If all goes well for her Kamala Devi Harris will be the the first, Black-Indian-American woman to become the vice president of the United States of  America, and if things continue to get better she may first take all those credentials and become the President.  She, as the world knows by now, is the daughter of  Tamil Nadu born, Indian-American, cancer researcher and civil rights activist Shyamala Gopalan and Jamaican-American economist Donald J. Harris. Kamala’s father immigrated to the U.S. from Jamaica to study economics and her mother immigrated from India. But it is her ‘amma’ who matters most in the life of Senator Harris. She credits all her achievements, and indeed her thought process to the life lessons she learned from her mother Shyamala, who herself is hailed as a cancer research pioneer, and activist. Brought up by her mother, as a single parent, it is her influence that Kamala has always admitted too. 

One would think that would be great news for us Indians. We love to pick a connection and bond with all things indian origin, and half indian, that have achieved great global success. Notable corporate leaders, doctors, astronauts, all have been hailed as ‘children of mother India,” in some form or the other. Kamala Harris , however, has confused many in the motherland. While that is still fine, she seems to have upset those who align with the myopically homogenised Right Wing idea of India, and Indianness. 

They have found in Kamala Harris a fresh candidate to target with their hate speech. As always it has begun with mocking, and vile personal attacks. Leading from the front is writer, Madhu Kishwar who posted, “Video of her dosa making skills will not wash away the hateful narrative peddled by @KamlaHarris & her #DemocraticGang on #Kashmir projecting India in fascist hues! Such phoney hybrid Hindus more dangerous than those openly belonging to #BarbaricCults”. 

Video of her dosa making skills will not wash away the hateful narrative peddled by @KamlaHarris & her #DemocraticGang on #Kashmir projecting India in fascist hues!

Such phoney hybrid Hindus more dangerous than those openly belonging to #BarbaricCults https://t.co/Rv1m0h9L4m

— MadhuPurnima Kishwar (@madhukishwar) August 13, 2020

With a thousands likes and countries replies to this were predictable, “She is not Hindu. By her own admi6 she is a Christian and she identifies herself as a black”

She is not Hindu. By her own admi6 she is a Christian and she identifies herself as a black

— Tapan ?? (@TapanP1957) August 13, 2020

And , “she cynically wooed Indian diaspora, suddenly she loves idli, sambhaar & dosa; & wooing the Paki diaspora by talking Kashmir. Anti Hindu is the Democratic narrative, with Biden and Sanders talking up a storm backing the Pak narrative.

She is NOT an Indian, just a US politician!” 

She cynically wooed Indian diaspora, suddenly she loves idli, sambhaar & dosa; & wooing the Paki diaspora by talking Kashmir. Anti Hindu is the Democratic narrative, with Biden and Sanders talking up a storm backing the Pak narrative.
She is NOT an Indian, just a US politician!

— AVM BC NANJAPA (Retd) (@bcnanjapa) August 13, 2020

Ironically, her nomination was welcomed by none other than Ram Madhav, the national general secretary, Bharatiya Janata Party, who  was also a member of the National Executive of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). He gave a ‘thumbs up’ to Kamala Harris for being the “first Indian and Asian woman to get the nomination as official VP candidate.”

First Indian and Asian woman to get the nomination as official VP candidate. ? https://t.co/zrGa612Rio

— Ram Madhav (@rammadhavbjp) August 12, 2020

Over three thousand likes and counting, Madhav’s words soon snowed under more Right Wing ‘counter’ tweets aimed to show the US senator as a ‘anti-India. His own followers trolled him, calling his tweet ‘foolish’.

Foolish tweet by you..
She introduced herself as African-American..
Additionally she is supporting T£rr0rist sympathiser J0eBid£n …
Indians should not vote to these t£rr0rists sympathiser party

— #IAmWithModi? (@mwh_Pramod) August 12, 2020

Some others told him to “Wait till she calls for UN intervention in J&K. Then we’ll see how you feel. And by the way she is a Black American.”

Wait till she calls for UN intervention in J&K. Then we’ll see how you feel. And by the way she is a Black American.

— Mohan Sinha ?? (@Mohansinha) August 12, 2020

And of course a RW influencer even told him what to do next, “please stay away from this dubious, corrupt woman who supports Kashmiri #terrorists“

Sir, I say this with humble request “please stay away from this dubious, corrupt woman who supports Kashmiri #terrorists“

She also identifies as Black more as compared to Indian.

She is NOT Indian.

Please don’t go soft on this Biden harris ticket. They both are Anti India

— Vaidehi ?? ?️ (@dharmicverangna) August 13, 2020

The ultimate one has come from journalist Rahul Kanwal, who posted his thoughts on the “The Kamala Conundrum” while pushing a story by India Today, according to him “There’s cheer in India as Democrats named Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s running mate for US presidential elections later this year, but her relatives back home caution that human rights matter to the senator than her Indian ancestry.”

The Kamala Conundrum: There’s cheer in India as Democrats named Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s running mate for US presidential elections later this year, but her relatives back home caution that human rights matter to the senator than her Indian ancestry. https://t.co/ffB08Qg1Fm

— Rahul Kanwal (@rahulkanwal) August 12, 2020

The India today story itself is based on a conversion with Harris’s Delhi-based uncle Dr G Balachandran, who has been a  consultant with the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Dr Balachandran has been quoted by India Today as saying, “She has a strong sense of public service, public rights and human rights. Even if she is of Indian extraction, as a VP or even as a Senator now, if she thinks anything in India impinges upon the civil rights of Indian citizens, she will speak out loud and clear,” he said.

He was also asked if her election would change the dynamics of the relationship between Donald Trump led-US, and Narendra Modi-led India? Dr Baachandran said, “India-US relations is well beyond one senator or even the President. India-US caucus is the biggest caucus. There is a need for some tweaking here and there, that she will do.” 

The fact of course remains that if  Kamala Harris becomes the Vice President of American, it means that the government has changed and a new government will have its own take on India-US relations. 

To say that her relative has “cautioned” that Kamala Harris is more “concerned about HUman rights, “than her Indian ancestry” is assuming that the two factors are polar opposites. 

As posted by an India Today editor, Dr. G Balachandran also said that his niece Kamala Harris will “take a stand on #Article370 not on why the govt did it but on issue of liberties of ppl of #Kashmir”

#Exclusive#KamalaHarris is a strong advocate of human rights. Human first then of Indian origin.
Will take a stand on #Article370 not on why the govt did it but on issue of liberties of ppl of #Kashmir:Dr. G Balachandran, maternal uncle of @KamalaHarris (Dem candidate for US VP) pic.twitter.com/SKzZ4U4Zw4

— Geeta Mohan گیتا موہن गीता मोहन (@Geeta_Mohan) August 12, 2020

His remarks too set off a series of personal jibes, aimed both at him and his niece. The comments, as expected came from handles with minimal following and on expected lines of “she is Christian, or “she is not Indian.”

Trump Hi Ayega
Indian American Specially Gujarati People will Not Support This Hindu Phobic Leady ..& Now She Is Not Hindu She Become Christian ??#Trump2020

— Joshi Krutarth ??? (@JoshiKrutarth5) August 12, 2020

So American VP Candidate Maternal Uncle deciding policy on how to interact with India ? ????

— మణి కుమార్ నాగవరపు || Mani Kumar Nagavarapu (@MKNagavarapu) August 12, 2020

Grandfather sees 2G problem in Kashmir but not the inhuman killing of soilders and common people, not the illegal ammunitions from porkistan, not the university, electricity ,road development. He sees CAA, but not the inhuman killing of minorities in Porkistan Afghan . wah Bhai

— Indranil Banerjee (@IndraNil013) August 13, 2020

According to the campaign site joebidden.com “Kamala’s mother told her growing up “Don’t sit around and complain about things, do something,” which is what drives Kamala every single day. She too shared this, her life mantra, as she paid homage to her mother. 

My mother always use to say, “Don’t just sit around and complain about things. Do something.” I dearly wish she were here with us this week. pic.twitter.com/RHO2VnlZs4

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 13, 2020

She has, of course, continued to ignore the  Right Wing trolls and not responded to any hate speech so far.

Related: 

Joe Biden bats for restoration of rights in Kashmir
San Francisco passes resolution opposing discriminatory CAA, NRC and NPR
July 4th Message: Muslims have a special bond with America
Indian-Americans protest communalism in NYC

The post Why does Kamala Harris care more about human rights than her Indianness? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As anticipated in the P.S. to a column published yesterday, the outgoing Vice-President Hamid Ansari’s plainspeak on the growing intolerance and violence in the country and the resulting feeling of insecurity among Muslims, Dalits and Christians is being attributed to the fact that he is a Muslim with a narrow world view. And in response the sangh parivar has virtually declared an open war against him.

Leading the charge against Ansari is none less than Prime Minister Narendra Modi whose diatribe came wrapped up as a “farewell”, ostensible best wishes message to the V-P in the Rajya Sabha.

Modi did not use the M word once yet he left little to the imagination. He suggested that Ansari’s entire worldview was tainted by his life-long association with a limited mahaul (environment) and dayara (circle). Read Muslim in both cases.

Ansari’s life journey, as Modi recounted it, was circumscribed by his family’s nearly century-old association with the Congress and active participation in the Khilafat movement, his professional life as a diplomat being largely spent in West Asia, his stints post retirement with the Aligarh Muslim University and the National Commission for Minorities (of which he was Chairperson). Read Muslim, Muslim, Muslim…

Thus spake Modi in the Rajya Sabha: “Aapke karyakaal ka bahut saara hissa West Asia se juda raha hai. Usi dayere mein zindagi ke bahut varsh aapke gaye, usi mahaul mein, usi soch mein, aise logon ke beech mein rahe. Wahan se retire hone ke baad bhi jyadatar kaam wohi raha aapka; Minorities Commission ho yah Aligarh Muslim University ho, zyadatar dayara aapka wohi raha”.

(As a diplomat, you spent most of your time in West Asia. You spent most of your life in that circle, that environment, that way of thinking, among those people. Post-retirement, your work was mostly similar, be it in the National Minorities Commission or Aligarh Muslim University. More or less, your circle remained the same).

Not for the first time, in order to make a political point, Modi had no qualm taking a few liberties with facts. The fact that Ansari also served as India’s envoy to Australia and was India’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations was conveniently ignored because that did not fit the Muslim mahaul and dayara into which the prime minister attempted to pigeonhole the outgoing vice-president.

Modi never said it in as many words. But his carefully crafted words could well be read to mean that because of his entire upbringing and background Ansari was ill-suited to the post of vice-president of India. 

“Lekin yeh 10 saal puri tarah ek alag zimma aapka sar mein aaya. Puri tarah ek ek pal samvidhan samvidhan samvidhan ke hi dayere mein chalana. Aur aapne usko bakhubi nibhaane ka bharpur prayaas kiya. Ho sakta hai kuch chatpatahat rahi hogi bhitar aapke andar bhi. Magar aaj ke baad shayad woh sankat bhi nahin rahega. Mukti ka anand bhi rahega aur apni mulbhut jo soch rahi hogi uske anusaar aapko karya karne ka, sochne ka, baat batane ka awsar bhi milega.

(But in the last 10 years, you were entrusted with an altogether different responsibility. Constitution, constitution, constitution! Its constraints dictated your approach all the time. But you worked to the best of your abilities. It is likely there was restlessness within you during this period. But after today perhaps you will no longer face such a dilemma. You will enjoy freedom, be able to work, speak, and think according to what you really feel.)

What else was the prime minister suggesting except that, because of his Muslim background, upbringing, mahaul and dayara, the values and principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution are foreign to Ansari? And by extension to most if not all Muslims?

Lest we forget, there was back-handed compliment too for the “career diplomat”.

“Aapka apna jivan bhi ek career diplomat ka raha. Ab career diplomat kya hota hai woh mujhe pradhan mantri banne ke baad hi samajh mein aaya. Kyonki unke hansne ka arth kya hota hai, unke haath milane ke tarike ka arth kya hota hai, woh toh turant samajh nahin aata hai. Unki training wohi hoti hai. Aur lekin us kaushalya ka upyog yeh 10 saal zaroor hua hoga aapko. Ki sabko sambhalne mein us kaushalya ne kis prakaar se laabh is sadan ko pahunchaya hoga.”

(Your professional life was that of a career diplomat. I understood what being a career diplomat means only after becoming the prime minister because the real meaning in the way they smile, the way they shake hands is not immediately apparent. Diplomats are trained to be that way. And that skill must have been useful for you in the last 10 years. Your skill must have helped managing divergent voices and thus benefited the House.)

If Modi’s barely-veiled barbs against the outgoing V-P could still be said to have stayed within the limits of parliamentary decorum, the same cannot be said of others in his party who are equally incensed by Ansari’s speech in Bangalore last Sunday and his parting interview to Rajya Sabha TV.

Vice-president elect, Venkaiah Naidu went so far as to accuse his predecessor of “defaming India”. In an interview to ANI he said, “People try to use minority issues for political purposes…India is the most tolerant country…Unfortunately, some people are trying to blow it out of proportion and trying to defame India, raising it to national forum.”

Meanwhile, BJP general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya called Ansari a “petty” man even before he had vacated the V-P’s chair. He accused him of being an opportunist seeking “political shelter” post-retirement.

“I condemn his comments. He has made political comments as he is retiring. He is still a vice-president and such comments do not suit his office’s dignity. It seems he is making such comments to find political shelter after retirement…Nobody expects such petty comments from a person holding such a high post,” said Vijayvargiya.

The VHP, of course, has damned Ansari describing him as a modern Jinnah trying “to push the country towards another partition”.

Meanwhile, unruffled by all the jibes and salvos aimed at him in and outside Parliament, Ansari began his farewell speech in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday with an Urdu couplet: “Mujhpe ilzaam itne lagaye gaye, begunaahi ke andaaz jate rahe (So much was I accused that ways to prove my innocence deserted me).

In his speech in Bangalore last Sunday Ansari had quoted Swami Vivekananda (the sangh parivar swears by him) as saying that people of different religions must learn not just to tolerate but to accept each other.

As his parting message to the nation, he relied on a quote from India’s second president, S Radhakrishnan: “A democracy is distinguished by the protection it gives to minorities. A democracy is likely to degenerate into a tyranny if it does not allow the opposition groups to criticise freely and frankly the policies of the government.” What will the BJP and the sangh parivar say to Radhakrishnan).
 

The post With PM in the lead, BJP and parivar declare war against former Vice-President: Plainspeak ke side effects appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The outgoing Vice-President of India, Hamid Ansari, has spoken yet again, done some plain speaking on the ideology and politics of hatred that has been targeting Muslims and Dalits and poses a direct threat to our democracy. In the growing climate of intolerance and violence since the BJP-led, RSS-controlled NDA government has assumed power, he has repeatedly spoken as the former President and the Prime Minister of our Republic too should have but never did.

In his interview to Rajya Sabha TV on his last day as vice-president, Ansari said Muslims in the country were experiencing “a feeling of unease. “A sense of insecurity is creeping in,” he noted. In his speech in Bangalore too last Sunday, he had spoken of the “enhanced apprehensions of insecurity amongst segments of our citizen body, particularly Dalits, Muslims and Christians”.   
     
Responding to a question from his interviewer for RSTV, Karan Thapar the vice-president said he shared the view of many that intolerance was growing in the country. Without mincing words, he ascribed the spate of vigilante violence, mob lynchings, beef bans and “ghar wapsi” campaigns to a “breakdown of Indian values” and more significantly to the “breakdown of the ability of the authorities” [my italics] to enforce the law. “

It may be recalled that the issue of impartial enforcement of rule of law had also figured prominently in Ansari’s Bangalore speech: (The) Rule of Law… seems to be under serious threat arising out of the noticeable decline in the efficacy of the institutions of the State, lapses into arbitrary decision-making and even ‘ochlocracy’ or mob rule, and the resultant public disillusionment.

Asked for his comments on some recent court judgments concerning singing of national anthem in cinema halls (Supreme Court), obligatory chanting of ‘Vande Matram’ in educational institutions, government and private offices (Madras High Court), Ansari observed: “The propensity to be able to assert your nationalism day in and day out is unnecessary. I am an Indian and that is it… The very fact (of) Indianness of any citizen being questioned is a disturbing thought.”     
     
Reminding the vice-president of his speech in Bangalore last Sunday where Ansari had said, “The version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism. It promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism”.

Thapar: “Were you actually commenting on what’s happening today?”

Ansari: Yes.

Thapar: Am I right?

Ansari: Yes…Yes.

Thapar: So you were talking with specific reference to the mood of the country in 2017?

Ansari: Oh absolutely.

Thapar: Can you give the audience a sense of why you felt this was an important thing to say. Because vice president’s normally don’t speak out in this way. Why did you deliberately choose to do so?

Ansari: No, vice presidents do speak out and I have in the last ten years spoken out again and again on matters that I think needed to be aired in public. So it was not unusual, at least not for me, to speak about certain issues about which I think needed to be discussed. There is to each individual a manner of speaking; I stuck to my manner of speaking.

Thapar: And you deliberately choose a moment to point out, that this exaggerated concept of nationalism, this unnecessary requirement of have to keep proving you are patriotic and nationalist is unhealthy. It makes for intolerance and arrogance that is a point you felt a personal need to make?

Ansari: Yes. And I am not the only one in the country; a great many people feel the same way.

In other words, the vice-president does not hesitate in pointing to the root of the problem of growing intolerance and violence in the country: the cultural nationalism agenda of the sangh parivar. (The above transcript is courtesy, The Wire).

The vice-president perhaps could not, should not, be expected to be any more direct in his critique of the ideology of Hindutva, be more specific in naming names. But as citizens we need to ask what kind of law enforcement is to be expected from the authorities when the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and most of the cabinet members have divided loyalties. To get to seats of power they may have sworn by the Indian Constitution but the sangh remains their soul.

As quoted above, while telling Thapar that there was nothing unusual in vice-presidents speaking their mind, Ansari had added: “There is to each individual a manner of speaking; I stuck to my manner of speaking”.

However, the “manner of speaking” becomes vitally important especially in the times that we live in. When the bull needs to be taken by the horns, when hard talk is the need of the hour, sweet homilies are simply no use. This is where, not for the first time, the manner of speaking of the Hamid Ansari has repeatedly stood out in sharp contrast to that of the former president and the incumbent prime minister.

When Mohammed Akhlaq was lynched for allegedly stocking beef in his refrigerator in Bisara village near Dadri in UP, the Prime Minister and master communicator, Narendra Modi took a full 10 days to utter some inanity. That too was forthcoming only after lots of cajoling from various quarters and a prompt from President Pranab Mukherjee about our “civilisational values”. All that Modi was prepared to say at long last was this: “Hindus and Muslims should decide whether they want to fight each other or fight poverty together!” Not a word of solace to Akhlaq’s family, not a word about lynch mobs and the rule of law.

In sharp contrast, speaking at a public function within 48 hours of the lynching at Dadri, Ansari stated that it was the “state’s responsibility to ensure right to life to every citizen irrespective of faith or creed”. “Despite being a Muslim”, Ansari was keeping faith in the Indian Constitution. (In September 2015, Union Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma had opined that former president APJ Abdul Kalam was a nationalist “despite being a Muslim”).

As one among the high officials of state sworn to protect the Indian Constitution, Ansari did not deliver a sermon to the citizenry in general but sent out a clear message for all concerned: The state must not abdicate its constitutional duty.
 

In his parting President’s message to the nation on July 24, Pranab Mukherjee said, “The soul of India resides in pluralism and tolerance”. He also said “the capacity for compassion and empathy is the true foundation of our civilization”.

Pious words, no doubt. But at no point in the last several years did he make even an oblique reference to the forces which are out to destroy “our civilisational values”. As for the prime minister, no real mann ki baat on the subject may emanate from his quarter for obvious reasons. So all the more reason for us to say: Thank you and fare thee well, Mr Vice-President.
 

P.S.: In 2015, BJP General Secretary Ram Madhav had put out a tweet obliquely hinting that because he was a Muslim Vice-President Hamid Ansari did not participate in the government’s Yoga Day functions and because of him RSTV did not cover the event. Following a public outrage Madhav had apologized. But it should be surprising if in the coming days, Ansari’s views are attributed the fact of his being a Muslim.
 

The post Thank You, Mr Vice-President, for your plainspeak appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Gandhi’s reply was staunchly Gandhian. He jogged the sanghis non-existent historical memory and said that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s sons Mani Lal Gandhi and Ramdas Gandhi had appealed against the death sentence handed to Nathuram Godse who assassinated the Mahatma. And their plea for clemency had been not just for Godse. The sons had also pleaded for mercy for Narayan Apte, who was present at the spot when Godse pulled the trigger. In spite of the appeals, both Godse and Apte were hanged in 1949.

‘My appeal for mercy for any death row convict arises out of my conviction against reprisal punishment and is not confined to any individual. I believe that the death penalty and capital punishment belong to the medieval ages.” Gopaljrishna Gandhi retorted.

But then the medieval ages is where rabid communalist forces get their politics from: revenge-lust, blood and gore.

Gopalkrishna added: “That is my belief and as an ordinary independent person, it is my duty to say so. I have inspiration from two persons — Mahatma Gandhi, who was against the death penalty, and Babasaheb Ambedkar, who had said it is only proper that we should do away with the death penalty altogether.” Gopalkrishna, a former Bengal governor, said that as an “ordinary independent citizen”, he had reminded the Pakistan President that it was his responsibility to ensure that former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav was not sent to the gallows. A military court in Pakistan has sentenced Jadhav to death on charges of espionage and terrorism.

It was Rajiv Chandrasekhar, the Kerala NDA’s vice-chairperson, had written on the micro-blogging site: “Filing a mercy petition for someone who was convicted for mass murder is a campaign theme to be Vice-President?” Chandrashekhar is the controlling financier of Arnav Goswami’s Republic.

Stung by the decision of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and Odisha chief minister Naveen Patnaik who, on July 18, announced support for Gopalkrishna, the BJP state unit president Basant Panda too had joined the bandwagon: “Gandhi had signed the mercy plea of terror convict Yakub Memon. It certainly raises questions on Naveen’s patriotism. It also shows that there is a tacit understanding between the BJD and the Congress.”  Politically, Gopalkrishna appeared to have mustered more support than Meira Kumar, the Opposition’s candidate for President, with Naveen joining Nitish Kumar’s JDU in breaking the collective the BJP had built for yesterday’s presidential election.

Both Naveen and Nitish Kumar have announced that the BJD and JD(U) would support Gopalkrishna around the time he was filing his nomination. In 2012, Naveen had said Gopalkrishna was his “best friend”.

Gopalkrishna said he was an independent-minded individual with no political affiliation who had agreed to be the Opposition’s candidate as a representative of the average Indian citizen. “I am not here to oppose any individual or political party. I am here to place before the electors the aspirations of the common man…. I am here not to oppose but to unite… the integrated intelligence of our Parliament.” 
Gopalkrishna said he hoped to flag three issues — restoring the faith of the common man in politics, underlining the need to stand up to divisive politics that could imperil the Indian civilisation and addressing the despondency that is setting in on under-25-year-olds who make up half of India’s population. 

While stating that people’s faith in politics had “collapsed”, Gopalkrishna made it clear he had in mind not just those opposed to his candidature but also those supporting him.
Gopalkrishna himself plans to write to each and every member of the electorate — made up of members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha — seeking a conscience vote, something Meira Kumar had also done.  The Opposition plans to make a video of his letter for wider circulation in the hope of mobilising opinion in his favour strong enough to weigh on the electorate.

The Trinamul Congress today purchased 1,000 postcards after Gopalkrishna said he would mail one to each MP, highlighting some issues he wants to raise through his candidature. The idea of sending a postcard to each MP was Gopalkrishna’s, a Trinamul MP said.

The post Its Not about Yakub Menon Alone, Gandhi’s Son had Pleaded for Mercy for Nathuram Godse & Apte: Gopal Krishna Gandhi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

M. Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India

Following is the text of Text of 8^th V.M. Tarkunde Memorial Lecture delivered by M. Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India on November 21, 2014 in New Delhi.

It is a great privilege to be invited to deliver the 8^th Tarkunde Memorial Lecture today. I did not have the good fortune of knowing Justice Tarkunde personally, but heard a good deal about him and his work from my late friend, Dr. Iqbal Ansari, who rendered yeoman service to the cause of human rights after he retired from teaching at the Aligarh Muslim University.

Vithal Mahadeo Tarkunde was a versatile man. An eminent judge whose calibre was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of India in a Full Court Reference, an ardent advocate of civil liberties and human rights, a supporter of causes fighting against injustice, a founder-member of the Committee on Judicial Accountability, and the founder of the Centre for Public Interest Litigation. He kept alive, as he put it, ‘the hope of the dawn of a new day” with the ‘recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and unalterable rights of all the members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ He will be long remembered for his advocacy of secularism, for his propagation of the philosophy of radical humanism, and above all for his persistent efforts to highlight the fragility of individual liberty in the modern State as well as specific cases of injustice. He was a passionate believer in the core values of the Constitution of India.

It has been said over and over again that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, that power is ever being stolen from the many by the few, and that the hand entrusted with power stands in danger of becoming the enemy of the people; hence the need for continual oversight to ensure that a people must be kept sufficiently awake to the principle of not letting liberty be smothered in material prosperity.

In a widely reported judgement in July, 2011 the Supreme Court of India^[1] highlighted the imperative of ensuring ‘conditions of human dignity within the ambit of fraternity.’ Thus the operative concepts are dignity and equal and unalterable rights to all. With this in mind, I propose today to explore the state of play with regard to the civil liberties and human rights in the context of what WE, the PEOPLE of INDIA gave to themselves in the Constitution. The constitution-makers were aware that sovereignty to be commensurate with justice had to be embedded in democracy^[2] and, as an eminent jurist has observed, the Rule of Law cannot coexist with traditional conceptions of absolute sovereignty.^[3] This, in fact, was the trend of informed opinion throughout the past century and as early as 1914, Ernest Barker had penned an essay The Discredited State in which he depicted sovereignty in internal matters as ‘Poison – not to be taken internally’ since it leads to a false view of the law.^[4]

It is generally accepted that a pre-requisite of participatory governance is a commitment of the State to its own laws and to their uniform application. The term Rule of Law is a part of our daily vocabulary and implies supremacy of law, equality before the law, and fair and equal access to justice. As one jurist has put it, ‘the Indian constitutional conception of the Rule of Law links its four core notions: rights, development, governance and justice.’ This approach has been upheld in judicial pronouncements with the Supreme Court describing the Rule of Law as ‘a potent instrument of social justice to bring about equality in results.’

The debate over the core principles of the Constitution has stretched over six decades. Social philosophers, political scientists, jurists, courts of law, public personalities, political activists and informed citizens have been active participants. The explicit provisions are evident enough; the text also has, secreted in its interstices, many values that have been dilated upon and amplified in judicial pronouncements. These have been reinforced by international covenants to which India is a signatory and which have become a part of the law of the land.

The Constitution of India did not emerge in a vacuum. It was a product of the freedom struggle and of the values and principles enunciated and honed over decades. Issues of rights and liberties were of practical concern to the freedom fighters. Apart from individual acts of assertion of rights, perhaps the first initiative to form a civil liberties organisation was taken by Jawaharlal Nehru in November 1936 when he founded the Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) with Rabindranath Tagore as its president. Precision to the task on hand, and its pitfalls, was forthcoming from Dr. Lohia. ‘The concept of civil liberties,’ he said, ‘defines State-authority within clear limits. It assigns well-defined liberties to the people. The task of the State is to protect these liberties. But the States usually do not like the task and act contrarily. Armed with the concept of civil liberties, the people develop an agitation to force the State to keep within clear and well-defined limits.’^[5]

The quest for civil liberties did not cease with end of colonial rule. The march of events after Independence brought into sharper focus the imperatives of sovereignty and nationalism and their implications for civil rights. Some of these became evident after June 26, 1975; in the words of a close observer, ‘these events changed the basic relationship between the citizen and the State’.^[6] It propelled the formation later that year of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights (PUCDR), later to be named People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). The purpose was to mobilise, not to stand outside the State, but to make the State more responsive and to recognise its constitutional obligations towards its citizens.^[7]

The comprehension and advocacy of civil rights has undergone quantitative and qualitative changes in the past four decades. Debates over ‘civil rights’ have progressed into wider realms of ‘democratic rights’ and then to ‘human rights.’ Alongside, new dimensions have emerged as social movements focusing on women, Dalits, regional, minority and environmental issues came into focus. Each of these developed principally in relation to the State since the State was the only conduit through which all segments of society related to each other.

Tarkunde kept alive, as he put it, ‘the hope of the dawn of a new day” with the ‘recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and unalterable rights of all the members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ 

In the final analysis therefore the focus is on the conduct of the State in relation to its own citizens keeping in mind Rousseau’s dictum that ‘there will always be a great difference between subduing a multitude and ruling a society.’
A primary function of the State, in its most productive form, is to dispense justice to its citizens, since justice, as John Rawls rightly pointed out, ‘is the first virtue of institutions’ and ‘in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.’^[8]

II
Two broad categories seem to emerge in considering the failure of the State to deliver. In the first place, act of omission or those matters where the State qua state should have acted in terms of its laws or constitution. Indications of this are readily available in various social development indices. Secondly, act of commission or those acts that were plainly illegal or exceeded the legal or public morality limits prescribed by the law. These can be assessed in terms of the human rights norms present in our laws or subscribed to. Credible documentation with regards to both categories is available nationally and internationally.

The obligations of the Republic of India towards its citizens have been stated in the Constitution, particularly in the sections on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. A separate section delineates the Fundamental Duties of Citizens. Together, they amplify the vision and the principles enunciated in the Preamble namely, to secure to all citizens social, economic and political Justice, Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, and Equality of status and opportunity and furthermore to promote among them Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.

A broad categorisation of State responsibility in terms of constitutional obligations would relate in the first place to those matters that concern economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. A second set of responsibilities would pertain to provision of security and its achievement through the use of legitimately sanctioned force within stated parameters. In the third set, the State is required to ensure access to justice through appropriate mechanisms to redress grievances.
A set of questions seem to emerge:

• Has State responsibility been institutionalised for each of the above?
• What is its extent and efficacy?
• To what degree does the Indian State practice conform to global standards indicated in international instruments to which we have subscribed?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The Constitution and the various rights-centric statutes prescribe the policy and institutional framework for human rights protection; they also enjoin the concerned State institutions in discharging their responsibilities. The institutional safeguards for the rights enshrined in the Constitution include an independent judiciary and the separation of judicial and executive functions. Legislation and exercise of executive power is subject to judicial review with regards to its constitutionality. In the event of infringement of an individual’s fundamental rights, the highest court in the land can be moved.

Our development objectives have been carefully spelt out in the 12^th Five Year Plan. It is to seek ‘a broad-based improvement in living standards of all sections of the people through a growth process that is faster than the past, more inclusive and also more environmentally sustainable.’ This requires a carefully crafted strategy for management of resources, demographics, inclusiveness, rural-urban balance, energy security, environmental sustainability and a sustained period of social peace internally and absence of conflict abroad, particularly in the neighbourhood.

Much has been done to move towards the development targets for the country. Innovative legislation pertaining to right to food, education, information and rural employment has been put in place. A critical analysis of the results however would show imbalance in implementation and insufficient attention to some other areas. We rank 134 out of 187 in UNDP’s Human Development Index and while the poverty rate has shown a decline from 45.3 to 37.2 percent in the decade ending 2004, the debate about nutrition levels and poverty line continues unabated. The average growth rate in 2007-2011 was 8.2 percent but the decline of poverty in the same period was 0.8 percent. A poet may well say:

Roshan kahin bahar ke imkaan huai to hain
Gulshan main chaak chand garibaan huai to hain
Ab bhi khizan ka raj hai lekin kahin kahin
Goshe rahe-chaman main ghazal khwan huai to hain
 [Though autumn remains dominant, prospects of spring have brightened and flowers have started to bloom]

At the international level, India is a signatory to the six core human rights covenants. It is committed to the rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, 1948. We have signed and ratified Human Rights Conventions which inter alia include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2005, we ratified the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and thereafter the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability.
We have signed, but not yet ratified, the Convention against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.^[9] The same holds for the Convention on Enforced Disappearances.

It is relevant to recall that section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines “human rights” as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. This definition is in conformity with the accepted interpretation of human rights. The Supreme Court has, in its concern for human rights, also developed a highly advanced public interest litigation regime.

He will be long remembered for his advocacy of secularism, for his propagation of the philosophy of radical humanism, and above all for his persistent efforts to highlight the fragility of individual liberty in the modern State as well as specific cases of injustice.

It is thus clear that the requisite intellectual, legal and institutional framework for protection and promotion of human rights is in place. Questions however do arise in regard to their efficacy in actual implementation as cases of discrimination based on religion, caste, language, ethnicity, work and economic status continue to be reported. These relate both to violation or denial of rights by state agencies and to violation or denial of rights by individuals and groups to individuals and groups. The weak – individual or group – is invariably the victim.

In the context of today’s subject, what concerns us most is State conduct resulting in violation or denial of rights of citizens. It has been observed that there is a ‘profound disenchantment with the State at the popular level where ‘the lines between legality and illegality, order and disorder, State and criminality have come to be (viewed) as increasingly porous.’^[10]

The most serious human rights violations by the State vis-à-vis its citizens pertain to Article 21. Some of these are abuses by the police and security forces, including extrajudicial killings, custodial deaths, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, enforced disappearances; poor prison conditions that are frequently life threatening; lengthy pre-trial detention; and widespread corruption at all levels of government, leading to denial of justice. This is particularly acute in areas of internal conflict, such as Jammu and Kashmir, the Northeast, and the Naxal belt where serious complaints about the misuse of laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), the Disturbed Areas Act (DAA) or the Public Safety Act (PSA) continue to be made. Much of this is credible, has been carefully documented, and reflects poorly on the State and its agents.^[11]

According to the latest Annual Report of the Ministry of Home Affairs, during the period January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014, the NHRC conducted investigation of 6,834 cases, including 4,450 cases of death in judicial custody, 448 cases of death in Police custody and 186 cases of police encounter deaths.^[12] These figures speak for themselves. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the judiciary is overburdened and court backlogs cause lengthy delays or the denial of justice.
Despite the constitutional and legal guarantees, religious minorities continue to be target of violence and discrimination from time to time. Patterns of systematic mobilisation of hate and divisive politics are discernable; in many cases these have been pursued with impunity. The same holds for other weaker sections of society including SCs and STs, women, children and persons with disabilities. Credible data on these is available in government, academic and civil society reports. These cut at the root of the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity and equal access to justice and highlight the failure of the State to act appropriately. As we embark on the path of rapid economic growth and development, the issue of finding a balance between traditional rights of citizens, with environmental imperatives and economic objectives will have to be addressed by State; else, social tensions will undermine the development agenda.

A particular area of concern is the inadequacy of State action in relation to women. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women has reported that it is systematic and occurs in the public and private spheres. It is underpinned by the persistence of patriarchal social norms and inter- and intra-gender hierarchies. Women are discriminated against and subordinated not only on the basis of sex, but on other grounds, such as caste, class, ability, sexual orientation, tradition and other realities. The manifestations of violence against women are a reflection of the structural and institutional inequality that is a reality. An eminent former judge has recently observed that ‘even today, most women in India neither have freedom nor liberty to take decisions.’^[13] The need for greater social awareness, and correctives at all levels of society, is imperative.

Record shows that a number of progressive legal and policy initiatives have been taken by the Government. Equally true is the fact that implementation is tardy, that ‘mindset’ obstacles and social prejudices are formidable, that allocation of resources is inadequate, and that contradictions persist between economic policies, ‘development priorities’ and national and international human rights commitments.

III
I would like to conclude by drawing attention to two sets of impulses. The first suggests dogged defence of the status quo; the second a measure of introspection. A plural society, and a mature system of governance, would opt for the latter, more so because we stand committed to constitutional and global norms. Pursuant to this, India is a party to, and has participated in, the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights held by the Human Rights Council in May 2012. The Status Report prepared by the Working Group on Human Rights after the second review summed up its assessment, inter alia, with the following observation:

‘Despite a number of progressive and policy initiatives taken by the Indian Government, the continued prevalence of human rights violations across the country poses manifold challenges. The claim of rapid economic development does not hold any value when it fails to include the excluded. Lack of proper implementation of government policies due to the bureaucratic lethargy, inadequate allocation of resources, contradiction between different policies, other development priorities and the so called national and international interests continue to hinder to the full realisation of human rights for India’s most vulnerable. The ever-growing trend of atrocities against religious minorities, women, children, SCs & STs, apathy towards the disabled and other disadvantaged people, constitute a scar on the face of Indian democracy…’

In a foreword to the Report, the convenor suggested that ‘India must meet the human rights accountability challenge defined by the contents of its Constitution, the international human rights instruments it has ratified, and the recommendations that have emanated from the UPR I and UPR II processes at the UN as well as from other UN treaty bodies and special procedures. To meet this enormous challenge, nothing but a radical shift in economic, social and security policies is needed – both at the central and state levels.’^[14]

We as a people need to awaken our collective conscience, strive for fulfilment of national norms and global standards, and induce fuller accountability into the system of governance at all levels so that the culture of impunity ends, and the State and its functionaries are held accountable for every act of omission or commission.

Jai Hind !

Notes and References
Nandani Sunder & Ors v State of Chattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC 547 :‘18.Such misguided policies, albeit vehemently and muscularly asserted by some policy makers, are necessarily contrary to the vision and imperatives of our constitution which demands that the power vested in the State, by the people, be only used for the welfare of the people – all the people, both rich and the poor -, thereby assuring conditions of human dignity within the ambit of fraternity amongst groups of them. Neither Article 14, nor Article 21, can even remotely be conceived as being so bereft of substance as to be immune from such policies. They are necessarily tarnished, and violated in a primordial sense by such policies.’
^[2] Roy, Anupama. ‘Ideas and Vision: Introduction’ in Human Rights and Peace: Ideas, Laws, Institutions and Movement (Edited by Ujjwal Kumar Singh. New Delhi 2009) p xvi.
^[3] Bingham, Tom. The Rule of Law (London 2010) p 161, citing Professor Sir Francis Jacobs.
^[4] Barker, Ernest. Church, State and Education (Michigan 1957) p 169.
^[5] Lohia, Ram Manohar. ‘The Concept of Civil Liberties’ in Ujjwal Kumar Singh, op cit p 210.
^[6] Dhar, P. N. Indira Gandhi, the ‘Emergency’, and Indian Democracy (New Delhi 2000) p 222.
^[7] Gudavarthy Ajay: Ujjwal Kumar Singh op cit p 255.
^[8] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice (1999) pp 3-4.
^[9] The Prevention of Torture bill 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha and passed by it on April 26, 2010. The Rajya Sabha referred it to a Select Committee on August 31. Its Report was presented on December 7, 2010. No further action was taken by the Government and the Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 15^th Lok Sabha.
^[10] Mehta, Pratap Bhanu. The Burden of Democracy (New Delhi 2003) pp 113-115.
^[11] A.G. Noorani & South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre: Challenges to Civil Rights Guarantees in India (New Delhi 2012). This publication analyses in particular the role of the criminal justice system in India in the erosion of civil rights and focuses on Preventive Detention, Extra-Judicial Killings, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, the Death Penalty, Narcoanalysis, Undertrials and Videoconferencing, Anti-conversion Law, Impunity, and AFSPA. Also, for an overall assessment, Ashish Nandy ‘From the Age of Anxiety to the Age of Fear’ in Rajesh Chakrabarti. The Other India: Realities of an Emerging Power (New Delhi 2009) pp 94-100.
^[12] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Annual Report 2013-14, p 83 – paragraph 6.6.
^[13] Seth, Leila. Talking of Justice: People’s Rights in Modern India (New Delhi 2014) p 69.
^[14] Human Rights in India Status Report 2012 (Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN, New Delhi, December 2012) pp 178 and iv.
*****
 
 

The post Citizens and State Conduct appeared first on SabrangIndia.