Please no polemics. The subject is getting quite alot of attention in mainstream thinkers.
X-posted...
A FHL ponitifcates in The Telegraph, Kolkota, 2 Oct., 2008
Quote:
IN LOCO PARENTIS
- When a remarkable republic turns into a majoritarian State
Mukul Kesavan
I teach in Jamia Millia Islamia, a university in Delhi that was recently in the news because two young men said to be terrorists were killed in its vicinity, in the course of an ‘encounter’ or shoot-out with the police. One of these men
was a student of the university. Subsequently, the police made more arrests in connection with the recent bomb blasts in Delhi and
two of those arrested were enrolled in Jamia.The university authorities made it clear that they would deal strictly with any student found to be involved in terrorism.
The university also declared that it would provide legal aid to the arrested students (a) because they were members of Jamia in good standing, and (b) till such time as their guilt was proved they were entitled to due process. The response to this declaration was at once odd and unsurprising. Various spokespersons for the Bharatiya Janata Party demanded that the vice-chancellor be sacked for using the public purse (Jamia is a UGC-funded Central university) for succouring terrorists. The vice-chancellor of a university in Jodhpur, in the course of a speech inaugurating a seminar on “Indian Women: Changes and Challenges”, found the time to regret that Jamia’s ‘kulapati’ was supporting terrorists.
I think these reactions aren’t just odd, they’re contrary to every intuition Indians have about their republic and about civil society. We’re a constitutional republic, a nation of laws. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the spokesman of the BJP, almost certainly knows that
Article 39A of our Constitution sets out the principle of legal aid. It does so because the presumption of innocence and the right to a free trial become meaningful only if the accused has proper legal representation. Once we allow that public money can, indeed must, be spent to ensure that people have legal representation, it becomes hard to find a charitable explanation for the BJP’s outrage.
{Yes my FHL the Constitution allows the court to appoint such legal aid and not the uty. The uty has extended its powers unilaterally. I would be happy if all students get the same aid. The outrageis at the Uty VC arbitrarily extending the legal aid.}I have a son who, in less than two years, will go to university. If, god forbid, he finds himself in police remand for whatever reason (murder, armed robbery, menacing the faculty, fraud), I’d want his university to behave as if it were acting in my place, in loco parentis. I would expect the proctor of the university to liaise with the station house officer to make sure that such rights of visitation as he might have in that ghastly circumstance were given him, to hire a lawyer to see if he could be released on bail, and if the nature of the alleged offence didn’t allow that, to try to have him transferred to judicial custody. Police remand is a dreadful form of imprisonment in India; unlike judicial custody where the procedural restraints of prison manuals apply, the police in their station-house lockups have a free hand in working suspects over. Any university that washes its hands of its students the moment they are arrested by the police because it doesn’t want to be associated with notoriety or (as in this case) the taint of terrorism is a cringing and wretched institution undeserving of a citizen’s respect or a parent’s trust.
Interestingly, Jamia has supplied legal aid to arrested students before. Some years ago, dozens of its students were arrested on charges that were later shown to be unfounded. But their innocence isn’t relevant: the point is that no one thought, at that time, to object to the university’s aid. The reason for the difference isn’t hard to find.
The previous incident involved a skirmish on the campus; this time round, the students were suspected of collusion in terror. But it wasn’t just the gravity of the offence that made the difference; the narrative that the BJP hoped to exploit was that of jihadi terrorism and the two useful facts they were rubbing together like flints were (i) that these students were Muslims, and (ii) that Jamia Millia Islamia is a remarkably Muslim-sounding name. “Muslim university bats for Muslim terrorists”: for a party whose reason for being is the demonization of minorities, specifically Muslims, this was a script made in heaven.
So some background is in order. Jamia Millia Islamia began life as a nationalist college. It was born of the non-cooperation movement, the first anti-colonial mass agitation led by Mahatma Gandhi. A group of young radical students and alumni of the Aligarh Muslim University, dissatisfied with their alma mater’s compradore politics, decided to establish a nationalist, anti-colonial alternative to AMU. Gandhi, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Zakir Hussain, Hakim Ajmal Khan, M.A. Ansari are only some of the great names who nurtured Jamia.
It’s not just ironical, it’s grotesque that the BJP, born of parent organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha, which were notable for their distance from the great anti-colonial struggles that won India freedom, should make a bid to impugn Jamia’s commitment to India’s integrity. 
{if the shoe fits wear it. By your own admission there are three students accused of this crime}But history aside, it’s worth reflecting on the way in which we respond to news related to terrorist atrocity. In the Jamia encounter, a policeman and two terror suspects were killed. Years of staged shootouts have induced a reflexive scepticism about police encounters. In this case, a policeman was killed which seemed to suggest that someone was shooting back. However, given the police’s fraught relations with Muslim neighbourhoods, this fact cut very little ice with residents of Jamia Nagar. But even if we allow that on the face of it the police had reason to raid the premises in which these two young men were killed, the complete lack of concern in the majority of news reports that two young men had been summarily killed (Atif was in his early twenties and Sajid was all of seventeen) was dismaying.
In the summer of 2005, the British police killed Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian with a brown skin, because they were convinced he was a terrorist. He wasn’t; it was a dreadful mistake and though it was made in good faith, three years later, the inquest into the incident now threatens the career of Britain’s top policeman, Ian Blair.
It’s at least possible that the Delhi Police, likewise, got it wrong, that Atif or Sajid or both were innocent, that they were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, but nearly every newspaper I read baldly reported the death of two terrorists without any caveats or qualifications.The synchronized bombings that have ravaged Indian cities over the past year have led the police, unsurprisingly, to look for Muslim villains. It has led political commentators from the Hindutva right to make interesting distinctions. One worthy tried to distinguish Muslim terrorists from Hindu rioters and pogrom artists. A rioter, he argued, could, a few years after the riot, settle down into society again as a solid citizen. A terrorist, on the other hand, was implacably committed to the subversion of the State. I can see what he means: Gujarat is full of solid citizens who looted and killed recreationally a few years ago and now led respectable lives unmolested by the police.
But given the fact that the most recent explosions in Modasa (Gujarat) and Malegaon (Maharashtra) occurred in Muslim localities and had mainly Muslims casualties, the police might try to diversify their enquiries. It was only two years ago that two members of a Hindu militia blew themselves up in Nanded while making a powerful bomb. When people, policemen and political parties buy into the narrative of a priori Muslim guilt, they run the risk of turning this remarkable republic into an ordinary, ugly, majoritarian State.
mukulkesavan@hotmail.comI guess its a good example of all that is wrong with the FHL. He hits on all hot topics for the FHL in one essay.
-----------------
JwalaMukhi wrote:
ramana wrote:
A FHL ponitifcates in The Telegraph, Kolkota, 2 Oct., 2008
Quote:
IN LOCO PARENTIS
- When a remarkable republic turns into a majoritarian State
Mukul Kesavan
But history aside, it’s worth reflecting on the way in which we respond to news related to terrorist atrocity. In the Jamia encounter, a policeman and two terror suspects were killed. Years of staged shootouts have induced a reflexive scepticism about police encounters. In this case, a policeman was killed which seemed to suggest that someone was shooting back. However, given the police’s fraught relations with Muslim neighbourhoods, this fact cut very little ice with residents of Jamia Nagar. But even if we allow that on the face of it the police had reason to raid the premises in which these two young men were killed, the complete lack of concern in the majority of news reports that two young men had been summarily killed (Atif was in his early twenties and Sajid was all of seventeen) was dismaying.
I guess its a good example of all that is wrong with the FHL. He hits on all hot topics for the FHL in one essay.
Wow, this is a fine display of sophisticated obfuscation. Lesson to be learnt are the art of hand waving. The paragraph traverses from being terrorist atrocity to an encounter to possible defence mechanism (some shooting back probably! yey) to summary execution. While the casualties go from being a policeman and two terror suspects to two muslims to two young men full of life (the other life lost (did he happen to have a name or face never mind) was neither muslim nor in his early 20s or all of 17). Muthiah Muralidharan better watch out, got a new shpinner in town.
and more importantly...
Coverage of Orissa, Karnataka trouble: Balanced approach wantingQuote:
B. S. Raghavan
It is a hallowed principle of jurisprudence that justice should be even-handed, and both sides to a dispute must be given a full hearing before conclusions are drawn. The media coverage of the disturbances in both Orissa and Karnataka and the action taken by the Centre are so one-sided as to make any fair-minded person feel extremely worried.
I am not a practising Hindu, perform no rituals and have no religious hang-ups. Further, having worked directly under Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi for nine years (1961-9) as the secretary of the National Integration Council from its very inception, (besides my other duties in the Political Division of the Union Home Ministry), I have savoured from close quarters the spirit that animated the heroes of pre-Independence era. Hence, in sharing my uneasiness with readers, I have tried my best to rise above prejudices or preconceptions, and appraise events on the touchstone of fairplay and freedom from bias.
To anyone for whom the print and electronic media were the only sources of information, it would seem that Hindu fanatics, behaving like dreaded terrorists, had been making killing fields of both Orissa and Karnataka, by indulging in murderous attacks on Christian minorities, and the destruction of sacred religious places.
The emerging picture of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal (BD) — all subsumed under the pejorative rubric Sangh Parivar, or the Saffron Brigade (why not, by the same token, call the Congress the Quattrochi Brigade or the Left the Hammer-and-Sickle Brigade?) — is that, encouraged from behind the scenes by the communal ‘monster’, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), they are going on a ruthlessly violent spree, just to vent their hatred of minorities.
In short, the impression given is that swarms of totally insane thugs are on a rampage, without any provocation whatsoever, holding both States to ransom, and the State Governments, in open sympathy with them, have done little to prevent their excesses.
Not the best way
God knows there have been condemnable incidents, making innocent Christians fear for their lives. There can be no wishing away of the despicable and wilful desecration and destruction of places of worship in Kandhamal in Orissa and in some places, including Bangalore, in Karnataka. Certainly, any wanton resort to violence should be put down with an iron hand and peace and harmony among all sections of the people restored at all costs.
Only a dispassionate and disinterested inquiry can credibly establish whether in the particular cases of attacks on churches, the respective State Governments acted with due sense of urgency and concern for the well-being of the affected communities. Sending on a hurried visit some functionaries from the Home Ministry toeing the official line, unfamiliar with local conditions and listening to only the slanted version is not the best way of getting at the truth. Also, it must be remembered that it is, and will always be, a matter of judgment whether more or less could or should have been done by the State or Central authorities to enforce the law, round up the ruffians and quell the disturbances in any particular set of circumstances.
Such cases cannot be weighed on a fine scale. I say this having dealt with a number of instances of violent outbreaks and insurgency during my nine years in the Home Ministry and two years as Chief Secretary of a north-eastern State.
Journalists and columnists, enjoying the good fortune of never having to manage crisis situations, should, therefore, think many times before showering their verdicts on the happenings, and especially guard against saying or writing anything approaching character assassination. All the reports and commentaries on the disturbances in Orissa and Karnataka neatly sidestep the original sin and the consequential long-simmering discontent among the Hindus. They make it look as if the attackers, who were readily assumed to be members of the ‘Saffron Brigade’, were madly running amok without any justification.
Real cause ignored
Reams have been written and billions of sound bytes have gone on air describing in lurid detail all that has happened to the churches and the Christian community, with no equal space given for the real cause of all the trouble.
Swami Lakshmananda was a revered figure in Orissa who was engaged in service to the weaker and vulnerable sections of the population. Allegedly, the local Christian votaries of conversion saw him as a thorn in their flesh. Whatever that be, the fact was that some time ago, he was the victim of attack by a gang bent on doing away with him. Luckily, he escaped at that time, but his enemies had their way the second time.
The Centre could have set all speculation at rest if, with all the mighty and extensive intelligence and investigative machinery at its disposal, it had ascertained the truth behind the murders of the Swami and his associates and unhesitatingly named the desperadoes. Its own inability, or unwillingness, to expose the forces that were behind the killing should be taken to have contributed to the flare-up that followed in Kandhamal.
Extreme provocation
Similarly, as regards Mangalore and Bangalore, those who are quick to castigate the State Government gloss over the extreme provocation contained in an obnoxious pamphlet, Satya Darshini, in Kannada language, circulated in the name of an outfit called the New Life Church, scathingly denigrating Hindu gods and goddesses in the foulest of language.
Since all the manifestations of anger from the side of the so-called Saffron Brigade have been set out in graphic detail day after day, fairness in maintaining balance calls for revealing a few samples from the pamphlet to illustrate the revolting nature of its vilification of Hinduism:
“When the Trinity of Hinduism (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) are consumed by lust and anger, how can they liberate others? Their projection as Gods is nothing but a joke. (page 39).
“When Vishnu asked Brahma to commit a sin, he immediately did so. How can such an ‘evil Brahma’ be a Creator of this Universe? How is it possible for both the sinner and the entity that provoked the sin to be gods? (Page 39)
“God, please liberate the sinful people of India who are worshipping false Gods that believe in the pleasures of illicit relationships (Page 39).”
Perversity
I want to ask the holier-than-thou commentators to place their hands on their hearts and tell me whether such scurrilous observations about what is regarded as holy and sacred would be tolerated by any community anywhere in the world?
One need not even go as far as gods and goddesses: Suppose one’s wife or parents are the targets of such scatological stuff distributed far and wide? Would one smile it away? Or, suppose one exhibits in a public forum paintings of particular individuals and their kith and kin in the nude, will those individuals celebrate it as an expression of artistic freedom?
Why, then, show this perverse support to sacrilege perpetrated against Hinduism alone and work overtime lambasting the spontaneous reaction of largely simple and pious people who are sustained in their quotidian hardships by their faith in their gods and goddesses? To me, somehow, it does not stand to reason or common sense.
There is yet another aspect of this perversity. It gives a handle to foreign governments and busybodies to bad-mouth India as a den of fanatical Hindus who love nothing better than being at the throats of persons of other faiths.
A country which rained death and destruction on Iraq by flaunting a tissue of lies, indulged in unspeakable atrocities in Abu Ghraib and for the last eight years, has kept Muslim detenus in Guantanamo Bay without trial, treating them worse than vermin, denies a visa to Narendra Modi to the resounding applause of self-styled secularists who do not realise the egregious nature of the insult to the entire nation.
In sum, the secularism as practised in the country is letting it down, besides polarising the population. It is time a body of persons reputed for their objectivity and erudition went into the meaning and implications of secularism and communalism.
Nehru set up a Committee in 1961 for this purpose under the chairmanship of Asoka Mehta, of which Indira Gandhi, Atal Behari Vajpayee and Prof Mujeeb were among the members. Unfortunately, its labours were interrupted by the Chinese invasion of 1962, and it was wound up. Getting going from where it left off is eminently worthwhile.
I will un-hesitatingly ban any one without warning for disrupting this thread.
Thanks, ramana
) entity we need to start moulding the discourse towards creation of such beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment