Christians Attacked in Chhattisgarh’s Patan Allegedly by Bajrang Dal Members

According to the local Christian community, police arrested some of its members while letting off the assailants.

New Delhi: Members of the Christian community, who congregated for Sunday prayers on April 30 at a house in Chhattisgarh’s Patan, were attacked allegedly by Bajrang Dal members. The attackers, chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram’, disrupted the prayers, alleging that they were forcing people to accept Christianity.

Patan is represented by chief minister Bhupesh Baghel, who heads the Congress government in the state. The incident occurred around noon and was captured on video by the Christian community members who locked themselves up due to fear.  

Speaking to The Wire, Lalchand Sahu, who was present inside the house, said, “We were sitting inside the house. At 12:30 pm, around 30-35 people came with lathis and started hitting our doors, asking us to open the door. Once we refused to open the door, they started abusing us and chanting Jai Shree Ram.”

Videos shared by the victims show assailants hitting the door with their lathis, forcing people inside to open the door. When they refused to open the door, the mob threw water at the people inside and hurled abuses.

According to the victims, police showed up at the spot about an hour after they reached out to them over the phone. The nearest police station from the spot is about 500 metres, said members of the minority community.

They alleged that the police instead of acting against the assailants, questioned them and picked up about 10-12 members from their side. Dr. Vinay Sahu, Krishnakant Kurrey, Archana Sahu, Veena Sahu, Seeta Kurrey, Abhishek Sahu, Narendra Sahu, Rohit Sahu, Kumari Nishad, Keti Nishad were among those who were taken to the police station from the Christian side. 

Arun Pannalal, president of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, alleged that police let off Bajrang Dal members while taking into custody his community members. “Even police were also alleging that we are converting people to Christianity. There were 300-400 people from Bajrang Dal present inside the police station premises, and they were allowed to be there. But people who came to the police station from outside were taken into custody under Section 151 (knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sent to jail. Bajrang Dal members were let off,” Pannalal added.

Although The Wire could contact the local superintendent of police (SP), Abhishek Pallava, over the phone for a comment, he cut the call immediately after he was asked about the incident. 

Preeti Sahu (30), the wife of Vinay Sahu, one of the Christians picked up by the police, said that they are constantly living in fear, due to growing attacks against her community by right-wing outfits in the state. She said people joined prayers out of their will and were coming there only to pray and not to create any trouble. “We have been living here for six years and it is not the first time something like this has happened. In the past too, people took us to the police station. And, the police asked us not to pray,” she said.  

The videos shared by the Christian community also show some of the attackers abusing minority community members in the presence of police at the police station while the police looked on in silence. According to police, the minority community members were arrested under Section 151 of the IPC.

This is not the first time Christians in Chhattisgarh have come under attack. Chhattisgarh has seen the second-highest number of attacks on Christians after Uttar Pradesh. According to a report by the United Christian Forum (UCF), cases of violence against the minority community in the country have sharply risen by 400%, from 147 in 2014 to 598 in 2022. The top five states with reported incidents are Uttar Pradesh with 186, Chhattisgarh with 132, Jharkhand with 51, Karnataka with 37, and Tamil Nadu with 33.

Recently, two churches in Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh, were targeted allegedly by members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on April 23. Following the incident, the pastors of both churches were reportedly taken into custody by the Uttar Pradesh Police.

Eyewitnesses, who were present during the incident, had told The Wire that they were interrogated by the assailants in the presence of the police. The incident has raised concerns among members of the Christian community in Uttar Pradesh, who have faced a surge of violence in recent years.

Eleven Killed, Four Critically Ill After Toxic Gas Leak in Ludhiana

Giaspura, where the incident took place, is a densely populated area with a migrant population. All the victims belonged to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and had been staying in Ludhiana.

New Delhi: Eleven people, including two children, died and four fell ill after a toxic gas leak from a factory on Sua Road near Sherpur Chowk in Punjab’s Ludhiana on Sunday, April 30 morning. According to officials involved in the rescue efforts, many are still trapped and efforts are still on to pull them out of the factory safely.

Hindustan Times reported that the gas leaked from a block with different establishments including a cold drink store, a grocery store and a medical clinic.

Ludhiana police commissioner Mandeep Singh Sidhu said that based on initial reports, it was apprehended that someone disposed of some chemicals in the sewerage which led to the emission of the toxic gas. “A cat was also found dead at the incident site,” said Sidhu.

Additional deputy commissioner Amarjit Singh Bains said, “A broken manhole has been found in the area and there was a strong smell emanating from it. There is a possibility that the chemical has been poured into the sewerage from that point.”

Giaspura, where the incident took place, is a densely populated area with a migrant population. Several industrial and residential buildings are located here. All the victims belonged to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and had been staying in Ludhiana, according to local reports.

“11 deaths confirmed till now. In all likelihood, there is some gas contamination which has happened. It is quite likely that maybe some chemical reacted with methane in manholes. All of this is being verified. NDRF is retrieving samples,” HT report quoted Ludhiana deputy commissioner Surabhi Malik as saying.

The Punjab government has announced an ex-gratia of Rs 2 lakh each for the next of kin of the deceased, and Rs 50,000 for those injured in the gas leak incident.

According to Indian Express, five belonged to a single family among the 11 killed, and three from another family. One deceased, who was in his mid-20s, is yet to be identified.

Citing sources, the IE report said a gas leak was reported from the area even a year back, but none was affected back then. They said that a few persons who bought milk from a local provision store – Goyal kirana store – at around 6.30 am Sunday complained about smelling gas and just half an hour later some people living in the vicinity started falling sick.

This is a developing story. More details are awaited. The copy will be updated as and when new information trickles in. 

Same-Sex Marriages: The Real Goal of Democracy Is to Confront Older Laws That Deny Basic Rights

For gender equality, of both the statutory and constitutional kind, and to understand the real nature of crimes against trans men and women, the nation must move beyond abstract legalities and focus on the real-life experiences of the petitioners.

Saakhi is a Sunday column from Mrinal Pande, in which she writes of what she sees and also participates in. That has been her burden to bear ever since she embarked on a life as a journalist, writer, editor, author and as chairperson of Prasar Bharti. Her journey of being a witness-participant continues. 

Much discussion has been generated recently about legally validating gender neutrality and making same-sex marriages legal. All sensible people agree that this is not about right or wrong but it is the logical next step after the legalisation of homosexuality.

But judging by the reports, the state, which seems to favour prescriptive heterosexuality, has finally come up with the single biggest wedge to block debates around the right for independent sexual preferences, dissociating sexuality from procreation, and the large recorded cases of incest, marital rape, and abuse of wife and children within heterosexual families. The Centre’s submission on the subject is reflective of the deeply hostile wave of political and religious conservatism sweeping across the land.

Mrinal Pande

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

It says: “..marriage originates even under the so-called secular special marriages Act 1954, in Personal law….The right to marry is not absolute and is always subject to the statutory regime provided by the competent legislature.” Therefore, said the solicitor general, on behalf of the state, that if the petitioners’ argument that the state cannot regulate personal relationships, were to be accepted, the law on bestiality or incest could also be challenged on the same grounds!!

Some ideas are not new but need constant affirmation from the ground up. One of these is that men and women no matter what their sexual orientation remain intrinsically human and neither can be seen as a large sheet of socially driven genetic encoding or biological givens.  Unlike the issue of heterosexual marriages, same-sex marriage it seems is being argued mostly as destructive of an age-old social construct. And the state feels it may not be possible for the court to interpret the Special Marriage Act in isolation from personal laws.

Lo kallo baat! As they say in colloquial Hindi. There now, speak further on the issue if you can!

Logic, as they say, is in the eye of the logician! Not too long ago, when establishing rape or adjudicating on temple/mosque entry rights to young women gender, we saw gender being interpreted as something determined by purely biological factors, not as a social construct. In the case of the Sabarimala temple, the sole woman judge on the bench putting in a dissent note, let the cat out of the bag when she linked the traditional denial of entry to ancient socio-religious taboos on possibly menstruating young women of reproductive age. It was argued then that since religion is above rational thought, the taboo could not be removed on constitutional grounds.

Also read: Same-Sex Marriage Equality Is Not Just an Issue of Rights but Also Mental Health

Oh dear, this view really complicates the question for the LGBTQ community. Are men and women pushing for legal validity for same-sex marriages going to be evaluated as per the secular constitution that puts women and men as social creatures on par with each other? Or do even men and women stepping out of heterosexual marriage preferences still remain a sum total of their biology with the important issues of their personal lives controlled and defined by personal laws?

Representative image. Photo: Maico Pereira/Unsplash

One of India’s best-selling magazines has just done a cover story on the issue. The cross-dressing male on the cover is a hirsute man in a jazzy sari with jewellery and make-up with (an obviously false) long braid wrapped in strands of jasmine hanging down to his toes. As you mull over the image, you realise how cunningly male-to-female transsexuals may be lampooned to convince the public that for traditional marriages, the essential desirability of accepted female sexuality must be the right norm. Also, the traditional male and his viewpoint must remain the final arbiter of family and kinship patterns both in law and social life.

The image is affirming subtly that by supporting legalisation of same-sex marriages, the (already much-reviled) liberals might end up making the manly males a laughing stock. Once that happens and India accepts alternate choices in marriage, the carefully hidden dominance of males by virtue of being a He–Man, “Mard”, in society, politics and the courts might become visible and be ultimately declared legally untenable.

True, equality is not easily definable. But in law there is a formal approach: those similarly situated must be treated equally. But women from housewives to female politicians and many sportswomen have so internalised the male viewpoint over the centuries as the only and the right one, that they at best take a protectionist approach like Smriti Irani leading a procession to demand justice for Nirbhaya. Or like P.T. Usha says female wrestlers must seek the court’s intervention instead of sitting on a public dharna and tarnishing our national image. In the case involving a Dalit rape in Unnao, and women wrestlers demanding justice for their gross physical abuse by their boss, both recede into silence.

“With all the historical baggage we carry,” writes the late Justice Leila Seth, one of the truly emancipated legal minds India, has produced, “it is difficult to understand and appreciate true equality. ..there are no definite parameters. What might have looked just and fair a century ago, in the manner of the treatment of women, no longer looks just and fair..”(Talking of Justice –p24).

Gaining the right to enter a few temples or Dargahs or legalisation of same-sex marriages good and progressive steps though they all are not likely to speed up India’s race towards true gender equality in a major way given the increasingly intolerant attitude of the state towards socio-religious aberrations threatening its own interpretation of Dharma and Personal laws.

At the time of writing, the Centre, through the solicitor general, has told the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India headed by the chief justice of India, to let the parliament tackle the bunch of petitions demanding marriage equality rights under secular laws for the LGBTQIA communities. Should the court delegate the matter of defining and interpreting personal laws to the parliament, its final verdict may at best provide women with an opening, a crack in the wall, between law and society that they can try and crack and deepen some more later.

For gender equality, of both the statutory and constitutional kind, and understanding the real nature of crimes against transmen and women, the nation must move beyond abstract legalities and focus on the real-life experiences of the petitioners. The system must look into the eyes of both girl and boy victims of various bosses, family elders, Babas as also the young couples frequently beaten up by cops for being in a homosexual relationship.

It is time we realised that the real goal for a democratic parliament is not to make legal categories that will only trace and freeze the status quo but to confront various older laws by widening all apparent cracks in the laws that no longer protect but are misused to deny basic rights to disempowered marginal groups. There is little to choose between a patriarchal family or a state quoting patriarchal personal laws built above gender, caste and ethnic faultlines centuries ago.

Mrinal Pande is a writer and veteran journalist.

Why Did the Bihar Govt Change Remission Rules to Aid the Release of Convicted Killer Anand Mohan?

Political observers from the state say Nitish Kumar’s party thinks the release of Singh will help it win the support of the Rajput community. Singh enjoys considerable influence among Rajputs in the state.

On January 24 this year, chief minister and Janata Dal (United) supremo Nitish Kumar, indicated for the first time, that he was working towards the release of gangster-turned-politician Anand Mohan Singh from jail.

He was speaking at a function on the occasion of Rashtriya Swabhiman Diwas organised by the Rajput community, from which hails Anand Mohan. As Nitish spoke, the crowd demanded the release of Anand Mohan, who had been in jail since 2007 in the murder case of the then district magistrate G. Krishnaiah, a Dalit Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer.

Nitish told the crowd, “Aap log chinta mat kijiye hum log lage hue hain. Aane wale dino mein result dikhega. Unki patni (Lovely Anand, wife of Anand Mohan) se puch lijiye ki hum log kya kar rahe hain (You people don’t worry, we are working on it and you will see the result in the coming days. Ask her wife, what we are doing for this).”

Supporters of Anand Mohan Singh during a protest demanding his release from jail. Photo: Facebook/Anand Mohan.

Two and half months after this speech by the chief minister, the Bihar government made changes to the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, making Anand Mohan eligible to apply for remission. The remission applications are processed by a six-member state sentence remission board, which comprises the home secretary, law secretary, inspector general (prisons), inspector general of police, district and sessions judge, and director of probation services.

On April 10, the home department of Bihar issued a notification to delete Rule 481 (i)(a) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, which also dealt with the “murder of a public servant on duty”. Authorities said Section 432 of the Prison Act, 1973 allowed them to make such change.

The said rule forbade, among other things, the early release of a convict, who had been found guilty of murdering a public servant on duty, before he actually undergoes imprisonment for 20 years including remissions. Now, after the amendment, convicts of other crimes would not be entitled to be considered for premature release except those convicted of murder of public servants on duty.

On April 27, 69-year-old Anand Mohan finally walked out of the jail. Although his supporters had planned a ‘victory march’ and other programmes welcoming him in his Panchgachiya village in Saharsa district, they could not be organised given that he was released at 3 am from Saharsa jail. Mohan didn’t make media appearances, and neither had he attended programmes in his village.

Wife of DM, IAS association oppose the move

The decision to release Anand Mohan Singh has shocked Uma Krishnaiah, the wife of Krishnaiah, who lives in Telangana with her daughters. She said that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Singh meant incarceration for his entire natural course of life and cannot be interpreted to last just 14 years.

She has opposed the decision and moved the Supreme Court. In her petition, she said, “Life imprisonment, when awarded as a substitute for death penalty, has to be carried out strictly as directed by the court and would be beyond the application of remission.”

G. Krishnaiah with his wife. Photo: Twitter/@RahulSeeker

Central IAS Association has also come out in support of Uma Krishnaiah and wrote to the Bihar government to reconsider its decision. It wrote to the Bihar government saying, “A convict of charge of murder of a public servant on duty cannot be reclassified as a less heinous crime.” It termed the amendment as “tantamount to the denial of justice”.

Though the state government defended the decision, Amir Subhani, chief secretary of Bihar, said in a press conference that Anan Mohan was freed as per legal provisions.

“No special favour has been done to anybody. The prison rules are amended from time to time, in the normal course. The clause about government servants on duty was dropped because it was found to be discriminatory. Moreover, we found no other state treating such killings differently,” Subhani said.

Murder of DM Krishnaiah

On December 5, 1994, Krishnaiah, DM of Gopalganj, who hailed from a Dalit community in Andhra Pradesh (now, Telangana), was returning from Hajipur in the Vaishali district after attending a programme. He was returning in an Ambassador car bearing the number BHQ-777 along with his bodyguard T.M. Hembram and driver Deepak Kumar.

His car was accosted by a crowd which was heading towards Vaishali. Anand Mohan Singh, his wife Lovely Anand and other leaders were part of the crowd. The crowd was carrying the body of  Chhotan Shukla who was murdered by an alleged rival group of Anand Mohan.

Chhotan Shukla was the leader of the Bihar People’s Party (BPP) (now defunct) which was founded by Anand Mohan Singh.

Anand Mohan had addressed the crowd at Bhagwanpur Chowk, according to the police witnesses, where he vowed to take revenge for the murder, saying that if the government stopped them, it would be taught a lesson. The procession reached Khabra village where Krishnaiah’s car was crossing the crowd when he was attacked by bricks. The white-coloured Ambassador overturned. Police witnesses during the trial said that they heard the call of ‘Maro Maro (Kill)’ and when they went to the place where the voice was coming from, they found it was Anand Mohan.

Mohan Rajak, the informant of the case and the then deputy superintendent of police (east) of Muzaffarpur, had told the court that he saw Anand Mohan, Lovely Anand and others repeatedly asking one Bhutkun Shukla to kill the person as he was DM and belonged to the administration.

Twenty-four-year-old Bhutkun had fired three bullets at DM and disappeared. Police recovered Krishnaiah in an unconscious state and took him to the hospital where he was declared dead.

Police in its FIR had named 36 accused, including Anand Mohan and lovely Anand. About 25 witnesses testified including police officials, DM’s driver and a security guard.

On October 1, 2007, additional sessions judge found seven accused guilty. Three of them Anand Mohan, Pro. Arun Kumar Singh and Akhlaq Ahmed were sentenced to death whereas Lovely Anand, Vijay Shukla, Shashi Shekhar Thakur and Harendra Prasad were awarded life imprisonment.

Anand Mohan and others later moved the Patna high court. The court in 2008 converted the death penalty of Anand Mohan into life imprisonment, and six others were acquitted of all the charges.

Will Rajputs turn to Nitish?

The release of Anand Mohan just a year before the general election 2024 seems to be a political move but now the question is will this help Nitish Kumar to attract Rajput votes?

The sizeable Rajput population, especially of Saharsa, admires Anand Mohan and believes that he was made a scapegoat. Ajay Singh, a local Rajput of Panchagachiya village, the village Anand Mohan belongs to, says, “Woh (Anand Mohan) to bheed mein the hi nahi. Unko doosri jagah se pakda gaya tha aur fansa diya gaya (He was not part of the crowd. He was arrested from other place and was framed).” “Wo bhala DM ko kyun marenge (why will he kill a DM),” he asks.

He told The Wire, “People from across the castes are happy as Anand Mohanji has been released from jail. They admire him.”

Ajay Singh further says, “He worked for the people of all castes so people will unanimously vote for the candidate whom Anand Mohan will support.”

Rajputs constitute about 6% in Bihar, and their influence among backward communities is huge. That is why no political party is openly opposing his release. Even the main opposition party BJP is questioning the amendment in prison law but is not opposing Anand Mohan’s remission.

Rajiv Pratap Rudy, a Rajput leader of the BJP, has welcomed the Nitish government’s move. Another BJP leader Giriraj Singh said that he has no objection to Anand Mohan’s release. He also said, “Poor Anand Mohan was just a scapegoat for JDU.” BJP leader and central minister Ashwini Choubey too has welcomed this decision.

According to the analysis of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), in the Bihar assembly election 2020, the grand alliance or Mahagathbandhan got just 9% of Rajput votes whereas 55% of Rajputs voted for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

It is believed that with the Lok Sabha election just a year away, Nitish is trying to woo Rajput votes. “Nitish Kumar is working on making his vote bank strong and in that case, the Rajput vote will help him as this caste has a huge influence on other backward communities,” says Chandan, a journalist and political analyst.

BJP is now using the Anand Mohan case to paint the image of Mahagathbandhan as anti-Dalit given that G. Krishnaiah was a Dalit. So, Nitish’s move may be risky.

Chandan says, “Dalits are divided. Almost all the Dalits have their own leaders from their own caste. So, Nitish Kumar believes it will not have much impact on Dalit voters.”

Many believe Anand Mohan has not that much impact that he can turn things around.

Dipak Misra, a Patna-based journalist, says, “Anand Mohan, Pappu Yadav like bahubalis had influence during the 1990s when Mandal movement was at its peak. He has been in jail for a long time. So, it is difficult to say if he still has so much influence in his caste.”

“Another thing is that the older generation of Rajputs may side with Anand Mohan as he had been protecting them from otherBahubalis but the younger generation doesn’t know about it so they may not go with him,” he told The Wire.

Others also feel that Nitish’s move may backfire.

“Earlier a part of Rajput voters were socialist and that is why you can see Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, Jagadanand Singh and other big Rajput leaders in RJD. But, now they are inclined towards BJP. So, it is unlikely that Anand Mohan’s remission will help JDU and RJD electorally,” political analyst Mahendra Suman told The Wire.

“On the other hand, it will set a bad example and people will question why the Nitish government tweaked the law just to release Bahubali,” he says.

“Such moves will only give BJP a golden opportunity to sharpen its attack on the government, and since the BJP has now occupied the whole space of opposition in the BJP, the larger beneficiary will be the saffron party,” he added.

Ghosts of the Partisans Amongst the Transformed World of Post-War Italy

A translation of Pier Paolo Passolini’s poem ‘Victory’.

April 25 is the commemorative day for the final liberation of Italy from fascist rule. It is the occasion for memorials of various stripes. On the left, it is the Partisans who stand at the heart of collective memory.

In Italy as elsewhere in Europe, the Communist and Socialist parties were the main forces in the resistance. Their memorial day carried a powerful memory of the sacrifices made by those who fought, moment of liberation and the possibilities that seemed open then. But, as the years passed, European society was marked not so much simply by Cold War restoration as by a whirlwind of neocapitalist transformation. With spectacular economic growth, urbanisation, motorisation and the birth of consumer society, a social and economic revolution had arrived. But, not the one that was imagined in 1945. The commemoration of the liberation and the radical and revolutionary tradition thus took on an increasingly ambiguous and bittersweet aspect.

No one reflected on this transition more urgently than the polymath, poet, filmmaker, activist, critic Pier Paolo Pasolini.

On April 25, 1945, Pasolini was 23. He had been, as he described himself, a partisan without arms. His brother who had joined the liberal-socialist partisans associated with the Party of Action, was killed in an ambush by Communist-aligned partisans. Piero Paolo Pasolini himself went on to join the Communist Party but was expelled. The party was scandalised by his open homosexuality and left Pasolini to face relentless legal persecution.

The collection of poems that earned Pasolini fame in 1957 was, not for nothing, entitled, Gramsci’s Ashes.

For Gramsci’s Ashes and much more, I highly recommend The Selected Poetry of Pier Paolo Pasolini with a truly marvellous introduction by Stephen Sartarelli which merits a long essay all of its own. As he makes clear, Pasolini sought to weave the very forces of history and history’s disintegration into his poetry. Pasolini’s struggle was to “remain ‘equal to a present reality [attualità] that one does not possess ideologically.’” A struggle made all the more difficult by the fact that history itself was disintegrating and taking on new forms in the face of the onslaught of neo-capitalism.

In the poem Victory, written on April 25 1964, Pasolini reflects in a haunting fashion on the appearance of the ghosts of the Partisans amongst the transformed world of “postwar” Italy.

The poem is available in translation, online at the ZNetwork website.

VICTORY

by Pier Paolo Pasolini

translated by Norman MacAfee with Luciano Martinengo

Where are the weapons?
I have only those of my reason
and in my violence there is no place

for even the trace of an act that is not
intellectual. Is it laughable
if, suggested by my dream on this

gray morning, which the dead can see
and other dead too will see but for us
is just another morning,

I scream words of struggle?
Who knows what will become of me
at noon, but the old poet is “ab joy”

who speaks like a lark or a starling or
a young man longing to die.
Where are the weapons? The old days

will not return, I know; the red
Aprils of youth are gone.
Only a dream, of joy, can open

a season of armed pain.
I who was an unarmed Partisan,
mystical, beardless, nameless,

now I sense in life the horribly
perfumed seed of the Resistance.
In the morning the leaves are still

as they once were on the Tagliamento
and Livenza — it is not a storm coming
or the night falling. It is the absence

of life, contemplating itself,
distanced from itself, intent on
understanding those terrible yet serene

forces that still fill it — aroma of April!
an armed youth for each blade of grass,
each a volunteer longing to die.
. . . . . . . . .

Good. I wake up and — for the first time
in my life I want to take up arms.
Absurd to say it in poetry

— and to four friends from Rome, two from Parma
who will understand me in this nostalgia
ideally translated from the German, in this archeological

calm, which contemplates a sunny, depopulated
Italy, home of barbaric Partisans who descend
the Alps and Apennines, down the ancient roads. . .

My fury comes only at the dawn.
At noon I will be with my countrymen
at work, at meals, at reality, which raises

the flag, white today, of General Destinies.
And you, communists, my comrades/noncomrades,
shadows of comrades, estranged first cousins

lost in the present as well as the distant,
unimagined days of the future, you, nameless
fathers who have heard calls that

I thought were like mine, which
burn now like fires abandoned
on cold plains, along sleeping

rivers, on bomb-quarried mountains. . . .
. . . . . . . . .

I take upon myself all the blame (my old
vocation, unconfessed, easy work)
for our desperate weakness,

because of which millions of us,
all with a life in common, could not
persist to the end. It is over,

let us sing along, tralala: They are falling,
fewer and fewer, the last leaves of
the War and the martyred victory,

destroyed little by little by what
would become reality,
not only dear Reaction but also the birth of

beautiful social-democracy, tralala.

I take (with pleasure) on myself the guilt
for having left everything as it was:
for the defeat, for the distrust, for the dirty

hopes of the Bitter Years, tralla.
And I will take upon myself the tormenting
pain of the darkest nostalgia,

which summons up regretted things
with such truth as to almost
resurrect them or reconstruct the shattered

conditions that made them necessary (trallallallalla). . . .
. . . . . . . . .

Where have the weapons gone, peaceful
productive Italy, you who have no importance in the world?
In this servile tranquility, which justifies

yesterday’s boom, today’s bust — from the sublime
to the ridiculous and in the most perfect solitude,
j’accuse! Not, calm down, the Government or the Latifundia

or the Monopolies — but rather their high priests,
Italy’s intellectuals, all of them,
even those who rightly call themselves

my good friends. These must have been the worst
years of their lives: for having accepted
a reality that did not exist. The result

of this conniving, of this embezzling of ideals,
is that the real reality now has no poets.
(I? I am desiccated, obsolete.)

Now that Togliatti has exited amid
the echoes from the last bloody strikes,
old, in the company of the prophets,

who, alas, were right — I dream of weapons
hidden in the mud, the elegiac mud
where children play and old fathers toil —

while from the gravestones melancholy falls,
the lists of names crack,
the doors of the tombs explode,

and the young corpses in the overcoats
they wore in those years, the loose-fitting
trousers, the military cap on their Partisan’s

hair, descend, along the walls
where the markets stand, down the paths
that join the town’s vegetable gardens

to the hillsides. They descend from their graves, young men
whose eyes hold something other than love:
a secret madness, of men who fight

as though called by a destiny different from their own.
With that secret that is no longer a secret,
they descend, silent, in the dawning sun,

and, though so close to death, theirs is the happy tread
of those who will journey far in the world.
But they are the inhabitants of the mountains, of the wild

shores of the Po, of the remotest places
on the coldest plains. What are they doing here?
They have come back, and no one can stop them. They do not hide

their weapons, which they hold without grief or joy,
and no one looks at them, as though blinded by shame
at that obscene flashing of guns, at that tread of vultures

which descend to their obscure duty in the sunlight.
. . . . . . . . .

Who has the courage to tell them
that the ideal secretly burning in their eyes
is finished, belongs to another time, that the children

of their brothers have not fought for years,
and that a cruelly new history has produced
other ideals, quietly corrupting them?. . .

Rough like poor barbarians, they will touch
the new things that in these two decades human
cruelty has procured, things incapable of moving

those who seek justice. . . .

But let us celebrate, let us open the bottles
of the good wine of the Cooperative. . . .
To always new victories, and new Bastilles!

Rafosco, Bacò. . . . Long life!
To your health, old friend! Strength, comrade!
And best wishes to the beautiful party!

From beyond the vineyards, from beyond the farm ponds
comes the sun: from the empty graves,
from the white gravestones, from that distant time.

But now that they are here, violent, absurd,
with the strange voices of emigrants,
hanged from lampposts, strangled by garrotes,

who will lead them in the new struggle?
Togliatti himself is finally old,
as he wanted to be all his life,

and he holds alarmed in his breast,
like a pope, all the love we have for him,
though stunted by epic affection,

loyalty that accepts even the most inhuman
fruit of a scorched lucidity, tenacious as a scabie.
“All politics is Realpolitik,” warring

soul, with your delicate anger!
You do not recognize a soul other than this one
which has all the prose of the clever man,

of the revolutionary devoted to the honest
common man (even the complicity
with the assassins of the Bitter Years grafted

onto protector classicism, which makes
the communist respectable): you do not recognize the heart
that becomes slave to its enemy, and goes

where the enemy goes, led by a history
that is the history of both, and makes them, deep down,
perversely, brothers; you do not recognize the fears

of a consciousness that, by struggling with the world,
shares the rules of the struggle over the centuries,
as through a pessimism into which hopes

drown to become more virile. Joyous
with a joy that knows no hidden agenda,
this army — blind in the blind

sunlight — of dead young men comes
and waits. If their father, their leader, absorbed
in a mysterious debate with Power and bound

by its dialectics, which history renews ceaselessly —
if he abandons them,
in the white mountains, on the serene plains,

little by little in the barbaric breasts
of the sons, hate becomes love of hate,
burning only in them, the few, the chosen.

Ah, Desperation that knows no laws!
Ah, Anarchy, free love
of Holiness, with your valiant songs!
. . . . . . . . .

I take also upon myself the guilt for trying
betraying, for struggling surrendering,
for accepting the good as the lesser evil,

symmetrical antinomies that I hold
in my fist like old habits. . . .
All the problems of man, with their awful statements

of ambiguity (the knot of solitudes
of the ego that feels itself dying
and does not want to come before God naked):

all this I take upon myself, so that I can understand,
from the inside, the fruit of this ambiguity:
a beloved man, in this uncalculated

April, from whom a thousand youths
fallen from the world beyond await, trusting, a sign
that has the force of a faith without pity,

to consecrate their humble rage.
Pining away within Nenni is the uncertainty
with which he re-entered the game, and the skillful

coherence, the accepted greatness,
with which he renounced epic affection,
though his soul could claim title

to it: and, exiting a Brechtian stage
into the shadows of the backstage,
where he learns new words for reality, the uncertain

hero breaks at great cost to himself the chain
that bound him, like an old idol, to the people,
giving a new grief to his old age.

The young Cervis, my brother Guido,
the young men of Reggio killed in 1960,
with their chaste and strong and faithful

eyes, source of the holy light,
look to him, and await his old words.
But, a hero by now divided, he lacks

by now a voice that touches the heart:
he appeals to the reason that is not reason,
to the sad sister of reason, which wants

to understand the reality within reality, with a passion
that refuses any extremism, any temerity.
What to say to them? That reality has a new tension,

which is what it is, and by now one has
no other course than to accept it. . . .
That the revolution becomes a desert

if it is always without victory. . . that it may not be
too late for those who want to win, but not with the violence
of the old, desperate weapons. . . .

That one must sacrifice coherence
to the incoherence of life, attempt a creator
dialogue, even if that goes against our conscience.

That the reality of even this small, stingy
State is greater than us, is always an awesome thing:
and one must be part of it, however bitter that is. . . .

But how do you expect them to be reasonable,
this band of anxious men who left — as
the songs say — home, bride,

life itself, specifically in the name of Reason?
. . . . . . . . .

But there may be a part of Nenni’s soul that wants
to say to these comrades — come from the world beyond,
in military clothes, with holes in the soles

of their bourgeois shoes, and their youth
innocently thirsting for blood —
to shout: “Where are the weapons? Come on, let’s

go, get them, in the haystacks, in the earth,
don’t you see that nothing has changed?
Those who were weeping still weep.

Those of you who have pure and innocent hearts,
go and speak in the middle of the slums,
in the housing projects of the poor,

who behind their walls and their alleys
hide the shameful plague, the passivity of those
who know they are cut off from the days of the future.

Those of you who have a heart
devoted to accursed lucidity,
go into the factories and schools

to remind the people that nothing in these years has
changed the quality of knowing, eternal pretext,
sweet and useless form of Power, never of truth.

Those of you who obey an honest
old imperative of religion
go among the children who grow

with hearts empty of real passion,
to remind them that the new evil
is still and always the division of the world. Finally,

those of you to whom a sad accident of birth
in families without hope gave the thick shoulders, the curly
hair of the criminal, dark cheekbones, eyes without pity —

go, to start with, to the Crespis, to the Agnellis,
to the Vallettas, to the potentates of the companies
that brought Europe to the shores of the Po:

and for each of them comes the hour that has no
equal to what they have and what they hate.
Those who have stolen from the common good

precious capital and whom no law can
punish, well, then, go and tie them up with the rope
of massacres. At the end of the Piazzale Loreto

there are still, repainted, a few
gas pumps, red in the quiet
sunlight of the springtime that returns

with its destiny: It is time to make it again a burial ground!”
. . . . . . . . .

They are leaving . . . Help! They are turning away,
their backs beneath the heroic coats
of beggars and deserters. . . . How serene are

the mountains they return to, so lightly
the submachine guns tap their hips, to the tread
of the sun setting on the intact

forms of life, which has become what it was before
to its very depths. Help, they are going away! — back to their
silent worlds in Marzabotto or Via Tasso. . . .

With the broken head, our head, humble
treasure of the family, big head of the second-born,
my brother resumes his bloody sleep, alone

among the dried leaves, in the serene
retreats of a wood in the pre-Alps, lost in
the golden peace of an interminable Sunday. . . .
. . . . . . . . .

And yet, this is a day of victory.

1964

Translation copyright © 1982, 2005 by Norman MacAfee
Copyright © 1964 by Aldo Garzanti Editore

This article was originally published on Adam Tooze’s blog.

Why Active Non-Alignment Should Be the Basis of Latin America’s Modern Foreign Policy

In the book, ‘Latin American Foreign Policies in the New World Order’ contributors say these countries should attempt to steer their foreign policies away from decisions and actions that are not determined by national interest.

Latin America, a region that has been on the margins of major geopolitical developments, occupies little space in Indian consciousness. Every now and then, however, it resurges to offer us important insights and ideas. In the book Latin American Foreign Policies in the New World OrderCarlos Fortin, Jorge Heine and Carlos Ominami have compiled learned contributions from eminent Latin American personalities to give us this well-researched, reviewed and redacted compendium on the central theme of active non-alignment (ANA).

The concept of non-alignment dates back to the 1950s but is nuanced in this compilation. As the editors (and contributors) explain, ANA implies but does not necessarily advocate, equidistance or neutrality from the major global powers, principally the US and China. It is an attempt at steering foreign policy away from decisions and actions that are not determined by the national interest of the nations which exercise it. The only Latin American country to participate in the first summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961 was Cuba. Today, 26 of the 33 nations in Latin America and the Caribbean are members. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico have observer status. Several important global Latin American initiatives have coincided with those of the NAM, such as the New International Economic Order championed by Argentina’s Raul Prebisch, or echoed the Third Position of Argentina’s President Juan Domingo Peron “discarding capitalist and totalitarian extremes”. 

Latin American Foreign Policies in the New World Order
Edited by Carlos Fortin, Jorge Heine and Carlos Ominami
Anthem Press (February 2023)

The region has been under the shadow of the US and Europe, with exceptions in the recent past: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and others in shorter or longer phases of defiance, aided and abetted by the USSR and later Russia. The emergence of China as a global power, and its massive engagement with the region in the last 30 years has given momentum to opinions among Latin American diplomats, politicians and analysts that the interests of those nations – primarily economic, but also political – necessitate more caution, even self-interest in the assessment of their engagements with either side.

The “affirmation of Latin American identity…a community with a shared history, a mestizo past” is juxtaposed with its historic limitations: lack of regional cohesion; inability to sustain vibrant institutions; vulnerability to global crises (COVID-19 counted 30% of global deaths in a region with 8% of the global population); and limited international clout. These debilities may be responsible for “current acquiescence to the US and future subjugation to China” The contributors are incisive about the region’s stagnant share in world trade at 5%, and the predominance of primary product exports; and the low score of 4.3% for Brazil, Mexico and Argentina in the Materials Capability Index of hard power, while the US stands at 20, China at 18 and India at 5.7%.

Though the Monroe Doctrine – an arrogant declaration of US quasi-suzerainty over the region in 1823 – no longer holds, US influence is considerable. Here Tussie’s analysis is piercing. After World War II, the superpower created multilateral and regional organisations and alliances to enable it to dominate international relations. The end of the Cold War provided steroids to its ambitions. The rise of China and its growing influence has exposed several multilateral organisations to power politics even as Big Brother has ceded its primacy in terms of economic engagement with Latin America. In this post-hegemonic world Latin America seeks its rightful place. This is evident in its refusal to toe the NATO line on the war in Ukraine. Even countries not “aligned” with the Eurasian power (Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia) have refused to abide by sanctions against Russia, nor will they supply arms to Ukraine.

The “dispute for hegemony in the globalized world” between the US and China which Heine describes as “not between different systems but between two types of capitalism”, takes centre stage. The decline of the liberal international order coincides with the rise of China, indeed of all Asia. This calls, to some extent at least, for a more agnostic ideological stance in foreign policy. Unlike the US, China has no ostensible military presence in Latin America, though it has established strategic partnerships with several countries, especially Brazil and Argentina. 21 Latin American nations have signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative, which through extensive funding, project expertise and execution, enables them to assert a greater degree of economic autonomy.

Castaneda disaggregates the north (Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean) from South America, the former more susceptible to US influence. Nevertheless, recent governments in the north have asserted themselves by terminating diplomatic relations with Taiwan in favour of China (Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, Dominican Republic). South American governments withstood US pressure over a Free Trade Area of the Americas in 2005 but could not keep the momentum set by the UNASUR or most other regional organisations, weakening its international bargaining power. Rosales points out how vulnerable the region is to trade wars initiated by the Trump presidency against China. Amorim puts the challenge succinctly: “…how to manoeuvre…without taking sides and making strategic use of the best each superpower has to offer.”

The editors summarise the doctrine aptly in their closing chapter, describing ANA as a foreign policy doctrine that adapts Afro-Asian-Latin American solidarity “to the realities of …a century in which the old Third World has been replaced by a New South… An uncompromising commitment to the principle of non-alignment is decisive for this.” This is a seminal work which articulates the basis of much of the region’s modern foreign policy. It is as timely as it is relevant.

Deepak Bhojwani is a retired diplomat and former Consul General of India in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

As SC Recalls an Order on Anti-Dumping Duty, Questions of Impropriety Loom Large

On April 24, a division bench of the Supreme Court recalled an order issued by another division bench on April 13, directing the Union government to impose a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of Low Density Polyethylene. 

On April 24, a Supreme Court division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh recalled an interim order, which had been issued by another bench of the court comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, directing the Union government to impose a provisional anti-dumping duty (ADD) on imports of Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE). Observers say that it is unusual that a recall application is listed before a bench whose composition is completely different from the bench which had first issued the interim order in the case, and the new bench – also of the same strength as the previous one – recalling the order at the end of the preliminary hearing. 

On April 15, The  Wire broke the story of the Supreme Court’s bench of Justices Murari and Karol granting an interim order on April 13 directing the Union government to impose a provisional ADD on imports of LDPE from foreign countries. The bench had issued the order recording the additional solicitor general Vikramjit Banerjee’s vehement opposition to it. 

The petitioner, the Chemical and Petrochemical Manufacturer Association (CPMA), sought the order in view of the Union government’s failure to impose ADD despite the final determination of significant dumping and consequent material injury to the Indian industry by the Designated Authority of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) of the Department of Commerce of the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry last year. The bench had also taken note of the fact that interim orders granted by various high courts in such matters directing provisional assessment had not been implemented by the government – despite the apex court’s confirmation of such orders by dismissing the government’s challenge. 

The Murari-Karol bench, therefore, directed the imposition of ADD under Section 9A(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the rate determined by the DGTR in its Final Finding, issued through a gazette notification on March 31, 2022. The bench made it clear that the levy of such ADD shall be subject to final adjudication in these proceedings. 

Impropriety?

Following the April 13 interim order, the Union of India acted swiftly and filed a recall application on  April 20, and the matter was listed on April 24, not before the same bench, but before another bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M.Sundresh. This has surprised observers, according to whom, it is against established convention in the court, as a part-heard matter cannot be taken away from one bench and assigned to another, without any valid reason, even if it is done with the consent of the Chief Justice of India, (CJI) who is the master of the roster. According to observers, the recall application ought to have been listed before the same bench.

Observers say that even if there is a valid reason for reassigning the case to another bench, it should have been done in a transparent manner, with the Murari-Karol bench recusing to hear the matter first, so that it could be placed before the CJI for his administrative decision as the master of the roster, for listing it before another bench. The failure to follow this time-tested procedure in this matter is considered a grave impropriety. 

One of the law officers of the Union Government involved in the case, however, told this writer: “The relevant internal procedure has been followed. This much I can say. Let the judgment come, then I will speak.”

LDPE plastic bags. Representative image. Photo:Cjp24/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0

Contents of recall application

In its recall application, a copy of which is available with The Wire, the Union fovernment has contended that the CPMA’s writ petition was listed for admission hearing on April 13 before Court No.12, presided by Justice Krishna Murari, as item 27. “No prior notice was given to the Respondent and therefore, when the matter was called, the Respondent could not be present.  However, on the direction of this Hon’ble Court, the matter was presented by one of the Ld. ASG and prayed for time as he had to read the papers and also needed to take instructions,” the application reads. However, the bench of Justices Murari and Karol proceeded to pass the interim order, despite the concerns expressed by the Union Government, it says. 

The Union government has also submitted in the recall application that vital aspects on facts, provisions of law and the constitutional scheme – including the Basic Structure Doctrine of Separation of Powers – had not been brought to the notice of the court in this matter. 

The Union government has submitted that the April 13 interim order runs contrary to several judgments of the Supreme Court and none of the judgments were either cited by the petitioners in their writ petition or was the previous bench assisted with these judgments by them during the hearing on that day. 

In particular, the Union government has made the following fresh submissions in its recall application: 

  1. On May 11, 2000, the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd vs Union of India, in which it was held that the order of the Designated Authority is purely recommendatory. The appeal lies against the determination, which could be made by the Central Government only. The Supreme  Court had declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions in this case. 
  2. In Ground F of the writ petition, the petitioners have cited the decision of the apex court in Reliance Industries vs Designated Authority (2006) to project that the act of issuing the notification under Section 9A of the  Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is quasi-judicial and not legislative.  This is nothing short of a misrepresentation, as the same decision had been referred by another bench for reconsideration by a larger bench in 2009. This reference, the government claimed, was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the petitioners. 
  3. In Union of India vs Meghmani Organics, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court reconsidered the previous decision in Reliance Industries and held that only proceedings before the Designated Authority are quasi-judicial. In this case, the Supreme Court had held that the Union government “appears to have a discretion” in the matter of determining the quantum of provisional duty as well as final duty but a clear limitation that ADD cannot exceed the margin of dumping as determined by the DA. 
  4. On September 1, 2020, a larger bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three Judges, rendered the judgment in Designated Authority vs The M/s Andhra Petrochemicals Limited in which it was held as follows: “The DA, no doubt, follows a prescribed quasi-judicial procedure where a determination on whether to impose or not to impose anti-dumping duty takes place (through a report).  However, this proceeding culminates with a recommendation; the Central Government finally decides whether to impose such a duty, the extent of such duty, and its dudration…Also, the power to levy duty is discretionary,… which leaves it to the Central Government to levy ADD…”

The recall application claimed that not bringing to the attention of the Supreme Court, all the above decisions including those favourable to it as rendered by various high courts, has resulted in the passing of the interim order on April 13. 

The recall application also has provided a short summary of the effects and consequences of the April 13 interim order as follows: 

  1. The finance minister’s policy decision not to give effect to the recommendation of the Designated Authority dated March 31, 2022, and thereby not to impose either provisional or final ADD, has not been impugned, challenged or questioned before the Supreme Court. The April 13 interim order, therefore, runs contrary to the decision taken by the Union government creating a complete hiatus between the executive branch and the judicial branch of the Constitution. 
  2. It is a well-settled legal position that a Writ of Mandamus would not lie either against the Parliament or against the Union government either to legislate a law or issue a notification.  A Mandamus would issue only when there is a duty to be performed by an authority, and there has been a failure or a dereliction in compliance of the said duty imposed by law. When the final relief is not one which can be granted by the Supreme Court, it is unprecedented that the petitioners have persuaded the court to grant an interim relief by way of imposing a provisional duty which requires both the Union government to issue a notification and both Houses of Parliament to approve the same. 
  3. The April 13 order requires an issuance of a notification and placing the same before both Houses of Parliament, and this has created a hiatus not only between the executive and the judicial branches but also the legislative branch. 
  4. Issuance of notification is a legislative power delegated to the Union government. It does not precede seeking any public opinion or a public hearing. The Union government, as part of political governance, makes policy choices based on the needs and circumstances including public interest and issues notifications from time to time. Issuance of a notification is a matter of legislative exercise of discretion.
  5. It is a solemn mandate through Article 265 of the constitution that there shall be no levy and collection of taxes without the authority of law. The expression ‘law’ under the constitution has been interpreted repeatedly to mean a law through a legislation or delegated legislation. Neither Executive instructions nor judicial orders can create either a charging section or exemption from the charge. The authority to levy and collect taxes should be through the process of law and not through judicial orders. 
  6. Constitutional architecture makes a clear distinction between the quasi-judicial and judicial exercise of power vis-a-vis the exercise of legislative/delegated legislative power. This is foundational and constitutes a Basic Structure Doctrine under Article 50 of the constitution through the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. 

Interestingly, the recall application has not made a specific request to list it before another bench of the Supreme Court, although it was listed before the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sundresh – apparently with the consent of CJI D.Y.Chandrachud – in the cause list for April 24 as item no. 38.  Both on April 13 and 24, the petitioner was represented by senior advocate, Mukul Rohatgi, while N. Venkatraman, ASG, apart from Vikramjit Banerjee, represented the Union government on April 24. 

Incidentally, Justice Murari retires on July 8, and even if he retires before hearing and deciding this case finally, the matter ought to have been placed before a bench in which Justice Karol, the second judge on the bench, presided by him, is a member, according to the convention in the Supreme Court.  The failure to follow this convention in listing the case before another bench – whose composition is completely different from the earlier bench – is considered an impropriety of sorts in legal circles.  Ironically, the Office Report of the case for April 24, released on April 21, is also silent on the change of bench hearing the case. 

‘Inordinate Delay in Passing an Order on Liberty Not in Tune With Constitutional Mandate’: SC

The apex court made this observation while expressing its displeasure over the Bombay HC having taken one month and one week to reject the bail application of an accused.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, earlier this week, said that it believed that inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to the liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate of courts.

The apex court’s three-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavi, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, on Thursday, April 27, made absolute its interim protection from arrest, granted to an accused on March 24, for an alleged offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  

In the case, Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal & ANR vs The State of Maharashtra & ANR, the bench had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to the petitioner considering three factors. 

These were: 

(i) That it was a cross case arising out of civil dispute;

(ii) Prima facie, there was no material to show that the provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were invoked; and

(iii) That the incident was alleged to have taken place on February 17, 2022, and the FIR was lodged on February 23, 2022, and as such there was a delay of six days in lodging the FIR. 

The bench prima facie found that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation would not be necessary for the offences alleged with.

The bench also noted that the single judge of the Bombay high court’s Aurangabad bench, comprising Justice Kishore C. Sant, had on March 1, rejected the appellant’s bail application. 

The bench, citing the apex court’s previous ruling in Niranjan Singh and Another v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others (1980), held that detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant or rejection of bail or anticipatory bail.  

“We don’t appreciate such a lengthy elaboration of evidence at this stage,” the bench added in its order on Thursday. 

The bench also mentioned that though the order was reserved on January 25, the single judge of the high court pronounced the order on March 1, i.e., after a period of one month and one week.  

The bench observed in Paragraph 8 of the order thus: 

“It is always said that in the matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly. In our view, such an inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate”. 

Therefore, the bench reasoned that it was inclined to allow the petition of the appellant for making the interim bail absolute. The bench, however, added that the petitioner should cooperate with the investigation and report to the Investigation Officer, as and when directed. 

Also read: Despite SC Raps, Lower Courts Continue to Set Bail Pre-Conditions Amounting to Crores

Background

In this case, the complainant alleged that the two appellants, whose labourers were excavating his field, abused him in the name of caste.

After the crime was registered, the appellants approached the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, by filing the application for pre-arrest bail. The Special Judge under the SC & ST (POA), Act, Aurangabad, on February 28, 2022, rejected the application. The judge observed that a clear case was made out against the accused by considering Section 18 of the Act and various judgments of the apex court and the Bombay high court. 

In his judgment, Justice Sant observed that cases of atrocities are required to be taken seriously. Citing the Supreme Court’s verdict in Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India and others (2020), he held that when prima facie case is made out under the Act, the bar under Section 18 would clearly come into play and no application for anticipatory bail could be entertained. 

Justice Sant also noted that the offence had allegedly happened in the presence of others, and not in closed premises, thus inviting the application of the rigours of the law. Regarding the claim of previous complaints between the parties, Justice Sant noted that the alleged complaint by the appellants was made only on the date on which the FIR came to be registered. Thus he did not accept the contention of the appellants that it was the informant who was not ready to complete the earlier transaction which led to a dispute between them. 

Rajya Sabha Chairman Summons John Brittas Over Newspaper Article Critical of Amit Shah

The MP from Kerala, in his article, alleged that the Union home minister had ‘belittled’ Kerala during a speech made in the poll-bound state of Karnataka.

New Delhi: Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankar, summoned John Brittas, CPI (M) MP, seeking an explanation on a newspaper article in which the latter made critical remarks about Union home minister, Amit Shah.

According to The Telegraph, Brittas was initially served a notice from the Rajya Sabha secretariat and was asked to appear before Dhankar. Brittas said when he had met Dhankar and briefed him “orally” on the issue, he was asked to give his explanation in writing instead.

On February 20, Brittas’ article titled ‘Perils of Propaganda’ had appeared in Indian Express. Brittas slammed Shah for saying that only the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) can keep Karnataka safe, urging voters to choose his party over Congress in the poll-bound state. Referring to this, Brittas had written:

“Recently Shah’s insinuation about Kerala during a tour of Karnataka has attracted a lot of attention. He said, somewhat cryptically, that ‘only his party could keep Karnataka safe and (that) there is Kerala near you. I don’t want to say much’. This is not the first time that he has made such innuendos against a state whose people have steadfastly rejected his majoritarian politics. Nor is he the only senior leader from the BJP to trash the most literate state in this country.”

Taking objection to this article and the views expressed by Brittas, the general secretary of BJP Kerala unit, P. Sudheer, wrote to the Rajya Sabha secretariat and Dhankar seeking action against him. Sudheer said Brittas’ article amounted to be “seditious conduct”.

The CPI (M) MP said he was “shocked and baffled” that the Rajya Sabha chairman summoned him for a newspaper article. “I am aghast that the ruling party files a complaint to the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Chairman calls me formally for a meeting to discuss the complaint from the ruling party,” Brittas told Telegraph.

“I sufficiently briefed the Hon’ble Chairman about this. But I was shocked at the entire process of a ruling party functionary filing such a complaint and the Rajya Sabha secretariat and Chairman taking cognisance of that. This entire process has absolutely shocked and baffled me,” he added.

Speaking about the meeting, Brittas said it was a “cordial discussion”. “I was called for a meeting with the Chairman (Dhankhar) and he sought my views. It was a cordial discussion and I got a chance to explain my stand, and I think he appreciated it,” the MP told Indian Express.

He hoped that the chairman would give a “befitting response” to the complainant. “The very nature of the complaint has to be condemned. I hope that the Chairman, who is the custodian of the rights of Rajya Sabha members, will give a befitting response. I am sure our Chairman, who has a sound knowledge about the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, will defend my rights,” Brittas said, according to the IE report.

Brittas said he stands by what he had written in the article. “I was (in the article) just responding to the charges made by the home minister. There is nothing wrong in it and it was published by a very reputable newspaper. It was on the premise of my basic right of freedom of speech and expression,” the Telegraph report quoted him as saying.

Brittas was, in fact, referring to a speech made in Mangaluru by Shah in February. Shah had criticised the “appeasement policies” of the Congress and said it cannot “protect” Karnataka. He added: “There is Kerala in your neighbourhood. I do not wish to speak more. Only the BJP under the leadership of Modi can protect Karnataka.”

UK: Government Appointed Reviewer Flags Concerns About Sikh Extremism and Hindu Nationalism

The report describes how members of the British Sikh community expressed their growing concern over a small but extremely vocal group “hijacking” the Sikh faith to push a subversive pro-Khalistan narrative.

London: A major independent review, commissioned by the British government, says Sikh extremism and Hindu nationalism are on the rise in the UK and pose significant challenges to the country’s social cohesion.

The wide-ranging report was authored by an independent advisor, Colin Bloom, and commissioned by the Boris Johnson government in October 2019. It considered “how government can best celebrate the contribution of faith groups, while tackling harmful practices”. The report is based on 21,000 public responses and interviews with experts, politicians, academicians and officials.

Bloom advised that a better understanding of faith would equip the UK government to “tackle issues such as forced marriage, of which there are estimated to be thousands a year in the UK; radicalisation in prison; and faith-based extremism, including the ongoing challenge of Islamist extremism, and the small but growing trends of Sikh extremism and Hindu nationalism”.

In the chapter pertaining to faith-based extremism, the report deals extensively with Sikh and pro-Khalistan extremism. It also has a few observations about the rise of nationalist movements in the British Hindu diaspora.

“Despite the overwhelmingly positive contribution of Sikh communities to our society, the evidence gathering process for this review revealed some key areas of concern within small pockets of Sikh communities,” Bloom writes.

He said respondents were concerned about divisions between some British Sikh communities “which is caused by an extremist fringe ideology within the pro-Khalistan movement”. Bloom says that while “the promotion of Khalistan ideals is not itself subversive, but the subversive, aggressive and sectarian actions of some pro-Khalistan activists and the subsequent negative effect on wider Sikh communities should not be tolerated”.

The report describes how members of the British Sikh community expressed their growing concern over a small but extremely vocal group “hijacking” the Sikh faith to push a subversive pro-Khalistan narrative.

A “small, extremely vocal and aggressive minority of British Sikhs who can be described as pro-Khalistan extremists” is promoting an “ethno-nationalist agenda,” where some extremists are “known to support and incite violence and intimidation in their ambition to establish an independent state called Khalistan.” 

The review’s publication comes at a time when diplomatic tensions between UK and India run rampant and strong. Recently, New Delhi alleged that London had not done enough to curb the Khalistani movement in the UK. Earlier in March, the pro-Khalistani activists had taken down the Indian flag from the Indian High Commission building in London during a protest. 

In an April 13 phone conversation between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his UK counterpart Rishi Sunak, the former raised concerns about “anti-India elements” in the UK and urged for strong action to be taken against them. 

New Delhi has also expressed displeasure over the activities of certain groups, such as the Sikhs For Justice (SFJ), who have been trying to conduct a referendum on Khalistan in the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia. 

File photo. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi hold a bilateral meeting on November 16, 2022 in Nusa Dua, Indonesia. Photo: Twitter/@narendramodi

The report also said that the UK government “should clearly define and investigate extremist activity and identify where this exists within the Sikh community, taking steps to develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of subversive and sectarian Sikh extremists today.” 

The UK government should also “ensure that unacceptable and extremist behaviours are not inadvertently legitimised by government or parliamentary engagement.” In fact, it should include “reconsideration of previous decisions regarding the activity and legality of certain groups.” 

The report said, “By circumventing democratic order, some groups compete for power by masquerading as human rights activists, presenting a false appearance of legitimacy.” This “subversive way of working” has also been seen in Canada, and the UK government should have a “more comprehensive understanding of the tactics and methods some Sikh activists employ to divert public attention away from their subversive agenda”, it added. 

The review has urged the All Party Parliamentary Group for British Sikhs, chaired by Preet Kaur Gill, the UK’s first female Sikh MP, and with Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, the UK’s first turbaned Sikh MP, as its vice-chair, both of whom belong to the Labour Party, to ensure that organisations promoting extremist views are not able to exert undue influence in parliamentary affairs. 

The report says that after discussions with academics and political figures, there is ground to suspect that “there is at least overlap of membership between some Sikh groups operating in the UK and proscribed (or previously proscribed) groups”. Admitting this might be difficult to prove, Bloom recommends that the UK government should “steps to define and deal with the subversive and sectarian behaviour described in this chapter, which in the opinion of this reviewer should be viewed as harmful extremism, to ensure it cannot continue or be emulated by other faith-inspired ethno-nationalist groups”. 

According to the report, some groups have “sought to artificially inflate their influence and legitimise dubious positions or tactics by using the ‘Sikh’ label to lobby political bodies”. 

These subversive, sectarian and discriminatory activities do not reflect the true nature of the majority of British Sikh communities, who, for the most part, are the ones adversely affected by this behaviour, the report notes.

Bloom recommended that the UK government “should clearly define and investigate” extremist activity within the Sikh community, taking steps to “develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of subversive and sectarian Sikh extremist activity”.

‘Rising Hindu nationalism’

Among other forms of religious extremism, the report also categorically warns of nationalist movements within the British Hindu diaspora, which it says has become “more prevalent” in recent years. It states: “This can be seen in the sophisticated though ultimately small mobilisation of Hindu nationalist activists who reportedly targeted public figures and politicians they considered hostile to their agenda in the 2019 UK general election, and the recent tensions in Leicester.” 

The UK government should be aware of such developments and assess if they risk fracturing the stability of British Hindu communities, Bloom wrote.

“In contrast to earlier generations of British Hindus, it appears a small minority are now becoming more passionate about their identification with Hindu political interests in India,” adding that such misplaced nationalist movements might incite prejudicial views and destabilise British society.

The government should “be much more alive to the very small but growing phenomenon of extreme Hindu nationalism and Buddhist nationalism”, Bloom recommended.

Kalrav Joshi is an independent journalist based in London. He writes on politics, culture, climate and technology.