TISS report points to anti-Muslim bias of police

“Most of prisoners in Maharashtra jails victims of prejudice”

A report on Muslim prisoners in Maharashtra jails by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) establishes that most of them do not have connections with criminal gangs, and points to an acute bias of the police for arresting them in some cases only because they belong to a particular community.

A Study of the Socio Economic Profile and Rehabilitation Needs of Muslim Community in Prisons in Maharashtra, 2011, by Dr. Vijay Raghavan and Roshni Nair from the Centre for Criminology and Justice School of Social Work, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), states that 96 per cent of the respondents have not been held under preventive detention charges, thus indicating that they are not viewed as a threat to law and order.

The study which surveyed 339 Muslims, mostly between 18 and 30 years of age, in 15 prisons says this implies that most respondents do not have connections with criminal gangs or have any record which may be a threat to law and order. About 25.4 per cent of those imprisoned don’t have lawyers to represent them in their cases.

The police’s bias against Muslims led to some of the arrests under the erstwhile Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) and even under the Official Secrets Act.

‘Two types of laws’

An agent in textile export, Murtuza, arrested under the Official Secrets Act on charges of spying, says in his interview to the research team: “There are two types of laws in this country. One is for Hindus and the other is for Muslims. The policeman is first a Hindu and then a policeman. The judge is first a Hindu and then a judge and the lawyer is first a Hindu then a lawyer. People who work against the State, indulge in rioting, kill thousands of innocent people, and harass women and children roam free in this country. They are not punished. I am suffering only because I am a Muslim.”

Murtuza strongly feels that the discriminatory attitude is one of the major reasons for his arrest. He says that the police do not have enough evidence against him and yet he remains in prison. Two years have passed and the case is dragging on in court. He misses his court dates because the escort to take him to court is often not available. He has applied for bail thrice, but it has been rejected each time. He also applied for transferring the case to a different judge, but nothing has happened yet.

Poor victimised

Another prisoner Moiz says that “every time he tries to start life afresh, the police arrest him in some false case. They also demand money from criminals and those who can pay are set free. The poor are victimised. The police are very powerful and can do anything.”

Some interviews reflect the deep despair and alienation of the people interviewed. Muneer feels that after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the rift between Hindus and Muslims has widened. Due to the riots and bomb blasts in 1992-93, the police perception of Muslims has become negative. The police view them as criminal minded. Migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are viewed with prejudice by the police.

Shoaib expressed his fears about the breakdown of the social fabric if the bias against Muslims continues. “The police have a negative perception of the Muslim community and act with bias. Due to the actions of the police and fundamentalist politics, the perception of Muslims is negative in society. If the situation continues to be like this, the next generation may get into further crime and vested interests could use them. Society’s perception and the negative feelings of hatred have to be reduced. Only then there is hope for a better tomorrow. Otherwise the situation will get worse for individuals, their families and society.”

About 70 per cent of the 3,000 Muslims prisoners in 15 jails were under trials and 30 per cent were convicted prisoners. What is of concern is that 52.8 per cent are charged with violent crimes mainly murder, attempt to murder, rape, assault and kidnapping. Among the under trials interviewed charge sheets have only been filed in 47.4 per cent of the cases and a mere 3.8 per cent have reached judgement stage, indicating the slow pace of trials. Of those interviewed 75.5 per cent were arrested for the first time and 25.5 per cent are repeat offenders.

The percentage of Muslims in jails is also a high 36 per cent, says Dr. Raghavan, quoting recent official figures. Along with Gujarat and Kerala, Maharashtra is one of the States with the most disproportionate number of Muslims in prisons.

The Sachar Committee report says that in Maharashtra, Muslims account for 10.6 per cent of the general population; yet they comprise 32.4 per cent of the prison population. For those incarcerated on terms of less than a year, the figure rises: 42 per cent of prisoners on short-term sentences in the State are Muslims.

This study was done at the behest of the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission in response to the charge of a disproportionate number of Muslims in jail. It makes a slew of recommendations relating to rehabilitation and correctional programmes, and the need for steps to sensitise the police and prison administration.

Last month the findings were presented at a meeting with Arif Naseem Khan, State Minister for Minority Affairs.

The Minister accepted most of the recommendations, especially those relating to legal aid, adult education, vocational training, release on probation, and awareness and counselling centres in Muslim areas.

The Additional Chief Secretary of Minority Development will call a high-level inter-departmental meeting soon to work out ways to implement the recommendations

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3563333.ece

Stop harassing Muslim youths by dubbing them terror suspects

LUCKNOW: Civil society members in Lucknow have demanded government to take effective measures to put a check on incidents of harassment of innocent Muslim youths by police, anti-terror squad and intelligence agencies on the false terror charges. The demand was made after a 'public hearing' in which several Muslim youth, who were allegedly victimised and harassed by security agencies, narrated their tale of woes before people.
Shaukat Ali, a teacher and resident of Pratapgarh. claimed that he was being harassed by security agencies since August 2008. Though, he said, he has been questioned several times by the police, no proof has been given so far. But, he added, the questioning by police has made him a 'suspect' in the eyes of his students and neighbours, leading to humiliation.He had lodged complaint with higher authorities but nothing happened so far.
Mohammad Shahdab, from Azamgarh, claimed that he nephew and son were falsely implicated in terror charges. Other victims claimed that they were being branded as agents of various terror organisations by the security agencies without any proof. They also claimed that police demands money while threatening to put them in jail. Police detains Muslim youth for questioning without following procedure laid down in law, they added.
Former Indian police services officer SR Darapuri, after the hearing, said that it seems that police and security agencies are working for saffron organisations. Former vice-chancellor of Lucknow University Prof RR Verma said that the media should exercise restrain while projecting a person as terror only on the statement of security agencies because often accused are acquitted for want of evidence but adverse publicity makes thier life hell.
S M Naseem, another Former Indian Police Service officer, said that security agencies round up innocent people on false charges for awards and promotion. Lawer Mohammed Shoeb, who is fighting cases of Muslim youths facing terror charges, said even after acquittal, youth are seen with suspicion by the society, spoiling their career.The activists demanded compensation for victims and action against officers responsible for harassment.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Stop-harassing-Muslim-youths-by-dubbing-them-terror-suspects/articleshow/14324969.cms

Ghost of Fake Encounters Comes Back to Haunt Gujarat. Top Cops Under CBI Scanner

Ghost of Fake Encounters Comes Back to Haunt Gujarat. Top Cops Under CBI Scanner

A CBI progress report on the four fake encounters of 2004-2007 in Gujarat establishes what TEHELKA has been saying all along. Now, senior policemen and IB officials face arrests in these cases, says Rana Ayyub KR Kaushik Former PC, Ahmedabad Role: The CBI has said the IO should investigate into the role of the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, in the Ishrat Jahan encounter Gl Singhal Former SP,ATS Role: Singhal’s role in pursuing the Indica car that carried Ishrat and her colleagues is being probed. Tops the list of those proposed to be arrested PP Pande Former JCP, Gujarat Role: The CBI progress report says that the intelligence in the Ishrat case that the former JC, Gujarat, shared with the ATS, is suspect JG Parmar Former SP, ATS Role: Along with PP Pande and Singhal, Parmar’s role too in the Ishrat Jahan case is being examined. The CBI has access to his and Singhal’s diary entries GL Singhal's photo by Mayur Bhatt EVERYTHING SEEMS to be going Narendra Modi’s way. Starting with the BJP national executive in Mumbai, which was a showcase of his clout, the Gujarat chief minister must be feeling his position is secure, now that Sanjay Joshi, his biggest detractor within the party, has also resigned from the BJP. However, a CBI investigation into four police encounters between 2004-2007 in Gujarat might just throw the proverbial spanner in the works. The investigation, which is nearing completion, has made some startling recommendations. Documents in TEHELKA’s possession, including progress reports of the CBI and statements of witnesses and IB inputs, show that the agency has proposed the arrest of eight senior IPS officers in Gujarat. A closer look at the documents and the CBI’s investigation into the cases validates TEHELKA’s stand on the fake encounters of Sadiq Jamal and Tulsi Prajapati. Soon after the high court orders to investigate the Sadiq Jamal encounter, TEHELKA had published (Dead Man Talking, 3 December 2011) IB inputs and documents that belied the Gujarat CID theory of the case. Discrepancies were found in the FIR filed by the Gujarat Crime Branch, which stated that 22-year-old Sadiq, a resident of Bhavnagar, was a Lashkar-e-Toiba militant and was on his way to assassinate Chief Minister Modi, BJP patriarch LK Advani and VHP leader Pravin Togadia. Interestingly, intelligence inputs given by Joint IB Director Rajinder Kumar to the state police contradicted the two previous IB inputs issued in the same case. Not just that, a chargesheet filed by the Gujarat Police in a lesser-known case of gambling against Sadiq also exposed the lie of the Gujarat Police and provided evidence that the encounter was staged. Forensic reports and the testimony of an IB official substantiated the claim that Sadiq was killed in a fake encounter. The CBI has now taken cognisance of the IB inputs and other documents published by TEHELKA and the testimony of the IB official. Officials investigating the case have confirmed that Sadiq’s was indeed a “fake encounter”. Further, the agency has also questioned police officials from Maharashtra whose names figured during the investigation. Suspended officers Daya Nayak and Pradeep Sharma of the Mumbai Police have already been questioned, as have been conduits of the underworld who were “absconding” in the FIR filed by the Gujarat Police. From its initial investigation in the Sadiq case, which includes statements from brothers Tariq and Zahid Parveen (Sadiq worked as a domestic help at Tariq’s residence in Dubai), along with a statement from local police officers in Gujarat and Mumbai, the CBI has come to the conclusion that Sadiq was indeed handed over to the Gujarat Police. “It is now clear that Sadiq was not killed because of an underworld connection,” says a CBI official. “He was working for Tariq Parveen, who is the brother-in-law of underworld don Chhota Shakeel. Sadiq had an altercation with the family, and was sent packing to Mumbai. Parveen allegedly asked Daya Nayak to ‘fix him up’ in a case.” CBI officials believe that Daya Nayak had not done the ‘fixing’ alone. They say that it was done in connivance with the Gujarat Police and two Central IB officials, who played an active role in identifying Sadiq Jamal as a target. The progress report recommends custodial interrogation of these two officials (names withheld). Besides, the arrest proposal also includes the name of DSP, Gujarat Police, Tarun Barot, then a Senior Inspector. The Mumbai Police had handed over Sadiq to Barot. Geeta Johri Former PC, Rajkot Role: Johri claimed she was pressurised by the CBI to name Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin case. The CBI had taken over the case from the Gujarat Police PC Pande Former DGP, Gujarat Role: The CBI wants custody of the former top cop in connection with obfuscations in the Tulsi Prajapati encounter case OP Mathur Former ADGP, Gujarat Role: Along with PC Pande, his custody is being sought by the CBI in connection with the Tulsi Prajapati encounter Tarun Barot Former SI, Gujarat Role: The former Senior Inspector is being investigated for his role in the Sadiq Jamal case. The Mumbai Police had handed Sadiq over to him Photos: (From left) Mayur Bhatt, Indian Express Archive, Trupti Patel, AP While the investigation into the Sadiq case was on, the Gujarat High Court had directed the CBI to take over the encounter of another alleged terrorist, Ishrat Jahan. Ishrat’s case has been mired in controversy from the day the team of officers considered close to Modi, and led by DIG DG Vanzara, claimed that they had killed a dreaded woman terrorist in June 2004. Newspapers across the country were fed meticulous details of how Ishrat’s movements were monitored and how the CID and IB’s alacrity managed to do what most states could not — neutralise another terror attempt on the same troika of Modi, Advani and Togadia. IN NOVEMBER 2011, an SIT was formed on the direction of the Gujarat High Court to investigate into the Ishrat encounter. The SIT submitted its report calling the encounter fake. Following the report, the high court ordered an FIR to be filed against 21 policemen, including Vanzara and NK Amin, both senior IPS officials (now in jail for their role in the Sohrabuddin case) and the then Joint Commissioner of Police, PP Pande. The Ishrat encounter case was then handed over to the CBI by the court. The agency has filed a progress report of the initial investigation, which brings to the fore names never mentioned before. Interestingly, the investigation has revealed that the mystery surrounding the intelligence aspect of the Sadiq encounter also finds its way in the Ishrat case. The CBI is now investigating documents that include an IB input issued in May 2004 by then Joint IB director (VIP Security) Yashovardhan Azad, who is incidentally the brother of BJP MP Kirti Azad. Unaccounted deaths (Top to bottom) Ishrat Jahan and four others; The Sadiq Jamal probe has given new ammunition to bring the gulity to book; Tulsi Prajapati was a witness in the Sohrabuddin encounter; Sohrabuddin’s case has at least seen some justice Photo: Trupti Patel, AFP The IB input states: “According to a recent and reliable intelligence information, Lashkar-e-Toiba have tasked their Indiabased operatives to monitor the movements of top BJP leaders LK Advani and Narendra Modi of Gujarat besides VHP leader Pravin Togadia and target them. In view of this, measures may be taken immediately.” This forms one of the most crucial bits that are being investigated into by the CBI, which the agency claims it is examining for the following reasons: •The text of this IB input is uncannily similar to the IB information the Gujarat Crime Branch has quoted in its FIR in the encounter cases of Ishrat Jahan and Sadiq Jamal. • The input was sent just a month before the Gujarat ADGP (intelligence) J Mahapatra was asked to monitor the Ishrat Jahan case specifically. • The SIT in its report, while stating the encounter was fake, had asked for the intelligence input to be investigated. How was the initial IB input received and how was it disseminated. What preparations followed the dissemination of the input? •As per the SIT, the initial intelligence input was verbally communicated to Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, KR Kaushik by the head of SIB, Ahmedabad. However, the SIT also says that there are contradictions in the versions of senior officers and that of Parixita Gurjar, the Investigating Officer (IO). Hence, the sharing of intelligence input by Joint Commissioner, Police, PP Pande with JG Parmar and JL Singhal becomes suspect. Parmar and Singhal were then commissioner and SP of the Anti-Terror Squad respectively. The SIT has already given its verdict on the case and asked for all officers, including then ADGP, CID Intelligence and joint commissioner, to be brought to book. The CBI is also looking to investigate the IB input generated by the Centre, which it believes was the genesis of the Ishrat encounter. It is for this very reason that the progress report of the CBI states that “the IO should investigate into the genesis of the intelligence about a possible terrorist attack comprising these four people who died in the encounter on the night of 14.6.2004 and 15.6.2004. He should also make efforts to find out the course of action and the decision taken by then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, KR Kaushik, Jt Commissioner, Crime Branch, PP Pande, and Additional Commissioner, Crime Branch, DG Vanzara”. Using the diary entries of JG Parmar and GL Singhal, the progress report blows holes in the Gujarat Police’s theory. According to the entries, Pande and Vanzara had given the intelligence inputs on 20 May 2004. Parmar was the complainant in the FIR in Ishrat’s case, which was registered by Singhal. Based on this, the CBI has questioned the motive of the FIR of the encounter dated 15 June 2004, which mentions that intelligence on the hits came about 15 days ago, when inputs for the same had already been given in May 2004. “It possibly means that the FIR was already drafted on 5 June 2004 and some of the deceased persons were already in police custody,” says the report. The report further states that “the IO should also find out just how did all the four officers arrive at the conclusion that on 16 April 2004, the blue coloured Indica bearing No. MH024786 carrying the suspected terrorists would come to Ahmedabad and why is there an absence of record of any meeting that made all officers come together? And why is there an absence of minutes/documentary evidence/data entry of the meeting of these officers”. The CBI report thus concurs with the SIT version that the encounters were fake. “Right now, we are in the process of gathering all the evidence,” says a CBI official involved in the investigation of Ishrat Jahan and three others. “At this stage, there is enough evidence to call it a fake encounter and arrest the police officials based on this. Once we record their statements we would be in a position to question if the IB input was to help the Gujarat Police or was that input used by the Central Director, IB, Gujarat and the state police as an alibi.” The CBI has also questioned three National Intelligence Agency (NIA) officials over press reports published in 2011 that spoke of the NIA findings that Ishrat was an accomplice of LeT operative David Headley. The agency now faces an uphill task where the role of the IB is concerned. As some agency officials say, IB officials take refuge under the Evidence Act, which helps them escape scrutiny. “While investigating, we have come to the conclusion that the IB inputs were concocted. We are in the process of seeking permission to question the officials.” MUKUL SINHA, advocate for the petitioner in both Sadiq and Ishrat cases, hints at a possible collusion between IB officials in Gujarat and Delhi. “Just before the Tamang Report was submitted, Gujarat saw a lot of activity,” he says. “Police officers in Gujarat used Rajinder Kumar, the then Joint Director, IB, Gujarat, now based in Delhi, to approach the Union Home Ministry to vouch that the encounter was genuine. Later, the home department in its statement to the Gujarat High Court, said the onus lay on the state to check the veracity of the input. The answer lies somewhere in all this. There was certainly collusion between IB officials in Delhi and Gujarat who had sent the input, and officials who carried out the encounter.” The CBI believes the Sadiq encounter was done by the Gujarat Police in connivance with two top IB officials Can the CBI crack this puzzle? “Everything rests on the CBI’s willingness to act against the officials,” says Sinha. “Yes, our laws and Acts protect intelligence officials, but not when there is evidence against them. If the CBI arrests the officials concerned, it is binding on it to also interrogate the source of intelligence.” If CBI officials are to be believed, then the coming weeks will see the first set of arrests happening in Gujarat. Topping the list is GL Singhal, a man who has played a key role in most of the encounters and has evaded arrest on most occasions. Citing his role in the progress report, the CBI states: “While following the Indica car (that allegedly carried the terrorists), Singhal did not ask any of the other nakabandi team to intercept it. Moreover, the personnel deployed on the same route do not corroborate any such nakabandi.” Besides these, the CBI is investigating two more encounters that are to be wrapped up in June, which could add to Modi’s troubles. Two years ago, TEHELKA had published the call records of Amit Shah with DG Vanzara and SP (ATS) R Pandian during the Tulsi Prajapati and Sohrabuddin encounters. The CBI had arrested Amit Shah during the investigation into the Sohrabuddin case. Tulsi Prajapati, the lone witness in Sohrabuddin’s encounter (exposed by TEHELKA) was also killed one year later. Shah’s lawyers contend that his arrest is a political conspiracy. BJP leaders dispute the CBI’s claim of the Andhra Police’s involvement with the Gujarat and Rajasthan Police on the ground that a Congress government was ruling Andhra Pradesh then. In its investigation, the CBI has also elaborated on this aspect. According to the report, the Gujarat Police took the help of their Andhra counterpart. Sohrabuddin and Prajapati worked for the Gujarat Police, while Kalimuddin — reportedly helped the Gujarat Police stage the fake encounter of Sohrabuddin — was a Naxalite- turned-informer of the Andhra Police. The CBI arrest proposal in the Tulsi Prajapati case could mean trouble for Modi. Topping the list of those proposed to be arrested is Geeta Johri, then Police Commissioner, Rajkot. In 2010, Johri had claimed she was being pressurised by the CBI to name Amit Shah. Interestingly, the CBI had taken over the Sohrabuddin case from the Gujarat Police following a Supreme Court direction. The list of those proposed to be arrested has been sent to the Additional Solicitor General for his legal opinion, with recommendations of a case against PC Pande, OP Mathur and RK Patel. The CBI is asking for permission to take the officers in custody for the obfuscations in the probe of the Prajapati encounter. While Patel was the CID official from Gujarat who was given the charge of the Prajapati encounter, Pande and Mathur were the DG and Commissioner of Gujarat Police respectively. With the investigation nearing completion and arrest proposals in place, will the CBI make the first damaging move? The evidence against the guilty is piling up. Will the CBI director take cognisance of the increasing evidence or, as a political observer from the state points out, wait for the notification for the Gujarat elections to make the first move? Will this finally set the ground for justice in Gujarat? Rana Ayyub is an Assistant Editor with Tehelka. rana@tehelka.com

Source: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Ws080612fake_encounters.asp

Terrorism Isn’t The Disease; Egregious Injustice Is

Terrorism Isn’t The Disease; Egregious Injustice Is NARENDRA BISHT INTERVIEW ‘Terrorism Isn’t The Disease; Egregious Injustice Is’ On laws like AFSPA, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, sedition, democracy, terrorism and more PANINI ANAND INTERVIEWS ARUNDHATI ROY No one individual critic has taken on the Indian State like Arundhati Roy has. In a fight that began with Pokhran, moved to Narmada, and over the years extended to other insurgencies, people’s struggles and the Maoist underground, she has used her pensmanship to challenge India’s government, its elite, corporate giants, and most recently, the  entire structure of global finance and capitalism. She was jailed for a day in 2002 for contempt of court, and slapped  with sedition charges in November 2010 for an alleged anti-India speech she delivered, along with others, at a seminar  in New Delhi on Kashmir, titled ‘Azadi—the only way’. Excerpts from an interview to Panini Anand: How do you look at laws like sedition and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or those like AFSPA, in  what is touted as the largest democracy? I’m glad you used the word touted. It’s a good word to use in connection with India’s democracy. It certainly is a  democracy for the middle class. In places like Kashmir or Manipur or Chhattisgarh, democracy is not available.  Not even in the black market. Laws like the UAPA, which is just the UPA government’s version of POTA, and the  AFSPA are ridiculously authoritarian—they allow the State to detain and even kill people with complete impunity.  They simply ought to have no place in a democracy. But as long as they don’t affect the mainstream middle class,  as long as they are used against people in Manipur, Nagaland or Kashmir, or against the poor or against Muslim  ‘terrorists’ in the ‘mainland’, nobody seems to mind very much.     “India’s democracy is for the middle class; for Kashmir or Manipur, it’s not available. Not even in the black market."     Are the people waging war against the State or is the State waging war against its  people? How do you look at the Emergency of the ’70s, or the minorities who feel  targeted, earlier the Sikhs and now the Muslims? Some people are waging war against the State. The State is waging a war against a majority  of its citizens. The Emergency in the ’70s became a problem because Indira Gandhi’s  government was foolish enough to target the middle class, foolish enough to lump them with  the lower classes and the disenfranchised. Vast parts of the country today are in a much more  severe Emergency-like situation. But this contemporary Emergency has gone into the workshop  for denting-painting. It’s come out smarter, more streamlined. I’ve said this before: look at the  wars the Indian government has waged since India became a sovereign nation; look at the  instances when the army has been called out against its ‘own’ people—Nagaland, Assam, Mizoram, Manipur, Kashmir,  Telangana, Goa, Bengal, Punjab and (soon to come) Chhattisgarh—it is a State that is constantly at war. And always against  minorities—tribal people, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, never against the middle class, upper-caste Hindus. How does one curb the cycle of violence if the State takes no action against ultra-left ‘terrorist groups’?  Wouldn’t it jeopardise internal security? I don’t think anybody is advocating that no action should be taken against terrorist groups, not even the ‘terrorists’  themselves. They are not asking for anti-terror laws to be done away with. They are doing what they do, knowing  full well what the consequences will be, legally or otherwise. They are expressing fury and fighting for a change in  a system that manufactures injustice and inequality. They don’t see themselves as ‘terrorists’. When you say  ‘terrorists’ if you are referring to the CPI (Maoist), though I do not subscribe to Maoist ideology, I certainly do not  see them as terrorists. Yes they are militant, they are outlaws. But then anybody who resists the corporate-state  juggernaut is now labelled a Maoist—whether or not they belong to or even agree with the Maoist ideology. People  like Seema Azad are being sentenced to life imprisonment for possessing banned literature. So what is the  definition of ‘terrorist’ now, in 2012? It is actually the economic policies that are causing this massive inequality, this hunger, this displacement that is jeopardising internal security—not the people who are protesting against them.  Do we want to address the symptoms or the disease? The disease is not terrorism. It’s egregious injustice. Sure,  even if we were a reasonably just society, Maoists would still exist. So would other extremist groups who believe in  armed resistance or in terrorist attacks. But they would not have the support they have today. As a country, we  should be ashamed of ourselves for tolerating this squalor, this misery and the overt as well as covert ethnic and  religious bigotry we see all around us. (Narendra Modi for Prime Minister!! Who in their right mind can even imagine  that?) We have stopped even pretending that we have a sense of justice. All we’re doing is genuflecting to major  corporations and to that sinking ocean-liner known as the United States of America. Is the State acting like the Orwellian Big Brother, with its tapping of phones, attacks on social networks? The government has become so brazen about admitting that it is spying on all of us all the time. If it does not see any  protest on the horizon, why shouldn’t it? Controlling people is in the nature of all ruling establishments, is it not?  While the whole country becomes more and more religious and obscurantist, visiting shrines and temples and  masjids and churches in their millions, praying to one god or another to be delivered from their unhappy lives, we are  entering the age of robots, where computer-programmed machines will decide everything, will control us entirely—they’ll  decide what is ethical and what is not, what collateral damage is acceptable and what is not. Forget religious texts.  Computers will decide what’s right and wrong. There are surveillance devices the size of a sandfly that can record our  every move. Not in India yet, but coming soon, I’m sure. The UID is another elaborate form of control and surveillance,  but people are falling over themselves to get one. The challenge is how to function, how to continue to resist despite this  level of mind-games and surveillance.     "Contemporary Emergency has gone to the workshop for denting-painting. It’s come out smarter, and more streamlined.”     Why do you feel there’s no mass reaction in the polity to the plight of undertrials in jails, people booked  under sedition or towards encounter killings? Are these a non-issue manufactured by few rights groups? Of course, they are not non-issues. This is a huge issue. Thousands of people are in jail, charged with sedition or  under the UAPA, broadly they are either accused of being Maoists or Muslim ‘terrorists’. Shockingly, there are no  official figures. All we have to go on is a sense you get from visiting places, from individual rights activists collating  information in their separate areas. Torture has become completely acceptable to the government and police  establishment. The nhrc came up with a report that mentioned 3,000 custodial deaths last year alone. You ask why  there is no mass reaction? Well, because everybody who reacts is jailed! Or threatened or terrorised. Also, between  the coopting and divisiveness of ngos and the reality of State repression and surveillance, I don’t know whether mass  movements have a future. Yes, we keep looking to the Arab ‘spring’, but look a little harder and you see how even  there, people are being manipulated and ‘played’. I think subversion will take precedence over mass resistance in the  years to come. And unfortunately, terrorism is an extreme form of subversion. Without the State invoking laws, an active police, intelligence, even armed forces, won’t we have anarchy? We will end up in a state of—not anarchy, but war—if we do not address the causes of people’s rising fury. When  you make laws that serve the rich, that helps them hold onto their wealth, to amass more and more, then dissent and  unlawful activity becomes honourable, does it not? Eventually I’m not at all sure that you can continue to impoverish  millions of people, steal their land, their livelihoods, push them into cities, then demolish the slums they live in and  push them out again and expect that you can simply stub out their anger with the help of the army and the police and  prison terms. But perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe you can. Starve them, jail them, kill them. And call it Globalisation with  a Human Face. Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?281389

Counting wrongly to 2014

Narendra Modi’s autocratic style and the continuing questions about his role in the 2002 riots make his prime ministerial ambitions unrealistic

            There is something odd about the escalating row around Narendra Modi’s prime ministerial ambitions. First of all, it is curious that the man behind the build-up is Mr. Modi himself.

Over the past month, the Gujarat Chief Minister has chased after his detractors with the force of a typhoon, establishing his supremacy within the Bharatiya Janata Party, and making sure each conquest added to the chatter about his 2014 bid for Prime Minister. Mr. Modi first vanquished Nitin Gadkari who had mistakenly assumed that his dominion as party chief extended to Chhote Sardar. The result was the public humiliation of Sanjay Joshi whom Mr. Gadkari had appointed to a party post knowing he shared a bitter past with the Gujarat Chief Minister. Mr. Modi had Mr. Joshi removed from the post and the party, showing the party chief and his lieutenant who the boss was.

Spat with Nitish Kumar

Then unprovoked, he swung at Nitish Kumar, lampooning Bihar’s caste preoccupations and contrasting its backwardness with Gujarat’s material superiority. Of course, the Bihar Chief Minister wasn’t going to take the insult. A star in his own right, and the fulcrum around which the National Democratic Alliance is built, Mr. Kumar set the terms for who was and who wasn’t going to run for Prime Minister on the NDA’s ticket. Mr. Modi wasn’t because the candidate’s secular credentials were non-negotiable. Since then a full-fledged war has erupted between Mr. Kumar’s Janata Dal (United), on one side, and the BJP and the sangh parivar, on the other, over Mr. Modi’s eligibility to lead the NDA into the next general election.

Obviously, Mr. Modi’s larger aspirations are not going to go uncontested. Overawed as the BJP and its spiritual mentor are by Mr. Modi, they also know that his hegemony cannot be questioned and a party led by him will be a one-man show.

With all these complications, the question to ask is: Why is Mr. Modi so much in a hurry to settle who would be Prime Minister in 2014? Two years is an eternity in politics and it makes no sense to render yourself vulnerable so early in the contest. A more logical explanation is that Mr. Modi wants his national ambitions showcased for another election just months away — in his own State of Gujarat. A potential Prime Minister in a State Assembly election is a sure winner, and nowhere more than in Gujarat where the gaurav (prestige) of the Gujarati has been an unfailing electoral card.

It is not that Mr. Modi is under any grave threat in his home State. Indeed, with the Gujarat Congress acknowledged to be comatose, the Chief Minister ought to be home and dry. However, for the first time in many, many years, contrarian stories have begun to emerge from shining Gujarat challenging its status as a model for India as a whole to follow. In February 2011, economist Abusaleh Shariff established through multiple data that hunger levels in Gujarat were higher than in desperately poor Uttar Pradesh. He also showed that despite Gujarat’s bombastic claim as a red hot destination for Foreign Direct Investment, it was unsung Maharashtra that was the leader in this department.

In October 2011, the India Human Development Report released by the Planning Commission drew shocking attention to Gujarat’s child malnutrition levels : Gujarat ranked 13 among 17 States surveyed with 44.6 per cent of its children under five found to be malnourished.

The Economic Survey released ahead of this year’s budget placed Gujarat behind Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu in Per Capita Net Domestic Product (at current prices) for 2009-2010. Gujarat was also behind Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu on crucial indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and literacy rates.

Gujarat’s prosperity is not a myth but certainly Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are better models, offering more evenly spread development and combining growth with impressive human development indicators. Mr. Modi has so far won elections on the strength of his personality. In his third electoral outing as Chief Minister, he needs to up the quotient with an X-factor which can only come from being seen as India’s next Prime Minister. The projection will drown out dissenting voices on the state of welfare in Gujarat while also silencing the rebel faction led by Keshubhai Patel. The Congress as usual will not know what hit the party.

Modi no Vajpayee

The 2014 contest will be far tougher. Mr. Modi’s nomination for Prime Minister is made difficult by two factors. Internally, there is already considerable unease over his intolerance — evident in the way he quashed Mr. Joshi for the rest of the party to watch and learn a lesson from. Vis-à-vis the NDA allies, his image is of a sectarian autocrat. Let’s face it. Mr. Modi is no Atal Bihari Vajpayee who was as much a champion of Hindutva as a man of lofty vision, breaking new ground on Kashmir and Pakistan. No other BJP leader could have pulled off a visit to Minar-e-Pakistan and as much is proved by Lal Krishna Advani’s failed attempt to imitate the veteran via an ode paid to Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

The Gujarat Chief Minister lacks even the acceptability of Mr. Advani who built the BJP brick by brick and commands a measure of loyalty even today when he is seen to have served out his utility.

A further complication awaits Mr. Modi. He is not out of the woods on the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom though the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team has filed a closure report in the case. Importantly, amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran has disagreed with critical parts of the report and recommended Mr. Modi’s prosecution under various Sections of the IPC. Mr. Ramachandran, also appointed by the apex court, held the brief to independently weigh the evidence and give his opinion. It is very rare for the Supreme Court to seek and obtain this kind of cross-verification.

It is evident that the highest court holds Mr. Ramachandran in some regard. It was on his suggestion that the court desisted from offering its own opinion on the SIT’s findings, though critics have read into this a judicial reluctance to comment on Mr. Modi’s culpability. Mr. Ramachandran’s concern was the principle of fairness. The Supreme Court “ought not to” express any view on “the merits of the case”, he argued, “as any finding by this Hon’ble Court … even prima facie, would be detrimental to the accused or the complainant.” Mr. Modi has not been judged guilty, nor has he been let off the hook.

Indeed, Mr. Ramachandran made sure the legal doors would be kept open for complainant Zakia Jafri when he set out the procedure for the trial court to follow with regard to the SIT’s closure report. In the event the trial court accepted the report and dropped proceedings against Mr. Modi and the 61 others named in Ms Jafri’s complaint, it would have to offer Ms Jafri an opportunity to be heard so that she could persuade the court to take cognisance of the offences she has listed.

In other words, even the best case scenario does not entirely favour Mr. Modi. Besides, even a cursory reading of the SIT’s closure report will establish that its conclusions have been tailored to repudiate its own initial findings. There is little explanation for why the SIT’s final report is so much at variance with its preliminary report which charged Mr. Modi with unconscionable indifference to the massacres at Gulberg Society and Naroda Patia.

The preliminary report noted that Mr. Modi attributed the revenge killings to the Newtonian law of action and reaction. The words were “too strong at a time when feelings were running high” and they “showed a measure of thoughtlessness and irresponsibility on the part of a person holding a high public office.” Further, “his implied justification of the killings of innocent members of the minority community read together with an absence of strong condemnation of the violence that followed Godhra suggests a partisan stand at a critical juncture when the State had been badly disturbed by communal violence.”

The final report admitted that Mr. Modi used the action-reaction sequence to justify the pogrom but curiously, bafflingly, endorsed the justification by arguing that the reaction in fact stemmed from the action.

Mr. Ramachandran strongly differed with the SIT’s final report on two key aspects. The presence of IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt at a meeting where Mr. Modi allegedly instructed the administration to allow revenge killings of Muslims and the role played by police officers M.K Tandon and R.B. Gondia whom the SIT’s preliminary report had charged with “running away” from the massacre sites of Gulberg and Naroda Patia.

Was Mr. Bhatt speaking the truth? Did Mr. Tandon and Mr. Gondia act on their own? The answers to the questions may well decide where Mr. Modi stands in 2014.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3559605.ece