Month: July 2022

Preventing Sophie Zhang from Testifying Is a Blow to Indian Parliamentary Democracy

Facebook whistleblower Zhang had sought to appear before the Standing Committee on IT to reveal facts about Facebook users in India. However, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had, against precedent, said that foreign nationals cannot do so.

India has the largest number of Facebook users in the world, with an estimated pool of more than 400 million users. By 2040, it is estimated that Facebook users in India will be approximately 970 million.

This has major ramifications for Indian democracy as social media platforms, especially Facebook, have become an important medium for political discourse. Therefore, disinformation campaigns on Facebook, especially those that increase divisions between religious communities, and the proliferation of inauthentic accounts or ‘bots’, significantly threaten the political process in India. 

Facebook claims that it is doing everything it can to filter out bots and malicious disinformation campaigns. However, some of its former employers are blowing the whistle on these claims.

Sophie Zhang, a data scientist who worked with Facebook for three years, came out with a damning memo in 2020 alleging that Facebook refused to take action against politically influential actors who were violating the platform rules.

Zhang also said that she turned down a $64,000 severance package from Facebook which would have legally mandated her to maintain silence about the information she learnt during her time with the company, so that she could bring these claims to the public domain. 

In October, 2021, Zhang testified before a Parliamentary Committee of the British Parliament on Facebook’s failure to act against the abuse of its platform. Across the pond, another former Facebook employee-turned-whistleblower, Frances Haugen, testified before a Senate Committee of the US Congress.

One of Zhang’s revelations dealt with malpractices in India. She alleged that Facebook refused to act against fake accounts after it was found out that these were personally linked to Vinod Kumar Sonkar, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP and the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Ethics.

Also read: Facebook Inaction: Whistleblower Documents Name BJP MP Vinod Sonkar in ‘Fake Account’ Controversy

She expressed an interest to depose before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT to disclose the facts that she had learnt about Facebook’s practices with users in India. 

The Standing Committee on IT stood dissolved between September 12 and October 12, 2021 and was it thereafter reconstituted by the Speaker with Congress leader Shashi Tharoor as its chairperson.

Soon as its reconstitution, in November, 2021, Tharoor sought the Speaker’s permission to allow Zhang to testify before the Committee in person, as the current rules and practices do not allow oral testimonies through virtual technology. If Zhang has to testify in person before the Committee in New Delhi, then arrangements have to be made to provide her with travelling allowance and daily allowance, for which the Speaker must provide his approval.

Six months after Tharoor’s official request as the chairman of the Standing Committee, the Speaker’s office had still not responded.

Zhang tweeted “I still have not heard from the honourable speaker. I no longer believe that I will ever hear from him.”

Also read: Facebook Whistleblower Sophie Zhang Unlikely to be Deposed Before Standing Committee

While a dossier submitted by Zhang was circulated among the members of the Committee, her inability to testify in person robbed MPs of the opportunity to cross-examine her and to seek additional information or clarifications. 

In June, 2022, Speaker Om Birla broke his silence on the matter by saying that unless it is a very serious issue, foreign citizens are not allowed to appear before parliamentary committees. He said that if other Speakers had permitted it in the past, it was their individual decision and that there is no rule to give permission to foreign nationals. 

It is worth noting that the power of the Standing Committee on IT to summon individuals under Rule 230 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha does not make any distinction between individuals on the basis of their nationality. While it is true that the Speaker can issue directions to Standing Committees as per Rule 280, the directions can never supplant the rules.

Furthermore, in this case, the Speaker had not even responded to the Chairman of the Committee, let alone issued a direction. In fact, Direction 57(1) of the Speaker’s Directions states that, “A Committee may take evidence of experts or interested parties on their own initiative or on requests made.” Again, it does not provide for any differential treatment to those who are foreign citizens. 

There are precedents of foreign citizens deposing before parliamentary committees. In February, 2019, when Anurag Thakur of the BJP headed the Standing Committee on IT, summons was issued to Jack Dorsey, the then CEO of twitter, who also happens to be an American citizen, to depose before the Committee.

While Dorsey did not appear before the Committee, Colin Crowell, the vice president of the global public policy department of Twitter, did. Crowell is also an American citizen and faced no difficulties in testifying before the committee. 

On September 18 and 19, 1987, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) investigating the Bofors deal, examined Per Ove Morberg, the president of Bofors, and Lars Gothlin, vice president of Nobel Industries, in person in New Delhi. Both these individuals were foreign citizens and their nationality had no bearing on their ability to testify before the JPC.

The power of summons in relation to a JPC and a Standing Committee are the same, the only difference is that a JPC is an ad-hoc committee, with a limited mandate. 

It is incumbent on Speaker Om Birla to explain why he decided, against precedent, that foreign citizens should not appear before parliamentary committees in the normal course. He said that foreign citizens can only testify if it is a ‘very serious issue.’ When the committee has already adopted the abuse of social media as an agenda for study due to the serious ramifications it has for the nation, and when the chairman has held Zhang’s claims to be worthy of the committee’s scrutiny, how can the Speaker deem it not serious? 

Parliamentary committees are the eyes and ears of the Parliament of India. Since the entire Parliament cannot dedicate time to study every major issue concerning the country, multiple committees exist to undertake the requisite scrutiny, in order to improve policies and to hold the executive accountable.

Prior to the 1990s, committees were too under-staffed to scrutinise government activities; there was no continuity in membership, nor any effort in specialisation of subjects. Most grants and Bills were voted on in Parliament without any committee scrutiny.

Parliamentary reforms were initiated in the early 1990s, with the formation of ‘Subject Committees’, which later came to be known as ‘Standing Committees’, with the hope that these committees would strengthen Parliamentary democracy. 

To prevent a committee studying the misuse of social media from hearing a witness holding important information about the practices of the largest social media platform, is a blow not only to the committee but to Parliament itself.

Since the information held by Zhang has not attracted much Indian media attention and has little to no electoral value, her inability to testify before the parliamentary committee is not a major element in the current political discourse. Nevertheless, the issue is less about Zhang per se, but the nature of Parliamentary democracy we wish for the country.

Weakening parliamentary committees undermines the very nature of parliamentary accountability. The decision of the Speaker to not facilitate her appearance before the committee is an adverse precedent which contributes to the ongoing debasement of the Parliament of India; a decision which he must seriously reconsider. 

Arvind Kurian Abraham is an advocate with an LLM from Harvard Law School and a B.A LL.B (Honours) from NUJS.

Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut Appears Before ED in Mumbai

When asked whether it is a politically motivated case, Raut said, “We will come to know it later. I think I am appearing before the agency, which is neutral, and I have full confidence in them.”

Mumbai: Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut on Friday, July 1 appeared before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in Mumbai to record his statement in connection with a money laundering probe.

Raut reached the ED office located at the Ballard Estate in south Mumbai around 11.30 am.

Heavy police force was deployed outside the central agency’s office as large number of Shiv Sena workers were present at the spot. Barricades were placed on the roads leading to the office.

After his arrival, the Sena MP was seen sporting a saffron muffler around his neck, which he waved at his supporters before entering the office along with his lawyer.

Also read: The Future of the Shiv Sena Is the Big Question Facing Uddhav Thackeray

Speaking to reporters before going inside, Raut said, “I will cooperate with the agency in the investigation. It had summoned me, they require some information from me and it is my duty as a member of parliament, responsible citizen and leader of a political party to cooperate with them.”

He said he was “fearless and undaunted” as he has “not done anything wrong in life”.

When asked whether it is a politically motivated case, Raut said, “We will come to know it later. I think I am appearing before the agency, which is neutral, and I have full confidence in them.”

Earlier in the day, the Sena leader posted a tweet saying, “I will be appearing before the ED today at 12 noon. I respect the Summons issued to me and it’s my duty to co-operate with the Investigation agencies. I appeal Shivsena workers not to gather at the ED office. Don’t worry!”

The ED had summoned the Rajya Sabha member for questioning in the money laundering probe linked to the re-development of a Mumbai ‘chawl’ and other related financial transactions involving his wife and friends.

The agency had earlier summoned him on June 28. However, Raut had termed the ED summons as a “conspiracy” to stop him from fighting against the Shiv Sena’s political opponents in the wake of a rebellion by party MLAs, and said he will not be able to appear before the agency on Tuesday as he had to attend a meeting in Alibag (Raigad district).

Accordingly, the ED had issued fresh summons and asked him to appear before it on Friday.

(PTI)

The Future of the Shiv Sena Is the Big Question Facing Uddhav Thackeray

Bal Thackeray laid out a clear plan and vision for his followers. What does his son have to offer to the demoralised cadre?

For two and a half years, Uddhav Thackeray and his Maha Vikas Aghadi staved off all efforts by the Bharatiya Janata Party to dislodge him and his government. And with every success, he grew stronger and more confident that his government would run the course.

The BJP, smarting under the state being snatched away from it, made several attempts to undermine the MVA, including letting loose its proxies such as television channels and friendly anchors, but Thackeray managed to override all of them. Sharad Pawar was seen as the paterfamilias of the government and it was he who guided Uddhav Thackeray on every matter. But Thackeray is no puppet, he is own man; he is politically astute and many decisions bore his hallmarks.

All three partners – the Shiv Sena, the Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress — seem to working in tandem, a few irritants notwithstanding, and the public at large was happy with Thackeray. His calm demeanour, his efforts to provide the state with good governance and, most of all, maintaining peace endeared him to the populace. Even those, who were always critical of the violent ways of the Shiv Sena and feared the worst – he is after all Bal Thackeray’s son – were pleasantly surprised at the radical change in the party under him; the warm online tributes to him after he stepped down – in his usually calm and unruffled manner – are an indicator.

When the biggest blow came, it was not from long speculated sources such as the Congress or the NCP pulling out – it was his own party colleagues who let him down. Eknath Shinde, who was a hardcore loyalist of the party, led the rebellion and took a large number of MLAs with him. Many observers are shocked how Thackeray’s own party networks or intelligence agencies did not warn him about a rebellion brewing. It is not just a disaster for him and his party , but reflects a weak administration. Here, his benign personality was not of much use.

Also read: As SC Hears Rebel Sena MLAs’ Plea, the ‘Solution’ May Lie in a Petition Pending With It

Now, it is these very traits of Thackeray’s – an ability to get along with his coalition partners and playing down aggressive Hindutva – that have been cited by Shinde as the reason why he pulled out and took several MLAs with him. Almost one third of the Sena’s legislative party have also walked out and Shinde, who speaks on their behalf, has said that they too are a disgruntled lot for the same reasons. Their own views are not known and sooner or later they will have to answer their party supporters and constituents.

Thackeray, who made a dignified exit after talking about being betrayed by people he trusted, is for the moment left with 16 or so MLAs. They are being wooed by Shinde – how many respond will be known when the new government proves its majority on the floor of the house.

But Thackeray will have to look beyond this immediate issue. It is clear that he knows he has been outwitted, so the floor test may be just a formality. His main concern is the future – of the Shiv Sena more than his own. How does he ensure that the protection of the legacy of his father Bal Thackeray, who founded the Shiv Sena in 1966 and built it brick by brick to become a formidable political machine? Uddhav does not want to be known as the man who squandered that legacy.

He will have to rebuild the Sena to once again become a party of substance which stays relevant in Maharashtra. And for that, he will have to quickly get down to restoring the confidence of a cadre which is understandably glum and demoralised, apart from being completely confused.

Shinde’s revolt has undoubtedly articulated what many Sainiks may be privately thinking: where is Uddhav taking the party? Not just the plan and the vision, but they aren’t even clear of the direction of the Sena. Giving up Hindutva, which has paid electoral dividends in the past, and the party’s rough and ready ways, has been too much to understand and digest. How then would the Shiv Sena be different from the NCP or even the Congress?

When he formed the party, Bal Thackeray laid out a clear agenda: Marathi manoos must get more jobs. He then chose a villain, ‘Madrasis’, whom he called lungiwallas, as the reason why those jobs were not available – they came from outside and grabbed the positions that ought to have gone to Marathi speakers. I will get you those jobs. It was a simple idea, and one that appealed to the youth, who, in the aftermath of the creation of Maharashtra state in 1960, had not seen any material change in their lives. Whether or not that original promise has been fulfilled is a moot point, but certainly in the municipal corporation and the state government, Marathis dominate the jobs. A sense of confidence is palpable among Marathi speakers. In time the targets changed, first to North Indians and then to Muslims, which paid handsomely in the elections of 1995, when the Shiv Sena formed a government with the BJP. The elections also came soon after the worst riots in Bombay’s history in 1992-93 when Sainiks went after Muslims and hundreds of people died.

Also read: Eyes Firmly Set on Taking on BJP, Here Are the Routes KCR Is Keen to Explore

Thackeray senior was the overlord, but he too faced rebellion from three trusted men – Chhagan Bhujbal, Narayan Rane and his own favourite nephew Raj Thackeray, which was the one that hurt him the most. But the Sena did not suffer, thanks mainly to the extreme loyalty of his Sainiks. When Bal Thackeray died in 2012 the party was in good shape, and in 2014 won the elections, this time as a junior partner to the BJP; that victory was repeated in 2019, but Uddhav Thackeray broke off that relationship and formed a government with the NCP and the Congress.

Now he has suffered a body blow and it will take a long time to recover from it. He will have to come up with a new idea – the job scene has changed and Maharashtrian youngsters, like anywhere else, are seeking new opportunities in the private sector. The Hindutva plank has been seized upon by Shinde, backed by the BJP – Uddhav can try and play the Hindutva card but he will be one more party in the same business. What new thing does Uddhav have to offer?

There is also the vexed question of the name – who will get it? Shinde could well claim to now be the Shiv Sena and has already issued a whip to Uddhav loyalists. The matter will be settled by the Election Commission and perhaps the courts, but that fight could have a debilitating effect.

For the BJP, finishing off the Sena once and for all is high on its agenda. Uddhav knows this. Perhaps Shinde also knows it – he also realises he may have to move ahead carefully and not turn into just a figurehead chief minister, but to protect his own flock. But it is Uddhav who faces the bigger challenge – he will have to ensure that the party survives the current crisis and once again grows to its former glory. For that, he will have to begin right away to steady the drifting Shiv Sena ship.

Kerala: Congress Rejects Allegations of Role Behind Attack on CPI(M) HQ

Leader of Opposition in the state assembly, V. D. Satheesan said the party leadership had no knowledge of the midnight incident and would let the police investigate and ascertain the truth.

Thiruvananthapuram:  The Congress’ Kerala unit on Friday, July 1 categorically rejected the ruling CPI(M)’s allegation that the former was behind the attack on its headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram, saying it was not its policy to target its political opponent’s office.

Chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan strongly condemned the incident and directed the police to bring the culprits before law. Vijayan visited the AKG Centre this morning and appealed to his party cadres not to get provoked over the incident and show maximum restraint.

“The most significant office of the largest political movement in the state has been attacked. It is a deliberate attempt to create provocation and upset the peaceful atmosphere in the state. The culprits and those behind them will be found for sure,” he said in a statement later. Strict directions have been given to police to nab the guilty and bring them to book, he added.

Senior CPI(M) leader and Left Democratic Front (LDF) convener E.P. Jayarajan alleged that the Congress was behind the provocative action and appealed to the CPI(M) workers to remain calm.

Also read: Setback for Pinarayi Vijayan Govt As Congress Wins Big in Kerala Assembly Bypoll

Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition in the state assembly, V.D. Satheesan said the party leadership had no knowledge of the midnight incident and would let the police investigate and ascertain the truth. Noting that the people of the state clearly know that the Congress party and its workers were not the ones who plan and execute such attacks, he asked the ruling party to explain on what grounds they were levelling charges against them.

“The CCTV visuals were not clear… Let the police probe and find out the real culprits.. The Left government is facing a series of allegations and they are on the defense due to our ongoing protests. Those who want to shift the attention and focus from the present issues are the ones behind the attack,” he told reporters.

Asked whether he was suspecting that CPI (M) itself was behind the attack, Satheesan did not give a clear reply.

“It is an important day for us due to Rahul Gandhi’s Kerala visit. Do you think we would attack the AKG Centre and shift the focus from the present issues being faced by the government?” the Leader of Opposition asked.

Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee chief K. Sudhakaran also rejected the Marxist party’s allegation and accused LDF Convener E.P. Jayarajan of ‘masterminding’ the attack against the party headquarters.

In response to the attack, security has been beefed up at the party offices of the Congress and CPI(M) in various places.

Tension gripped Kerala as an unidentified person allegedly hurled an explosive substance at the state headquarters of the ruling CPI(M) late Thursday night. Police said the explosive substance was hurled at the AKG Centre here, by a motorbike-borne man at around 11.30 pm.

(PTI)

‘Rocketry: The Nambi Effect’ | A Promising Biopic That Inevitably Becomes a Hagiography

In prioritising the story over the plot, Madhavan’s ‘Rocketry’ slips up.

“The king died and then the queen died is a story,” wrote E.M. Forster in Aspects of a Novel. But “the king died and then the queen died of grief is a plot”.

It’s the kind of difference that’s essential to a biopic. Because the one that just tells a story resembles a Wikipedia entry. The one that examines a person’s life – finding grains of causality in the heaps of events – qualifies as a biopic. That, though, is just a basic requirement – causality alone can’t make a biopic good; it needs to have other artistic merits. R. Madhavan’s directorial debut, Rocketry, based on the life of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan, is a convincing illustration of the fine line between a plot and a story.

It opens to his family in Trivandrum in November 1994. Its members look happy and content, bantering with each other. The day goes on – like many others, how remarkable can the life of a scientist’s family get? We find out soon. Nambi’s (Madhavan) wife, Meena (Simran), attends a local wedding. The host throws her out. His son is battered, blood oozes from his nose. The daughter’s face is smeared with shit on a public road. Nambi is thrashed, handcuffed and shoved in a police van. The entire segment plays out against the backdrop of a kinetic background score – without a single word of dialogue – and this sharp ‘masala’ moviemaking heightens tension and stokes intrigue.

It then cuts to a TV interview, 19 years later in 2013, when Nambi is interviewed by Shahrukh Khan (playing himself). As they start talking, the scientist recounts his life, beginning from the beginning: ISRO, 1969. We meet a young Nambi, working under Vikram Sarabhai (Rajit Kapur), who gets a scholarship to study at Princeton University. Recent Indian biopics have trained us to look for clues – or inflection points – that reveal the film’s true intent. They pop up in various forms: a disdain for facts (science biopics), an inspirational angle (sports biopics), a patriotic – many times, a jingoistic – lunge (almost all biopics), and so on.

But Rocketry’s initial segment doesn’t play as straight. Apart from a scene in a Princeton class, where Nambi points out the typo in a textbook and then gets derided by the professor (who calls him “Numbi”), the movie doesn’t suffer from pitiable insecurity so common to the subgenre. Even when Nambi proves the professor wrong later (of course), that scene is more funny than bitter.

I kept looking for ‘villains’, too – among Nambi’s renowned supervisor, Luigi Crocco (Vincent Riotta); Princeton peer, Yuri; NASA colleague, Barry Amaldev (Sriram Parthasarathy) — but didn’t find any. On the contrary, these portions have enough humour, some of it self-deprecatory. Crocco, caring for his ailing wife, has no time to take on new students. Nambi says that he can double up as the house’s caretaker: cooking, cleaning, caring (“We Indians are good at that, sir”). Sometimes the opportunity to be ‘patriotic’ appears quite explicitly, such as in the scene where Nambi meets the CEO of Rolls Royce, Colonel Cleaver (Ron Donachie), requesting him to donate technology worth 400 million pounds. Once serving the British Raj in Bombay, Cleaver is wrecked with “imperial guilt”. The entire exchange could have gone wrong in different ways – appearing as patronising or rude or overcompensating – but its tone is perfect.

If Madhavan the screenwriter, navigating uncharted waters, is assured, then Madhavan the actor, enjoying his old terrain, is in fine form. He walks such a thin line: His Nambi is a compelling, at times a seemingly contradictory, mix of stubbornness and charm, ambition and humility. No scene is icy enough that Madhavan’s warm gentle smile can’t melt it. And then you spot the first chink; it comes via the death of his colleague’s three-year-old son. Nambi gets a call about it; he and his colleague Unni (Sam Mohan), and dozens of ISRO scientists, are working to produce India’s first liquid engine in a lab in France. Unni is so important to this project that if he leaves it midway, it won’t materialise. Nambi hides this news from him (rationalising to himself that by the time Unni reaches India, it’d be too late for the last rites anyway). Not just that: Nambi never informs him, even accompanying Unni to buy a teddy bear for his son.

That was the first time I thought, ‘Who is Nambi?’ Did he face any moral dilemma doing something so callous? Or maybe he wasn’t callous – maybe he was just helpless. Regardless, Nambi’s internal tussles are crucial to understand him as a person. But we have no access to his thoughts. The movie simply treats it as just another event, prioritising story over plot. A similar scene happens earlier in the film, when Nambi is offered a plush position at NASA – the pay is so high that his monthly salary is equivalent to his father’s five years’ earnings. The movie leads us to believe that Nambi will accept the offer: He and Meena enjoy the US; the work is challenging; the NASA people respect him. We even get a small interview (all quite dramatic – fairly enjoyable), and then cut to: Nambi in ISRO. Again, absolutely no idea what made him reject the offer. (You can guess – ‘patriotism’ – but Nambi resolving this dilemma would have opened him up for the first time.)

Rocketry settles into this pattern: one event, then another event, and so on. It also suffers from a distinct lack of conflict and a sense of the big picture. The movie details his scientific achievements in heaps: He first moves from studying solid to liquid fuels, then obsesses over the country’s first liquid engine, then a cryogenic engine. It gets quite ‘jargon-ey’ at times – we constantly hear such things as “Viking Engine’s upper stability margin is less”, “Russia is in the violation of MTCR” – and the writing doesn’t convince us enough of Nambi’s ultimate goal as a scientist. To contextualise his importance, it resorts to sloppy exposition in the climax, explaining why this or that achievement elevated the Indian space programme.

Several random subplots appear in the film because they either illuminate Nambi’s feats or look ‘cinematic’. As if that wasn’t enough, one of his colleagues recounts them for our benefit towards the end of the movie. This isn’t filmmaking; this is Wikipediafication – that too not rigorous. Nambi’s arrest on the false charges of espionage, for example, has less information on the police’s modus operandi than the one provided on the scientist’s actual Wikipedia page. And it’s not because Rocketry is a slim slick piece; it runs for 157 minutes with enough ‘first draft’ flab. The film doesn’t even care to answer some of the questions it raises. When Nambi was jailed for 50 days, just one person from ISRO came to visit him. Again, no idea why. It’s all the more bizarre because Nambi did have a few friends, and he continues to be friendly with them after he’s released.

In its last stretch, though, Rocketry simply gives up, becoming a full-blown hagiography: the scientist appears as himself for quite some time; we then (of course) hear the voice of Modi, then we see Him in a medium shot. And that is the main problem: not every story can be a compelling plot. But Indian biopics have escaped such considerations, as they mostly care for their protagonists’ ‘significance’. And the makers think that that significance – extrapolated to a few stale ideas – will sail them through. Rocketry doesn’t just lack causality – it’s also a casual film. If that isn’t disrespect – heightened by the veneer of deification – then I don’t know what is.

‘Gaganyaan Mission Can’t Happen in 2022 or 2023; Keen to Ensure Full Safety’: ISRO Chief

‘We have to be extremely careful when we send humans to space,’ S. Somanath said at a press conference.

Sriharikota (Andhra Pradesh): Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Chairman S. Somanath on Thursday, June 30, said the launch of the ambitious Gaganyaan mission, the country’s first manned space flight, cannot happen this year or next year as the agency is keen to ensure that all safety systems are in place.

Noting that it is a very important mission, the ISRO chief said a lot of focus would have to be on safety when humans are sent to space.

“It is a very important mission. We have to be extremely careful when we send humans to space,” Somanath said at a press conference after the successful launch of three foreign satellites by ISRO at the spaceport here.

He said tests were being conducted with regard to safety. “We are testing it more number of times, We would like to do it very cautiously.”

The ISRO chief emphasised that various demonstrations would be taken up and an unmanned mission in the middle of next year and make sure everything is fine. “(Gaganyaan) cannot happen this year or next year. This is for the safety of our folks.”

“We need to remove the worry part any time it can burst. Worry can be removed only by ruggedising the object, testing it more number of times and introducing intelligence in the rocket so that it can identify problems, let the aircraft know pilots can escape. But rockets cannot do that. Rockets are moving very fast and rockets themselves have to find out something is going bad now so let these fellows go away. It will automatically command an escape system and the astronauts can escape. This is new system currently what we are doing is let us wait for some more time.”

Also read: First Uncrewed Gaganyaan Mission Not Possible in December 2021: ISRO

“If we want to fly astronauts, we need to first prove the safety system.. it has to go through many tests. We are trying to do that this year. I don’t want to end up doing the Gaganyaan programme with a disaster. We will want to do it very cautiously.”

About Chandrayaan-3, Somanath said currently a lot of tests were going on and added that “this time we are not in a hurry to go to the moon.”

“This time we want to make sure we land on the moon.”

“Currently the tests on lander propulsion and lander systems are underway. We want to make it very rugged. We have made the lander rugged. So some mass increase in lander has occurred. Its legs have been made stronger. Propulsion system needs to be rugged. Tests are going on at Mahendragiri for proving that. We want to look at the sensors. Last time we had doubts on sensors. So we are adding new sensors, helicopter sorties, experiments. Let us complete all tests and be clear,” he further said.

The Chandrayaan-3 mission is a follow up of Chandrayaan-2, which was India’s first mission to land on the lunar south pole. However, the lander Vikram hard-landed in September 2019.

Asked if there were plans to make the PS-IV stage a routine experiment after in-orbit scientific experiments were carried out, Somanath said, “normally the 4th stage would end up as debris in space. But, ISRO has repurposed the fourth stage and introduced a computer, control system to fire its thrusters, sensors such as star sensors that will enable it look at the stars and find its own position and also send commands from the ground.”

The PSLV Orbital Experimental Module (POEM) activity performs in-orbit scientific experiments using the spent PS4 stage as an orbital platform, ISRO said. It is the first time that the PS4 stage would orbit the earth as a stabilised platform.

With regard to the GSLV commercial launch, Somanath said GSLV is currently booked for our own internal launches. “So we are not offering GSLV-Mk II for commercial launches for the time being. Mk-III we have already announced for launch for commercial launches. Next mission will be a commercial mission. That will carry a very well known OneWeb satellites, mid Sept-Oct this year and next year by January 2023.”

On the spaceport expected to come up at Kulasekarapattinam, Somanath said, “2,000 acres has come to ISRO’s hands. Area where we have to build the launch pad is with us and the design process is complete. Tendering process has started.”

Sex Workers Need to be Seen as Labour, Not Victims

The re-conceptualisation of sex work as a form of sexual labour will increase sex workers’ accessibility to resources, mobilise them for representation and participation, and challenge social exclusion.

One of the most unsettling debates in contemporary India has been on sex markets and sex work.

Stemming from obscurantist sexual moorings of orthodoxy, the public impulse has been fragmentary. The premise underlying the internal contradiction is the delusive alienation of labour and sex.

There are three dominant paradigms to examine sex work. The first treats it as a deviant behaviour-anomie embedded in traditional stigma; the second considers it a quintessential type of gender relations subjected to oppression and violence against women; and the third focuses on the empowerment aspect of sexual commerce.

The historical evolution of the sex market is, according to historian Gerda Lerner, related to “its relationship to sexual regulation of all women in archaic states and its relationship to the enslavement of females”.

In ancient societies, poverty pushed women’s sexual labour to ruler’s wealth and status. Hidden legitimacy was founded on the necessary fulfilment of the sexual needs of men, particularly when heterosexist marriage was required to preserve women’s chastity. The origins of modern sex work are tied to the ascendancy of patriarchal kinship systems in which women were ritually exchanged as mere gifts among families.

In both contexts, masculinities were specific in structuring the conditions of vulnerability in sex work.

Public morality discourses sanction sexual relationships only in certain socially defined contexts, particularly marriage. Outside marriage, sex is ‘perverse’, ‘immoral’ and ‘sinful’. It is a rupture of the misogynist link between sex, love and reproduction. Women’s exercise of their sexuality itself is perceived as a threat to societal stability.

Corollary to this are the forbidden anxieties about the stigma and demonisation of sex work. Unless the core idea of ‘sex as work’ is delinked from the normativities of sexual morality, it cannot be premised on the questions of legitimacy, identity, labour rights and decriminalisation. 

Also read: SC Orders Police Against Abuse Of Sex Workers, Media From Publishing Their Pictures

Global legal approaches to sex work

Globally, there are broadly four distinct approaches to laws governing sex-work. The first is prohibition, which entails the criminalisation of sex work; the second is the abolition of sex-work; the third is regulation, which involves government licensing and regulating the sex-work business; and the fourth is decriminalisation, which removes all criminal prohibitions for the acts of consenting adults in either purchasing or selling sexual services.

Feminist dilemmas revolve around sex workers being subjected to systemic patriarchal exploitation. Obviously, sex work involves varying degrees of coercion, resistance and agency. While the inherent risk of violence and oppression cannot be dismissed, it is equally significant to recognise the need for the protection of rights. The danger of prosecuting women for selling sex lies in compounding their victimisation while criminalisation will force sex workers to go underground to protect customers.

The complex systems of regulation in Germany and the Netherlands have sought to reduce the harms of sex work rather than call for its elimination. New Zealand, on the other hand, has adopted the decriminalisation model. 

Be it any model, the costs of the vulnerability of sex workers and their well-being must be legitimate moot-points of policy making.

Reimagining sex work

I argue that the conceptual shift has to be from regarding sex workers as merely exploited victims to sexual labour. Consensual sex work should be recognised as paid labour. A re-conceptualisation of sex work as a form of sexual labour will increase sex workers’ accessibility to resources, mobilise them for representation and participation, and challenge social exclusion.

A more conscious and non-discriminatory regulatory framework that protect the rights of sex workers through labour legislation; ensuring workplace health and safe working environments; and legal support for redressal in case of injury, abuse and unfair treatment are all needed.

According to government statistics, there are over two million sex workers in the country. Be it G.B. Road in Delhi, Sonagachi in Kolkata or Kamathipura in Mumbai, sex work is widely prevalent in both rural and urban areas. And in India, the Immoral Trafficking of Persons Act (ITPA) does not punish prostitution. What is punishable is sexual exploitation, commercial sex, the running of a brothel or seducing another person.

Also read: Why Sex Workers’ Organisations Aren’t Pleased With the Draft Anti-Trafficking Bill

Legal precedents

Judicial decisions on the rights of sex-workers have vacillated between empathy and contempt. Firstly, the discourse largely tilts towards portraying the sex worker as a victim rather than as an autonomous agent capable of decision making. Secondly, there is an apparent tension between fundamental Constitutional guarantees and the corporealities of extreme marginalisation for such women. 

As early as 1997, in Gaurav Jain versus Union of India, the protectionist approach of the court exacted the right to equal opportunity, care and protection to children of sex workers. The court, in Manoj Shaw versus State of West Bengal, issued directions for sex workers to be considered victims. In several other decisions, the court backed the right to life and dignity of sex workers under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

A faint idea of sex work-by-consent underlined the court’s assertion of the fundamental right to carry a vocation of one’s choice in Kajal Mukesh Singh and Ors. versus State of Maharashtra. There is a definitive disquisition in Delhi versus Pankaj Chaudhry and Ors that a women’s character is unquestionable, even if she is of easy virtue or habitual of sexual intercourse. However, such a framework is rejected by the larger rectitude of the society. The condemnation dismisses any negotiation of the rights of women engaged in sex-work. 

The recent order by the Justice L. Nageswara Rao-led three-judge bench Supreme Court is a historic reiteration of the Constitutional will towards every citizen’s right to live with dignity.

It unfolded a non-discriminatory humanitarian framework of entitlement to women who have been disadvantaged because of their profession. It is retributive in the sense that it redirects state intervention to be protectionist and welfare oriented towards sex workers. The role of the police is circumscribed to neither interfere nor take criminal action against consenting adult sex workers.

Significantly, it upheld the basic protection of human decency and dignity to both sex workers and their children.

Social respectability to sex work can be achieved only when social and legislative changes go hand-in-hand. Like Martha Nussbaum writes, there is a need for greater public engagement with the issue without either “aristocratic class prejudice” or “fear of the body and its passions”. Till then, ‘Who says Sex is Work?’

Anita Tagore is Associate Professor in Kalindi College, University of Delhi. She holds a doctorate in political science with a degree in law.

Eyes Firmly Set on Taking on BJP, Here Are the Routes KCR Is Keen to Explore

Friendships forged during this days as the leader of the Telangana statehood movement are likely to come in handy.

Hyderabad: Telangana chief minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao’s current vigour against the Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance brings back memories of the 14 years of struggle for statehood under KCR’s leadership.

KCR was notably alone when he resigned from the post of deputy speaker in the Telugu Desham Party-led government in 2001 to take the plunge into the statehood movement. He not only had to take on his mentor Chandrababu Naidu, but also the mighty Andhra forces backing the powers that were then.

Yet, KCR’s steely resolve saw the struggle to its end. The formation of Telangana brought to fruition five-decade-old efforts by the like of Marri Chenna Reddy and many others.

KCR had displayed shrewd and effective organisational skills then. He constituted sector-wise Joint Action Committees and drafted in political parties, government employees, members of the intelligentsia, artistes, industrial workers, representatives of trade and commerce groups, and students. He also got over 100 lawmakers from all parties from the Telangana region to quit their elected posts in favour of the statehood demand.

“All this history is a fitting reply to people who are taking our leader’s plans regarding a national party with a pinch of salt,” said V. Prakash, TRS spokesman and chairman of Telangana Water Resources Development Corporation.

‘Modi is a giant with a clay foot’

KCR hinted at floating a national outfit, which is likely to be named the Bharatiya Rastra Samithi (BRS), at the Telangana Rashtra Samithi’s Hyderabad plenary on April 28. Many were sceptical at his suggestion, and with reason.

KCR is heading a young and comparatively small state with 19 seats in the 545-member parliament. The idiom of regional identity and regional pride is the guiding principle of his political presence. Will he be able to take on the Modi-led NDA at a time when the Congress itself is struggling at the prospect?

Also read: Telangana Farmers’ Struggle to Sell Paddy Shows KCR Has Sown More Than He Can Reap

“Modi is a giant with clay foot. His eight-year rule has triggered strong anti-incumbency among all sections and his party wants to flourish on a communal divide. All this leaves a big vacuum and the Congress party, steeped in leadership crisis, has failed to come up with an alternative agenda. This is where our leader will come to the fore,” said Y. Satish Reddy of TRS’s social media wing.

V. Prakash, quoted earlier, says TRS plans to counter BJP’s communal hatred – “shown by introducing draconian laws such as the Citizenship Amendment Act” – by showcasing the progress “Telangana has made in agriculture, irrigation, education, industries and IT in the last eight years.”

Ostensibly as part of this showcasing drive, the KCR government on June 2, coinciding with the formation day of Telangana, advertised in the national media outlets its flagship schemes of Kaleswaram, a mega irrigation dam built across the Godavari, Mission Kakatiya, the Mission Bhagiradha and Rythu Bandhu.

KCR appears to be taking a leaf out of the book of his West Bengal counterpart Mamata Banerjee to halt the onward march of the Modi-led BJP.

Ahead of the Bengal polls in 2021, as the BJP was discussing religion and immigrants, Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress stuck to promoting welfare schemes. This helped her party come back to power. KCR’s plans seem similar.

Syed Aminul Hasan Jafri, a journalist-turned-lawmaker from AIMIM told The Wire that the NDA government under Modi’s leadership has been providing “a conducive environment” for emergence of viable political alternatives.

“Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation and Income Tax departments have been misused to target political rivals like never before. The feeling of north-south divide is growing rapidly. In the devolution of central grants by the finance commissions, the spirit of federalism is getting diluted too. The Centre imposes curbs on borrowings by states in the name of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, casting a shadow over the latter’s welfare and development programmes. This disturbing trend gives scope for regional parties to play a key role in national politics,” Jafri said.

Also read: Will Riding on Soft Hindutva Politics Help KCR Retain Telangana Without AIMIM’s Support?

BJP-TRS showdown in offing        

The BJP brass, including Modi, Amit Shah and party president J.P. Nadda, are scheduled to descend on Telangana’s state capital for the national executive meet in the first week of July with an ambitious plan to storm into KCR’s citadel in the forthcoming state election.

But the TRS patriarch, at the same time, is getting ready for a similar showdown of sorts. KCR has invited Yashwant Sinha, the opposition-sponsored presidential candidate, for a campaign in his home state. Sinha is scheduled to interact with lawmakers from TRS, Congress, AIMIM and other parties in Telangana. KCR’s party has Chevella MP Ranjith Reddy on the 11-member committee comprising opposition parties for the presidential election campaign.

KCR’s daily preoccupations now involve the fine-tuning of his national party, a source in the Chief Minister’s Office told The Wire, asking to remain anonymous.

KCR along with AAP’s Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal paid tributes to slain soldiers and protesters killed in the anti-farm laws agitation, in May. In an attempt to showcase his Rythu Bandhu scheme, which aims to end distress in agriculture by offering a financial assistance of Rs 8,000 per acre per year in Telangana, KCR has also extended financial assistance to the kin of farmers killed in the agitation against the NDA government’s farm laws in Punjab.

KCR, when heading the statehood movement, had built contacts with activists struggling for the creation of 14 smaller states. A TRS leader even recalled how KCR was instrumental in floating the Bundelkhand Rajya Samithi and Vidarbha Rajya Samithi in 2003. During his stint as Union labour minister during the United Progressive Alliance government, KCR also developed contacts with labour activists. “We have been trying to build our national party in different parts of the country with the help of these contacts,” V. Prakash said.

R. Kelly Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison For Sexual Offences

The musician was convicted in a trial last September when the jury found him guilty of using his celebrity status to lure women and underage girls for sex.

R. Kelly was sentenced on Wednesday to 30 years in prison, following the multiplatinum R&B singer’s conviction last year for exploiting his celebrity status and wealth over decades to attract women and underage girls for sex.

The sentence was handed down by US District Judge Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn federal court.

Kelly, 55, was convicted last September following a nearly six-week trial. He is among the most prominent people convicted of sexual misbehaviour during the #MeToo movement against such conduct by prominent men.

“Although sex was certainly a weapon that you used, this is not a case about sex. It’s a case about violence, cruelty and control,” Donnelly told him.

Kelly did not speak at the sentencing hearing, but his victims spoke at length about his abuse during the trial.

“You made me do things that broke my spirit. I literally wished I would die because of how low you made me feel,” said one unnamed survivor, directly addressing a Kelly who kept his hands folded and his eyes downcast.

Prosecutors have said Kelly also used his entourage to procure victims and protect himself from investigations.

Long-standing allegations

The sentence is the end of a slow fall for Kelly, who maintained a loyal following of fans and sold millions of albums despite rumours about his misconduct being widely known since the 1990s.

Also read: US: Jury Finds R. Kelly Guilty of Racketeering in Sex Trafficking Trial

His lawyer had argued that he should only be sentenced to 10 years because he had a traumatic childhood “involving severe, prolonged childhood sexual abuse, poverty, and violence.”

The sentence comes just over a month before jury selection is due to start in Kelly’s separate, long-delayed federal trial in Chicago on August 15.

In that case, Kelly and two of his former associates are alleged to have engineered the singer’s 2008 acquittal in a child pornography trial and hid years of sexual abuse of minors.

The musician who once dominated R&B also faces prosecution in two other state jurisdictions.

(DW)

Mystery Surrounds Trio Whose ‘Complaint’ Was Cited to Demolish Javed Mohammad’s House

While the affidavit submitted by the UP government says a complaint of “illegal construction” was received from three “respected people” of a Prayagraj mohalla, the Indian Express said it was not able to identify them.

New Delhi: The three people whose complaints of “illegal construction” allegedly led to the demolition of activist Javed Mohammad’s house by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) could not be identified by the Indian Express – despite the trio describing themselves as “respected people of the mohalla”.

The newspaper reported that its reporter asked 30 residents of the mohalla, J K Ashiana Colony in the Kareli area of Prayagraj, who reside within a 400m radius of Mohammad’s house about Sarafraj, Noor Alam and Mohammad Azam, the complainants. “Fifteen of them declined to comment, saying they feared government action. The other 15 responded: all of them said they did not know who the complainants were, and had never heard of them being local residents,” the report says.

Mohammad’s house was demolished on June 12, two days after there were protests in the city against “offensive remarks” made by now-suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma on Prophet Muhammad. The police accused Mohammad, the founder of the Welfare Party of India (WPI), of being the “mastermind” behind the protests.

With Yogi Adityanath promoting the idea of “bulldozer justice“, the demolition of the activist’s home was seen as punitive action for his role in the protests.

In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court about the demolitions, the Uttar Pradesh government said the action was not linked to the protests but was conducted in accordance with the law.

According to the Indian Express, the affidavit included the complaints of Sarafraj, Noor Alam and Mohammad Azam as an annexure. The complaints claimed there was “illegal construction” in the house and that the WPI office in the building was visited by “anti-social elements”. The complainants do not mention the addresses or contact details of the trio but described themselves as “respected people of the mohalla”, the report says.

The complaint said the construction of Mohammad’s double-storey building was “done without getting the ‘building plan/map’ approved from the PDA”. It added that people keep visiting the WPI officer “throughout the day and night and they park their vehicles on the road, which spoils the atmosphere of the locality… Some anti-social elements have also been seen in the office.”

The locals are “facing a lot of trouble” due to the WPI’s office being set up in a residential area and the PDA is “losing a lot of revenue” because the building map was not approved, they added.

“Please get the building inspected and take action as per the rules for removing the office from the said building,” the complaint says.

However, the Indian Express said that residents of the area described the allegations as “false”.

“I used to pass by the house regularly and had never seen people standing outside in large numbers. There is no one with any of those three names living in this area,” said one resident who lives 300 metres away from Mohammad’s house.

Notices served says affidavit, family denies claim

The affidavit also says that the PDA received the complaint on May 4. Six days later, the affidavit says, the PDA zonal officer “sent a notice” to the activist under section 27(1) of the UP Town Planning and Development Act, 1973, asking him to appear before it on May 24 to show why orders for demolition should not be passed.

The complainants sent another letter on May 19 asking PDA officials to inspect the building, following which the authority sent another notice on May 25. According to the affidavit, the second notice asked Mohammad to demolish the alleged “unauthorised construction” within 15 days.

A PDA supervisor identified as Mahesh went to the site with the notices on both occasions but the family members refused to accept them. However, Mohammad’s son Mohammad Shujat told IE, “No person from PDA came to our residence before June 10 to serve any notice.”