indian Constitution.

-The decision of the Board at the instance of the Chairman is in fact a step further to saffronisation of the IIT (BHU) and the University and in our democratic state such an attempt which is aimed at suppressing the ideologies is required to be nipped in bud as otherwise it will have serious effects.

-The framers of our Constitution have given to us the fundamental right in the shape of freedoms as detailed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, particularly freedom to speak under Article 19 (1) (a), which includes professing even different ideologies and State is prohibited from curbing such freedoms which are subject only to some reasonable restrictions (in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence) and the IIT (BHU) by means of the resolution and the consequent termination order has made a dent upon the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India.   

-The BOG resolution and order under challenge in the petition, has nothing to do with the academic performance of Dr Sandeep Pandey and he has been simply punished by the dictates of the Chairman of the Board. The Board was guided in its decision with the complaint of Avinash Pandey which appears to have been procured, without any verification. The truthfulness of the contents of the complaint were not verified through any preliminary fact finding enquiry. It was a rushed and un-thought through decision. .

-The branding of Dr Pandey as anti-national under the opinion formed by the Board has very serious effects as he is being sought to be permanently non-suited for any appointment/ engagement by any academic institute and that too without any enquiry or opportunity for him to be heard.

-The resolution and termination order under challenge in the High Court, which is stigmatic and passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner, Dr Pandey, and without even any fact finding enquiry-(i) goes to infringe fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 16, 19 (1) (a) & 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) is in complete violation of principles of natural justice & (iii) is wholly without jurisdiction because it was passed in the absence of any agenda on the board. 
 
See also
Intolerance Strikes, Sandeep Pandey is out of BHU
 
https://sabrangindia.in/article/intolerance-strikes-sandeep-pandey-out-bhu
 
RSS hardliners ensured the premature termination, says Pandey
 
My contract at the IIT, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) Varanasi as a visiting faculty has prematurely ended after teaching there for two-and-a-half years. This decision was prematurely taken by the Board of Governors (BOG). In a recent Board meeting the Vice Chancellor of BHU, who was made the Chairman of the IIT Board of Governors by the Minister of HRD, government of India, Smriti Irani, after by-passing the panel of five names recommended by a resolution of the Board of Governors. Thereafter, professor G.C. Tripathi, and Dean of Faculty Affairs, IIT, BHU and professor Dhananjay Pandey, both gentlemen associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), primarily forced the decision.

The charges levelled against me are that I am a Naxalite, showed a banned documentary on Nirbhaya case and am also involved in anti-national activities.

I wish to clarify that I'm not a Naxalite. The ideology that I would consider myself closest to is Gandhian.

But I do identify with the causes taken up by Naxalites even though I may not agree with their methods.

The banned documentary on Nirbhaya made by BBC was to be screened in my Development Studies class during the even semester of academic year 2014-15 but the decision was withdrawn after intervention of Chief Proctor of the BHU and officer of the Lanka Police Station just before the class. However, a discussion on the issue of violence against women in our society was conducted after screening a different documentary.

I do not believe in the idea of a nation or national boundaries, which I think are responsible for artificial divisions among human beings similar to the ones on the basis of caste or religion. Hence I cannot be anti or pro-nation. I am pro-people. I'm not a nationalist but am a universalist. I have no regrets as the decision to terminate my contract has not been taken based on my academic performance but it is because of my political views and activities. I've enjoyed my stay at IIT, BHU and wish the Institute and the University the best.
 
(Sandeep Pandey, a Magsaysay awardee for emergent leadership has trained in Mechanical Engineering but has been working on social justice issues; he is co-founder of Aasha)
 

The post Explain termination of Dr Sandeep Pandey, High Court orders BHU appeared first on SabrangIndia.

RSS hardliners ensured the premature termination, says Pandey
 
My contract at the IIT, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) Varanasi as a visiting faculty has prematurely ended after teaching there for two-and-a-half years. This decision was prematurely taken by the Board of Governors (BOG). In a recent Board meeting the Vice Chancellor of BHU, who was made the Chairman of the IIT Board of Governors by the Minister of HRD, government of India, Smriti Irani, after by-passing the panel of five names recommended by a resolution of the Board of Governors. Thereafter, professor G.C. Tripathi, and Dean of Faculty Affairs, IIT, BHU and professor Dhananjay Pandey, both gentlemen associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), primarily forced the decision.

The charges levelled against me are that I am a Naxalite, showed a banned documentary on Nirbhaya case and am also involved in anti-national activities.

I wish to clarify that I'm not a Naxalite. The ideology that I would consider myself closest to is Gandhian.

But I do identify with the causes taken up by Naxalites even though I may not agree with their methods.

The banned documentary on Nirbhaya made by BBC was to be screened in my Development Studies class during the even semester of academic year 2014-15 but the decision was withdrawn after intervention of Chief Proctor of the BHU and officer of the Lanka Police Station just before the class. However, a discussion on the issue of violence against women in our society was conducted after screening a different documentary.

I do not believe in the idea of a nation or national boundaries, which I think are responsible for artificial divisions among human beings similar to the ones on the basis of caste or religion. Hence I cannot be anti or pro-nation. I am pro-people. I'm not a nationalist but am a universalist. I have no regrets as the decision to terminate my contract has not been taken based on my academic performance but it is because of my political views and activities. I've enjoyed my stay at IIT, BHU and wish the Institute and the Univeristy very much.
 
(Sandeep Pandey, a Magsaysay awardee for emergent leadership has trained in Mechanical Engineering but has been working on social justice issues; he is co-foundre of Aasha)

The post Intolerance Strikes, Sandeep Pandey is out of BHU appeared first on SabrangIndia.