After a veritable verbal dressing down from ex-Army officers and remarks by Opposition leaders, Rajya Sabha (RS) Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Tuesday ordered a review of the new military-style uniform worn by marshals in the House on the first day of the Winter Session of Parliament.

“The secretariat of Rajya Sabha after considering the various suggestions have come out with new dress code for marshals. But we have received some observations from some political as well as some well-meaning people. So I have decided to ask the secretariat to revisit the same,” Naidu said.
 

Dressing up or dressing down?

The marshals, who customarily flank the RS presiding officer and assist in organizing the desk and bringing up order papers, have till now worn traditional Indian attire paired with a turban. But on Monday, this uniform was replaced with a military-style outfit, replete with the peak-cap sporting an aiguillette and an ornamental braided cord with decorated metal tips worn only by senior military officers and the Indian police service. Not just that, the marshals also sported shoulder epaulets with stripes and a ‘Lanyard’ (a symbol for rank, expertise or training level) across the shoulder loop like those used by the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Navy to denote ranks of officers.

The marshals earlier used to wear safari suits during summer and Indian bandhgalas paired with turbans during winter. They are also said to don white uniforms, resembling those of Navy officers, during Parliament sessions in the summer season.

This led to some members of the house asking if “martial law was being imposed”.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh commented that there had been ‘a very significant change’ in their attire to which Naidu had replied, “Okay. You always make significant points at an insignificant time.”

The stark change in outfit also drew sharp remarks from General VP Malik who tweeted –

Copying and wearing of military uniforms by non military personnel is illegal and a security hazard. I hope @VPSecretariat, @RajyaSabha & @rajnathsingh ji will take early action. https://t.co/pBAA26vgcS

— Vedmalik (@Vedmalik1) November 18, 2019

BJP MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar too expressed displeasure over the new uniform.

I too am more than a little taken aback at this. ?

I will bring this to attention of Honble @VPSecretariat tmrw. ??@DefenceMinIndia @PMOIndia @FlagsOfHonour https://t.co/hwMNcpwx2L

— Rajeev Chandrasekhar ?? (@rajeev_mp) November 18, 2019

Veteran Major Surendra Poonia said –

Copying/Wearing uniforms and insignias of Indian Army/Navy/Air Force by non military personnel is ILLEGAL & highly objectionable.
I humbly request Hon’ble @VPSecretariat to ask @RajyaSabha officials to change the uniform of Marshals ?@adgpi @rajnathsingh @indiannavy @IAF_MCC pic.twitter.com/JvN4bbBTFX

— Major Surendra Poonia (@MajorPoonia) November 19, 2019

Former Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lt Gen Vinod Bhatia (retd) questioned: “Why do organisations private and government, and now the respected Rajya Sabha want similarity in attire with armed forces without any consideration for the dignity of soldiers. Is it because the public holds them in highest esteem? Legal provisions needed to respect uniform”.
 

In-house design!

Rajya Sabha sources told The Indian Express that the marshals had themselves sought a change to a uniform that would be user-friendly and have a modern look. They were unhappy that the Indian attire was the same as the chamber attendants who were junior to them.

“Marshals had long been demanding a change in attire because their earlier uniform was the same as what the non-gazetted staff wore, whereas the marshals are all officers,” said an official. Also, many described the turban as “cumbersome headgear that took very long to wear.”

Subsequently, senior officers of the Secretariat including the security officers held several rounds of discussions before designing the new dress. Instead of hiring an outside expert, the designing, sources said, was done in-house.

Whether this is the truth or yet another classic case of passing the blame, it seems like the Rajya Sabha will have to repeal the new ‘Fashion Design Bill’they tried to pass without debate.

Related:

JNU protests & police brutality resonate in Upper House: Rajya Sabha adjourned

Centre to merge Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha TV channels

Mumbai University students or Emperor Akbar? Twitter LOLs at new convocation outfit

The post Venkaiah Naidu to review design of RS marshals’ new uniforms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Last week, in an unprecedented move, over 60 Members of Parliament belonging to seven different opposition parties led by the Congress, submitted a written petition to Naidu, who is also Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, demanding the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The move came just the day after the SC dismissed a PIL demanding an SIT probe into the mysterious death of Judge BH Loya. CJI Misra was a member of the three judge bench that dismissed the PIL.
 
Misra has been in the eye of the storm since January 12, 2018, when in an unprecedented move, four sitting judges of the Supreme Court came out and addressed a press conference alleging nepotism in the apex court. They alleged that the Chief Justice was assigning important and controversial cases only to a select few judges. They feared this cherry picking could have an impact on the judgment in these high profile cases, including the case pertaining to Judge Loya’s death.
 
But Naidu quashed the impeachment motion stating in his order, “The Honourable Members of Parliament who have presented the petition are unsure of their own case.” He further said, “… the phrases used by the Honourable Members of Parliament themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption. The same certainty does not constitute proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, which is required to make out a case of ‘proved misbehaviour’ under Article 124 (4).” 
 
According to Article 124 (4) of the Indian Constitution, “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”

The entire order may be read here.
 

The post CJI Misra gets a breather as Venkaiah Naidu quashes Impeachment Motion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The complete letter read:
“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress, that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then, over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration the RSS persons would come to the right path.” But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot.”[ii]
 
Earlier Sardar Patel in a letter dated July 18, 1948 to Syama Prasad Mookerjee a senior leader and ideologue of the Hindu Mahasabha wrote:
“As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, the case relating to Gandhiji’s murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything about the participation of the two organizations, but our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure.[iii]
 
So far as egalitarian India is concerned the present RSS/BJP rulers including Naidu ji are committed to replace Indian Constitution with the Manusmriti which decrees a sub-human status Sudras and women in the Hindu society. The Constituent Assembly of India finalized the democratic-secular Constitution of India on November 26, 1949, RSS was not happy. Its organ, Organiser in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained:
“But in our Constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”
 
The alma mater of Naidu ji, the RSS is not familiar with the word non-sectarian. The RSS since its inception in 1925 is violently opposed to an all-inclusive. It surprised nobody when the English organ of the RSS, Organiser, on the very eve of Independence (August 14, 1947) editorially chalked out its concept of nation in the following words:
“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.”
 
Naidu ji will you act as VP of a democratic-secular India or an RSS pracharak? Do inform us citizens on which side of the divide you stand!

The post On VP Venkaiah Naidu’s Support for the Ram Rajya of Mahatma Gandhi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Hindustan Times

Information and Broadcasting Minister M Venkaiah Naidu admitted that the changes recommended by Justice Mudgal committee and Benegal committee will have to be recommended.

He said, “Justice (Mukul) Mudgal committee and (Shyam) Benegal committee have made some important recommendations. I am examining them. At the end of the day, you have to implement those. I may have to make some changes in the law also.”

However he did not provide a timeframe within which the issue will be taken up. He said, “I am moving in that direction. I can't give you any timeframe because of the Winter session. I don't think I will be able to complete this. My efforts will certainly be to take up the new legislation in the session thereafter.”

He reportedly said that he had informed the secretary of the censor board about the recommendations and had also sought the opinion of board members. "I told him to study and get back. Government is open to making necessary changes,” said Naidu.

The Cinematograph Act, 1952 mandates the constitution of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the purpose of “sanctioning films for public exhibition”. The role of censor board in the recent years have been questioned following allegations of moral policing in the process of certification by the board.

Naidu, who took over the charge of the ministry about four months ago, says he is aware of the controversies surrounding the censor board and feels there should be some restraint from both the sides – CBFC and film industry.

"I am aware of certain controversies with regards to censor certificate issue and censor board. Controversies per se should have been avoided,” he said.

The post Government to amend Cinematograph Law, may alter Censor Board’s role appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was an embarrassing moment for many secularists in India watching Bihar’s Laloo Prasad Yadav’s response on Star TV, prime time, as election results from his state pronounced the near rout of his party in Bihar. “Mr Yadav, do you think this is due to the voters’ disenchantment with the government for lack of any development in the state”. “No”, replied Yadav bravely, “the issue in the election was secularism, not development”.

 Can secularism ever be a one–point agenda unrelated to other concerns of people?  
In the midst of the election campaign in August, a Muslim petty trader, Rehman, was burnt alive at a village market in Orissa. One of the eyewitnesses told the police that Dara Singh — the man charged with the torching alive of Graham Staines and his two sons, in the same state earlier this year — was the man responsible for the latest incident. A week later, a Christian priest, Fr. Arul Doss, too, was done to death in the same state. 

The Bajrang Dal, the RSS and the BJP were quick to condemn such brutal killing of minorities in Congress–ruled Orissa. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad even issued a press statement, maintaining that whoever was responsible behind such killings “could not be a Hindu”. But, ironically, the Congress party — the party that swears by secularism, the only party capable of challenging Hindutva on a national plane, the party that depends crucially on minority votes — maintained a deathly silence. 

Is secularism a mere mantra  — to be enshrined in the party manifesto and chanted reverentially on convenient occasions — which has nothing to do with issues like the security of life and property of all citizens, irrespective of their faith? 

Was secularism an issue at all in the Lok Sabha polls of 1999? To begin with, what does one mean by secularism — not in the academic sense but in terms of how it relates to the lived experience of people?
In the 1991 polls, with the Shiv Sena as its only ally, the BJP secured 120 Lok Sabha seats. With three more allies on its side in 1996, the Akali Dal in Punjab, the George Fernandes–led Samta party in Bihar and the Haryana Vikas Parishad (HVP) in Haryana, the BJP’s tally climbed up to 161. Having emerged as the single largest party, the BJP was invited to form the government and given two weeks to prove its majority in the Lok Sabha. 

But it was still a different India three years ago where the BJP was a political untouchable for most politicians. In the 13 days that his government lasted, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the rest of the saffron stalwarts were unable to win over even a single MP to their side. Leave alone party politicians, even those who had fought and won as independents were unwilling to shake hands with the party whose manifesto contained ‘contentious issues’ — 

Ø Building of a Ram Mandir where the Babri Masjid once stood in Ayodhya; 

ØRemoval of article 370 from the Indian Constitution which grants a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;

Ø Introducing a Uniform Civil Code (to replace the different existing personal laws for different religious communities).

Until the BJP’s electoral drubbing in the Assembly elections in UP and elsewhere in late 1993, then BJP president, L.K. Advani, used to revel in the ‘majestic isolation’ of his party. But the acute isolation of 1996 confronted the BJP and its sangh parivar with a difficult choice: retain ‘ideological purity’, remain a political untouchable and make a solo bid to power by hard–selling Hindutva. Alternatively, adopt tactical flexibility and put ‘contentious issues’ on the backburner so as to break out of political isolation.

Since the prospects of coming to power on the strength of its own divisive agenda seemed remote, at least in the current scenario, the BJP and its parivar deviously chose the latter. And reaped rich dividends in the elections of 1998 and 1999. 

The BJP entered the electoral arena for the Lok Sabha polls in February 1998 with 18 allies. Thanks to the alliances, the party improved on its own tally of seats — from 161 in 1996 to 182 in 1998 — and, more importantly, headed a coalition government. But the wafer–thin majority of the BJP–led coalition made Vajpayee hostage to some of his mercurial allies — Jayalalitha being the most obvious. 

On the eve of the 1999 polls, the BJP made yet another quantum leap. In June this year, the Janata Dal, which formed the core of the ‘Third Front’ (the Congress and the BJP being the first two), disintegrated with virtually the entire bulk of the party choosing to ally with the BJP. Leaders like Ram Vilas Paswan and Sharad Yadav, who for years had shouted themselves hoarse at the communalism of the BJP, suddenly had no qualms rallying behind the saffron bandwagon. 

The acceptance of the BJP by virtually the entire political spectrum today is as comprehensive as its political isolation was stark in 1996. If it was Jayalalitha’s AIADMK which teamed up with the BJP in 1998, this time it’s the DMK in Tamil Nadu. If Farooq Abdullah’s National Conference decided to extend support from the outside to the Vajpayee–led government in 1998, this time it fought elections as part of the NDA and is now a part of the government at the Centre. The Telugu Desam Party’s Chandrababu Naidu fought against the BJP in the 1998 polls, agreeing to extend support to the Vajpayee government from the outside only subsequently. This time, the TDP and the BJP jointly fought the Congress in Andhra.

The BJP, which led an 18 party alliance in 1998, now counts on 24 allies. In theory, it now has to lean on many more parties to stay in power. But in practice it also means there are over 300 MPs behind Vajpayee in the Lok Sabha against the precarious figure of 273 in a House of 544. 

What does this augur for secular politics in India?  
Even for some secularists, the present political arrangement is not such a bad thing after all. With only 182 seats of its own — exactly the same number that it had in the last Lok Sabha – the BJP depends crucially on people like Chandrababu Naidu, M. Karunanidhi, Mamata Bannerji, Ramvilas Paswan, Ramkrishna Hegde and others. None of them can afford to ignore minorities’ votes in their respective regions and constituencies. The continued dependence of the BJP on these leaders and parties for their continued hold on power also means, according to these secularists, that issues like Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code continue to be kept in abeyance. Such a grand alliance also means strengthening the ‘moderates’ and the ‘liberals’ and weakening the hold of the hawks within the sangh parivar. 

If Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code was all that Indian secularism was about, there may have been some merit in such wishful thinking. But the ‘evil genius’ of the sangh parivar lies precisely in its ability to have, for all practical purposes, reduced the issue of India’s secularism to the BJP’s postponed agenda. 
Be it the reporters who raised questions at BJP’s press conferences during the electoral campaign, or TV anchors and even unsympathetic expert commentators who quizzed BJP leaders before and after the election results, or political parties who in their electoral campaign charged the BJP with playing communal politics. Hardly anyone went beyond asking the BJP to state for how long the issues of Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code would remain postponed. 

Responding to these queries was, at the worst, a little awkward. Being past–masters in the art of double–speak, different leaders of the BJP and different segments of the sangh parivar said different things at the same time; or the same leader said different things at different points of the electoral campaign. The net result of this was Advantage BJP – the statement of one general secretary, Venkaiah Naidu, convinced the ‘liberals’ and the fence sitters that the BJP is turning ‘moderate’; the statements of another party general secretary, K. Govindacharya, reassured the core supporters of Hindutva that the party remains committed as ever to the Hindu Rashtra ideology.  

Neither the avowedly secular political opponents of the BJP, nor the print and electronic media thought it necessary to educate the voter how in the brief tenure of the BJP at the Centre and in states like U.P. and Gujarat —
Ø Life has come to mean endless anxiety, at best, for Christians and Muslims in Gujarat for nearly two years. After several independent fact–finding teams sent by civil liberties organisations and the National Minorities Commission had established numerous instances of attacks on minorities in Gujarat, Prime Minister Vajpayee, the most ‘liberal face’ of the BJP, visited the state only to return with a call for a “national debate on conversions”.  

Ø There is a sustained effort to infiltrate, capture and pack educational and cultural institutions with men and women known primarily for their commitment to RSS ideology. One such RSS leader, who is now going to decide what children should be taught in schools, proudly asserted in his autobiography how he killed a Muslim woman in 1947 because too many Hindus wanted to enslave her for their own lust! (See Pg. 22). 

Ø For the sangh parivar, Kargil became a convenient pretext to communalise the Indian armed forces.

Ø Attacks on minorities have continued before, during and after the present polls in Gujarat, Orissa and Kanyakumari by votaries of Hindu majoritarianism.

Ø It is not for nothing that both in the previous government and yet again, the home ministry (crime and punishment), the human resources development ministry (education and culture) and the information and broadcasting ministry (mass communications) were retained by the BJP at the insistence of the RSS. 
There can be no doubt that through Vajpayee’s earlier tenure as Prime Minister, and now, the saffron project continues to be advanced through other means, even while ‘contentious issues’ have been put on the back–burner — postponed agenda. Avowedly secular parties, political pundits and the print and electronic media have no perspective of building mass campaigns to raise public awareness on these very concrete issues that directly concern people. They could also be used to mount pressure on many of the BJP’s allies who still claim to have nothing in common with saffron politics. Otherwise, secularism will be progressively reduced to a mere chant, while the sangh parivar increases its stranglehold over society, and state. In preparation for the future Hindu Rashtra..

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7  No. 53, Polls 99 1

The post Secularism: a mere mantra? appeared first on SabrangIndia.