The Ministry of Women and Child Development said that police and public order are a state subject and thus the state’s responsibility when asked about measures to address the evil of violence against women.

When asked about government measures to contain the menace of violence against women, Union Minister Smriti Irani said, “’Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The responsibilities to maintain law and order, protection of life and property of the citizens rest primarily with the respective State Governments.”

This statement came along with data that showed a growing rate of crimes against women. Similarly, the Department records also showed that most States had failed to utilise even half of the Nirbhaya Funds released. In December 2019, Parliament data showed that many States had failed to effectively use Nirbhaya Funds.

For example, Maharashtra was recorded as the only large State that had used zero funds provided by the scheme. The data resulted in severe criticism of both Central and state governments for their general apathy towards a prevalent social issue.

During this year’s monsoon session, the Centre’s records showed yet again that states had utilised less than half the funds provided under this scheme. The only exceptions were Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Moreover, in stark contrast to the 2019 data, the Centre now said that Maharashtra had utilised Rs. 179.36 crores out of Rs. 295.93 crores funds released.

Meanwhile, Madhya Pradesh had only used Rs. 42.72 crores out of Rs. 123.37 crores funds released despite being the state with the highest women suicides due to dowry-related issues – 496 deaths in 2019. Among Union Territories, Delhi ranked the highest with 59 such deaths in 2019. Overall, 1,815 dowry-related suicides were registered in India in 2019.

Similarly, the newly-created Union Territory of Ladakh had used no money from the Rs 0.27 crores funds released.

When Member of Parliament (MP) Adoor Prakash asked about proposals received by the Centre under this scheme and government measures to enable faster implementation, Irani said:

“A total of 35 schemes/ projects have been appraised and recommended by the EC so far. The EC reviews the status of implementation of the approved projects from time to time in conjunction with the concerned Ministries/ Departments/ Implementing Agencies (IAs). The Ministries/ Departments/ IAs also review and monitor the progress of their respective schemes/ projects for faster implementation at their level.”

MP Amar Singh asked the Centre about the increasing violence against women and the continuing prevalence of the social evil of dowry in India.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data from 2016-2018 showed that crimes committed against women had increased from 3,38,954 cases in 2016 to 3,78,277 cases in 2018. The maximum number of cases were filed under ‘Cruelty by husband or his relatives’ in 2018. As many as eight cases were registered in 2018 under the crime of ‘buying minor girls.’

The Union Minister said that the Government considers safety and security of women as its highest priority and listed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 among the many government legislations.

Related:

NHRC, Delhi High Court spring into action, pull up governments on women’s safety measures, utilisation of Nirbhaya Fund
Now, Smriti Irani says no data on anganwadi workforce!
No data, so no compensation: Centre’s shocking revelation on migrant labourer deaths!
WCD Ministry gives unsatisfactory answers on efforts to protect women and children

The post Public order a state subject: Smriti Irani on gov’t measures against gendered crimes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana), Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh lead Indian states on the quality and quantity of jobs they provide to their people, while Bihar, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh (UP) are last, the index reveals.

“Good quality productive jobs that offer good wages are an impetus for sustainable economic growth,” Sabina Dewan, president and executive director at research organisation JustJobs Network, said at the launch of A Just Jobs Index for India, on June 21, 2019. 

Supported by Azim Premji University in partnership with the Centre for Policy Research, a think tank, the Index tracks the performance of states by employment, formality, benefits, income equality, and gender equality, based on a set of equally weighted indicators.

Despite economic growth, the pace of job creation has been slow, the report said. The country faces rising unemployment with 71% of workers employed in the informal sector, and inconsistent job creation across states.

India’s unemployment rate was 6.1%–rural (5.3%) and urban (7.8%)–in 2017-18, according to the government’s Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), released on May 31, 2019.

Gujarat, which has “consistently maintained” net state value-added (NSVA) growth rates of 10% or higher during the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, did not do as well in creating quality jobs, ranking 18 on the index.

Source: JustJobs Index, 2019
Note: Data for Andhra Pradesh are pre-bifurcation, and include those for Telangana.

Andhra Pradesh and Telangana lead the pack, as we said, with 57.3 points, followed by Maharashtra (57.2) and Chhattisgarh (56.39), while UP (32.04) is below Bihar (37.28) and Odisha (37.70) at the bottom of the list.

For each indicator, the index uses a mean of the available values for the period 2010-2018, using data from various government sources, such as surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office, the Labour Bureau, the Annual Survey of Industries, the Reserve Bank of India and the PLFS.

The Index does not take into consideration the seven northeastern states due to small sample sizes in the available data.

“Demand-side” dimensions–such as employment, formality, benefits, income equality and gender equality–were selected, since they evaluate the quality and quantity of jobs, and “supply-side” indicators, such as education and skill levels, were not, authors Dewan and Divya Prakash, a research associate at JustJobs Network, wrote in the report.

Gender equality delivers a better overall score

While India’s female labour force participation rate is 24%, ranked 120 among 131 countries in 2018 by the World Bank, the jobs index found that states that did better on gender equality are associated with a better overall score.

Himachal Pradesh (72.9) topped on gender equality, while Bihar (13.5) ranked at the bottom.

To address the issue of gender disparity in employment, states with low female workforce participation should make public spaces, housing and workplaces safer for women, and women should migrate to cities if they needed to, Dilip Chenoy, secretary general, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, said at the launch of the report. 

Chhattisgarh (95.29) performed the best on the employment dimension owing to its high labour force participation rate. Goa scored (15.88) the least due to high youth unemployment (28.7% in 2018). 

A state with a larger share of workers with a written contract was ranked higher on the part of the index that measured the proportion of formal jobs. Goa (87.59) topped the index on this score; Uttar Pradesh (16.92) brought up the bottom.

States with higher benefits and safeguards to workers, such as union association, higher expenditure on pension as part of gross state domestic product and a higher share of workers with pension/provident funds, also ranked higher.

Jammu and Kashmir (55.47), Delhi (52.47) and Kerala (51.99) topped on the benefits dimension, which the authors attributed to relatively high state expenditures on pensions and union participation. Rajasthan (17.19), Chhattisgarh (14.14) and Gujarat (12.67) were at the bottom due to low union participation.

For income inequality, the index considers a higher ratio of minimum wages to average wages, a low Gini coefficient–an indicator of inequality–of consumption, and a high ratio of informal wages to formal wages. Chhattisgarh (83.03), Maharashtra (76.84) and Uttarakhand (73.39) were at the top here, while Uttar Pradesh (39.45), Jammu & Kashmir (36.24) and Kerala (36.24) stood at the bottom.

Lack of real-time data and indicators: authors 

The authors of the report note the lack of real-time data about India’s labour markets, and the lack of better indicators, which led to gross domestic product and Ease of Doing Business rankings–in which India stood at 77 among 190 countries–to be substituted as indicators for job creation.

“The Index, which is being put in the public domain, would hold state governments accountable and push them to provide more productive jobs and enhance opportunities for the youth,” said Amitabh Kant, CEO of NITI Aayog, the government’s think tank.

Kant suggested the revitalisation of education for skill development, with a focus on “skills for the future”–digital literacy with a focus on hands-on training and mobile-based training for people in remote areas. This will help youth in rural areas become job creators rather than job seekers, he said.

(Sharma, a second-year MSc student at the Symbiosis School of Economics, Pune, is an intern with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post Fast Growing States May Not Offer Best, Most Jobs: New Index appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“I had 92 pellets Hit my Face,
Who Says Pellets are Not Lethal?
Ask Us
Pellets Killed Our Dreams and Hopes
They Bruised our Souls
They Made our Lives Hell”

                  Danish Rajab, 24

The post Prohibit Pellets in Shot Guns Immediately: Amnesty International, India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Is some kind of panchayat going on here that the states are not serious? Why are you joking with the Supreme Court like this? You will understand the importance only when we call your Chief Secretaries,” the bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said.

“This is important business,” it said after perusuing the files of the first two PILs listed before it for hearing.

“Do we have some kind of a game going on here? If you (lawyers representing states) do not want to file your counter affidavits, then say that, we will record your statements,” the bench added.

The bench, after perusing the reports with regard to service of notices of the PILs to the states concerned, said if they want more time then they should stand and seek it.

The bench first took up the PIL, filed by Gujarat-based NGO ‘Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti” on industrial pollution in 2012, for hearing and got irked after perusing the records which reflected that many states have not filed their replies despite several opportunities given.

It then called out names of Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh and asked their counsel as to why counter affidavits have not yet been filed.
It granted four weeks to the states which appeared before it for the first time in the matter and summoned the Environment Secretaries with relevant records of these states, which had been served notice but had failed to file replies.

It listed the matter for final disposal after four weeks.

The bench then took up the second PIL, filed by NGO ‘Antarashtriya Manav Adhikaar Nigraani’ in 2013, regarding cleanliness in the mid-day meals and seeking directions to prevent incidents like the one that occurred in a government primary school in a Bihar village where 23 children died after eating contaminated food.

When the counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment saying that the advocate-on-record was out of Delhi and will not be availeble till January 20, the bench got enraged.

“Is it the Supreme Court or the joke court? This is important business… Who is the arguing counsel? You have made all the states as parties,” it remarked and adjourned the hearing.
 

The post “Is this the Supreme Court or a joke court” an irked SC tells state govts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In workplaces today, we can see how capitalists in collusion with the State to extract as much surplus value as possible from the labourer – not only by pushing wages down but by pushing productivity up. The latter is done, in part, by denying workers the time to sit for a few minutes, to use the toilet, have a cup of tea or a meal, exchange a friendly word with a colleague, change a sanitary pad, breastfeed a baby or attend to a child. At the same time, the State’s own ‘welfare’ provisions (which should be called ‘social wages’ rather than ‘welfare’, since they enable social reproduction) are drastically being shrunk and slashed.         
 
Maternity Entitlements and Childcare Provisions in India
 A recent Convention in Delhi, organised by the Right to Food Campaign in conjunction with many women’s groups, unions and organisations, highlighted the demand for universal maternity entitlements and childcare provisions.
 
In India, 90% of women are engaged in informal or the unorganised sector. They do not get maternity leave, nor wage compensation during pregnancy and after childbirth; instead they can be thrown out of work for getting pregnant. The principal employers and contractors all shrug off any responsibility for maternity and childcare provisions. Even in the organised sector, the Maternity Benefits Act, like labour laws in general, is rampantly violated.
 
The fact that workers, especially in the unorganised sector and especially women, are not allowed to avail their right to organise and form Unions, also contributes to a situation where labour laws and maternity entitlements laws are violated.
 
The National Food Security Act 2013 was a significant breakthrough, since it entitled all pregnant and lactating women to a maternity entitlement of at least Rs 6000 per child birth. This amount is far from enough, and does not take wages, minimum wages or inflation rates into consideration, but it is nevertheless an achievement. But how far has this entitlement been implemented in the past two and a half years?
 
The NFSA maternity entitlement is provided through the Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY). But the latter has undermined the universal nature of the entitlement. It is provided in just 53 districts, only to mothers above the age of 19 and for two live births – and also expects women to fulfil a range of conditionalities such as health check-ups, immunisation etc on their own responsibility in order to avail of the entitlement. This means that the State sits in judgement on women; and restricts the entitlement to ‘deserving’ mothers, blaming mothers for teenage marriages and pregnancies and for violating the neo-Malthusian ‘two-child’ norm. Perhaps most perverse is the manner in which mothers are blamed for not getting health check-ups and immunisation done or for failing to breastfeed babies – callously refusing to recognise the lack of basic healthcare provisions in vast tracts of India, and work conditions and chronic malnutrition that make breastfeeding difficult.         
 
Nine labour laws including the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act mandate crèches at the workplace – but like other labour laws, these are routinely violated. 
 
Voices of Mothers and Fathers
At a Jan Sunvai (Public Hearing) session at the Convention, we heard more than 25 women and some men from all over India speak of their lives as mothers and fathers. The picture that emerged was alarming.   
 
Sunita Bharti, a garment worker in Delhi and a migrant from Bihar, spoke of how she lost her job during pregnancy because the resulting anaemia and weakness made it difficult for her to walk for half an hour to work from home. She is a contract worker, and the contractor provided no maternity leave or entitlements. When her son was a year and a half, Sunita resumed work, but had to leave her baby at home to be cared for by her 12-year-old daughter who, as a result, quit school. At work, a room is designated as a ‘creche’ as required by labour laws, but is usually kept locked – and is opened only when buyers visit the premises.    
 
Activists from Jharkhand presented case studies of women from Jharkhand, many of whom had been denied maternity entitlements because they had delivered at home; difficult forest terrain had prevented them from being able to reach a hospital for the delivery. One Adivasi woman, Monica Dung Dung, risked her own life and her baby’s, travelling to a hospital without cutting the umbilical cord, hoping that this would persuade them to register it as an institutional delivery. But they refused – and as a result she could not avail of the entitlement.  
 
Babita, a sanitation supervisor in JNU, spoke of how she was kicked out of her job by the contractor when she returned after her delivery, and remained out of work for some 8 months till JNU students and the AICCTU affiliated General Kamgar Union held a Ghera Dalo Dera Dalo protest, occupying the ad block night and day for weeks to force JNU to reinstate her in the same position. They tried to demote her but could not, under pressure from the agitation. Sonia, another worker at JNU, said she took leave to deliver her baby girl, and wasn't kicked out, but wasn't given wage compensation or ESI benefits either.
 
Babita asked, 'Don't the poor have a right to deliver babies? Why won’t JNU compensate me for the eight months I was forced to take a break in service after having a baby? There are 300 contract workers in JNU, yet no creche facilities for them, nor nursing breaks. I think every woman is a worker and should get maternity entitlements and every parent should get child care and creche facilities at the workplace.' (An aside – JNU is the University that the Hindutva right wing has branded as a ‘den of sex racket and sedition’. Babita and Sonia clearly saw the JNU students in a very different light – as allies in the struggle for dignity as workers and as women.)   

It was painful to hear Himesh Bhai Vankar, a worker from Gujarat, speak of his wife’s death after childbirth and his struggles to bring up his daughter Shreya alone. HimeshBhai and his late wife Gangaben both suffered disabilities thanks to kyphoscoliosis. During her pregnancy, Gangaben was never warned of the dangers of this condition. After delivering a baby and being discharged from hospital, Gangaben fell grievously ill. When she returned to the hospital, a cotton pad that had been left in the uterine lining was removed – but she died of the resulting infection. Subsequently, the Government and the various health agencies did not want to admit to medical negligence, and instead blamed her death on the kyphoscoliosis, alleging falsely that she had gone ahead with the pregnancy against medical advice.
 
The baby Shreya is malnourished and the natural weaning process is yet to happen even though she is two years old. One member of the Jan Sunvai panel asked HimeshBhai if he could possibly find enough time to personally feed the baby and try to wean her. His answer reflected such helplessness and anguish that it was painful to witness. He travelled a couple of hours each day to his workplace where he is a tailor; his mother, brother and brother’s wife all have to go to work as well. “If I don’t get any help from the Government, how will Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (the Modi Government’s call to save and educate daughters) become a reality,” he asked with tears in his eyes.           
 
Paternalism and Public Shaming of Women
At the Convention, the paternalism of the state and statutory institutions stuck out like a sore thumb. The current Chairperson of the NCPCR (National Commission for Protection of Child Rights), instead of speaking of what her institution plans to do to enforce maternity and childcare provisions, delivered a lecture on how women must help themselves and not expect the Government to solve their problems. From the floor, however, her speech was met with vigorous slogans by participants, saying ‘We women are struggling for our rights, NCPCR we expect support from you!’
 
When Neelam, a woman worker, came to give her testimony about being denied maternity entitlements in her first two pregnancies, the representative of the National Commission For Women (NCW) interrupted to ask her if she was now pregnant with a third child. When Neelam said yes, the NCW representative (to the visible discomfort of other members of the Jan Sunvai panel) began to administer a prolonged public shaming and admonishment: “You belong to a women’s organisation, don’t you know better than to keep having babies, don’t you know there should be a gap of at least three years between babies?” The lively participants challenged this attitude from the floor though, with activists urging her to remember that she was there to give a hearing to the women and tell them what the NCW planned to do, not give the women a scolding.  
 
These episodes actually gave us a glimpse of the sheer humiliation and denial of basic human dignity to which women are subjected daily – not only at home and at work, but at the hands of hospitals, doctors, and a range of State institutions. Women are humiliated and shamed in patriarchal society for being barren or choosing not to bear children and for bearing girl children. And State institutions that supposedly work for women’s welfare also humiliate women in their turn; routinely deeming them ‘ineligible’ and ‘unfit’ for the entitlements they demand.       
  
The Central Government, the ruling party and its camp followers use the slogan of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ (victory to Mother India) to intimidate Indian citizens into ‘proving’ patriotism by performing ‘worship’ for the ‘Nation’ imagined as a Hindu goddess. But the Government and the ruling party is least bothered about rights of ‘Bharat ki Matayen’ (mothers of India), ‘Bharat ki mahilayen’ (women of India)  to life, to dignity, to control over their reproduction and their bodies, to food, maternity entitlements and childcare.       
 
(The author is Secretary, All India Progressive Women’s Association) 
 

The post Mother’s Day 2016: What the State Owes Mothers, Parents And Women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A report by a top Delhi-based think tank, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), prepared under the direct leadership of Amitabh Kant, ex-secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Government of India, has claims that Gujarat ranks No 1 in the NCAER State Investment Potential Index (N-SIPI), though there is a dig.

N-SIPI has been divided into two separate indices. The first one includes five “pillars” based on which the index has been arrived it. These pillars are: labour, infrastructure, economic conditions, political stability and governance, and perceptions of a good business climate. It is called N-SIPI 21, as it includes a survey of 21 states out of 29.

The second index, called N-SIPI 30 (29 states and one union territory), is based on an index arrived at on the basis of four of the five pillars, labour, infrastructure, economic conditions, political stability and governance – but excludes the “perceptions of a good business climate”, as seen by top Indian business executives.
 
Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British High Commission, India, the report finds that in N-SIPI-21, Gujarat ranks No 1 in two of the five pillars, which are — political stability and governance, and perceptions of a good business climate. As for N-SIPI-30, Gujarat is nowhere near No 1 in any of the four pillars analysed to arrive at the ranking.

To quote from the report, “In N-SIPI 21, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka top the list under the labour pillar. In the infrastructure Pillar, Delhi tops followed by Punjab and Gujarat. In the economic climate pillar, while Delhi comes out top again, it is closely followed by Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra.”

As for N-SIPI 30, where only secondary data has been analysed, and perceptions of businessmen have been excluded for analysing any of the four pillar, Gujarat ranks No 4 in the first pillar, labour, with first three rankings going to Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. In the second pillar, infrastructure, Gujarat again ranks No 4, with Delhi, Goa and West Bengal occupying the first three positions.
 

In the third pillar, economic conditions, Gujarat ranks No 5, and the states which rank above Gujarat are Delhi, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. And in the fourth pillar, governance and political stability, Gujarat again ranks No 5, with four states ahead of the state – Tripura, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tamil Nadu.

The report states, it provides “a single composite investment rating of how the 29 Indian states and the Union Territory of Delhi are positioned to encourage and attract investment”, adding, it also provides “an entry point in thinking about new investment for domestic and overseas firms and encouraging a more competitive ethos among India’s states.”

Revealing Government of India hand in preparing the report, it states, “We are grateful to DIPP Secretary Amitabh Kant for his leadership in our consultations with his department officers during the course of this work. We also greatly welcome the enthusiasm shown by Kant’s successor, Ramesh Abhishek, in the work at NCAER for N-SIPI, and for Kant’s continuing interest in N-SIPI as the new CEO of the NITI Aayog.”
 
 
Analysing performance of two industrial sectors, pharmaceuticals and automobiles, the report does not find Gujarat No 1 in either of them. It says, “In terms of profitability in the pharmaceutical industry, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana), and Gujarat appear to be the top players followed by Karnataka and Uttarakhand.” It adds, “In terms of the market demand for pharmaceutical products, Kerala, Punjab and Karnataka top the list followed by Jammu and Kashmir and Tamil Nadu.”
As for automobiles, it says, “The dominant states in the automobile sector, on the other hand, are Delhi, Maharashtra, and West Bengal, followed by Haryana and Goa. In the retail sector, Delhi, Goa, and Kerala come out as the top three states with the highest potential for growth, followed closely by Maharashtra and Karnataka.”

http://www.counterview.net/2016/03/gujarat-no-1-in-govt-of-india-pushed.html
 

The post Gujarat No 1 in Development? Conflicting Indices in GOI Report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rajasthan Muslim Forum: Call for action

Demanding justice for victims of anti-minority violence in Rajasthan

In Sept-October 2011 Communalism Combat had reproduced the preliminary report of a fact-finding team set up by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties to investigate the attacks on the Meo Muslim minority in Gopalgarh, Rajasthan, on September 13-14, 2011, where police brutality and mob violence claimed 10 lives and left several persons injured. Thereafter, in a report on the All India Democratic Women’s Association’s Convention against Communal Conflict in December 2011, CC had revisited the incident.

Distressed by the state government’s reluctance to punish the culprits, including police officers responsible for dereliction of duty, in the violence against innocent Muslims in Gopalgarh (Bharatpur) and elsewhere in Rajasthan, representatives of Rajasthan’s Muslim minority under the banner of the Rajasthan Muslim Forum (RMF) led delegations to the National Commission for Minorities and met ministers in the central government in June 2012 to submit a detailed representation in this regard. In what appears to be a clear instance of contrary messages being sent out by the United Progressive Alliance, a month before the RMF felt compelled to take such steps and meet senior functionaries of the UPA in Delhi, union minister Salman Khurshid and Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh had in a public meeting in Jaipur on May 6, 2012 urged the chief minister of Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot, who was present on the dais, to give prompt and fair justice to the victims of the Gopalgarh violence and punish the guilty.

The press release issued by the RMF on June 26, 2012 tragically encapsulates the attitudes of the state (Congress) and central (UPA) governments towards the punishment of the perpetrators of communal violence in a state under their rule.

Summary of demands

The victims of the Gopalgarh violence of September 13-14, 2011 and concerned citizens and social workers appeal to the government of Rajasthan (GoR), the government of India (GoI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to give fair and prompt justice to the victims. Documentary evidences and the attitudes of officers show that the victims are not only not getting justice but have been made to suffer further injustice, discrimination and harassment due to delays and arbitrary procedures. Thus victims are made to fend for their own security and legal defence whereas the accused are given a clean chit due to faulty investigations and delays. Ten Muslims died due to police firing and burning and several were injured. Many houses and shops were looted and damaged while the police looked on.

None of the officers responsible for such flagrant dereliction of duty, including the district magistrate (DM) and superintendent of police (SP) of Bharatpur, have been punished. In fact, they have now been reinstated by the state thus demonstrating its desire to shelter them. This is one of the reasons why Rajasthan has witnessed increasing violence against Muslims, in the regions of Marwar, Mewar, Hadoti and Mewat, in recent months. No officer has so far been punished for these incidents of anti-Muslim violence.

The law of the land must apply equally to all, irrespective of class, status and religion.

The adverse roles of the CBI and the state
 

• Using subterfuge (e.g. calling victims for assessment of losses for compensation and then arresting them in Bharatpur), Muslim victims of violence have been treated as perpetrators; they have been arrested and are being harassed by the CBI and police. This is done with the desire to immobilise victims, to undermine their commitment to fight for justice and file first information reports (FIRs) against the accused and officers who conspired with perpetrators and/or committed gross dereliction of duty which resulted in deaths and massive loss of property.
• Ignoring the clear instructions in two government (GoR and GoI) notifications, the CBI took a biased approach while dealing with Muslim victims and guilty officers like the DM and SP; the FIRs filed by Muslim victims were ignored while those filed by the police were investigated and action was taken on them.
• The CBI is intimidating witnesses to the violence. It is asking Muslims only two specific questions (‘How many Muslims were in the masjid?’ and ‘Who instigated the violence?’) without allowing them to narrate the sequence of events which would reveal who cast the first stone. Why is the CBI not interested in a complete chain of circumstances when such an investigation would expose the preplanning and conspiracy behind the violence and bring in the calculated assault on the imam of the Jama Masjid and other Muslims on September 13, 2011 which occurred before passions were allowed to build up and violence erupted? The approach of the CBI is selective, to say the least, and reveals a biased approach in the investigation itself.
• Despite the assurances given to Muslims by the chief minister of Rajasthan, he has not taken strict action against the officers accused of dereliction of duty and others who indulged in arson, looting and killing i.e. those responsible for the loss of Muslim life and property.
• Although the DM and SP of Bharatpur were suspended from service in late September 2011, serious administrative loopholes in the orders passed have ensured that they and other officers could not be punished. The state government deliberately failed to issue show-cause notices to or file charge sheets against the two officers either before or during their suspension. Worse, the state government consciously chose not to intervene before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT); hence it was not heard before the CAT delivered its interim order. The government did not file a review application against the judgement delivered by the CAT nor has it to date appealed against the CAT judgement in the high court, explaining forcefully the reasons for the officers’ suspension.
• Soon after the DM and SP were suspended, representatives of the Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service associations in the state met the then chief secretary to protest against the suspension, claiming that this had demoralised their officers. Such belligerence reveals a disturbing mindset among the senior bureaucracy in the state – where firm action following criminal dereliction of duty is interpreted as a cause for loss of morale. In fact, the suspended officers had violated their constitutional duty and the code of conduct that enjoins IAS/IPS officers to uphold the fundamental rights to life and equality before the law.
•  There is a nexus between the various arms of the bureaucracy that is protecting guilty officers responsible for the carnage in Gopalgarh.
• Compensation for the loss of property has been calculated in accordance with the GoR (home department) rules of 2008; these amounts are miserably low and do not reflect the price index. Most victims have refused to accept the compensation offered. It has been a consistent finding that during communal violence and one-sided violence against Muslims, it is the Muslims who suffer the most in terms of loss of life and property. The corollary then is equally disturbing: while the compensation paid to Muslims for loss of life and property ought to be much higher, it is in fact unrealistically low. This shows a deep-seated prejudice against minorities. The rules were framed during the Congress regime in 2008 when Ashok Gehlot was chief minister. Such norms must be reviewed and upgraded realistically (as has been done in the case of victims of the 1984 Sikh massacre in Delhi or the 2002 Muslim massacre in Gujarat).
• The victim community’s requests for an appointment with the chief minister had not been successful.

Gopalgarh: Victims of mob and state

Background
 

• GoR notification F-19 (13) Home-5/2011, dated September 21, 2011, mentions five FIRS registered (thus far) at the Gopalgarh police station. However, the notification contains clear instructions that all FIRs in the case: "All cases registered at police station Gopalgarh, district Bharatpur, and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above-mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts" must be investigated.
• GoI notification F. No. 228/65/2011-AVD-II, dated October 11, 2011, refers to the GoR notification above and repeats verbatim GoI instructions which include all cases/FIRs for CBI investigation.  
• However, going against the explicit instructions in the GoR/GoI notifications, SS Kishore, additional superintendent of police, CBI, registered (and thereafter investigated) only five FIRs on October 11, 2011, deliberately excluding the 14 FIRs filed by victim Muslims against the DM, SP, local officers and Gujjars/Hindus, accusing them of conspiracy and of abetting the crimes committed against the victims on September 13-14, 2011. The CBI was quick to register a fresh case on October 11, 2011 but it did not take cognisance of the 14 FIRs that had also been registered at the police station before that date and which it deliberately ignored. This shows that the CBI had acted mala fides in its willingness to protect bureaucrats accused of gross dereliction of duty. This despite the fact that the divisional commissioner of Bharatpur had indicted these officers for dereliction of duty, stating that the investigation must be conducted by an inspector-general of police.
• The GoR notification mentions 20 FIRs, including the 14 FIRs filed by Muslims, and the same instructions (i.e. to investigate all cases/FIRs relating to the incident) were reiterated to the CBI in October 2011.
• About three and a half months later, on January 20, 2012, the GoI issued another notification which mentioned 18 FIRs, including the 14 FIRs filed by Muslims. There was no need to do this, as it was a mere repetition. This appears to have been done with deliberate purpose. It gave the CBI a handle to protect the DM and SP while maintaining that it (the CBI) could begin investigations into the 14 FIRs (which named the DM and SP among other accused) only after the (second) GoI notification of January 20, 2012. This time lag of over three months (October 11, 2011 to January 20, 2012) also allowed the CBI to file a charge sheet against those accused in the five FIRs first registered by it without delay. Since the DM and SP were not mentioned in these FIRs (at least two of which were filed by policemen), both officers could be given a clean chit; there was nothing to incriminate them. The damning accusations against these officers were contained in the 14 FIRs filed by victims which had been registered earlier but which the CBI had deliberately overlooked.

The CBI is determined to protect bureaucrats somehow. It has managed to give them a clean chit despite evidence of their complicity and incompetence. The government of Rajasthan has aided this

• Moreover, the CBI did not act promptly even after the GoI’s second notification had been issued on January 20, 2012. It only registered the cases on February 24, 2012 after a deliberate delay of one month. This amounts to a total delay of five months if the initial GoR/GoI notifications are taken into consideration. In contrast, the CBI acted on the GoI’s first notification (albeit selectively) the very same day i.e. October 11, 2011. It appears that for the CBI, the ‘accused’ named in the five FIRs that were first registered (which include Muslim victims who were attacked in the market and those whose property was looted) are  more serious offenders than the high-profile ‘accused’ (the DM, SP and other officials) named in the 14 FIRs filed by Muslim victims. This shows a clear bias towards the powerful accused and a communal bias against the victims. The conduct of the investigation, the CBI’s selective promptness and delays, served to protect the district administration, particularly the SP and DM, while the victim Muslims were further victimised. While the victim Muslims were in jail, or nursing their injured kinsmen in hospital, the accused were allowed to roam free.
• The 14 FIRs filed by Muslim victims in the incidents of September 13-14, 2011 were registered between September 25 and 27, 2011 after curfew was partially lifted and only after the victims, occupied with the treatment of the injured and the burial of their dead, could muster the courage to do so. There was thus a 12-day delay in the registration of these FIRs. This is not an insurmountable delay in law. Meanwhile, the policemen and Gujjars were at an advantage; they had nothing to fear and were able to file FIRs immediately. (The very fact that the entire police staff of the Gopalgarh police station was transferred to the Bharatpur police lines about a week after the incident points to their complicity in the violence.)
• If all 19 FIRs had been clubbed together for the CBI investigation as per the explicit instructions in the state and central government notifications, the dereliction of duty and collusive roles of the district administrators and others accused by the victims would have become clear, in particular the mala fide intent and conduct of the DM, the SP and other local officials.
• In sum, the CBI is determined to protect bureaucrats somehow. It has managed to give them a clean chit despite evidence of their complicity and incompetence.

The GoR has aided this. As mentioned earlier, it did not file charge sheets against or issue show-cause notices to the DM and SP before or during their suspension, allowing the CAT to give a verdict in their favour. Nor did the state put its views on the conduct of these officials before the tribunal. The GoR had enough evidence against these officers for dereliction of duty as a result of which precious lives were lost, property damaged/looted and communal and social harmony jeopardised or destroyed.

The officers’ failures and culpability were manifested in:

a) Their failure to take preventive measures on September 13, 2011 by arresting those named in the FIR filed by Abdul Gani for assaulting his family and the imam of the Jama Masjid (before the violence had escalated);

b) Their deliberate failure to impose prohibitory orders, or Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (powers to issue an order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger), on the morning of September 14, 2011 when a crowd had assembled to protest against the assault on the imam; and

c) The DM and SP’s failure to resolve the graveyard land dispute by referring the same to the revenue department and Wakf Board expeditiously.

By their deliberate inaction, passions were allowed to build up.

Among the signatories to the representation are Quari Moinudin, Nazimudin Engineer, Mohd Saleem and Prof M. Hasan (all of the Rajasthan Muslim Forum) along with victims of the Gopalgarh violence, including Abdul Rashid, the imam of the Jama Masjid who was brutally assaulted on the evening of September 13, 2011, as well as several prominent members of the Muslim community across Rajasthan. Prof HC Bhartiya, Prof RC Bhandari, Prof HC Rara, Prof Surendra Singh Chaudhari, Prof NC Jain, Prof RP Bhatnagar and Prof  CH Hada (all formerly of the University of Rajasthan) and Prof SS Shukla, formerly of the Government College, Ajmer, are also key signatories.

Archived From Communalism Combat,  July 2012, Year 18, No- 167. Focus

The post Punish the perpetrators appeared first on SabrangIndia.