The Early Bloomers – By Saba Naqvi (Nov 25, 2013, Outlook)

In what was perhaps the first systematic statement of the Sangh ideology – M.S. Golwalkar’s 1939 book, We or Our Nationhood Defined – the second sarsanghchalak (supreme chief) of the RSS traced the origins of the Aryan race to India. However, many years earlier – at the end of 1898 – Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a revered figure among the Sangh faithful even if he was from the Congress, had said that the Aryans came from the North Pole. Asked if someone of the stature of Tilak could have been wrong, Golwalkar, with his flowing beard and saintly air, is said to have pondered for a while, and then replied that no, Tilak would not have been wrong, as the North Pole was once in India, somewhere between Bihar and Orissa. Over several centuries, it apparently zig-zagged its way to the north!

In one stroke, the great RSS ideologue murdered both history and geography. As a product of the Sangh schools and shakhas, Narendra Modi’s stunted knowledge of matters historical is actually in his own history! If the great Guru Golwalkar could bring the North Pole to Bharat, why can’t Modi say Jan Sangh founder Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was born in Gujarat, mixing him up with Kutch revolutionary Shyamji Krishna Verma? Or that Alexander conquered the whole world but was defeated in Patna or that Taxila, “learning hub of ancient times,” is in Bihar when it is actually in Pakistan? Or even that Jawaharlal Nehru did not attend the funeral of Sardar Patel?

Others might see these as bloomers, but the plain fact is that facts have never come in the way of the fiction the Sangh parivar is so adept at spinning. Aditya Mukherjee, professor of history at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, and one of the co-authors of RSS, School Texts and the Murder of Mahatma Gandhi, says the issue is not just about these “stupid mistakes” that some people might pass off Modi’s gaffes as. “They are used to manufacturing facts and airbrushing history,” he says. “That is the underpinning of the Hindu communal project.” …

They are equally keen to play down their own non-involvement in the national movement and their link to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Historian Dilip Simeon points to the first NDA government’s (1998) brazen attempt to ‘revise’ Gandhi’sCollected Works. Well-known scholars and Gandhians in India and around the world noticed hundreds of whimsical deletions and changes and demanded an end to such attempts to play with historical documents. It was only after the defeat of the NDA government that this “revised” edition of the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi was withdrawn, in 2005. Writing on his blog, Simeon says, “The fascist style of political speech may be summarised in three words: affirmation, repetition and contagion. They spread lies and practise deceit as a matter of habit. Truth is whatever is convenient for serving their interests. More than anything else, it is the onslaught on the human mind that is the most dangerous feature of totalitarian politics – of any variety. The RSS in power will abolish truth completely. Modi’s lies are a foretaste.” …

In short, a lot of cherished speculation and outright bunkum came to be passed off as history. Modi comes from a flock of the faithful, where concocting history is key to the belief system, along with repeating myths and prejudices ad nauseam. Till now, he has just shot his mouth off. But were he ever to be in a position to change history books, it is possible that both the north and south poles could turn out to be in the land of Bharat. The world would revolve around us.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288539

SEE ALSO:

• Oops! Modi’s done it again – By Karan Thapar (Nov 9, 2013, Hindustan Times)
  http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/1149288.aspx
• Modi on Rampage: Reckless Abuse of History – By Ram Puniyani (Nov 14, 2013, Twocircles.net)
  http://twocircles.net/2013nov14/modi_rampage_reckless_abuse_history.html
• Glorifying Communalists, Insulting Freedom Fighters: Nation Demands An Apology Mr Modi – By Subhash Gatade (Nov 17, 2013, Countercurrents)
  http://www.countercurrents.org/gatade141113.htm
• Divisive project – By Venkitesh Ramakrishnan (Nov 29, 2013, Frontline)
  http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/divisive-project/article5338333.ece

[Back to Top]

The Stalkers: Amit Shah’s Illegal Surveillance Exposed – By Ashish Khetan and Raja Chowdhury (Nov 15, 2013, Cobrapost.com)

An important covenant in a democracy is that those voted to power shall protect the weak and the vulnerable. That is why when the system fails to protect a Nirbhaya or do justice to a Jessica Lal or protect the children of Nithari, even the most compromising among us take to the streets and demand a reckoning. That is why we collectively called for stricter laws and swifter punishment for crime against women and children in the wake of the brutal Delhi gangrape. This story is, however, not about the inadequacies of the system or its indifference. It is far more sordid. This story is about the misuse of police machinery and powers of the State by a top minister in the Gujarat government to stalk a young woman from Bangalore, subjecting her to constant surveillance for reasons not immediately apparent.

Gujarat IPS officer G.L. Singhal, who is an accused in the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case (Ishrat was killed, along with three others, by Gujarat Police in 2004) and out on bail, has handed over hundreds of recorded telephonic conversations to the CBI revealing how three key wings of the Gujarat Police – the State Intelligence Bureau, also known as CID Intelligence, the Crime Branch and the Anti-Terrorist Squad – misused their powers to stalk an unmarried young woman from Bangalore, who had her parents staying in Gujarat. The entire surveillance-cum-phone interception operation was mounted in August 2009 on oral orders, without any valid legal authorization, and was meant only to serve the interests of someone whom the then minister of state for home, Amit Shah, addressed as ‘saheb’.

The illegal spying operation in which Singhal has confessed to his key role was initiated on the instructions of Shah sometime in the month of August 2009 and continued for several weeks thereafter. The 267 audio recordings submitted to the CBI primarily contain telephonic conversations between Shah and Singhal, who was at the time posted as SP with ATS. In at least half a dozen conversations, Shah is alluding to his saheb’s acute personal interest in the snooping of the woman. The conversations suggest Shah was passing minute-by-minute details gathered through this snooping operation to his ‘saheb’. A close confidant of Narendra Modi, Shah held his office as Minister of State for Home for seven years between 2003 and 2010. Modi besides being the CM has also been Gujarat’s home minister since October 2001. Shah was arrested in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case in 2010 and is out on bail, looking after BJP’s poll campaign in Uttar Pradesh.

Investigative news portals Gulail and Cobrapost have accessed both the entire set of recordings and the three explosive self-incriminatory statements given by Singhal before the CBI between April and June this year. We also have the 10-page panchnama prepared by the CBI, as the agency took possession of the phone recordings from Singhal. All conversations were recorded by Singhal who at that time was close to Shah. Apparently, it was only after the CBI arrested him in the Ishrat Jahan killing case in February this year that he cracked up and chose to cooperate with the CBI. To protect the identity of the victim, we have decided to not reveal her name or present location. For the purpose of this story, we call her Madhuri. Along with Madhuri, a senior IAS officer from Gujarat named Pradeep Sharma was also put on watch, illegally.

“In the latter half of 2009, when I was posted as SP (Operations) in the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) at Ahmedabad, Shri Amit Shah had directed me several times to watch the movements of Shri Pradeep Sharma, who was then posted as Municipal Commissioner, Bhavnagar. He had also asked me to put a watch on a young woman named Madhuri. I had deputed some men of the Crime Branch (as ATS was short of subordinate staff) to follow her, as directed by Shri Amit Shah,” reads Singhal’s statement recorded by the CBI on April 17, 2013, a copy of which is with us. Singhal was released on bail in the last week of May 2013. …

http://www.cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=3969&cid=23

SEE ALSO:

• A Spool Of Filth – By Ashish Khetan, Raja Chowdhury (Nov 25, 2013, Outlook)
  http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288544
• Gujarat snoop scandal: Why BJP’s ‘daddy’ defence is shameful – By Lakshmi Chaudhry (Nov 18, 2013, First Post)
  http://www.firstpost.com/politics/her-daddy-made-modi-do-it-why-bjps-stand-is-shameful-1235891.html
• Modi’s obsession and the future of Indian state – By Faraz Ahmad (Nov 17, 2013, Twocircles.net)
  http://twocircles.net/2013nov17/modi%E2%80%99s_obsession_and_future_indian_state.html
• The Amit Shah tapes: Why BJP’s ‘worried father’ defense is lame – By FP Editors (Nov 16, 2013, First Post)
  http://www.firstpost.com/politics/the-amit-shah-tapes-why-bjps-worried-father-defense-is-lame-1233051.html

[Back to Top]

UP govt’s conspiracy to deprive Muzaffarnagar riot victims of their properties – By Zafarul-Islam Khan (Nov 12, 2013, Milli Gazette)

Muzaffarnagar’s vice president of Jamiat Ulama-e Hind Haji Azizur Rahman said while talking to mediapersons that Akhilesh Singh government has announced to give a financial assistance of Rs 5 lakh to 1800 riot-hit families of Muzaffarnagar and Shamli who under no circumstances are willing to return to their homes in their villages where they lived before the riots because they fear for their safety. District administration officials tried many times to impress upon these people the need to go back and live where they used to live before the riots erupted in September, but because of the hostile attitude of the villagers, they are not willing to return and settle down elsewhere. …

In a state government statement of 27 October, an official said that Rs 5 lakh financial assistance is being given to enable these people to settle down anywhere they want. This decision has been taken on the basis of the report submitted by the 10-member committee headed by Shiv Pal Yadav, minister for public works, which included some ministers. This compensation package will cost the government Rs 90 crores. This committee was constituted on Mulayam Singh Yadav’s instructions to visit the riot-hit areas and to inspect relief and rehabilitation work for people rendered homeless and forced to live in refugee camps, and who do not want to return to their homes and villages because of the hostile attitude of the village people there.

Haji Azizur Rahman demanded that the government make sincere efforts to trace persons who are still missing for about two months or declare them dead and give compensation to their families. He also demanded that those responsible for instigating the riots must be subjected to legal process and jailed. Police officers who shirked their responsibility and in any way encouraged the rioters or helped them in any way must also be strongly dealt with, he demanded. Government officials clarified that the amount of Rs 5 lakh will be given to those whose houses were burnt or those whose near and dear ones were killed. They further said that people in villages where no riots had taken place but who had shifted to other places because of fear will not be considered deserving of this financial assistance. They also said that for other financial losses in addition to burnt houses, further financial assistance besides Rs 5 lakh will be given and with this help, 965 families of Muzaffarnagar will benefit.

The Mushawarat delegation visiting Muzaffarnagar and Shamli camps for the third time on 5 November came to know that the said grant of five lakh rupees is only for refugees from 12 villages where murder and arson took place on a large scale while refugees from dozens of other villages who fled out of fear and many of them refuse to return will not get any such help. Moreover, any family accepting this help of five lakh rupees has to sign an affidavit which says that it will not return to the village it came from and will not claim “movable and immovable properties” in the villages.

A majority of the affected families have refused to sign this affidavit which is clearly illegal and unconstitutional as it deprives people of their properties whose value at times is much more than the compensation offered. The affidavit shows that the Samajwadi Party government is hand-in-glove with the grand conspiracy to deprive Muslims of their properties and lands. This proves what Times of Indiareported on 1 Nov., that land grab is the motive behind the fresh violence.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/9449-up-govts-conspiracy-to-deprive-Muzaffarnagar-riot-victims-of-their-properties-india-muslims

SEE ALSO:

• Why the communal turn to politics should be avoided at all cost – By Syed Hassan Kazim (Nov 14, 2013, Rediff)
  http://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-the-communal-turn-to-politics-should-be-avoided-at-all-cost/20131114.htm
• Battle of honour: Sangh Parivar Vs Arif Aqeel in Bhopal North – By Mohd. Ismail Khan (Nov 18, 2013, Twocircles.net)
  http://twocircles.net/2013nov18/battle_honour_sangh_parivar_vs_arif_aqeel_bhopal_north.html

[Back to Top]

Flawed still – By V. Venkatesan (Nov 29, 2013, Frontline)

On July 21, 2011, the National Advisory Council (NAC), which is the United Progressive Alliance government’s interface with civil society, released a 55-page draft Bill to prevent communal and targeted violence, with emphasis on access to justice and reparations. The NAC’s aim was to initiate a public debate about its contents as a prelude to its introduction in Parliament. The Bill was in cold storage for two years. However, reports in the media suggest that the government may finally introduce it in Parliament during the winter session. With the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and some sections of civil society opposing the Bill for its perceived flaws, it appears as though a constructive debate about its contents may still elude us. The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011, available on the NAC website, is certainly an improvement on the initial draft, about which the NAC had invited comments and suggestions from civil society. It agreed to 49 amendments on the basis of the feedback.

According to some experts, the final version is still not free from serious flaws. It is, therefore, necessary to understand the criticism voiced against the Bill and the NAC’s response to it. Some red flags and the NAC’s response: Rationale: Some legal experts were initially of the view that the NAC failed to provide a rationale for the Bill. Regarding the Bill’s provision for the creation of a National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation and the corresponding State Authorities for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation, critics questioned the constitutional validity of such bodies. They wondered whether these authorities would be any different from the commissions of inquiry that are set up after every occurrence of communal violence. Like the commissions of inquiry, these bodies, too, would produce reports of academic value, with no power to prevent communal violence or to ensure justice, they said. They argued that simply creating layers of bureaucracies to collect data and make recommendations, as the Bill aimed to do, was not enough to prevent communal violence, as a major cause of communal conflicts was that government officials who allowed vulnerable sections to be targeted remained untouched.

The NAC’s explanatory note to the Bill has this to say: The Bill “is intended to enhance State accountability and correct discriminatory exercise of State powers in the context of identity-based violence, and to thus restore equal access to the law for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and religious and linguistic minorities”. The Bill seeks its legitimacy from “the Constitutional right of every citizen, no matter how numerically weak or disadvantaged, to expect equal protection from an impartial and just State. It is because evidence from State records and several Commissions of Inquiry has confirmed institutional bias and prejudicial functioning of the State administration, law enforcement and criminal justice machinery when a non-dominant group in the unit of a State, based either on language or religion, or a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, is attacked because of their identity in the unit of that State. This prevents such non-dominant groups from getting full and fair protection of the laws of the land or equal access to justice” (emphasis in the original throughout).

Defining “group”: An oft-repeated criticism of the Bill was with regard to Section 3(e) that deals with the definition of “group”, the membership of which invites acts that result in injury or harm to the person or property. This provision defines “group” as a religious or linguistic minority in any State in the Union of India, or as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Critics questioned why the Bill should confine itself to securing justice for members of the minority communities alone when members of majority communities too are targeted in a communal conflict. The explanatory note says: “Existing laws of the land and the machinery of the State are found to work relatively impartially when targeted identity-based offences are committed against dominant groups in a State, but not similarly for non-dominant groups.” It says that “often the greatest cause for communal and targeted violence against non-dominant groups occurring, spreading and persisting is that public officials do not act. Public servants who act or omit to exercise authority vested in them under law and thereby fail to protect or prevent offences, breach of public order, or cause an offence, screen any offender, or fail to act as per law, or act with mala fide and prejudice shall be guilty of dereliction of duty with penal consequences. This is the heart of the legislation, for such accountability shall serve as a deterrent to biased action.”

Punishing guilty officials: Section 13 of the Bill deals with dereliction of duty, while Section 117 seeks to punish a public servant guilty of dereliction of duty with imprisonment for two years, which may extend up to five years, and a fine. Section 14 deals with offences by public servants for breach of command responsibility. Given the hierarchical nature of administrative systems, it is the higher-ups in a chain of administrative or political command who are responsible when those in the lower rungs fail to perform their duties. The chain of command responsibility may extend to any level where effective decisions to act or not to act are taken. Section 118, therefore, seeks to punish those guilty of breach of command responsibility with the severe penalty of rigorous imprisonment for life when such failure relates to organised targeted violence and in any other case with imprisonment for a term of 10 years and a fine. Section 75 of the Bill proposes that if there is no response to a request for sanction for prosecution within 30 days from the date of the application to the government concerned, sanction to prosecute will be deemed granted. With regard to public servants committing certain offences under the Indian Penal Code (as listed under Schedule III), the requirement of obtaining sanction for prosecution is dispensed with under Section 74. This is because these are offences against public justice. …

http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/flawed-still/article5338613.ece

SEE ALSO:

• Misreading The Riot Act – By Revati Laul (Oct 30, 2013, Tehelka)
  http://www.tehelka.com/misreading-the-riot-act/

[Back to Top]

Sardaar Patel: A Monster Or A Messiah – By Abdul Majid Zargar (Nov 13, 2013, Countercurrents)

The ruling political party at centre, Congress is in a mad race with BJP to own & appropriate the legacy of Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Independent India’s first Home Minster also referred to as Iron Man of India. BJP’s Prime Ministerial Candidate Narendra Modi has even promised to collect iron from five hundred villages of India to erect a large Statue of Patel, to which Congress’s spokesman has satirically retorted. “First they(BJP) promised us a Ram Mandir. Then they sold bricks (referring to shilanyas). Now they will sell iron”. If Congress had lived to its ideals of secularism & democracy propagated before & at the time of partition of sub-continent, then it should be ashamed of having in it’s fold a person like Sardar patel. But alas history has been distorted to convert a communal monster into a messiah.

Patel’s communal mindset & hatred against Indian Muslims can be measured from a debate in constituent assembly. Replying to a demand of reservations for Muslims in India made by a member Naziruddin Ahmed, Patel replied “You have got what you wanted. And remember, you are the people who are responsible for Pakistan, and not those who live in Pakistan. You led the agitation. What is it you want now? We do not want the country to be divided again” (Times of India, 29 August 1947).The sarcastic tone of this reply tells you all. Instead of being obliged to Muslims who preferred to stay back against heavy odds and made this country a truly secular one, Patel blames them for partition. He easily forgot his own role along with Nehru & Gandhi in repudiating cabinet Mission plan which finally became a Raison d’etre for partition of the sub-continent.

Immediately after Independence when Congress was at the helm, there was talk of a classified circular which directed that no Muslim be appointed to senior-level positions in the defence forces. (The Hindu- 19th August 2009). This circular was issued at the behest of Patel as Deputy Prime Minister. He also instituted a policy whereby government officers were expected to report Muslim personnel who were thought to be of “questionable patriotic value”. This created such a fear psychosis among Muslim officers that many were forced to leave India. Those left behind always thought of being under continuous surveillance, a syndrome they are still inflicted with. If you observe the behavior of some top Indian Muslim bureaucrats posted in Kashmir- you will notice the effects of this syndrome compelling them to overdo things which leads one to feel that Hindu officers are better than Muslim ones.

Patel is credited with integration of five hundred sixty two princely states with the Indian union. But his means of doing so were coercive, undemocratic & foul . To obtain an instrument of merger from an unwilling Raja of Alwar, Tej Singh Prabakar, Patel arrested and falsely implicated him in an assassination plot of Mahtama Gandhi until he fell in line. Other Mahraja’s took the hint & made a beeline for mergers. Once during the Kashmir debate in Constituent Assembly, Sheikh Abdullah in a mood of exasperation, walked out of parliament. Patel noticed it and sent Abdullah a message that he could walk out of Parliament but not be able to leave Delhi. Abdullah took the message & returned (Thematic Volumes on Patel-page 17).

Indian textbooks show Sardar Patel as demi-god who created a unified India. The truth is more sordid. You will not find any mention of massacre of Muslims in Hyderabad & Jammu in any standard history book. The window dressing of Patel’s misdeeds is complete. In respect of Hyderabad, which had declared independence instead of accession with India, Patel through his infamous police action is directly responsible for slaughter of around two lakh Hyderabadi Muslims. The Sunderlal commission enquiry report in this regard, which is believed to have strongly indicted Patel, has not been made public till date. Writes famous writer William Dalrymple In his book-The Age of Kali, “the Sunderlal report has been leaked and published abroad, and estimates that as many as 200,000 Hyderabadi Muslims were slaughtered.” Similar views have been expressed by Prof Cantwell Smith, in The Middle Eastern Journal, in 1950. …

http://www.countercurrents.org/zargar131113.htm

SEE ALSO:

• Wrong on part of India’s right to use Patel: Shyam Benegal – By Nistula Hebbar (Nov 6, 2013, Economic Times)
  http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-11-06/news/43733174_1_sardar-patel-shyam-benegal-first-home-minister
• The divide that never was – By Vidya Subrahmaniam (Nov 14, 2013, The Hindu)
  http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-divide-that-never-was/article5347968.ece

[Back to Top]

Divided we stand – By K. Vivek Reddy (Nov 18, 2013, Indian Express)

India has often been described as an “indestructible union with destructible states”. It is this power to reorganise the state of Andhra Pradesh and create a Telangana state that is now being contested. Despite the fairly clear process stipulated in the Constitution for creating a new state, the opponents of Telangana, including the chief minister, have invoked the Constitution to oppose its creation. This deserves close scrutiny.

First, it has been urged that in the absence of a supporting state resolution from the state legislature, a new state should not be carved out of an existing one. The chief minister has specifically urged that this constitutional convention, which was followed for the creation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, be followed even for the creation of Telangana.

This argument proceeds on a misunderstanding of the constitutional process for the creation of a new state. Constitutional conventions apply only when the Constitution is silent. The issue of creation of new states was extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly. Two proposals were specifically considered – one, a new state can be created only after the previous consent of the state legislature was obtained; and two, any proposal for legislation that increases or diminishes the area of an existing state shall originate from the state legislature.

Both proposals were rejected on the ground that if either of these were accepted, a minority in the state would never be able to achieve its aspiration for a new state, however justified it may be. It is for this reason that Article 3, dealing with the formation of the new state, only requires the state legislature to “express its views”, rather than a supporting state resolution.

When the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 were challenged, the Supreme Court on both occasions categorically stated that the views of the state legislature would be taken into consideration, but the same would not mean that Parliament would be bound thereby (Babulal Parate vs State of Bombay, 1960 and Pradeep Chaudhury vs Union of India, 2009). … Carving out a new state has always been a difficult issue, but this has to be resolved on the floor of Parliament, not in the courtroom.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/1196223/

SEE ALSO:

• Construction and Consolidation of the Telangana Identity – By H Srikanth (Nov 16, 2013, EPW)
  http://www.epw.in/perspectives/construction-and-consolidation-telangana-identity.html
• People as pawns – By S. Nagesh Kumar (Nov 1, 2013, Frontline)
  http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/people-as-pawns/article5233180.ece

[Back to Top]