HindustanTimes.com » States » Karnataka » Story
Ties between ruling JD(S), BJP in K'taka under strain
by Shekhar Iyer
New Delhi, October 7, 2006
The Janata Dal(Secular)-BJP government in Karnatka is headed for a serious trouble again.
Upset by Hindu-Muslim clashes in Mangalore and RSS outfits going on a warpath over a controversial shrine, former Prime Minister and Janata Dal (Secular) chief HD Gowda is asking his son, Chief Minister Kumaraswamy, to consider ending the ninth-month-old coalition if the saffron party’s doesn’t stop aggressive Hindutva campaign, his aides said on Saturday.
Two weeks ago, Deve Gowda gave the first warning to the BJP when a BJP Minister dubbed Tippu Sultan as “anti-Kannada” and his projection in history textbooks to be reviewed. A coordination meeting between the two parties in Bangalore recently could not iron out the differences, with a section of BJP insisting on its Hindutva programme.
Gowda sees a link between the spurt in communal violence in Dakshin Kannada district and Kumaraswamy’s decision to deny permission to the BJP and VHP activists for a “Shoba Yatra” at the dispute Datta Peeta site in Chikmangalur district in December in spite of Court order.
Gowda is also angry that central BJP leaders including AB Vajpayee, LK Advani, Rajnath Singh, and Sushma Swaraj have ignored a six-page letter he sent last month, asking them to check the RSS outfits. He had also warned them that any “precipitation” of the matter would make his party to be prepared for “all eventualities.”
With the BJP deciding not to respond to Gowda since the party is dealing only with Kumaraswamy, Gowda is said to have remarked that the BJP would learn at its peril the command structure in his party.
“You are aware that my secular credentials are dearer to me than the survival of any government and my life itself. I trust that you would make every effort to ensure that better sense prevails,” Gowda was quoted by a BJP leader as having written in the letter.
The northern Karnataka town is under the grip of communal violence since Wednesday in which two Muslims have died and more than 70 people have been injured. Curfew was imposed in the town on Friday night and shoot at sight orders have been issued.
The aides said Gowda has told his son that if the BJP ministers and leaders violate prohibitory orders in Mangalore or Datta Peeta, the government should act to “exhibit” his secular ideology and that of the JD(S). Accordingly, the Karnataka cabinet asked police to deal firmly with rioters in Mangalore.
Gowda thinks the BJP remained quiet when the Shoba yatra and the Datta Jayanti were banned last year, and some of its leaders were arrested the previous year when they violated prohibitory orders. The High Court has asked the government to maintain law and order. Only puja that prevailed to 1975 will be allowed. But a section of BJP opposed to the coalition was “hell-bent” on stoking communal trouble and putting the government in jeopardy.
Gowda, said his aides, did not want to rock the government but would press the eject button if “better sense” did not prevail in the BJP to stick to the agreed agenda of governance.
|
October 07, 2006
October 05, 2006
Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa
INDIAN PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL (IPT)
On Environment and Human Rights
4 October 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa releases its report, revealing alarming levels of sectarian organising in the state.
Bhubaneswar, Orissa, and New Delhi: The Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa [IPTCO] released its report on the role of majoritarian communal groups in perpetrating communal violence, criminal activity, and human rights violations across the state. The Tribunal was constituted in response to concerns voiced by citizens over the growth of communalism and increased aggression throughout Orissa particularly since the Gujarat 2002 genocide. In June 2005, the IPTCO commissioned its inquiry to gage the strength, reach, and impact of fundamentalist groups in the state. The report is the culmination of nearly twenty months of investigative work and research. Lead by Justice K.K. Usha (Former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court), the Tribunal was convened by Dr. Angana Chatterji (Associate Professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies) and Advocate Mihir Desai (Mumbai High Court).
The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights was constituted by a people's mandate in 1993 to investigate into human rights violations and cases of environmental degradation. The IPT is particularly concerned about cases that affect the lives and livelihood of a vast majority of urban and rural poor. The IPT process endeavours to inquire into the exact nature of a problem, and provide a true picture by providing a space for all the concerned parties to present their views.
Edited by Dr. Chatterji and Advocate Desai, the 80-page report of the Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa is entitled 'Communalism in Orissa'. IPTCO's report describes the formidable extent of mobilization by the majoritarian communalist group of organisations in Orissa. According to the report, the Sangh Parivar group of Hindutva, Hindu supremacist, organisations has a visible presence in twenty-five of thirty districts in Orissa. The Sangh Parivar's cadre in Orissa currently numbers several million, and constitutes the largest voluntary effort in the state.
Justice Usha said: “As elsewhere in India, these groups legitimise their actions against minorities by invoking specific and fabricated threats to Hindus from Muslims and Christians”.
Dr. Chatterji stated: “In Orissa, the Sangh Parivar has successfully established centres at every level of civic life, ranging from villages to cities. The Sangh Parivar operates through thirty-five primary organizations, including ideological, service, and charitable institutions, militant and educational groups, trade unions and student unions, political and women's organizations”.
Advocate Desai stated: “IPTCO's findings reveal that majoritarian communal organizations have consolidated their power, using violence to target women, religious and sexual minorities, along with disenfranchised caste, class, ethnic, and other social groups”.
The Tribunal's report documents in considerable detail how the cadre of majoritarian communal organisations is recruited and indoctrinated in hatred and violence against other communities that it has defined as inherently “inferior”. Of particular concern, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has set up developmental centres across the state, establishing training camps where military exercises are performed as public display, as well as a network of educational institutions promoting right-wing ideologies. Prioritizing areas where the government has failed to provide functioning public schools, these groups have capitalised on the acute desire for accessible state institutions and accountability among the populace. This cadre, according to the IPTCO report, uses coercion and force to promote Hindu supremacy and hegemony. Dr. Chatterji added: “Forcible conversions to dominant Hinduism, social and economic boycotts, tonsuring, physical intimidation and violence, arson, and even murder are the weapons that Sangh Parivar cadre wields to intimidate and target disenfranchised groups and religious minorities such as Adivasis, Dalits, Christians, and Muslims”.
Given the dire situation in the state, the IPTCO recommends that the Government of India and Government of Orissa treat communalism in the state as an emergency and accord it immediate attention to prevent further violations and injustices.
Justice Usha added: “IPTCO understands its mandate to investigate communalism as being a constitutional one, delineated in Article 51A, Clause E which specifies the fundamental responsibilities of citizens”. Article 51A, Clause E states that: “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities” and “to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” (IPTCO, pages 3). This obligation, their report notes, is reinforced by the Indian Penal Code-specifically provisions in Section 152A, 153B, 295-298, and 505-which prescribe criminal prosecution for persons promoting enmity on sectarian or economic grounds, who are, thus, undermining national integration. Indeed, the report warns that if the communalisation of Orissa is “indicative of the future of the nation, then the signs are truly ominous for India's democratic future” (IPTCO, pages 70).
Advocate Desai stated: “In addition to documenting communalism's reach in Orissa, IPTCO was launched as an injunctive mechanism to help formulate remedial and preventive action for human rights abuses in the future”. The primary investigations consisted of meeting with persons and communities, targeted by majoritarian communal groups and those who have suffered abuse in the context of majoritarian communalism such as public lynching, rape, tonsuring, economic boycotts, segregation and discrimination. These meetings were held across Orissa in the Bhadrak District, Jagatsinghpur District, Keonjhar District, Phulbani District, and Bhubaneswar, and included, in addition to Justice Usha, Dr. Chatterji, and Advocate Desai, Dr. Asha Hans (former Professor at Utkal University), Ms. Lalita Missal (National Alliance of Women, Orissa chapter), Dr. Ram Puniyani (Ekta, Committee for Communal Amity), and scholar-activists Dr. Shaheen Nilofer and Mr. Sudhir Pattnaik. The Tribunal also interviewed members of the state government and other state agencies, opposition leaders, police and political parties, individuals associated with educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, Dalit and Adivasi leaders, rights groups, activists, academics, journalists, and local religious leaders from Christian, Muslim, Hindu groups, as well as communal groups. IPTCO culled its evidence from a variety of sources including official documents, depositions, affidavits, signed statements, visual documentation, sworn personal and group testimonies, and expert witnesses. Claims by individuals and groups were scrutinized by the Tribunal and corroborated through other sources such as conducting additional interviews and securing further documentary evidence.
The Tribunal's report delineates recommendations for procedures and mechanisms to determine state and collective responsibility and accountability. Some of the general recommendations include:
1. A call for the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the activities of the Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and RSS under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. To establish a review panel appointed by the Government of Orissa, in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission, the National Minorities Commission, and other independent bodies such as the People's Union for Democratic Rights and the People's Union for Civil Liberties, to identify and investigate the actions and finances of communal groups.
3. That communal groups be investigated and monitored. When appropriate, requisite action should be taken to safeguard minorities against the actions of these groups, and reparations should be made retroactively to communities and individuals who have suffered as a consequence of the actions of these groups.
4. The Government of Orissa and the Central Government should make a concerted effort to investigate and eradicate paramilitary hate camps operated by the communal groups.
5. The charitable status and privileges of certain organizations such as the VHP and Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, which are registered as charities, should be reviewed given the nature of their activities.
6. The disparagement, demonisation, and vilification of any religion should be statutorily prohibited and punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
7. The repeal of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, which has been used by communal groups to target and prohibit voluntary conversion within minority communities.
8. That the Government of India and the Government of Orissa safeguard the right of individuals who convert voluntarily to practice their religion.
9. That the police and courts act immediately and authoritatively to stop communalists from forcibly converting or reconverting individuals to Hinduism. The police should be required to submit regular and public reports on their work.
10. That the police establish a special desk for registering minority grievances and filing First Information Reports.
11. That the Government of Orissa appoint Special Public Prosecutors to conduct proceedings as necessary.
12. That the trishul (trident) be categorised as a weapon and its mass distribution be prohibited under the Arms Act of 1959.
13. That the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 -- which has been used against minorities and the economically disenfranchised in the cattle trade--should be reviewed.
Finally, while the Tribunal affirms the view that the “state is accountable for safeguarding human rights”, it also urges individual citizens to recognize their duty to respond to violations and “to challenge the existing culture of impunity that generally protects perpetrators of communal violence from prosecution” (IPTCO, pages 69-70), cautioning that it will take the combined efforts of both to dismantle the formidable infrastructure of fear and intimidation erected by these groups.
Contacts:
Convenors of the Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa:
Dr. Angana Chatterji at 00-91-99377 70819 [until 4 October pm]; 001-415-640 4013 or 415-575 6119; or achatterji@ciis.edu
Advocate Mihir Desai at iptindia@vsnl.net
IPT Secretariat:
Ms. Deepika D'Souza at 00-91-22-22677385/22676680 or iptindia@vsnl.net
Links:
Indian Express: http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEQ20060930005034&Page=Q&Title=ORISSA&Topic=0
The Statesman: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=9&theme=&usrsess=1&id=131519
Asian Age: http://www.asianage.com/viewarticle2.asp?newsid=174423
Pioneer: http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=BHUBANESWAR&file_name=bhub3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Indian People's Tribunal and Environment and Human Rights
Engineers House, Floor #4, 86, Bombay Samachar Marg, Near Stock Exchange, Mumbai - 400023, India
On Environment and Human Rights
4 October 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa releases its report, revealing alarming levels of sectarian organising in the state.
Bhubaneswar, Orissa, and New Delhi: The Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa [IPTCO] released its report on the role of majoritarian communal groups in perpetrating communal violence, criminal activity, and human rights violations across the state. The Tribunal was constituted in response to concerns voiced by citizens over the growth of communalism and increased aggression throughout Orissa particularly since the Gujarat 2002 genocide. In June 2005, the IPTCO commissioned its inquiry to gage the strength, reach, and impact of fundamentalist groups in the state. The report is the culmination of nearly twenty months of investigative work and research. Lead by Justice K.K. Usha (Former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court), the Tribunal was convened by Dr. Angana Chatterji (Associate Professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies) and Advocate Mihir Desai (Mumbai High Court).
The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights was constituted by a people's mandate in 1993 to investigate into human rights violations and cases of environmental degradation. The IPT is particularly concerned about cases that affect the lives and livelihood of a vast majority of urban and rural poor. The IPT process endeavours to inquire into the exact nature of a problem, and provide a true picture by providing a space for all the concerned parties to present their views.
Edited by Dr. Chatterji and Advocate Desai, the 80-page report of the Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa is entitled 'Communalism in Orissa'. IPTCO's report describes the formidable extent of mobilization by the majoritarian communalist group of organisations in Orissa. According to the report, the Sangh Parivar group of Hindutva, Hindu supremacist, organisations has a visible presence in twenty-five of thirty districts in Orissa. The Sangh Parivar's cadre in Orissa currently numbers several million, and constitutes the largest voluntary effort in the state.
Justice Usha said: “As elsewhere in India, these groups legitimise their actions against minorities by invoking specific and fabricated threats to Hindus from Muslims and Christians”.
Dr. Chatterji stated: “In Orissa, the Sangh Parivar has successfully established centres at every level of civic life, ranging from villages to cities. The Sangh Parivar operates through thirty-five primary organizations, including ideological, service, and charitable institutions, militant and educational groups, trade unions and student unions, political and women's organizations”.
Advocate Desai stated: “IPTCO's findings reveal that majoritarian communal organizations have consolidated their power, using violence to target women, religious and sexual minorities, along with disenfranchised caste, class, ethnic, and other social groups”.
The Tribunal's report documents in considerable detail how the cadre of majoritarian communal organisations is recruited and indoctrinated in hatred and violence against other communities that it has defined as inherently “inferior”. Of particular concern, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has set up developmental centres across the state, establishing training camps where military exercises are performed as public display, as well as a network of educational institutions promoting right-wing ideologies. Prioritizing areas where the government has failed to provide functioning public schools, these groups have capitalised on the acute desire for accessible state institutions and accountability among the populace. This cadre, according to the IPTCO report, uses coercion and force to promote Hindu supremacy and hegemony. Dr. Chatterji added: “Forcible conversions to dominant Hinduism, social and economic boycotts, tonsuring, physical intimidation and violence, arson, and even murder are the weapons that Sangh Parivar cadre wields to intimidate and target disenfranchised groups and religious minorities such as Adivasis, Dalits, Christians, and Muslims”.
Given the dire situation in the state, the IPTCO recommends that the Government of India and Government of Orissa treat communalism in the state as an emergency and accord it immediate attention to prevent further violations and injustices.
Justice Usha added: “IPTCO understands its mandate to investigate communalism as being a constitutional one, delineated in Article 51A, Clause E which specifies the fundamental responsibilities of citizens”. Article 51A, Clause E states that: “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities” and “to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” (IPTCO, pages 3). This obligation, their report notes, is reinforced by the Indian Penal Code-specifically provisions in Section 152A, 153B, 295-298, and 505-which prescribe criminal prosecution for persons promoting enmity on sectarian or economic grounds, who are, thus, undermining national integration. Indeed, the report warns that if the communalisation of Orissa is “indicative of the future of the nation, then the signs are truly ominous for India's democratic future” (IPTCO, pages 70).
Advocate Desai stated: “In addition to documenting communalism's reach in Orissa, IPTCO was launched as an injunctive mechanism to help formulate remedial and preventive action for human rights abuses in the future”. The primary investigations consisted of meeting with persons and communities, targeted by majoritarian communal groups and those who have suffered abuse in the context of majoritarian communalism such as public lynching, rape, tonsuring, economic boycotts, segregation and discrimination. These meetings were held across Orissa in the Bhadrak District, Jagatsinghpur District, Keonjhar District, Phulbani District, and Bhubaneswar, and included, in addition to Justice Usha, Dr. Chatterji, and Advocate Desai, Dr. Asha Hans (former Professor at Utkal University), Ms. Lalita Missal (National Alliance of Women, Orissa chapter), Dr. Ram Puniyani (Ekta, Committee for Communal Amity), and scholar-activists Dr. Shaheen Nilofer and Mr. Sudhir Pattnaik. The Tribunal also interviewed members of the state government and other state agencies, opposition leaders, police and political parties, individuals associated with educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, Dalit and Adivasi leaders, rights groups, activists, academics, journalists, and local religious leaders from Christian, Muslim, Hindu groups, as well as communal groups. IPTCO culled its evidence from a variety of sources including official documents, depositions, affidavits, signed statements, visual documentation, sworn personal and group testimonies, and expert witnesses. Claims by individuals and groups were scrutinized by the Tribunal and corroborated through other sources such as conducting additional interviews and securing further documentary evidence.
The Tribunal's report delineates recommendations for procedures and mechanisms to determine state and collective responsibility and accountability. Some of the general recommendations include:
1. A call for the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the activities of the Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and RSS under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. To establish a review panel appointed by the Government of Orissa, in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission, the National Minorities Commission, and other independent bodies such as the People's Union for Democratic Rights and the People's Union for Civil Liberties, to identify and investigate the actions and finances of communal groups.
3. That communal groups be investigated and monitored. When appropriate, requisite action should be taken to safeguard minorities against the actions of these groups, and reparations should be made retroactively to communities and individuals who have suffered as a consequence of the actions of these groups.
4. The Government of Orissa and the Central Government should make a concerted effort to investigate and eradicate paramilitary hate camps operated by the communal groups.
5. The charitable status and privileges of certain organizations such as the VHP and Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, which are registered as charities, should be reviewed given the nature of their activities.
6. The disparagement, demonisation, and vilification of any religion should be statutorily prohibited and punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
7. The repeal of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, which has been used by communal groups to target and prohibit voluntary conversion within minority communities.
8. That the Government of India and the Government of Orissa safeguard the right of individuals who convert voluntarily to practice their religion.
9. That the police and courts act immediately and authoritatively to stop communalists from forcibly converting or reconverting individuals to Hinduism. The police should be required to submit regular and public reports on their work.
10. That the police establish a special desk for registering minority grievances and filing First Information Reports.
11. That the Government of Orissa appoint Special Public Prosecutors to conduct proceedings as necessary.
12. That the trishul (trident) be categorised as a weapon and its mass distribution be prohibited under the Arms Act of 1959.
13. That the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 -- which has been used against minorities and the economically disenfranchised in the cattle trade--should be reviewed.
Finally, while the Tribunal affirms the view that the “state is accountable for safeguarding human rights”, it also urges individual citizens to recognize their duty to respond to violations and “to challenge the existing culture of impunity that generally protects perpetrators of communal violence from prosecution” (IPTCO, pages 69-70), cautioning that it will take the combined efforts of both to dismantle the formidable infrastructure of fear and intimidation erected by these groups.
Contacts:
Convenors of the Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa:
Dr. Angana Chatterji at 00-91-99377 70819 [until 4 October pm]; 001-415-640 4013 or 415-575 6119; or achatterji@ciis.edu
Advocate Mihir Desai at iptindia@vsnl.net
IPT Secretariat:
Ms. Deepika D'Souza at 00-91-22-22677385/22676680 or iptindia@vsnl.net
Links:
Indian Express: http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEQ20060930005034&Page=Q&Title=ORISSA&Topic=0
The Statesman: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=9&theme=&usrsess=1&id=131519
Asian Age: http://www.asianage.com/viewarticle2.asp?newsid=174423
Pioneer: http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=BHUBANESWAR&file_name=bhub3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Indian People's Tribunal and Environment and Human Rights
Engineers House, Floor #4, 86, Bombay Samachar Marg, Near Stock Exchange, Mumbai - 400023, India
October 04, 2006
Moditva in Bhopal
(The Tribune
October 4, 2006)
Editorial
Moditva in Bhopal
MP govt must reverse its orders
THE Madhya Pradesh Government’s decision to allow its employees to take part in the activities of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) violates the thin line between the government and a political party. The decision, which has come under fire from all right-thinking sections, besides political parties, is a blatant attempt to politicise government staff towards undesirable objectives. This is a transgression of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution; which explains why Governor Balram Jakhar has raised questions about the order and the Congress party has sought the intervention of President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. MP Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan would be well advised to withdraw the order before it snowballs into an entirely avoidable full-scale political crisis. The allegiance of government employees should be to the administration alone and not to any political organisation.
The MP Government’s premise that the RSS is a cultural organisation has no takers as it does not square with either the facts or the perceptions of this organisation. The RSS is the parent of the Sangh Parivar that has spawned, among others, the BJP, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal and the Hindu Munnani. The myth of the RSS being “non-political” has been exposed time after time and even members of the Sangh Parivar no longer claim that. Given this background, it is preposterous for the MP Government to colour the RSS in shades that are at variance with both reality and experience.
When the Narendra Modi government in Gujarat passed a similar order in 1999, it was forced to backtrack after the intervention of Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Now the Congress President, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, has taken the lead in asking President Kalam to ensure reversal of the MP Government’s order, and even those who do not sympathise with the Congress party see merit in her move. The sooner sense prevails in Bhopal the better for the country.
October 4, 2006)
Editorial
Moditva in Bhopal
MP govt must reverse its orders
THE Madhya Pradesh Government’s decision to allow its employees to take part in the activities of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) violates the thin line between the government and a political party. The decision, which has come under fire from all right-thinking sections, besides political parties, is a blatant attempt to politicise government staff towards undesirable objectives. This is a transgression of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution; which explains why Governor Balram Jakhar has raised questions about the order and the Congress party has sought the intervention of President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. MP Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan would be well advised to withdraw the order before it snowballs into an entirely avoidable full-scale political crisis. The allegiance of government employees should be to the administration alone and not to any political organisation.
The MP Government’s premise that the RSS is a cultural organisation has no takers as it does not square with either the facts or the perceptions of this organisation. The RSS is the parent of the Sangh Parivar that has spawned, among others, the BJP, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal and the Hindu Munnani. The myth of the RSS being “non-political” has been exposed time after time and even members of the Sangh Parivar no longer claim that. Given this background, it is preposterous for the MP Government to colour the RSS in shades that are at variance with both reality and experience.
When the Narendra Modi government in Gujarat passed a similar order in 1999, it was forced to backtrack after the intervention of Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Now the Congress President, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, has taken the lead in asking President Kalam to ensure reversal of the MP Government’s order, and even those who do not sympathise with the Congress party see merit in her move. The sooner sense prevails in Bhopal the better for the country.
Police and Minorities: will new policies help ?
(Secular Perspective
October 1-15, 2006)
POLICE AND MINORITIES- WILL NEW POLICIES HELP?
by Asghar Ali Engineer
The Supreme Court has recently directed the Government of India to implement the recommendations of Dharma Vira Commission on the police reform. These recommendations were made nearly 25 years ago but the Government hesitated to implement it and some police officers filed a PIL and the highest court in the land took more than a decadeto deliver its judgement on the issue.
It is a well - known fact that politicians interfere with police functioning and arbitrarily transfer inconvenient officers. It is hoped that the implementation of Dharma Vira Commission might give much needed relief to IPS officers to work with a degree of autonomy. However, there are differences among police officers on this question. Most of the police top brass has welcomed the Supreme Court directive, as it would make them independent in functioning. But police officers like K.P.S.Gill have dissenting views. Mr. Gill feels that the police cannot function independently of political bosses.
According to Mr. Gill, "Reforms recommended can only enthuse the armchair administrator and will do little to improve the operation and efficiency of either the beat constable or his superintending officer." Mr. Riebeiro, another top cop, on the other hand enthusiastically welcomes the Supreme Court directive. He holds politicians by and large responsible for malfunctioning of police. He says, "Selfish politicians choose the wrong persons for the top jobs because the corrupt and the ineffective are willing to carry out the dictates and wishes of their political masters for their own survival. It is classic case of two persons scratching each other's back."
Thus we see that police officers themselves are divided in their opinion on political meddling. However, I must say that most top officers may not agree with Mr. Gill and may welcome the Supreme Court directive. There is no doubt that there is too much of meddling today by politicians. Efficient officers find it very difficult to function professionally.
However, we cannot judge the Supreme Court directive in pure black and white terms. There are grey areas, which cannot be ignored. We, in this article, are more concerned about police behaviour towards minorities and handling of communal riots and similar disturbances. The police officers are generally have their own biases for variety of reasons. It is, therefore, necessary to take this factor into account.
In fact there is dilemma either way, whether police is given full autonomy and transfers are controlled by a committee or police works under overall control of politicians. If the present system continues honest and secular police officers are likely to suffer. We see in most of the major communal riots, honest and secular police officers are not allowed to function in a professional way. If politicians want to benefit from communal riots they arbitrarily transfer those officers who are determined to control violence.
This has happened in number of major communal riots. The classical case now is of Gujarat carnage of 2002. The BJP Government headed by Narendra Modi was interested in provoking communal violence and arbitrarily transferred all those police officers who tried to checkmate communal flare up in their jurisdiction. I myself interviewed one such top officer who was arbitrarily transferred just because he was efficiently controlling outburst of violence. And there were number of such officers.
During Mumbai riots of 1992-93 too there were police officers who could not effectively function because of political interference, though not from ruling party politicians. However, situation was not as worse as that in Gujarat. In Mumbai riots there were many police officers who were under direct influence of Shiv Sena and Shiv Sena came to power just a couple of years after the 1992-93 riots and rewarded all those officers who had done its bidding through promotions and profitable postings. One such officer was even made police commissioner of Mumbai soon after Shiv Sena came to power.
After the Mumbai riots I had discussion with many police officers who felt that Dharma Vira Report should be implemented so that police could function more professionally as all those officers who had not done the Sena‚s bidding were under cloud. If seen from this perspective the Supreme Court directive should be welcomed.
However, we also have to examine this matter from a different perspective. The police has its own anti-minority biases, as pointed out above. If there is no political control and police functions with these biases minorities are bound to suffer. We can take recent example of harassment of Muslims by the police after train blasts in Mumbai. Large number of innocent Muslims were detained and interrogated without any substantial evidence except that they were Muslims. Their protests fell on deaf years.
Many Muslims met the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi and drew their attention to how innocent Muslims were being harassed by the Mumbai police and Prime Minister assured them that he will speak to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra in this connection and that innocent Muslims will not be harassed. If the police is not accountable to the elected politicians such misuse of power by the police cannot be stopped. Even after the bomb blasts on 12th March 1993, there were serious complaints of harassment by the police and some police officers even tried to make money by threatening innocent Muslims to detain under TADA if they did not pay up.
Thus in a way the Supreme Court directive on the police reforms can be a double edged sword cutting both ways. The police officers are any way are not accountable to people and politicians are. But if politicians themselves take sectarian and communal view and depend on the votes of one particular community, there will be absolutely no remedy.
What is then to be done? Will the Supreme Court directive help improve police functioning or not? Should politicians retain their control over appointment and transfer of IPS officers? I think, despite problems pointed out above, the reform will be beneficial on the whole. In fact this much reform may not be sufficient, much more needs to be done. The present police act was enacted by the British rulers in 19th century (in 1861).
The main objective of this was to use the police for strengthening and protecting the British rule and to suppress the people‚s movements. In other words it was pro-British ruler police. Unfortunately this colonial legacy is continuing, as our rulers also want to use the police force for protecting their own interests. They do not want to loose control over the police.
What we need today is people-friendly police. The police act of 1861 needs to be drastically re-caste and this should be done earlier than later. The intension of policing is not to suppress people but to help them. The police should be anti-crime, not anti-people as it is today. The whole outlook of the police has to undergo drastic change. Number of things are needed to be done for realising this goal.
First of all the training to be imparted to the police has to change radically. I often find that police attitude, due mainly to improper training, is often communal, casteist and gender-biased. They have hardly appreciation of human rights and their protection. Colonial philosophy cannot impart such sensibilities to them. The lower level officials are much more prone to these prejudices compared to IPS officers.
A glance at training schedule would show that there is hardly much in it to re-orient police thinking on secular and democratic lines. There is hardly any mention of secularism and its importance in multi-religious and multi-cultural society. Also, no concerted efforts are made to remove their caste and gender biases. On the contrary, in appointments, transfers and promotions caste and community factors become primary, and professional competence hardly counts.
Not only this, more often than not, bribery is the only way to get prime posting and politicians demand hefty amounts for appointing officers in good posts. Thus police officers can neither be honest, nor free from caste and communal prejudices. In this respect if transfers are controlled by committees which include persons of integrity and commitment, it may make lot of difference.
My experience with the police shows that the policemen are not inherently communal but most of them are horribly misinformed about minorities. They carry prejudices acquired in schools and colleges as well as in society around them. But if they are properly informed it makes all the difference. I have conducted several police workshops at different levels ˆ from constabulary to high officials ˆ and I always felt change of attitude at the end of workshops.
Coupled with implementation of the Supreme Court directive, if proper training is imparted to the police officials, I am sure it will produce good results in short terms and re-casting of the Police Act, will help things in the long run. It is indeed high time all these measures are taken with a sense of urgency. The country has already paid heavy price for neglecting these much needed police reforms and re-orienting of police attitudes through proper training.
-------------------------------------------------------
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.
October 1-15, 2006)
POLICE AND MINORITIES- WILL NEW POLICIES HELP?
by Asghar Ali Engineer
The Supreme Court has recently directed the Government of India to implement the recommendations of Dharma Vira Commission on the police reform. These recommendations were made nearly 25 years ago but the Government hesitated to implement it and some police officers filed a PIL and the highest court in the land took more than a decadeto deliver its judgement on the issue.
It is a well - known fact that politicians interfere with police functioning and arbitrarily transfer inconvenient officers. It is hoped that the implementation of Dharma Vira Commission might give much needed relief to IPS officers to work with a degree of autonomy. However, there are differences among police officers on this question. Most of the police top brass has welcomed the Supreme Court directive, as it would make them independent in functioning. But police officers like K.P.S.Gill have dissenting views. Mr. Gill feels that the police cannot function independently of political bosses.
According to Mr. Gill, "Reforms recommended can only enthuse the armchair administrator and will do little to improve the operation and efficiency of either the beat constable or his superintending officer." Mr. Riebeiro, another top cop, on the other hand enthusiastically welcomes the Supreme Court directive. He holds politicians by and large responsible for malfunctioning of police. He says, "Selfish politicians choose the wrong persons for the top jobs because the corrupt and the ineffective are willing to carry out the dictates and wishes of their political masters for their own survival. It is classic case of two persons scratching each other's back."
Thus we see that police officers themselves are divided in their opinion on political meddling. However, I must say that most top officers may not agree with Mr. Gill and may welcome the Supreme Court directive. There is no doubt that there is too much of meddling today by politicians. Efficient officers find it very difficult to function professionally.
However, we cannot judge the Supreme Court directive in pure black and white terms. There are grey areas, which cannot be ignored. We, in this article, are more concerned about police behaviour towards minorities and handling of communal riots and similar disturbances. The police officers are generally have their own biases for variety of reasons. It is, therefore, necessary to take this factor into account.
In fact there is dilemma either way, whether police is given full autonomy and transfers are controlled by a committee or police works under overall control of politicians. If the present system continues honest and secular police officers are likely to suffer. We see in most of the major communal riots, honest and secular police officers are not allowed to function in a professional way. If politicians want to benefit from communal riots they arbitrarily transfer those officers who are determined to control violence.
This has happened in number of major communal riots. The classical case now is of Gujarat carnage of 2002. The BJP Government headed by Narendra Modi was interested in provoking communal violence and arbitrarily transferred all those police officers who tried to checkmate communal flare up in their jurisdiction. I myself interviewed one such top officer who was arbitrarily transferred just because he was efficiently controlling outburst of violence. And there were number of such officers.
During Mumbai riots of 1992-93 too there were police officers who could not effectively function because of political interference, though not from ruling party politicians. However, situation was not as worse as that in Gujarat. In Mumbai riots there were many police officers who were under direct influence of Shiv Sena and Shiv Sena came to power just a couple of years after the 1992-93 riots and rewarded all those officers who had done its bidding through promotions and profitable postings. One such officer was even made police commissioner of Mumbai soon after Shiv Sena came to power.
After the Mumbai riots I had discussion with many police officers who felt that Dharma Vira Report should be implemented so that police could function more professionally as all those officers who had not done the Sena‚s bidding were under cloud. If seen from this perspective the Supreme Court directive should be welcomed.
However, we also have to examine this matter from a different perspective. The police has its own anti-minority biases, as pointed out above. If there is no political control and police functions with these biases minorities are bound to suffer. We can take recent example of harassment of Muslims by the police after train blasts in Mumbai. Large number of innocent Muslims were detained and interrogated without any substantial evidence except that they were Muslims. Their protests fell on deaf years.
Many Muslims met the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi and drew their attention to how innocent Muslims were being harassed by the Mumbai police and Prime Minister assured them that he will speak to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra in this connection and that innocent Muslims will not be harassed. If the police is not accountable to the elected politicians such misuse of power by the police cannot be stopped. Even after the bomb blasts on 12th March 1993, there were serious complaints of harassment by the police and some police officers even tried to make money by threatening innocent Muslims to detain under TADA if they did not pay up.
Thus in a way the Supreme Court directive on the police reforms can be a double edged sword cutting both ways. The police officers are any way are not accountable to people and politicians are. But if politicians themselves take sectarian and communal view and depend on the votes of one particular community, there will be absolutely no remedy.
What is then to be done? Will the Supreme Court directive help improve police functioning or not? Should politicians retain their control over appointment and transfer of IPS officers? I think, despite problems pointed out above, the reform will be beneficial on the whole. In fact this much reform may not be sufficient, much more needs to be done. The present police act was enacted by the British rulers in 19th century (in 1861).
The main objective of this was to use the police for strengthening and protecting the British rule and to suppress the people‚s movements. In other words it was pro-British ruler police. Unfortunately this colonial legacy is continuing, as our rulers also want to use the police force for protecting their own interests. They do not want to loose control over the police.
What we need today is people-friendly police. The police act of 1861 needs to be drastically re-caste and this should be done earlier than later. The intension of policing is not to suppress people but to help them. The police should be anti-crime, not anti-people as it is today. The whole outlook of the police has to undergo drastic change. Number of things are needed to be done for realising this goal.
First of all the training to be imparted to the police has to change radically. I often find that police attitude, due mainly to improper training, is often communal, casteist and gender-biased. They have hardly appreciation of human rights and their protection. Colonial philosophy cannot impart such sensibilities to them. The lower level officials are much more prone to these prejudices compared to IPS officers.
A glance at training schedule would show that there is hardly much in it to re-orient police thinking on secular and democratic lines. There is hardly any mention of secularism and its importance in multi-religious and multi-cultural society. Also, no concerted efforts are made to remove their caste and gender biases. On the contrary, in appointments, transfers and promotions caste and community factors become primary, and professional competence hardly counts.
Not only this, more often than not, bribery is the only way to get prime posting and politicians demand hefty amounts for appointing officers in good posts. Thus police officers can neither be honest, nor free from caste and communal prejudices. In this respect if transfers are controlled by committees which include persons of integrity and commitment, it may make lot of difference.
My experience with the police shows that the policemen are not inherently communal but most of them are horribly misinformed about minorities. They carry prejudices acquired in schools and colleges as well as in society around them. But if they are properly informed it makes all the difference. I have conducted several police workshops at different levels ˆ from constabulary to high officials ˆ and I always felt change of attitude at the end of workshops.
Coupled with implementation of the Supreme Court directive, if proper training is imparted to the police officials, I am sure it will produce good results in short terms and re-casting of the Police Act, will help things in the long run. It is indeed high time all these measures are taken with a sense of urgency. The country has already paid heavy price for neglecting these much needed police reforms and re-orienting of police attitudes through proper training.
-------------------------------------------------------
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.
On Gujarat Freedom of religion bill
(HindustanTimes.com
September 22, 2006)
Back to their basics
by Ram Puniyani
The attempt to prevent conversions out of the Hindu fold is not a new phenomenon. It has, however, gained momentum during the last few years, more so in the BJP-ruled states. The excuse for introducing this ‘freedom’, through the Freedom of Religion Bill, is that millions are being converted to other religions in order to weaken the Hindu society.
In Gujarat, the issue has another dimension. This Bill grants Hindus the right to convert to Buddhism and Jainism, but not to ‘foreign’ religions, in which case permission has to be sought from the authorities. The implication is that
all religions born in India — Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism — are mere sects of Hinduism, and not full-fledged religions by themselves. One may wonder why Sikhism has been left out of the Gujarat Bill. Perhaps the Bill’s drafters remembered the huge protests by a section of the Sikhs not too long ago when the RSS Sarsanghchalak had said that Sikhism was a sect of Hinduism.
Definitions apart, one also recalls that B.R. Ambedkar had converted to Buddhism. Having borne the humiliations imposed on his community by the Hindu caste system, he pointed out that Hinduism is essentially a Brahmanic theology, based on a rigid hierarchy of caste and gender. Untouchability is just one expression of the same. The Jains demanded and won the status of a minority, which was, however, vehemently opposed by the VHP. The RSS ideology also claims that the Adivasis are Hindus who went into the forests to escape forced conversion by Muslim kings. Thus, they got ‘isolated’ and became lower castes. So, the story goes, they are simply vanvasis (forest dwellers), not adivasis. It follows, then, that bringing them back into the Hindu fold is gharvapasi (homecoming), not conversion. As such, there are many ‘Hinduisms’. Nathuram Godse followed one variety, and M.K. Gandhi another. ‘Godse Hinduism’, the Brahmanic one, which is the backbone of the RSS combine, is based on the purush sukta of the Vedas, which points out that Lord Brahma himself created castes from the body of the Virat Purush — Brahmins from the mouth, Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas from the thighs and Shudras from the feet. Most of the other religions that are claimed as off-shoots of Hinduism reject this idea as well as the caste system.
The Adivasis worship nature. In Hinduism, polytheism, tritheism, monotheism and even atheism, all run as parallel streams. However, in Buddhism, the very concept of God does not exist. While Hinduism does not have a prophet, all the other faiths do, barring that of the Adivasis, who are animists. The word ‘Hindu’ began as a geographical category, when those coming from the West identified the people living around the river Sindhu (which they pronounced as ‘Hindu’, since the use of the ‘s’ sound is restricted in Arabic), as Hindus. Brahmanical values prevalent here came to be projected as Hinduism.
The definition of Hinduism evolved over time. As there is no prophet, the religion itself is very amorphous, meaning different things to different people. With the rise of communal politics in the late 20th century, Muslim and Hindu communalists came up from among the feudal classes. The Muslim League propounded the concept of the Islamic nation, helped by the fact that Islam did not require a new definition. The Hindu communalists, however, had to first define what Hinduism was. At this point, V.D. Savarkar put forward the definition of a Hindu as being one who regards this land as the ‘holy land’ as well as the ‘father land’. This political definition of Hindus excludes only Christians and Muslims from the Hindu fold and tries to bring under its hegemony all other Indian religions.
Why is the Sangh parivar so paranoid about people converting to other religions? While it is being said that Buddhism is also part of Hinduism, every effort is being made by the saffron brigade to thwart the attempt of Dalits to convert to Buddhism. The Adivasis are being indoctrinated into worshipping Hindu gods such as Hanuman, and elaborate rituals have been designed for ‘Gharvapasi’, a major phenomenon in Adivasi areas.
The RSS Sarsanghchalak points out that the caste system saved Hinduism — read Brahmanism — as the hierarchy delineated in Brahmanical Hinduism gives the upper castes authority over lower castes. The fear that lower castes or Adivasis will convert to other religions is perceived as a threat because the prevalent system still helps the perpetuation of the social power of the upper caste
elite. Similar efforts were made by communalists in the early 20th century when Muslim communalists wanted to swell their ranks by starting a campaign of tanzim (conversion). Hindu communalists, in parallel, began their own conversion campaign, and started conducting shuddhi of those who had become ‘impure’ by accepting other religions, particularly Islam.
As things stand, the Christian population of India is declining. The poorer Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis have seen a slight rise in their population. The conversion issue is a veiled threat to the minorities. When foreign funds are already regulated by the Home Ministry, why scare people by screaming about the threat of foreign money funding conversions? It seems that for the BJP, with Ayodhya unable to rustle up past fervour, stoking the conversion issue is the best bet to return to the stage.
Ram Punyani is a former professor at IIT, Mumbai
September 22, 2006)
Back to their basics
by Ram Puniyani
The attempt to prevent conversions out of the Hindu fold is not a new phenomenon. It has, however, gained momentum during the last few years, more so in the BJP-ruled states. The excuse for introducing this ‘freedom’, through the Freedom of Religion Bill, is that millions are being converted to other religions in order to weaken the Hindu society.
In Gujarat, the issue has another dimension. This Bill grants Hindus the right to convert to Buddhism and Jainism, but not to ‘foreign’ religions, in which case permission has to be sought from the authorities. The implication is that
all religions born in India — Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism — are mere sects of Hinduism, and not full-fledged religions by themselves. One may wonder why Sikhism has been left out of the Gujarat Bill. Perhaps the Bill’s drafters remembered the huge protests by a section of the Sikhs not too long ago when the RSS Sarsanghchalak had said that Sikhism was a sect of Hinduism.
Definitions apart, one also recalls that B.R. Ambedkar had converted to Buddhism. Having borne the humiliations imposed on his community by the Hindu caste system, he pointed out that Hinduism is essentially a Brahmanic theology, based on a rigid hierarchy of caste and gender. Untouchability is just one expression of the same. The Jains demanded and won the status of a minority, which was, however, vehemently opposed by the VHP. The RSS ideology also claims that the Adivasis are Hindus who went into the forests to escape forced conversion by Muslim kings. Thus, they got ‘isolated’ and became lower castes. So, the story goes, they are simply vanvasis (forest dwellers), not adivasis. It follows, then, that bringing them back into the Hindu fold is gharvapasi (homecoming), not conversion. As such, there are many ‘Hinduisms’. Nathuram Godse followed one variety, and M.K. Gandhi another. ‘Godse Hinduism’, the Brahmanic one, which is the backbone of the RSS combine, is based on the purush sukta of the Vedas, which points out that Lord Brahma himself created castes from the body of the Virat Purush — Brahmins from the mouth, Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas from the thighs and Shudras from the feet. Most of the other religions that are claimed as off-shoots of Hinduism reject this idea as well as the caste system.
The Adivasis worship nature. In Hinduism, polytheism, tritheism, monotheism and even atheism, all run as parallel streams. However, in Buddhism, the very concept of God does not exist. While Hinduism does not have a prophet, all the other faiths do, barring that of the Adivasis, who are animists. The word ‘Hindu’ began as a geographical category, when those coming from the West identified the people living around the river Sindhu (which they pronounced as ‘Hindu’, since the use of the ‘s’ sound is restricted in Arabic), as Hindus. Brahmanical values prevalent here came to be projected as Hinduism.
The definition of Hinduism evolved over time. As there is no prophet, the religion itself is very amorphous, meaning different things to different people. With the rise of communal politics in the late 20th century, Muslim and Hindu communalists came up from among the feudal classes. The Muslim League propounded the concept of the Islamic nation, helped by the fact that Islam did not require a new definition. The Hindu communalists, however, had to first define what Hinduism was. At this point, V.D. Savarkar put forward the definition of a Hindu as being one who regards this land as the ‘holy land’ as well as the ‘father land’. This political definition of Hindus excludes only Christians and Muslims from the Hindu fold and tries to bring under its hegemony all other Indian religions.
Why is the Sangh parivar so paranoid about people converting to other religions? While it is being said that Buddhism is also part of Hinduism, every effort is being made by the saffron brigade to thwart the attempt of Dalits to convert to Buddhism. The Adivasis are being indoctrinated into worshipping Hindu gods such as Hanuman, and elaborate rituals have been designed for ‘Gharvapasi’, a major phenomenon in Adivasi areas.
The RSS Sarsanghchalak points out that the caste system saved Hinduism — read Brahmanism — as the hierarchy delineated in Brahmanical Hinduism gives the upper castes authority over lower castes. The fear that lower castes or Adivasis will convert to other religions is perceived as a threat because the prevalent system still helps the perpetuation of the social power of the upper caste
elite. Similar efforts were made by communalists in the early 20th century when Muslim communalists wanted to swell their ranks by starting a campaign of tanzim (conversion). Hindu communalists, in parallel, began their own conversion campaign, and started conducting shuddhi of those who had become ‘impure’ by accepting other religions, particularly Islam.
As things stand, the Christian population of India is declining. The poorer Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis have seen a slight rise in their population. The conversion issue is a veiled threat to the minorities. When foreign funds are already regulated by the Home Ministry, why scare people by screaming about the threat of foreign money funding conversions? It seems that for the BJP, with Ayodhya unable to rustle up past fervour, stoking the conversion issue is the best bet to return to the stage.
Ram Punyani is a former professor at IIT, Mumbai
Diktats of panchayats: Hindu boy banned from Mewat village
(Indian Express
October 04, 2006)
Diktats of panchayats over dictates of the heart
HARLEEN BHATTI
: for eloping with Muslim girl
MEWAT, OCTOBER 3: In Mewat, even the heart has to follow the dictates of local panchayats. And the police dare not interfere. Zubeida, a Muslim girl and Neeraj, from a Hindu family in Goala village, were forced to part ways recently after the panchayat objected to their relationship.
The village elders ruled that Zubeida will have to be married off to someone from her own community within 40 days of the verdict. The sentence handed out to Neeraj is even harsher. He has been banished from the village for five years. Nobody in the village objected to the verdict as the female sarpanch — who told The Indian Express that being a female, she could not be identified — dismissed the gathering.
Welcome to Mewat, which though hardly a couple of hours drive from New Delhi, lives by its own rules. The saga of Neeraj and Zubeida, both minors, is even more startling considering that the verdict was delivered in the local police station. The villagers who objected to the “unacceptable” affair held a panchayat meeting inside the Tauru PS. But senior police officials are quick to deny this. “I’m unaware of this and no villagers from Goala village have approached us with such a problem,” says SHO Anoop Singh.
The police may have its reasons to feign ignorance but Neeraj’s family clearly told the paper that they handed the lovebirds over to the cops on September 24. They say they were left with no other choice as a village mob threatened them with violence.
“The girl wanted to elope with the boy as she feared that her parents would marry her off to someone against her wishes,” a villager said.
“The police then contacted the girl’s family and asked them to resolve the matter. Consequently, a panchayat comprising of nearly 70 members from the Goala and other nearby villages went to the police station on September 25 and announced the verdict in the police station itself,” said an former sarpanch of the village.
“They were all there. Sarpanch Kasam, ex-sarpanch Nijju Gujla, Balram and Dulli were all present when the verdict was announced in the police station,” the former sarpanch said. Affairs, especially inter-religious, are a sensitive matter in Mewat, so much so that even elders spoke only on condition of anonymity.
Zubeida is in the Class IX and Neeraj studies in Class X of the school in the village. Their houses are also in close vicinity. The couple had apparently eloped six months ago but were brought back to the village in September. They again managed to elope on September 23 but were caught from Sohna the very next day. They were then brought to the Tauru police station where the panchayat members announced their verdict.
October 04, 2006)
Diktats of panchayats over dictates of the heart
HARLEEN BHATTI
: for eloping with Muslim girl
MEWAT, OCTOBER 3: In Mewat, even the heart has to follow the dictates of local panchayats. And the police dare not interfere. Zubeida, a Muslim girl and Neeraj, from a Hindu family in Goala village, were forced to part ways recently after the panchayat objected to their relationship.
The village elders ruled that Zubeida will have to be married off to someone from her own community within 40 days of the verdict. The sentence handed out to Neeraj is even harsher. He has been banished from the village for five years. Nobody in the village objected to the verdict as the female sarpanch — who told The Indian Express that being a female, she could not be identified — dismissed the gathering.
Welcome to Mewat, which though hardly a couple of hours drive from New Delhi, lives by its own rules. The saga of Neeraj and Zubeida, both minors, is even more startling considering that the verdict was delivered in the local police station. The villagers who objected to the “unacceptable” affair held a panchayat meeting inside the Tauru PS. But senior police officials are quick to deny this. “I’m unaware of this and no villagers from Goala village have approached us with such a problem,” says SHO Anoop Singh.
The police may have its reasons to feign ignorance but Neeraj’s family clearly told the paper that they handed the lovebirds over to the cops on September 24. They say they were left with no other choice as a village mob threatened them with violence.
“The girl wanted to elope with the boy as she feared that her parents would marry her off to someone against her wishes,” a villager said.
“The police then contacted the girl’s family and asked them to resolve the matter. Consequently, a panchayat comprising of nearly 70 members from the Goala and other nearby villages went to the police station on September 25 and announced the verdict in the police station itself,” said an former sarpanch of the village.
“They were all there. Sarpanch Kasam, ex-sarpanch Nijju Gujla, Balram and Dulli were all present when the verdict was announced in the police station,” the former sarpanch said. Affairs, especially inter-religious, are a sensitive matter in Mewat, so much so that even elders spoke only on condition of anonymity.
Zubeida is in the Class IX and Neeraj studies in Class X of the school in the village. Their houses are also in close vicinity. The couple had apparently eloped six months ago but were brought back to the village in September. They again managed to elope on September 23 but were caught from Sohna the very next day. They were then brought to the Tauru police station where the panchayat members announced their verdict.
October 03, 2006
Another Tiger in the cross-hairs : Tipu Sultan was ‘anti-Kannada’
(Indian Express
October 03, 2006)
Another Tiger in the cross-hairs
by Amar Farooqui
Karnataka feels Tipu Sultan was ‘anti-Kannada’. That shows up its ignorance of history and its willingness to twist facts for its own narrow gains
Not much ingenuity is required to grasp the divisive political agenda that prompted D H Shankaramurthy, Karnataka Minister for Higher (!) Education, to declare recently that all references to Tipu Sultan should be deleted from school textbooks since Tipu was ‘anti-Kannada’. The minister, a senior state-level BJP leader, reportedly stated that ‘glorifying Tipu’s achievements in school textbooks was not in the interest of students’. Tipu’s use of the Persian language for administrative purposes, supposedly in preference to Kannada, rendered the ruler ineligible as a subject of historical study.
This rather crude articulation of what amounts to a project for the communalization of the history of late 19th-century south India was put forth at a function organized by the Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti. The Samiti has been spearheading a campaign against NCERT textbooks, as a continuation of the endeavours by Murli Manohar Joshi and J S Rajput to incorporate in textbooks a version of history that was acceptable to the Sangh Parivar.
The attempt to make Tipu Sultan part of a communal discourse is not new. It may be recalled that a virulent campaign was launched in 1989 against the screening of Sanjay Khan’s TV serial Sword of Tipu Sultan, based on Bhagwan Gidwani’s book of the same title. The opposition to Tipu was at that time in terms of his having acted as a cruel and fanatical anti-Hindu ruler during the course of his invasion of Malabar. The main source used for substantiating such an assessment of Tipu was the well-known Malabar Manual (1887) compiled by William Logan, a British official posted in Malabar.
This is not to suggest that the excesses of rulers, or the ruthlessness and violence that they often resort to in situations of war and conflict, should be glossed over by historians. However, history-writing involves questioning one’s sources. Shankaramurthy seems to have relied on the Mysore Gazetteers, not a particularly accurate source on Tipu given that the Gazetteers sought to legitimize not just British rule but also the ruling family of Mysore (the Wodeyars) for whom Haidar Ali and Tipu were usurpers. Following the final defeat of Tipu in 1799 the Company had bestowed recognition on the Wodeyars as the ruling family of a much-truncated Mysore. Incidentally, the Karnataka minister too referred to Tipu as a usurper, one more reason for erasing his memory.
The minister’s remarks raise the very serious question of whether the state can or should intervene to obliterate an entire era of the history of a people to promote a distorted and narrowly sectarian view of the past. Perhaps Napoleon should then find no place in Russian or British history textbooks. The point is that history as a discipline cannot be at the mercy of narrow parochial concerns. What the minister is in fact suggesting is that students should not be equipped to handle that vital tool of the discipline of history: critical enquiry. It is this tool that would allow the student to look at Tipu Sultan, or for that matter any other historical figure, in a critical manner and thereby make a nuanced historical assessment.
The first lesson that any serious practitioner of the discipline of history learns is that events and persons can be studied meaningfully only when placed in a historical context. The same with any discussion on Tipu’s approach to language. To begin with Tipu cannot be seen as the ruler of ‘Karnataka’, since Karnataka as a linguistic state is a modern creation and the product of a process of evolution in which Tipu’s kingdom marked a specific historical stage. The boundaries of Tipu’s kingdom encompassed parts of present-day Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa, indicating that he ruled over a multi-lingual territory. In any case linguistic identities developed during the course of the national movement and were linked, among other things, to the standardisation of vernaculars through education and printing. Prior to this, the language of governance and/or religion differed from the language of everyday speech. The Scindias and Holkars used Marathi and Persian in their official documents though these were not the languages of the common people of Malwa. Finally, the extensive use of Kannada by Tipu for official purposes is well-documented.
Ultimately what is being targetted is Tipu as an icon of the anti-colonial struggle. Tipu’s place in history has to be judged primarily in terms of the prolonged contest between Mysore and the East India Company. The Company had to engage in four Anglo-Mysore wars, from 1766-1799, to subjugate Mysore. The relentless struggle of Haidar Ali and Tipu against the Company assumed epic proportions due to Mysore’s ability to mobilise military resources on a scale that made it a real contest. Tipu’s modernization of the army, the adoption of advances in technology and the skilful deployment of rockets forced the British to update their own military organisation involving massive financial commitment. Tipu’s defeat paved the way for the subjugation of the Marathas, and ensured the supremacy of the Company by the beginning of the 19th century.
In popular memory Tipu has remained a prominent symbol of the struggle against colonial rule. When, shortly after the battle of Srirangapatnam, Indian soldiers of the Company’s army stationed at Vellore revolted in 1806, they were obviously inspired by Tipu. They raised Tipu’s flag, with its tiger emblem, and declared one of his sons (who was imprisoned in the Vellore Fort) as the legitimate ruler. For several generations Tipu’s tiger has remained one of the most enduring images of the challenge to colonial domination, and it is this image that is now threatened by the attempt to selectively sanction approved symbols of the nation with a view to exclude rather than to include.
The writer is Reader, Department of History, Delhi University
October 03, 2006)
Another Tiger in the cross-hairs
by Amar Farooqui
Karnataka feels Tipu Sultan was ‘anti-Kannada’. That shows up its ignorance of history and its willingness to twist facts for its own narrow gains
Not much ingenuity is required to grasp the divisive political agenda that prompted D H Shankaramurthy, Karnataka Minister for Higher (!) Education, to declare recently that all references to Tipu Sultan should be deleted from school textbooks since Tipu was ‘anti-Kannada’. The minister, a senior state-level BJP leader, reportedly stated that ‘glorifying Tipu’s achievements in school textbooks was not in the interest of students’. Tipu’s use of the Persian language for administrative purposes, supposedly in preference to Kannada, rendered the ruler ineligible as a subject of historical study.
This rather crude articulation of what amounts to a project for the communalization of the history of late 19th-century south India was put forth at a function organized by the Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti. The Samiti has been spearheading a campaign against NCERT textbooks, as a continuation of the endeavours by Murli Manohar Joshi and J S Rajput to incorporate in textbooks a version of history that was acceptable to the Sangh Parivar.
The attempt to make Tipu Sultan part of a communal discourse is not new. It may be recalled that a virulent campaign was launched in 1989 against the screening of Sanjay Khan’s TV serial Sword of Tipu Sultan, based on Bhagwan Gidwani’s book of the same title. The opposition to Tipu was at that time in terms of his having acted as a cruel and fanatical anti-Hindu ruler during the course of his invasion of Malabar. The main source used for substantiating such an assessment of Tipu was the well-known Malabar Manual (1887) compiled by William Logan, a British official posted in Malabar.
This is not to suggest that the excesses of rulers, or the ruthlessness and violence that they often resort to in situations of war and conflict, should be glossed over by historians. However, history-writing involves questioning one’s sources. Shankaramurthy seems to have relied on the Mysore Gazetteers, not a particularly accurate source on Tipu given that the Gazetteers sought to legitimize not just British rule but also the ruling family of Mysore (the Wodeyars) for whom Haidar Ali and Tipu were usurpers. Following the final defeat of Tipu in 1799 the Company had bestowed recognition on the Wodeyars as the ruling family of a much-truncated Mysore. Incidentally, the Karnataka minister too referred to Tipu as a usurper, one more reason for erasing his memory.
The minister’s remarks raise the very serious question of whether the state can or should intervene to obliterate an entire era of the history of a people to promote a distorted and narrowly sectarian view of the past. Perhaps Napoleon should then find no place in Russian or British history textbooks. The point is that history as a discipline cannot be at the mercy of narrow parochial concerns. What the minister is in fact suggesting is that students should not be equipped to handle that vital tool of the discipline of history: critical enquiry. It is this tool that would allow the student to look at Tipu Sultan, or for that matter any other historical figure, in a critical manner and thereby make a nuanced historical assessment.
The first lesson that any serious practitioner of the discipline of history learns is that events and persons can be studied meaningfully only when placed in a historical context. The same with any discussion on Tipu’s approach to language. To begin with Tipu cannot be seen as the ruler of ‘Karnataka’, since Karnataka as a linguistic state is a modern creation and the product of a process of evolution in which Tipu’s kingdom marked a specific historical stage. The boundaries of Tipu’s kingdom encompassed parts of present-day Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa, indicating that he ruled over a multi-lingual territory. In any case linguistic identities developed during the course of the national movement and were linked, among other things, to the standardisation of vernaculars through education and printing. Prior to this, the language of governance and/or religion differed from the language of everyday speech. The Scindias and Holkars used Marathi and Persian in their official documents though these were not the languages of the common people of Malwa. Finally, the extensive use of Kannada by Tipu for official purposes is well-documented.
Ultimately what is being targetted is Tipu as an icon of the anti-colonial struggle. Tipu’s place in history has to be judged primarily in terms of the prolonged contest between Mysore and the East India Company. The Company had to engage in four Anglo-Mysore wars, from 1766-1799, to subjugate Mysore. The relentless struggle of Haidar Ali and Tipu against the Company assumed epic proportions due to Mysore’s ability to mobilise military resources on a scale that made it a real contest. Tipu’s modernization of the army, the adoption of advances in technology and the skilful deployment of rockets forced the British to update their own military organisation involving massive financial commitment. Tipu’s defeat paved the way for the subjugation of the Marathas, and ensured the supremacy of the Company by the beginning of the 19th century.
In popular memory Tipu has remained a prominent symbol of the struggle against colonial rule. When, shortly after the battle of Srirangapatnam, Indian soldiers of the Company’s army stationed at Vellore revolted in 1806, they were obviously inspired by Tipu. They raised Tipu’s flag, with its tiger emblem, and declared one of his sons (who was imprisoned in the Vellore Fort) as the legitimate ruler. For several generations Tipu’s tiger has remained one of the most enduring images of the challenge to colonial domination, and it is this image that is now threatened by the attempt to selectively sanction approved symbols of the nation with a view to exclude rather than to include.
The writer is Reader, Department of History, Delhi University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
