Why Modi and Hindutva Love Israeli Settler-Colonialism and See It as a Model for Kashmir

Aspects of discredited Israeli policies are being imitated in a country where one would have least expected it.

Nothing demonstrates the arrogance of Israeli settler colonialism more than the periodic killing, every few years, of hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza by its bombs and missiles.

Leading Israeli politicians and military leaders are fond of describing this brutal violence as “mowing the lawn”, as if Palestinian people are noxious weeds that need to be cut ever so often. “Mowing the lawn” is a nakedly political act meant to repress and suppress  the non-Jewish population of territories like Gaza or the West Bank that are under de facto Israeli control. 

“Israel has the right to defend itself,” says US President Joe Biden, who knows full well the profound asymmetry of military power between Israel and each and every one of its potential adversaries. The choice of words is clearly meant to justify brutal actions by Israel against Palestinians who live under occupation.

The trigger for the current conflict is widely acknowledged to be the threats of eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem. This was followed by the  Israeli police using tear gas and stun grenades on worshippers in the al Aqsa mosque on the holiest day of Ramadan. This provoked Hamas militants in Gaza to fire rockets into Israel, most of which were successfully countered by the Israeli “Iron Dome” system. Then came the aforementioned “lawn mowing”, i.e., the Israeli artillery and aerial assault on Gaza.

Israeli security forces on rooftops in front of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem’s Old City on May 10, 2021. Photo: Reuters/Ilan Rosenberg/File Photo

When the cease-fire took hold, 12 people had died inside Israel, two of whom were ironically Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel and one a domestic worker from Kerala. In contrast, the UN estimates that 270 died in Gaza, 68 of whom were children, many of whom were infants. This is deemed by Israel a ‘proportionate response’, viz. preserving an approximate ratio of 20-25 Palestinians killed for each Israeli life lost.

A 1955 United Nations map showing the Armistice Agreements, with original map reference points (MR) on the Palestine grid referenced in the respective agreements. Photo: Public domain/Wikipedia

Amira Hass, one of the most perceptive commentators on Israel-Palestine affairs, writes in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

“The lethal Israeli bombings of the residents of the narrow and sealed Gaza Strip may be presented in Israel as a “response,” but every Palestinian and also other sensible observers understand them as part of the century-long continuum in which one people takes over and expels, fragments, divides and crushes, while the other people refuses to give up its identity and homeland – so it is attacked time after time.” 

American support to Israel is usually couched in terms of the $3.8 billion military aid given every year. More insidious and hidden are the many hundreds of millions given in the US in tax-exempt donations to entities that use the funds to finance the growth of settler colonialism. 

“The settlement enclaves sprouting up across the area are supported by a constellation of corporations and nonprofits financed mainly through US tax-exempt donations, says Tanya Wintman. In the case of Sheikh Jarrah and other East Jerusalem neighbourhoods, one need only look at two such settler organizations, Nahalat Shimon and Ateret Cohanim…These tax subsidies and the activities they support – the ethnic cleansing and Judaization of East Jerusalem…subsidizes private provocateurs, settlement lobbies and multinational corporations sowing destruction in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

This relentless drive to create an Eretz (Greater) Israel with no defined boundaries finds its voice in the increasingly right-wing majoritarian Jewish Israeli population egged on by their political representatives. It is manifested in the Jewish mobs shouting “death to the Arabs” in mixed Jewish-Palestinian cities like Lod/Lydda.

The basic underlying cause is Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and its policy of apartheid not only in the areas conquered in 1967 but within Israel itself, west of the so-called Green Line.

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times of May 25, Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu emphasises, “We Palestinians living in Israel ‘sub-exist,’ living under a system of discrimination and racism with laws that enshrine our second-class status and with policies that ensure we are never equals. This is not by accident but by design.”

These facts have been acknowledged by international organisations such as Human Rights Watch and the courageous Israeli human rights groups B’Tselem.

While the settler-colonial regime in South Africa was forced by international pressure to dismantle the ugly features of apartheid two decades ago, Israel defiantly refuses to do so and its patrons in the West, notably the US, remain complicit in its adamant rejection of international law and morality.

Israel as a model for Modi

Most ironically, however, aspects of Israeli policies are being imitated in a country where would have least expected it.

On August 5, 2019, the Modi regime in India, whose fervent adherents make no secret of their goal of transforming India into a Hindu Rashtra, abolished the statehood of India’s only Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir, and read down Article 370 of the India’s constitution that conferred special status on J&K.

While several reasons have been advanced to explain why the Modi regime took this drastic step, one particular reason – a settler-colonial policy to change the demography of the area by settling Hindus from other parts of the country there – has received a fair amount of attention.

A number of laws have been passed to remove previous restrictions on acquiring land and property in the newly designated Union Territory downgraded from its previous status as a state. How feasible this attempt to foster settler colonialism is may be debated but this notion became more credible when it was explicitly mentioned by an official of the Indian government.

Also read: Indian Diplomat Wants ‘Israel Model’ in Kashmir, Sets Off Controversy

In November 2019, India’s consul-general  in New York was seen on video telling an audience at a private gathering about the changes wrought by the Indian government in J&K. He referred explicitly to the actions of the Israeli government in facilitating Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank and is reported to have said, If the Israeli people can do it, we can also do it.”

Security personnel stand guard on a street during restrictions imposed in the wake of the first anniversary of the Article 370 move, in Srinagar, Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2020. Photo: PTI

Any significant demographic alteration, if it occurs, would of course be done under the shadow of the Indian military in the most heavily militarised region in the world today. This, if it happens, would bear a strong similarity to the way the Israeli military facilitates Jewish settlers to appropriate land and terrorise the Palestinians living in the West Bank.

Where India stood before

For approximately five decades, India supported Palestine completely.

Its diplomatic relations with Israel were limited to a consulate in Bombay for the purpose of facilitating the travel of Indian Jews to Israel while it established full diplomatic relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization and allowed it to open its office in New Delhi. Several factors were likely responsible for this situation, including India’s emergence as a leader of the non-aligned bloc while Israel was firmly anchored in the western  bloc, a position that was cemented when Israel joined Britain and France in imperial gunboat diplomacy: a military attack on Egypt in 1956 after Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal.

Also read: India Abstains as UNHRC Approves Probe Into Israeli Human Rights Abuses in Palestine

India’s position could also have been influenced to some extent by Mahatma Gandhi’s views on Palestine expressed in his paper The Harijan. Writing in 1938 when the Nazi atrocities against the Jews of Germany were accelerating, Gandhi said that Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense as England belongs to the English and France to the French and it is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.

Gandhi described the Jews as “the untouchables of Christianity” and compared their treatment by Christians in Europe to that of untouchables in India by caste Hindus but then went on to remark:

“My sympathy for Jews does not blind me to the requirements of justice. It is wrong for Jews to enter Palestine under the shadow of the British gun…they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done them no wrong.”

Gandhi repeated this in July 1946 when he stated that Europe’s Jews, “who have been cruelly wronged … have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism.” Gandhi’s position, basically, was that the western world that had done little to save German Jews from destruction at the hands of the Nazis was trying to salve its guilty conscience by grabbing Arab land to settle European Jews in accordance with Zionist policy.

Flames and smoke rise during Israeli air strikes on the southern Gaza Strip May 11, 2021. Photo: Reuters/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

This position, like many other moral stances espoused by the Mahatma, has little appeal to the Hindutva groups, one of whose members assassinated Gandhi in New Delhi on January 30, 1948.

So, it is hardly any surprise that the Modi regime would take lessons in settler colonialism from Israel just as the Indian police and paramilitary bodies are reported to have received training from the Israelis in so-called “anti-terrorist” actions.

Also read: In Israel, a Demand That Indian Police Coming for Training Be Screened for Kashmir Abuses

Meanwhile, Palestinians continue to live under the boot of the Israeli occupation. When periodic bouts of violence inevitably occur, Amira Hass, quoted above, reminds us, “It is only natural that Palestinians will want the Jewish military superpower to lose it and for the Israelis to know what fear is.”

On the other hand, Israel can and does inflict violence on a vastly greater scale while the sight of Palestinian children killed and maimed and homes and schools destroyed that arouse feelings “of helplessness, rage and despair among every Palestinian…are sights that in the best case do not move most Israeli Jews, and in the worst case make them happy.” 

This is the arrogance and the reality of settler-colonialism that the Modi regime ostensibly wishes to imitate in J&K.

Vinod Mubayi is co-editor of the INSAF Bulletin.

India Abstains as UNHRC Approves Probe Into Israeli Human Rights Abuses in Palestine

The resolution, passed by 24 votes in favour and nine votes against, marks an exceptional level of examination into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would be the first time that a Commission of Inquiry is not time-bound.

New Delhi: India on Thursday abstained on the resolution that calls on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to set up a permanent commission to probe human rights violations in Gaza, West Bank and Palestine.

The resolution, passed by 24 votes in favour and nine votes against, marks an exceptional level of examination into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would be the first time that a Commission of Inquiry has received a “continuing mandate”, that is, it is not time-bound.

India abstained along with 13 others, including France, Japan, Nepal, Brazil and South Korea. The nine nay-sayers included the UK, Germany, Bulgaria and Czech Republic.

The resolution, moved by Pakistan and Palestine, called on the president of the UN Human rights council to set up an “independent, international commission of inquiry” into the events which led to the current Gaza crisis.

The COI was also mandated to look at “all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity”.

The resolution also urged all third parties to refrain from transferring arms to either of the two parties if there is a “clear risk” that such weapons could be used in commission or facilitation of serious violations of international law.

The one-day special session of the Geneva-based UNHRC was convened on request of the member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Palestine.

Delegates, wearing masks, listen to speeches during the 45th session of the Human Rights Council, at the European UN headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland September 14, 2020. Photo: Martial Trezzini/Pool via Reuters/File

The latest round of Gaza violence began with tension escalating over Israeli forces cutting off the loudspeakers used to broadcast prayers from the Al-Aqsa mosque on April 13. This was followed by Israel’s decision to ban gatherings at the plaza near Damascus Gate.

With an imminent Israel Supreme court decision, there was also frequent protests about a looming eviction of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Israel police were rushed into the Al-Aqsa compound and used heavy-handed tactics to subdue the protesting Palestinians over several days.

On May 10, Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas fired rockets into Israel, most of which were intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile system. Israel then retaliated with airstrikes. The devastating exchange of firepower went on for 11 days before the Egyptian brokered ceasefire came into existence on May 21.

Over 250 people were killed, out of which 230 were Palestinians. The toll in Gaza included 65 children. In Israel, twelve people were killed, including a five-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl. An Indian national, who worked as a caregiver in Ashkelon, also died in the missile strikes targetting Israel.

India did not give an explanation of its vote at the virtual session. However, other members states which voted against or abstained on the resolution, like the UK and France, cited the expansive nature of the mandate given to the Commission of Inquiry.

Until now, the UN body’s Commissions of Inquiry set up to probe human rights violations in particular hotspots like Syria or Sri Lanka have a validity of one year, renewed periodically.

India’s statement, read out by Permanent Representative Indra Mani Pandey, was nearly identical to the ones delivered in the UN Security Council and General Assembly earlier this month.

Welcoming the ceasefire, India reiterated that none of the parties should attempt the “unilaterally change the existing status-quo, including in East Jerusalem and its neighbourhoods”.

“We remain concerned about the continuing violence in Jerusalem, especially at Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount and other Palestinian territories, and about the possible eviction process in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, an area which is part of an arrangement facilitated by the UN,” said Pandey.

He also criticised the violence, with specific condemnation of Hamas rocket strikes. “The indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza targeting the civilian population in Israel, which we have condemned, and the retaliatory airstrikes into Gaza in the last two weeks have caused immense suffering- and resulted in deaths, including an Indian national—a caregiver in the Israeli city of Ashkelon,” Pandey said.

UN Documents Further Syrian Govt Use of Banned Chemical Weapons

The April attack resulted in US, British and French missile strikes on sites believed to be linked to Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

Geneva: UN investigators said on Wednesday that they had documented three further use of banned chlorine weapons by Syrian government forces that constituted war crimes, and urged major powers to help avert a massacre in the final battle for Idlib.

The attacks caused injuries in the Damascus suburb of Douma and in Idlib in the northwest in January and early February, they said in their latest report.

They said they were still investigating a suspected chemical attack in Douma on April 7 that killed at least 49 people and wounded up to 650.

The UN has warned of a potential humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib, the last major rebel stronghold, if an expected offensive is carried out by the Syrian government and its allied Russian forces.

“The Commission of Inquiry demands that all parties to the conflict and those states who support them do everything in their power to prevent a massacre in Idlib,” the war crimes investigators said in a statement read out by panel chairman Paulo Pinheiro to a news conference.

They had no information that chemical agents might be used against the 2.9 million civilians living in Idlib, half of them refugees from elsewhere in Syria. The pocket is controlled by tens of thousands of rebel fighters, including around 10,000 Islamists designated as terrorists by the world body.

However, the three new cases bring to 33 the number of chemical attacks that the independent panel has documented since 2013 and attributed to the government, a UN official said. The use of chlorine in Douma on April 7, for which Western powers have blamed Syria, came as the government and its allies were in a final push to drive rebels out of the eastern Ghouta region.

John Bolton, US President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, said on Monday that the US, Britain and France had agreed that another use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would result in a much stronger response than previous such incidents.

The April attack resulted in US, British and French missile strikes on sites believed to be linked to Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

Pinheiro said the latest reports of air strikes on rebel-held areas of Idlib followed a previous pattern of “targeting civilian infrastructure and medical facilities”: “For months we have been saying this concentration of population and armed groups transported or transferred to Idlib was a (time) bomb.”

Chlorine was dropped by government helicopters in Saraqeb in Idlib on February 4, 2018, injuring at least 11 men, the report said, while women and children were injured in the January 22, 2018 and February 1, 2018 attacks on Douma.

“The Commission concludes that, on these two occasions, government forces and/or affiliated militias committed the war crimes of using prohibited weapons and launching indiscriminate attacks in civilian-populated areas in eastern Ghouta,” it said.

The use of chlorine as a weapon is prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In addition to the 33 uses of chlorine weapons attributed to the government, the perpetrators of six others have not been sufficiently identified.

On the April 7 attack, the panel said the evidence so far pointed to a gas cylinder dropped by helicopter having struck a residential apartment building.

(Reuters)

Commission Orders Rs 12 Crore Compensation to Haryana Victims of 1984 Anti-Sikh Violence

Citing “nefarious activities” on the part of rioters, the Justice T.P. Garg commission has recommended compensation of Rs 12.07 crore to the families of victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Haryana.

Sikh minority representatives stand in front of the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva November 1, 2013 after representatives of several NGOs urged the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to recognize the 1984 killing of Sikhs as genocide. Credit: Reuters/Denis Balibouse

Sikh activists stand in front of the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva November 1, 2013 after representatives of several NGOs urged the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to recognize the 1984 killing of Sikhs as genocide. Credit: Reuters/Denis Balibouse

New Delhi: The one-man commission of retired Justice T.P. Garg, comprised to look into violence during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, has recommended compensation of Rs 12.07 crore for the families of 36 victims from Gurgaon and Pataudi.

The commission had been created in 2011 by the previous Haryana government to look into the deaths of 32 Sikhs from the village of Hori Chand in Rewari district, and then expanded to include victims from Gurgaon and Pataudi, the Hindustan Times reported. Official records state that at least 47 Sikhs were killed in Gurgaon and 17 others were killed in Pataudi.

Justice Garg’s 300-page report on the anti-Sikh riots that broke out in the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was submitted to the government of Haryana on April 29. The report is still not available for public viewing, but has been accessed by the Indian Express. According to the Indian Express, the commission was appointed to look into cases that had not been investigated by the Nanawati commission in 2000.

According to the Indian Express, the Garg commission report asserts that during the riots, criminals resorted to “nefarious activities”, such as the killing of innocent men, women and children, looting of properties and arson.

“To resolve issues riddled with sensitivity, human misery is difficult to compensate in terms of money,” the report says, adding that victims – for the most part, families that had been uprooted from the homes in Pakistan during the partition – had waited 32 long years for recompense.

Over a course of 109 sittings, the Garg commission examined 150 cases from Gurgaon and 43 from Pataudi, with help from as many as 384 witnesses and 367 documents from the various concerned parties.

The compensation recommended by the commission is split in two – the commission recommends Rs 5.75 crore compensation for those killed and Rs 26 lakh compensation for two cases of injury, as well as Rs 4.8 crore for loss of and damage to property in a total of 96 cases with an additional Rs. 1.21 crore going to 84 cases of loss of commercial property. The commission has also recommended that Rs 5 lakh go to two gurdwaras, one each in Gurgaon and Pataudi.

Justice Garg reiterated the dire need to provide the kin of victims with compensation, saying this was so because “human tragedies of such magnitude are more often than not caused as such by lack of care and caution as by the all-round failure of public authorities, statutory or otherwise, in the due and proper discharge of their functions and duties, especially those concerning enforcement of law and order”.

He also added that the recommendations were subject to “all just exceptions and any decision that the government may take”.

Delhi Government is Well Within its Rights to set up DDCA Inquiry

It is the Centre that has crossed the line of legality by trying to take away what has been given to the Delhi government by the Constitution

A file picture of the Firoz Shah Kotla stadium, managed by DDCA. Credit: Kinshuk1005 (Wikipedia Commons)

A file picture of the Feroz Shah Kotla stadium, managed by DDCA. Credit: Kinshuk1005 (Wikipedia Commons)

Delhi’s Legislative Assembly has, by its resolution  dated December 22, 2015, directed the Government of the NCT Delhi to set up a commission of inquiry  to probe the many allegations that surround the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA).

Earlier, in July 2015, the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sport had written to the Delhi government, asking it  to act on the irregularities that are rife in the DDCA. Following this, the Delhi government appointed a three-member committee, which too, has recommended a commission of inquiry. Last month, the Delhi government has announced the establishment of such a commission, to be headed by Gopal Sunramanium.

The abysmal state of the DDCA has long been an open secret. At the imminent prospect of this becoming more open than secret, it appears that the Centre now feels differently about the appropriateness of the action that it had earlier sought from the Delhi government.  It  has now  declared that the Delhi government is powerless to constitute any commission and is not an “appropriate government” within the meaning of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952. The Lt Governor’s office has, in a letter, communicated this ‘decision’ of the Ministry of Home Affairs  to Delhi’s chief secretary for onward transmission to the Delhi cabinet. The burden of the letter is that the Delhi government is neither the “Central Government” nor a “State Government”, and to set up a commission under the Act it must be the one or the other.

Delhi’s unique status

This is not the first time that Delhi’s unique legal status has come up between the Centre and Delhi’s popularly  elected government. Delhi has a chequered history and is, today, a  Union Territory with some attributes of a state. In the First Schedule that lists India’s territorial units, Delhi is a UT, but it has been conferred all but three of the legislative and executive powers that flow from the Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule. Delhi is not like other full-fledged states. Equally, it is not like other UTs.

Article 239AA was brought into the Constitution by the 69th amendment to ensure that Delhi will have a council of ministers answerable to a legislative assembly chosen by direct election. Like other states, Delhi’s assembly can make laws on matters in the state and the concurrent Lists, and the executive government can implement policy on all those matters. Unlike other states, however, there are two  important limitations. Delhi cannot  legislate or formulate policy on the police, public order or land issues, though these are state subjects. On these three and all other subjects in the state and the concurrent list, parliament continues to have the power to make laws affecting Delhi. If there is a difference of opinion between the Lt Governor and the Delhi cabinet on any matter, it shall be referred to the President, and in the meantime, any urgent action in that regard will be taken by the Lt. Governor.

In sum, the Delhi assembly’s legislative powers will give way to any law actually made by parliament and on occasion, the Delhi government’s executive policy may be held up by a presidential reference; but in law,  every move of the elected legislature and government is not in thrall to the Centre. So, whether Delhi does or does not function as a state is really a matter of context, but when the Delhi government functions within the limits set by the Constitution, it can only function as a state government. It is not a delegate of the Centre as the Lt Governor is. The Lt. Governor or administrator as the President’s delegate is no longer the beginning and end of the Delhi government. The government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is today an entity in itself. What falls within its sphere of functions is a question that can be asked, but within this sphere, it cannot be doubted that it is a  state government.

Is the DDCA within the Delhi assembly’s legitimate sphere of functions? Sports, entertainment and amusements are entry 33 of the state list of Schedule VII. Inquiries pertaining to matters in the state list are entry 45 of the concurrent list. An inquiry into a matter of sports is certainly one within the competence of the Delhi assembly and therefore within the executive reach of the Delhi government. Sports is not one of the three subjects barred to the Delhi legislature.

The Commissions of Inquiries Act 1952 defines  “appropriate government” with reference to the subject matter of the inquiry. If the subject matter is in the state or the concurrent list, then the appropriate government is the state government and if it happens to be in the Union or the concurrent list,then it is the Central government. The test then, is whether the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the government concerned as per Schedule VII, and not the reckoning of the region of operation as per Schedule I. 

Appropriate government

The ‘appropriate government’ under the Act is subject specific, and has nothing to do with the nomenclature of the territory concerned. If there is a state government with administrative control over the subject, that it may govern a UT is irrelevant. Most UTs have no legislature, but Delhi has one, which can pass laws on the topic of sports. Its government can formulate sports policy. Certainly, if parliament has another law on the very matter, Delhi  must yield, but that is not the case here.

‘Appropriate government’ has been interpreted by courts to mean various things depending upon the context. The definitions in  the General Clauses Act, are all qualified by the words “unless there is anything repugnant in the context”. Article 3(60) of this Act defining “State Government”  as  meaning the Central Government in relation to a UT, is completely repugnant to the express constitutional scheme of the 69th amendment, for Delhi. It is also contrary to the purpose of the Commissions of Inquiries Act which is to enable the government concerned with a sphere of activity, to order inquiries affecting the same. The General Clauses Act, upon which the Home Ministry’s decision relies has never prevented courts from giving a functional interpretation to terms such as “appropriate government” and “state government”, but this wisdom has completely eluded the Centre.

If the MHA’s logic is followed to its logical consequence, the Delhi government can do simply nothing and will be exempted from all duties cast upon the ‘state government’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Domestic Violence Act, and a host of socially relevant laws. The MHA has chosen to unnecessarily burden itself with the task of constitutional interpretation, and with rather dismal effect.

The Act  of 1952 enables “the appropriate government” to constitute a Commission of Inquiry into matters of public importance. Such a course is, in fact, mandatory, when a resolution in this behalf is passed by Parliament or a State Legislature. The Constitution and other laws recognise resolutions by Parliament or State Legislatures for diverse purposes. Unlike Bills, resolutions of legislatures do not need the President’s or the Governor’s assent to take effect. While the Lt Governor of Delhi may differ with the Council of Ministers and refer a matter to the President, the same is not possible with a resolution passed by the Delhi Assembly.

The Assembly has passed  a resolution, that a Commission be constituted  to probe the DDCA, a subject that is well within its competence as sports is a state subject. Is the Delhi Government powerless to fulfil the mandate?  Can the Lt. Governor, whose concurrence is unnecessary for the Assembly’s resolution, nonetheless stymie it? Is the democratically elected government of Delhi powerless to set up an inquiry into a matter of public concern? Where the Constitution intends a democratic government for Delhi, albeit with severe limits, can the limits be stretched beyond its express intent? The legal import of these questions cannot be divorced from the political.

A limit is by its nature is a demarcation, suggesting that there is something to limit. Article 239AA confers powers upon Delhi’s  Government, and sets limits on these powers. The Centre’s letter suggests that there is nothing to limit, on the pretext that Delhi does not have any State Government at all save the Centre. It is therefore the Centre that has crossed the line of legality by usurping what has been given to the Legislature and the Government of Delhi by the Constitution, without following the rules set by the Constitution for Parliament or the President to enter into those realms. The import of the Home Ministry ‘decision’ is that it has converted limits set by the Constitution into a virtual abrogation of democratic principles of governance.

Sarim Naved is a Delhi-based advocate