Month: February 2020

Where the Linear Progression of Hindutva Will Take India

Hidden beneath layers of political exigencies for close to a century, the project is now out on full display.

A new idea of India is here for everyone to see. It isn’t a harmonious one but is triumphant at the moment.

At this moment, there are protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act throughout the country and 42 people have been killed in riots in the national capital.

The last nine months – meaning, the period of time when the second term of Prime Minister Narendra Modi began – have seen Hindutva acquire a new sense of urgency. Even the fig leaf of development is a thing of the past.

This, indeed, is Hindutva’s true and unalloyed form, something that was hidden beneath layers of political exigencies for close to a century.

The BJP has Modi at the helm, with a close second-in-command in Union home minister Amit Shah. And a third saffron face on the political firmament is Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath. While the Congress is grappling with a severe leadership crisis, the BJP has its line of succession ready.

Also read: ‘Soft’ and ‘Hard’ Hindutva: Where Has the Category ‘Communalism’ Gone?

However, there is a difference with the BJP of the past. If the previous national leadership of the BJP had former Hindutva strongman L.K. Advani complemented by former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee – who was in many senses admired even by liberals – the present line of succession has nothing to do with moderation.

We have Hindutva charted in a linear progression.

One look at the past of the BJP and its predecessor Jana Sangh makes the point clear. Let us make sense of the present by looking at the political history of Hindutva over the decades since independence.

The 1950s

In the first decade of Independence, the Jana Sangh – the political affiliate of the RSS – was born. And its successes were meagre despite Partition and its attendant anxieties. The Jana Sangh won just three seats in 1952 and four in 1957. Its pet issues were complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir – Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerjee died in a Kashmir jail after being arrested for crossing over without a permit – with India, promotion of Hindi and opposing cow slaughter.

Syama Prasad Mookerjee.

Syama Prasad Mookerjee.

But success didn’t smile on the party. Jawaharlal Nehru took charge of the Congress and steered it towards a clearly secular policy, marginalising Hindu conservative leader P.D. Tandon in the process. And in the north Indian states – where the Jana Sangh fancied its chances – the Congress had champions of Hindi as its leaders. Congress governments in some states also banned cow slaughter, putting Article 48 of the constitution, a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, into operation.

The 1960s

Exasperated with its failures, the Jana Sangh embarked upon a two-pronged policy. It sought to make common cause with the socialists, the Swatantra Party, etc., on a plank of anti-Congress-ism. Four Lok Sabha by-elections in north Indian states in 1963 saw joint candidates being fielded, with some success. Socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia was elected to the Lok Sabha in this election.

Parallel to this anti-Congress-ism, which entailed some compromise on core Hindutva, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an RSS-affiliate founded in 1964, launched a movement asking for a constitutional amendment to enable the Centre to ban cow slaughter in all states.

The 1966 agitation turned violent and some people were killed. The 1967 Lok Sabha and assembly polls – the last time the two were held together – saw seat adjustments among opposition parties in many states and the Congress suffered reverses. The Jana Sangh became part of short-lasting Sanyukta Vidhayak Dal governments, formed as legislative arrangements, in some provinces. The party did reasonably well in Uttar Pradesh, where the cow protection movement also helped it.

The 1970s

By this time, moderation tactics had come to occupy a legitimacy within the party, as it had tasted some success because of them. The Jana Sangh and RSS joined the JP movement of 1974 – Indira Gandhi’s dominance in the 1971 polls despite opposition alliances had made this crucial – against corruption and an economic crisis.

Also read: AAP: Soft Hindutva or a Bulwark Without Illusions?

The movement started in Gujarat and Bihar, and became national under Jaya Prakash Narayan. Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in 1975 – soon after the Allahabad high court ruled that she had won her last election using unfair means and the Supreme Court did not offer her much relief – and the JP movement continued underground after the arrest of its leadership.

This was the Jana Sangh’s first tryst with civil libertarian politics. Before the 1977 elections, the Jana Sangh, the socialists, the Bharatiya Lok Dal and the Congress (O) merged to form the Janata Party and defeated the Congress. Vajpayee and Advani became ministers in the Morarji Desai government. But ideological contradictions soon made the Janata Party split, even as Indira Gandhi came back to power in 1980.

The 1980s

This decade began badly for the BJP, founded in 1980 as the successor of the Jana Sangh. Under Vajpayee, the BJP made Gandhian socialism and the legacy of JP as its creed. Meanwhile, with Sikh militancy on the rise and Hindus in Punjab bearing the brunt of it, Indira Gandhi was able to breach the Jana Sangh’s core vote base. Her assassination in 1984 also led to a wave of sympathy towards her, despite riots in Delhi killing scores of Sikhs.

The Congress under Rajiv Gandhi won a record 415 seats in the 1984 elections and Vajpayee’s BJP was reduced to two. This marked a temporary eclipse of Vajpayee and Advani soon succeeded him as the party president. The VHP, meanwhile, began the Ram temple movement with a series of yatras.

Also read: BJP’s Kapil Mishra Has Issued an ‘Ultimatum’ to the Delhi Police. But Who Is He?

Rajiv Gandhi tried to appease both Muslim and Hindu fundamentalisms by reversing the Supreme Court’s Shah Bano judgement through legislation, on the one hand, and facilitating the opening of the locks of Ram Janmabhoomi, on the other. He was also hit hard by the Bofors scam. The newly-founded Janata Dal of VP Singh, supported from outside by the BJP and the left parties, came to power. The BJP alone won 85 seats.

Advani turned to hard Hindutva, making statements in support of a Ram temple at Ayodhya. V.P. Singh announced implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations and, apparently in counter to that, Advani started the Ram Rath Yatra, drawing huge crowds but also polarising society enough for riots to take place. The BJP withdrew support to the V.P. Singh government after Lalu Prasad as Bihar chief minister got Advani arrested in Samastipur.

The 1990s

The BJP grew from strength to strength amid polarisation. It won 120 seats in the 1991 Lok Sabha polls, which saw the Congress coming back to power under Narasimha Rao. In 1992, the Babri mosque was demolished.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. Photo: Sanjay Sharma/INDIAPIX NETWORK

The BJP’s rise, however, had its limits. The party was powerful only in northern, central and western India and was weak in the south, the east and the north-east. It now needed alliances to convert its improved tallies into a majority.

In 1995-96, Vajpayee, the moderate face, returned as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate. In 1996, the BJP tasted power for 13 days, but could not win the trust vote. In 1998, the BJP with a coalition government under Vajpayee tasted power for 13 months. And in 1999, the Vajpayee government came to power with a coalition of more than 20 parties for a full five-year term.

Lessons from the BJP’s rise

The BJP could convert its Hindutva surge under Advani into an NDA majority only under Vajpayee. The reason: allies having Muslim voters needed a moderate face to rationalise their support for the BJP, made largely for power.

This led to the BJP acquiring a two-pronged leadership: Vajpayee as the acceptable face and Advani as the hardliner. But the acceptable face alone could bring it to power. In other words, Hindutva’s surge also, paradoxically, meant its dilution.

Also read: There Is Communalism – Not Islamophobia – in India

Advani could not fit into Vajpayee’s shoes despite attempts at moderation and the BJP could not return to power under him in 2009. Now, the Congress seemed to be well-placed, with two consecutive victories under Sonia Gandhi in 2004 and 2009.

However, the UPA was hit by corruption charges in its second term. Social activist Anna Hazare led public protests in the capital, undermining the legitimacy of the central government. Adverse CAG reports did the same, and the media stayed critical of the government.

The vacuum and Modi’s rise

The vacuum thus created had to be filled by someone. In this case, it was filled not by the BJP but one man, Narendra Modi, whose public oratory and PR machinery made him seem like a saviour when everything was chaotic. His Hindutva image acquired a new layer – the transformative, no-nonsense leader.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Photo: Twitter

This new BJP rode to power on the populist promise of a new India and all moderation was a thing of the past. Regional parties were willing to work with a BJP with no moderate face in a position of prominence. The 2019 victory was a re-affirmation that public mood now demanded hyper-nationalist rhetoric with Muslims as the thinly-veiled other.

Also read: Weaponising Shaheen Bagh, the BJP’s Last Resort

It is this shift that has brought Hindutva to the core like never before. The second Modi government is all about a hard line on Kashmir and about the CAA, which many see as discriminatory towards Muslims.

Protests in every corner of India have been in news over the past few months. And Delhi has now seen the worst riots since 1984, as mobs attacked Muslim localities after a provocative speech by BJP leader Kapil Mishra. The police are being seen as lax in containing the violence, which has led to about 40 deaths till now and global bad press.

This is the high-point of Hindutva, where cultural polarisation is the politics of the day. There is no alternative voice within the BJP for any other shade of national opinion.

The project of Hindutva never had it so good. Unfortunately, harmony never had it so bad.

Dr. Vikas Pathak, who has a PhD in modern history from JNU, teaches at the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai.

‘Danga Nahi Sahenge’: DU Students Boycott Classes to Oppose Communal Violence

Students marched around the north campus raising slogans against the politics of hate and inefficiency of the government.

On February 28, students of Delhi University boycotted their classes and gathered at the Faculty of Arts to protest against the communal violence in north-east Delhi, which has left over 42 people dead.

The slogan “ek aur danga dilli mein nahin sahenge (we will not tolerate another riot in Delhi)” rung in the air as students held a peace march, passing through Ramjas College, Daulat Ram College and Shri Ram College of Commerce.

When the violence broke out, on February 25, DU students – along with those from Ambedkar University, Jamia Millia Islamia and Jawaharlal Nehru University – had also gheroed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s office demanding immediate action against those behind the violence. However, they were shot by water canons in return.

The next day, students boycotted their classes to march towards Lieutenant General’s residence and also held silent protests in their college premises.

Yesterday, students called for yet another boycott, and raised slogans against the politics of hate and inefficiency of the government.

Also read: Old Wounds Reopened: Will the Real India Please Stand Up?

The march also saw participation of some faculty members of DU.

“I am here in support of the protests against the growing violence in this country. Change will come only when the students remain mobilised and push back communal forces. I worry for my students from marginalised groups. Today, it’s the Muslims. Tomorrow it could be another community,” said Karen Gabriel, faculty member from the department of English at St Stephen’s College.

Ahaan* , a literature student, spoke about coming out on the streets, abandoning his privileges.

“I feel guilty that I didn’t speak up earlier. At a certain point, I felt guilty and ashamed almost as if I were a part of the attackers. We have failed on so many levels. Protesting is the easy part, the difficult part is to make structural changes which require a lot of thinking and introspection. Our privilege has blinded us. It’s absurd how we continue functioning normally while people are being murdered in broad daylight just kilometres away,” he said.

Reema*, a student from Manipur, shared her fear for being the next target if the identity-based violence continues unabated. “We don’t have a choice anymore,” she says. “I belong to a marginalised group. It scares me that I could be targeted next for my identity. If we don’t take a stand against this violence right now, it will repeat itself again in the future.”

Raniya Zuleikha, a political science student at Ramjas College and a member of the Fraternity Movement, recalled the night of February 25, when her friends were detained and beaten up by the police outside the CM’s office.

“The ‘normalcy’ we see right now is another face of fascism. Indians will unite against this fascism. Kejriwal won on Muslim, Dalit, and liberal votes but he remained silent when the violence broke out. Water canons were used on us when students gathered at his residence. Over 40 of my friends were detained and beaten up by the police. He  [Arvind Kejriwal] should be out on the streets. I beg him to use his privilege because people are dying on the streets,” she said.

Students held placards mocking the Modi government and criticising the Delhi Police for their inaction.

Several placards and slogans called out the Delhi Police on their inefficiency during the violence. One of them read: ‘Delhi Police, khaki vardi phenk kar, khaki chaddi pehen lo (Delhi Police, replace your khaki uniform with khaki shorts)’

The march ended near the Vivekananda statue at the Faculty of Arts where students and teachers took turns to express their concern over the growing communal violence and the ruling government.

Jaishree Kumar is a poet, student-journalist, and a failed musician. She tweets @jaikumar7_

All images provided by the author

* names changed

Poem | By the Grave

“It won’t be long. The noise of a mob, your ears pick from afar.”

Dig a grave,
Sit on the sides,
Reminisce the lost freedoms,
Keep a pack of cards,
Just in case.

Await.
They will come.
Because you had an opinion.
An opinion that wasn’t theirs.

Dig deep into the past,
If you need to.
To where it all started.
Us becoming us and them,
Cries from forests ignored,
Death of media yet to mourn,
Corporates stifling the environment,
Judiciary leaving for the moon,
Bills making back door entries,
Amendments with motives,
Lynchings normalised,
Opinions gunned,
Sedition being law,
And much more.
Where exactly did it start?
So much has changed.

They couldn’t do it,
Not in a day.
But they did mange to,
Moving things inch by inch,
So you hardly notice.
To get you here,
With your loved ones,
By the grave.

It won’t be long.
The noise of a mob,
Your ears pick from afar.
They hunt in packs,
Always do,
Alone, they don’t exist.

The noise is first,
The flaring lights next.
That should awaken your fear,
Or so, they expect.
They will come within reach,
A million faces, yet so faceless.
They will spare you
From being the first.
Your loved ones will be sent,
On a one way trip,
The fear in you wide awake now,
Or so, they expect.
They will leave you
With a choice,
Walk back with them,
Or meet up with your loved ones.
A choice that is yours to be made,
By the grave.

Ajith Raman is a marine engineer from Kerala.

Featured image credit: Cuma Umaç/Unsplash

Old Wounds Reopened: Will the Real India Please Stand Up?

A former Muslim resident of Delhi talks about the legacies of violence.

I sit in an auditorium trying to enjoy a fascinating duet of well-known sarod players of India.

But I am distracted from these dulcet notes as the relentless stream of news on my WhatsApp informs me that the death toll in northeast Delhi has reached 27. The accompanying photos are terrifying.

Try as I might, I find it impossible to enjoy the music. My thoughts keep drifting to the violence engulfing the much beloved, but also notorious, city where I spent my formative years.

I can’t seem to decide which is the real India.

Is it the one I inhabit at this moment, where two Muslim musicians and their renowned father – wearing only their talent on their sleeves – enthrall a predominantly Hindu audience at a government-funded arts centre?

Or is it the one, far away in northeast Delhi, where mobs have unleashed a grotesque dance of death, as they kill, shoot, lynch and burn, driven by a senseless hatred towards another religious group?

The violence in Delhi has ripped open many wounds.

In 1992, communal riots first came to my doorstep. I don’t remember the actual events, the gravity escaping my nine-year old self, except that one vivid memory of my mother shedding silent tears as we watched the demolition of the Babri Masjid on Doordarshan. The sight of a parent crying is never easy for any child, rocking every notion of security she or he has known.

The next memory is when a Hindu landlady asked us to vacate our rented house. She assured us that she didn’t have any problem with us but said that she won’t be able to protect us in case “something happens in our area”.

Thus, we hurriedly moved from our posh South Delhi locality (where we were the only Muslim family within a kilometre’s radius) to a supposedly safer ghetto in Okhla, a Muslim majority area.

My father – who always insisted we get out of our razaais to stand for the national anthem when it was played on TV on the Republic Day, who always espoused the idea peace-building and integration – was forced to compromise on his ideals of national unity for his family’s safety.

Gujarat, in 2002, was another watershed that rocked my spirits as a 19-year-old. Unable to process the brutality of Godhra and its aftermath, I became an escapist, refusing to read any news.

The news, however, did reach me eventually and it took many years of healing to get over it.

Also read: How Hate Spread Its Wings in Delhi: Why February 25 Will Haunt Me Forever

We all survived, and came out of it, with a little more insight into how hate can be manufactured and employed towards a deadly end. We understood how a state can turn against its own citizens and how those in power can destroy a semblance of peace – that took decades to build – in only three days.

I have lived the last 18 years clinging to the belief that our nation has abandoned this sinister project of communal strife (easier done in South India, of which I am an inhabitant now) and has moved on to better things.

After living through the riots of 1992 and 2002, I have become complacent, hopeful even, that India has surpassed its history of communal riots, at least major ones. That our bid to be a global superpower and pursuit of economic growth will allow us to move past the blot of communal strife. That we will never again have to witness the horrors that have marred the unity in diversity narrative of our fractious nation.

There, indeed, was a heightened sense of fear when the current dispensation came to power in 2014. But the ruling party seemed committed to the sabka saath sabka vikas narrative, as we moved towards a relatively positive and peaceful first term. One believed that they had left communal politics behind, content with selling bits of our country to their crony capitalist friends.

However, Delhi today has shaken us all out of that comfort zone, reminding us once again how precarious our society is.

How easily insidious politicians stoke fear and resentment, capitalising on the anger of the frustrated, jobless youth, created by their own flawed economic policies. How two communities, united by the same miserable living conditions and lack of basic amenities, can still be divided on communal lines? How can the two communities defend identities that they were born with and did not consciously choose?

This reminds us that violence lurks right around the corner, under our noses, behind jumlas on national integration, poised to wreak havoc in our cities, our communities, localities, in our minds and consciousness. The demon of communal hatred rises, like a phoenix, growing stronger as it is fed on a steady diet of othering, hate speech, identity politics and fake news.

One realises that this demon had never really gone away. It has been right here amongst us, alive and thriving, and is now back to haunt another generation of children who will witness blood, gore and brutality and live with its trauma for many years to come. They will be left with a legacy of violence that will be hard to shake off an they’ll grow up with a sectarian mindset, thinking in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’.

The concert ends with a thunderclap of an ovation for the artists on stage.

I walk out hoping against hope that this is the real India.

Shazia Andaleeb is a freelance writer

Featured image credit: Unsplash

IT, ED Conduct Raids on Unprecedented Scale on Bhupesh Baghel’s Entire ‘Coterie’

Several influential people, including the mayor of Raipur, have been subjected to the three-day raids.

Raipur: At Chhattisgarh’s capital city, the use of central agencies by the BJP government at the centre has perhaps reached the zenith of its controversy as chief minister Bhupesh Baghel’s entire coterie including some of the topmost ranking officers in the state have been raided.

All at once, Income Tax teams from Delhi, Jaipur and Hyderabad descended on Raipur on Thursday morning when the entire administration was busy with the ongoing Budget session and proceeded to raid the houses and premises of  former chief secretary and present RERA chairman Vivek Dhand, IAS officer Anil Tuteja, liquor baron Amolak Bhatia, Raipur mayor Ejaz Dhebar and Officer on Special Duty (excise) A.P. Tripathi.

Dhand is now the first chief secretary to be subjected to a raid in the history of the original Madhya Pradesh cadre.

Also read: Chhattisgarh CM Refuses to Sign NRC Documents, Calls to Oppose ‘Black Angrez’

The IT teams extended their raids to Friday to include the single most powerful bureaucrat in the state — deputy secretary to Baghel, Soumya Chaurasia. Chief minister’s OSD Markam and his closest associate Vijay Bhatia have also been included in the raids.

Only the chief minister’s largely out-of-work advisors have not been raided.

The chief minister has called this the height of revenge politics. In a tweet, he said that he has submitted a memorandum to the Governor seeking protection and intervention.

Health minister T.S. Singhdeo has been quoted as saying:

“I believe it’s a legal issue and the departments have their own work to do.”

The Pradesh Congress Committee president Mohan Markam had the following observation to make on the raids.

“All those who have been raided had all been sitting on malaidar (prized) posts during the previous Raman Singh regime.”

Markam did not comment on the fact that these are the very same people who have been running the state for Baghel for the past year.

Ejaz Dhebar, who is widely known as Baghel’s political muscleman, became the mayor of Raipur against all odds with the chief minister’s backing. He, along with the whole of his family is believed (by the IT and ED departments) to be sitting on huge amounts of money. Six residences of the Dhebar family are still being raided.

Tuteja, who had been suspended following the NAN scam’s surfacing was reinstated by Baghel and made special secretary of Industries. He and his neighbour Dr A. Farishta have been raided together on the suspicion that they have been making collections on behalf of the powers that be.

Tuteja’s wife Meenakshi, who runs a chain of half a dozen beauty parlours has been included in the search along with all her premises.

A.P. Tripathi who was brought in from his parent department BSNL is believed to be a close relative of a senior officer in the Secretariat and has handled the excise tracking system. He has been included in the raids for his alleged money links to Netherland.

Amolak Bhatia had been crucial to the new excise policy and another businessman, Gurcharan Singh Hora, have been netted for their alleged role in running the liquor and real estate deals.

It did not stop here, three chartered accountants who have been handling the accounts of all those raided yesterday and today have also been included in the search. The raids have been carried out in Raipur, Durg, Bhilai and Bilaspur simultaneously.

The involvement of ED means that most included in the raids remain netted for a while now. All statements made and documents seized — especially from the CAs — can become powerful tools for harassment for years.

The raids are likely to go on for another day.

A Timeline of the Delhi Riots: Arson, Shooting and Police Indifference

A look at how the last week has unfolded.

New Delhi: Early this week, riots broke out in parts of North East Delhi. Forty-two people have lost their lives so far, and close to 200 injured.

The violence began after Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kapil Mishra lashed out at anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act sit-in protests in the area, giving the Delhi Police a three-day “ultimatum” to clear them.

Here’s a look at how the violence unfolded in Delhi, the scale of what has happened, and what the police and politicians have (and haven’t) done.

Ramani Harmed My Reputation by Calling Media’s Biggest Predator: M.J. Akbar in Court

Ramani had earlier told the court that her “disclosure” of alleged sexual harassment by Akbar has come at “a great personal cost” and she had “nothing to gain” from it.

New Delhi: Former Union minister M.J. Akbar told a Delhi court on Friday that journalist Priya Ramani had defamed him by calling him with adjectives such as ‘media’s biggest predator’ in the wake of #MeToo movement in 2018 that harmed his reputation.

Akbar made the allegations before additional chief metropolitan magistrate Vishal Pahuja through his lawyer during the final hearing of a private criminal defamation complaint filed by him against Ramani after his name cropped up on social media as the #MeToo campaign raged on in India.

Akbar resigned as Union minister on October 17, 2018.

Ramani in 2018 accused Akbar of sexual misconduct around 20 years ago when he was a journalist. She worked at the Asian Age from January to October in 1994.

Also read: M.J. Akbar’s Counsel Objects to Media Reports in Defamation Case

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Akbar, said that the allegations were intentional and malafide.

“When you call someone media’s biggest predator, it is per se defamatory. Calling a person with such adjectives is on the face of it defamatory. In the eyes of the people, Akbar’s reputation was harmed… The per se effect was lowering of my (Akbar) reputation in the eyes of the right thinking members of the society,” she told the court.

She said there was no due process in the allegations.

“It has a cascading effect. Embarrassing questions were asked. I (Akbar) am a person of greatest integrity… There was no due process in the allegations. You cannot just make allegation and let that person suffer,” she added.

Luthra said that if there was any grievance, it had to be raised then and there before the appropriate authority.

“We need to realise the effect has what we say or what we do. It’s not like she went to any authority or raised any grievance. Opportunity was there, rights were there but to attack so person behind their back on social media… knowing that his whole life will be adversely affected? It’s not right,” she said.

Akbar has denied all the allegations of sexual harassment against the women, who came forward during #MeToo campaign against him.

Also read: M.J. Akbar’s ‘Sexual Misconduct Forced Me to Quit’, Ghazala Wahab Tells Court

Ramani accused Akbar of sexual misconduct when he was a journalist, a charge denied by him.

Akbar had earlier told the court that the allegations made in an article in Vogue and the subsequent tweets were defamatory on the face of it as the complainant had deposed them to be false and imaginary and that an “immediate damage” was caused to him due to the “false” allegations by Ramani.

Ramani had earlier told the court that her “disclosure” of alleged sexual harassment by Akbar has come at “a great personal cost” and she had “nothing to gain” from it.

She had said her move would empower women to speak up and make them understand their rights at workplace.

Several women came up with accounts of the alleged sexual harassment by him while they were working as journalists under Akbar.

He has termed the allegations “false, fabricated and deeply distressing” and said he was taking appropriate legal action against them.

AAP Govt Gives Delhi Police Permission to Prosecute Kanhaiya Kumar, 2 Others in Sedition Case

The government had held off on giving permission for a long time, with reports having suggested last year that it was prepared to withhold it entirely.

New Delhi: The Delhi government has given a go-ahead to the city police to prosecute former JNU Students’ Union president Kanhaiya Kumar and two others in connection with a 2016 sedition case, sources said on Friday.

The request for sanction had long since been pending before the home department of the Delhi government.

In October, 2019, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Manish Khurana summoned the Investigating Officer for December 11 after the public prosecutor informed the court that the sanctions were still pending.

The court had on September 18 asked the Delhi government to decide within one month on the sanction to prosecute Kumar and others, saying the delay has caused wastage of judicial time as the case had been listed and adjourned repeatedly since the filing of the charge sheet.

Reports in September, 2019, had said the Delhi government would not be granting the police sanction to prosecute the youth leaders.

Also read: Delhi Govt Not to Give Police Sanction to Prosecute Kanhaiya Kumar, Others for Sedition

The state’s home department thinks that the students – including Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and nine others – should not be prosecuted because their activities “do not amount to sedition against the State”, the Indian Express had reported.

The evidence on record is “flimsy” and filled with “gaps”, the government has reportedly said, based on advice from standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra.

On January 14, the police had filed a charge sheet against Kumar and others, including former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya.

The police had said they were leading a procession and had supported the seditious slogans allegedly raised on the campus during an event on February 9, 2016.

Kanhaiya Kumar has since gone on to become a political leader of some prominence and had contested the 2019 Lok Sabha election from Begusarai, on a CPI ticket.

The Supreme Court and its judges on individual capacity have several times held that the usage of the sedition law should be restricted to situations where speeches have directly resulted in incitement of violence.

(With PTI inputs)

Explained: What the 3 Orders by Justice Muralidhar Meant for the Delhi Riots

The orders remind us that reluctance of the central government to initiate investigation into hate speech at the time of communal violence is a shocking abdication of its responsibility.

New Delhi: Four orders passed on February 26, 2020, by division benches of the high court of Delhi presided by Justice S. Muralidhar on the issue of violence in the city have become an important anchor for relief efforts.

However, these orders arguably appear to have sparked concern for certain others given that the judge’s transfer to the Punjab and Haryana high court was notified late at night on February 26 without stipulating the customary two weeks for the judge to wrap up business.

Transfer orders for two other judges – Justice Malimath and Justice More – were also notified on February 26, but not Justice Subramonium Prasad who along with the aforementioned judges, was also recommended for transfer by the collegium on February 12.

What has caused such furore around these orders? 

Role of the courts 

Before going into each of the orders, it is necessary to clarify the role of the judiciary in our constitutional system.

The judiciary is one of three branches of government. Separation of powers is essential to democratic governance.

It sets up a system where no single branch of government – legislative, executive or judicial – is all powerful. Rather, each branch has defined powers and there are limits on each of these powers. The judiciary is tasked with interpreting the constitution and ensuring that the other two branches are performing their tasks in accordance with the provisions in it.

This is an integral part of the constitutional scheme of checks and balances. 

Also read: HC Judge Who Pulled Up Delhi Police Over Riots Shunted Out by Modi Govt

One of the many constraints imposed by the constitution upon state action is that fundamental rights of all people in our country must be respected, protected and fulfilled. When the state fails to do this, constitutional courts are responsible for holding the state machinery accountable. 

Rahul Roy v. GNCTD 

When the Delhi high court, which is a constitutional court, was approached in the face of the gross denial of the right to life, its job was to ensure that the state was taking all necessary action to respect, protect and fulfil that right.

Given the urgency of the situation, a bench of Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was constituted past midnight on Tuesday (at 12:30 am on February 26) to respond to the humanitarian crisis at Al Hind Hospital in New Mustafabad.

A special hearing was conducted in the presence of the Alok Kumar, Joint Commissioner of Police, Rajesh Deo, DCP (Crime), and Sanjoy Ghose, Standing Counsel for the government of the NCT of Delhi and Delhi Police.

The Order dated 26.02.2020 in the case “Rahul Roy v. GNCTD” [later given the case number WP (Crl) No. 566 of 2020] explains that Dr. Anwar of Al Hind Hospital had reported over speaker phone that two people were dead and 22 people critically injured at the hospital and they needed police help for ambulances to have safe passage to and from the hospital since they lacked the facilities to treat the injured.

Dr. Anwar also said that he had been trying to seek police help since 4 pm but without success. 

Medical services have a special status in human rights law. The Law of Armed Conflict under International Law requires that even in the time of armed conflict, there can be no interference with the ability of medical professionals to provide medical treatment to injured civilians. Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees the right to life to all persons in India. The Court, acting in furtherance of its duties to safeguard these rights, passed the following order:

 The Court at this stage is primarily concerned with ensuring the safety of the lives fo the injured and immediate medical attention that they require and for that purpose to ensure the safe passage of the injured victims to the nearest available government hospitals.

The Court accordingly directs the Delhi Police to ensure such safe passage by deploying all the resources at its command and on the strength of this order to ensure that apart from the safe passage, the injured victims receive immediate emergency treatment, if not at the GTB Hospital, then at the LNJP Hospital or Maulana Azad or any other government hospital”

The matter was then directed to be listed before the same special bench at 2.15 pm for a status report of compliance to be reviewed and further action. 

Harsh Mander v. GNCTD

Meanwhile, on the next morning, i.e., February 26, human rights lawyer Colin Gonsalves mentioned an urgent matter on behalf of petitioner Harsh Mander on the non-registration of an FIR in the face of the commission of the cognisable offence of hate speech under the Indian Penal Code.

Also read: Delhi Riots: After Late Night HC Direction to Police, Injured Muslims Get Safe Passage

Section 153A criminalises speech that instigates violence between groups. The petitioners alleged that hate speech had been made and that speech was responsible for instigating violence in Delhi.

This petition was originally listed in Court No. 1 presided over by the Chief Justice on February 26. However, Court No. 1 did not assemble and so the matter was mentioned before the senior most court in session on that day, i.e., the Bench comprising Justice Muralidhar J. and Justice Talwant Singh and was directed to be taken up for hearing at 12.30 pm after observing the sequence of events leading to the mentioning:

“A mention was made by Mr.Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that this petition was mentioned yesterday before the Bench of Justice G.S.Sistani, since Hon’ble Chief Justice was on leave.

The Court is informed that the matter was marked by Justice Sistani to the Bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for today and it is in fact listed before that Court today as Item 36.

However, the Court is also informed by the Registry that the Hon’ble Chief Justice will not be holding Court today. It is in these circumstances that Mr. Gonsalves requests that the matter be urgently taken up today itself. We may add that Justice Sistani is also on leave today.”

Harsh Mander v. GNCTD

When the case was taken up at 12.30 pm, the main issue urged was on the non-registration of FIRs despite the commission of the criminal offence of hate speech.

Law on registration of FIRs

An FIR is not a finding of fact about an incident.

It is merely a recording of the information received by the police that a cognisable offence has taken place. The FIR triggers an investigation into the allegations by the police who then collect material and evidence to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations in the FIR and file a report.

Thus, the FIR is the critical first step that sets the police in motion and initiates investigation. The law on registration of FIRs was set down in a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Union of India.

This position is that:

“Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.” 

Lalitha Kumari further lays down that “action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.” 

Application of the law by the division bench 

In the face of the blatant failure of the Delhi Police to act in accordance with the absolutely unequivocal requirement of law that an FIR is mandatory when information about the commission of cognisable offence is disclosed, the Court observed the following facts in its Order dated February 26:

  • That four video clips were played in the Court. 
  • That the Solicitor General referred to certain other clips that he himself refers to as inflammatory and in respect of which no FIR has been registered.
  • That the Solicitor General had submitted that it was not a “conducive time” to file FIRs.
  • That the Solicitor General had submitted that it was not possible to state when the time would be conducive for registration of FIRs. 
  • That Praveen Rajan, Special CP, voluntarily stated that 11 FIRs had already been registered in relation to deaths, destruction of property and injuries to people in the last three days. 

In light of this position, the Court made the following observation which is reproduced in original:

“The police should be guided by the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumar v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 and go strictly by the mandate of the law.

It should seriously consider the consequences that would ensue with every day’s delay in registering FIRs not only on the basis of the video clips that have been played in Court but all other video clips of speeches/actions by anyone, whosoever it may be which disclose ex facie the commission of an offence, bearing in mind that the rule of law is supreme and that no one is above the law.” 

The court then recorded the statement of Praveen Ranjan:

“Mr Ranjan Special CP assures the court that he will himself sit with the CP today itself and view all the videos, not limited to the videos played in the Court but any other videos that might be provided to them and which they perhaps already as in possession of and take a conscious decision which will be communicated to the Court tomorrow itself.”

From this order it is clear that the court merely did its job of reminding the state agencies of the law and the fact that they are bound by the law and recorded the assurance of the Delhi Police that they would review all videos that are either given to them or that they find that discloses any hate speech by anyone and they would take conscious action keeping in mind the requirement of the law. 

Rahul Roy v. GNCTD 

At 2.15 pm, the special bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani that had assembled at midnight to respond to the humanitarian crisis at the hospital, reconvened to review the situation.

The second order dated 26.02.2020 in this case records that the counsel for the petitioner submitted positive news that the patients had reached government hospitals and were being given treatment, and, that many more injured victims had been rescued after the midnight order was passed. Accordingly, the court placed on record “its appreciation of the promptness with which Delhi Police responded to the distress call of the Petitioner through this petition which has resulted in a critical situation being tackled with the cooperation of everyone.” 

Standing counsel for the Delhi Police and for the government of NCT of Delhi, Rahul Mehra and Sanjay Ghose, submitted that certain issues still required immediate attention.

These included the safe passage for the bodies of victims who died in the riots, setting up of help lines and help desks, safe passage of fire services and ambulances, and displacement of victims of the riot from their homes. On the last issue in particular, the court passed extensive orders required the setting up of shelters, food, drinking water, medicines, blankets, bedding for the victims.

Also read: Interview: Why Delhi HC Lawyers Are Protesting Against Justice Muralidhar’s Transfer

Other issues that were raised and addressed were the notification of night magistrates to respond to urgent situations, appointment of an amicus curiae to coordinate between victims and various agencies, the designation of legal aid lawyers at the Delhi Legal Services Authorities to respond to the needs of riot victims, and, the provision of trauma care by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences.

Rule of law

The right to life under Article 21 necessitates that a constitutional court takes action to protect the lives of people in India.

The two orders passed for the immediate and urgent relief to victims of the riots in the case of Rahul Roy v. GNCTD admittedly saved the lives of people who are severely injured and have been displaced from their homes.

The second order in Harsh Mander v. GNCTD reminds the Delhi Police of the mandatory requirement for registration of FIRs in the event of the commission of a non-cognisable offence and observes the assurance of the Special CP that he will review all videos by any person that disclose hate speech as defined under the law.

These orders are a minimum performance of the court’s duty to uphold the constitution. The real peculiar response in this situation is the action of the Solicitor General who, despite the clear position of law in the Lalitha Kumari case, insisted that an FIR is to be registered at a “conducive time”.

This is a novel proposition for a fundamental and basic tenet in criminal law – that an FIR is registered the moment information of the commission of a cognisable crime is made known to the police. The reluctance of the central government to initiate investigation into hate speech at the time of communal violence is a shocking abdication of its responsibility to ensure the life and liberty of its people is protected. 

Delhi Police Have Forfeited All Manner of Public Support

There are visible parallels today to the total paralysis of the police in 1984.

The Delhi Police acted after more than 42 were killed and over 500 were reportedly injured in days of unprecedented communal violence that rampaged North East Delhi. There has been arson, looting, killings and destruction of property.

Were the riots really unexpected?

North East Delhi has a history of intermittent communal violence. The current rioting started on Sunday, February 23, after some incendiary hate speeches from leaders of the ruling establishment at the Centre were made against members of a minority community. This was reason enough for police to register cases and initiate preventive action.

They did not. Why?

Videos of these hate speeches were played in the Delhi high court by activist Harsh Mander, urging for the court’s intervention for the registration of an FIR. The rioting broke out three days after the hate speeches were made. The Delhi Police was a mere bystander to these events and the escalation of violence on Monday and Tuesday.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has now claimed that, in the last 36 hours, there have been no major incidents of violence in the areas rocked by mayhem earlier. Reportedly, as many as 48 FIRs have been registered and more than 500 have been arrested or detained for questioning.

I have always enjoyed a reputation as an ardent defender of the police force whether in TV discussions I participated in or in my articles published in the media. My effort has always been to make people understand the action or the role of the police – which they rarely have adequate knowledge of.

Also read: Delhi Riots: Since it is Amit Shah They Report to, the Police Has Been Fully Politicised

This has often attracted the wrath of my colleagues in the IPS and the IAS, for what they have termed as ‘trying to defend the indefensible’. However, the appalling inaction of the Delhi Police during these three days of rioting has forced me to be an opponent and not a defender of the force I once belonged to.

Not that there haven’t been any indicators of the rot that has set into the police force. The leadership crisis within the Delhi Police was on obvious display during the November 2019 lawyers’ strike when the police and their wards marched to the police headquarters to express their lack of confidence in the commissioner.

This crisis was heightened after their questionable partisan role and deliberate inaction during the protests that erupted in connection with the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Citizenship Register (NCR) – be it at the Jamia Millia Islamia University, JNU or the continuing protests at Shaheen Bagh.

Members of security forces patrol streets in Bhagirathi area of northeast Delhi, February 26, 2020. Photo: PTI/Manvender Vashist

In 1990, when I was the traffic chief for Delhi, the government sent me to Japan in a JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) programme where I experienced for the first time how the Japanese maintained the biometric details of its citizens.

Every citizen could be identified with a national identity card. An officer at the Japanese Transport Authority asked me to place my hand on a scanner platform palm down, and promptly on the monitor screen in front of me, appeared all my particulars as scanned by them at the airport from my passport.

Instantly I realised that the authorities not only had every detail of its own citizens on record, they also had te details of every visitor in Japan. I wanted this in my country, to make my simple ‘challan’ system more efficient.

With just one driver license issued by different states to identify the motorist, the system available to us then was cumbersome. If only a national driver license register was made possible! Upon my return to the country, I moved a paper departmentally and wrote extensively in the media about the efficacy of the biometric identity card for every citizen.

Also Read: Delhi Riots: 85-Year-Old Woman Awaiting Birth of Great Grandchild Burnt to Death

My efforts were water on a duck’s back.

Not before 2009 did the then Congress government warm up to the idea of introducing the Aadhaar – a unique identity card for its citizens. By this time, identity cards were aplenty, issued for multiple applications individually by every department. Driver licence, voter identity card, departmental identity card or a health insurance card, and so on.

A total fiasco.

But every sane person would and should know it is to the advantage of every citizen of any country to have one’s own national identity; and it should be a matter of pride for every citizen to have his or her name inscribed in the National Citizen Register. So technically, no one is against the CAA or the NRC.

Come 2014, the BJP stormed into power and the deviously leaning clever minds of the party understood the potential of the Aadhaar in pushing forth their professed agenda for a Hindu Rashtra. Through the Aadhaar it was easy to identify, bracket, and target members of any minority community or discriminate against and nefariously deny them government benefits available to other citizens.

Unfortunately, the ruling establishment was not clever enough to be secretive or diligent about its intentions or possibilities; and senior elements within the party bragged blatantly about what they could do to the minorities.

This is the background against which the CAA and the NRC need to be viewed. Despite legal luminaries having declared the soundness and legality of the CAA, the protesters are not convinced of the sincerity of the government in its implementation and feel it is discriminatory based on religious belief. The ruling establishment has itself and its loose-tongued party functionaries to blame; and instead of allaying the protesters’ fears through debates, negotiation or amendment of provisions, they are trumpeting against the totally decimated Congress and other opposition parties are only adding to the existing stalemate.

Delhi Police is the best-equipped police force in the country and is looked up to by the police of other states in the country. At the outset of our career, we learnt police duties and responsibilities required to prevent and detect crime. We are responsible for maintaining public order, peace and tranquillity in the area.

The Delhi Police failed to do this in the riot infested north east Delhi areas, by not taking preventive action at the first sign of rioting despite having adequate time and by being mere bystanders and observers to the violence perpetrated before their very eyes and in their presence.

Also read: Calculated Chaos: The Delhi Riots Are Exactly What CAA Is About

Many people, including judges, have likened the situation in north east Delhi to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Despite the flak the Delhi Police got for handling these riots, I personally know of officers who acted diligently and stood their ground to protect life and property. I was never summoned by any commission of enquiry to give my statement. In the current riots, there are visible parallels to the total paralysis of the police, the only difference being that one did not have to look far to see on whose behest the police inaction or partisan action was being undertaken.

It was evident the police were rudderless and handicapped by weak leadership. They were seen to be biased towards the ruling party, acting ruthlessly and unjustly against peaceful protestors.

The failure of the police was not confined to Delhi alone but was also evident in other parts of the country when dealing with agitations surrounding the CAA – both pro and against. The riots in Muslim dominated areas of Delhi were waiting to happen. The police failure in Delhi is particularly sad as it is the nation’s capital with a large and well-equipped police force.

A vandalised private school in Delhi’s Shiv Vihar. Photo: PTI

There has not been a single visual or report on TV or in the press to establish whether the commissioner of police even visited a single troubled spot to see for himself and give suitable directions to his staff on what they should do. Has he been seeking instructions from the Union home minister and perhaps even the prime minister on how he should act? One is left wondering how many more lives have to perish before the situation is totally normal and brought under control

It is, therefore, an inevitable conclusion that poor and the unprofessional leadership was acting at the behest of the political bosses in the government and was the root cause for the riots. In UP, the current chief minister, who is blatantly communal, has no scruples in ordering his police to take any and all measures in dealing with those who oppose him or his party.

The overall impression is that the police today has been completely saffronised. It is also not uncommon to find apologists today in our midst who, in spite of reading articles by writers of repute, are in a state of denial and keep repeating ad nauseum that these are all motivated. Hindutva is truly a dominant card, not the human values we were all taught by our parents, forefathers and teachers.

Also read: Explainer: Who Are the Policemen Heading SITs on the Delhi Riots?

It is hoped and firmly believed that the much-needed police reforms are the answer. “The Supreme Court issued six directions in 2006 to state governments with a view to transforming the ethos and working philosophy of the police,” wrote Prakash Singh , who has been spearheading the need for reforms, in a recent article.

The SC has directed the setting up of a state security commission with a view to insulate the police from external pressures. Several states have enacted laws purportedly in compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders, but these were ultimately found to violating the letter and spirit of judicial directions.

While police reforms are necessary, there appears to be no guarantee that the mere implementation of these reforms will solve the problem of political interference in police functioning. From past experience, political leaders are expected to oppose police reforms tooth and nail, and the apex court has not shown any signs of pressing the issue. Police leadership will still be under the control of politicians and the ability to act will still be affected by the ability of the police leadership to take a stand; and that appears to be a far cry.

The only recourse left for police leaders is to be resolute and make it unequivocally clear that, in operational matters, they will brook no interference. Dealing with law and order situations, the arrest and prosecution of criminals, and deployment of the force, they will stick to their own professional judgement, and not compromise it at the altar of political expediency. This is going to be a tough call but unless the police are prepared to take this resolute stand, similar situations will recur, and the police will fail miserably and repeatedly as upholders of law and security and will forfeit any public confidence or support.

Maxwell Pereira is a former Joint Police Commissioner of Delhi and has had a thirty-five-year long career as a police officer.