India
UP: Sonbhadra district directs govt teachers to partake in Ram Navami celebration
The teachers have been directed to go to temples and read Ramayana chapters
Representation Image
The Sonbhadra Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), the highest office in the Education department in the district issued a letter on March 25 directing all government school teachers to take part in Ramayan Pathan or Ramayana reading in all the schools in the district.
The order states that on March 28 and March 29 some teachers of every school must go to the temple and read Akhand Ramayan on both days.
Since the Ayodhya judgement and even before, the influence of Ramayana in the education sector was seen. It was the BJP-run states that pioneered these acts, including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The UP government had come up with a proposal in 2018 to set up a Ramayana University where students would be taught about Vedas and Hindu religion.
In January this year, Madhya Pradesh government announced that contexts of Gita, Ramcharitmanas and Ramayana will be taught in state government schools. In September 2021, the state government had decided to include Mahabharata and Ramayana in the Engineering syllabus!
In October 2021, Firozabad Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) had asked some teachers to recite verses from Valmiki Ramayan to mark Valmiki Jayanti. One teacher in Etah had told The Tribune, "The Valmiki Ramayan is in Sanskrit and I am a science teacher. I tried to do my best to read Sanskrit, but it was too difficult for me. Only three of four people were present at the venue. I do not understand the aim of issuing such orders”. The order was condemned by Uttar Pradesh Teachers' Federation as well.
The question however remains, can teachers teaching in government run schools be asked to abide by one particular faith and go to temples to recite religious epics. The values of secularism that are taught in school curriculums then hold no value or become incongruent with what the states are compelling teachers to do. Government run institutions, in this case, schools, ought to be run as per constitutional principles of secularism, equality, liberty, fraternity and so on and such orders run counter to these values which ideally should be taught in schools.
Related:
Remembering Bhagat Singh, Reclaiming the Right to be A Free Thinker
Towards Quality Universal and Accessible Education for All! Protests against NEP 2020
UP: Sonbhadra district directs govt teachers to partake in Ram Navami celebration
The teachers have been directed to go to temples and read Ramayana chapters
Representation Image
The Sonbhadra Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), the highest office in the Education department in the district issued a letter on March 25 directing all government school teachers to take part in Ramayan Pathan or Ramayana reading in all the schools in the district.
The order states that on March 28 and March 29 some teachers of every school must go to the temple and read Akhand Ramayan on both days.
Since the Ayodhya judgement and even before, the influence of Ramayana in the education sector was seen. It was the BJP-run states that pioneered these acts, including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The UP government had come up with a proposal in 2018 to set up a Ramayana University where students would be taught about Vedas and Hindu religion.
In January this year, Madhya Pradesh government announced that contexts of Gita, Ramcharitmanas and Ramayana will be taught in state government schools. In September 2021, the state government had decided to include Mahabharata and Ramayana in the Engineering syllabus!
In October 2021, Firozabad Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) had asked some teachers to recite verses from Valmiki Ramayan to mark Valmiki Jayanti. One teacher in Etah had told The Tribune, "The Valmiki Ramayan is in Sanskrit and I am a science teacher. I tried to do my best to read Sanskrit, but it was too difficult for me. Only three of four people were present at the venue. I do not understand the aim of issuing such orders”. The order was condemned by Uttar Pradesh Teachers' Federation as well.
The question however remains, can teachers teaching in government run schools be asked to abide by one particular faith and go to temples to recite religious epics. The values of secularism that are taught in school curriculums then hold no value or become incongruent with what the states are compelling teachers to do. Government run institutions, in this case, schools, ought to be run as per constitutional principles of secularism, equality, liberty, fraternity and so on and such orders run counter to these values which ideally should be taught in schools.
Related:
Remembering Bhagat Singh, Reclaiming the Right to be A Free Thinker
Towards Quality Universal and Accessible Education for All! Protests against NEP 2020
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Lok Sabha Restores Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal's Membership just ahead of Supreme Court hearing
Though his conviction had been suspended by the court two months and four days ago, this action comes now only when the parliamentarian’s challenge to the Lok Sabha Secretariat is to be heard by the Supreme Court
The Lok Sabha Secretariat today, March 29 issued a notification stating that the disqualification of Lakshadweep MP PP Mohammed Faizal has ceased to operate in view of the Kerala High Court suspending his conviction on January 25. Faizal belongs to the opposition, National Congress Party (NCP)
Significantly, the Lok Sabha notification came just a day ahead of the Supreme Court hearing in the petition filed by the NCP MP challenging the refusal to revoke his disqualification despite the stay on his conviction. The matter is listed before a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna on March 29.
"In view of order dated 25.01.2023 of the High Court of Kerala, the disqualification of Shri Mohammed Faizal P. P., notified vide Gazette Notification no. 21/4(1)/2023/TO(B) dated the 13 January, 2023 in terms of the provisions of Article 102(1)c) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has ceased to operate subject to further judicial pronouncements", the notification stated.
The notice may be read here:
It was on January 11, 2023 that a Sessions Court in Lakshadweep convicted the NCP MP and three others to ten years imprisonment in an attempt to murder case relating to an incident of 2009. Soon after the conviction, Faizal, a two-time MP from the island, was disqualified and the Election Commission of India announced bye-polls.
However, on January 25, a single bench of the Kerala High Court actually suspended Faizal's conviction. In a speaking order, while suspending the NCP leader's conviction, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the High Court expressed concerns about the wasteful expenditure of a bye-poll, especially when the term of the Lok Sabha is set to expire within one and a half years. Justice Thomas also noted that no dangerous weapons were found to have been used by the accused in the case and that the wound certificates did not indicate any serious injuries.
Even after the suspension of conviction, the Election Commission chose not to act in furtherance of the press note for bye-elections. Though the Lakshadweep administration approached the Supreme Court, a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna refused to stay the High Court's order on February 20. In the latest petition, Faizal has strongly contended the refusal of the lower house of Parliament, the Lok Sabha to reinstate him him is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Lok Prahari case which holds that once the conviction is stayed, the disqualification will also get suspended.
"The petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, against the unlawful inaction on the part of the respondent, Secretary General of the Lok Sabha Secretariat in not withdrawing the notification dated January 13, 2023, whereby the petitioner was disqualified from his membership of Parliament from the Lakshadweep parliamentary constituency," the plea said. [Case Title: UT Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 1644/2023 and Mohammed Faizal PP v. Secy General WP(C) No. 405/2023]
Lok Sabha Restores Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal's Membership just ahead of Supreme Court hearing
Though his conviction had been suspended by the court two months and four days ago, this action comes now only when the parliamentarian’s challenge to the Lok Sabha Secretariat is to be heard by the Supreme Court
The Lok Sabha Secretariat today, March 29 issued a notification stating that the disqualification of Lakshadweep MP PP Mohammed Faizal has ceased to operate in view of the Kerala High Court suspending his conviction on January 25. Faizal belongs to the opposition, National Congress Party (NCP)
Significantly, the Lok Sabha notification came just a day ahead of the Supreme Court hearing in the petition filed by the NCP MP challenging the refusal to revoke his disqualification despite the stay on his conviction. The matter is listed before a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna on March 29.
"In view of order dated 25.01.2023 of the High Court of Kerala, the disqualification of Shri Mohammed Faizal P. P., notified vide Gazette Notification no. 21/4(1)/2023/TO(B) dated the 13 January, 2023 in terms of the provisions of Article 102(1)c) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has ceased to operate subject to further judicial pronouncements", the notification stated.
The notice may be read here:
It was on January 11, 2023 that a Sessions Court in Lakshadweep convicted the NCP MP and three others to ten years imprisonment in an attempt to murder case relating to an incident of 2009. Soon after the conviction, Faizal, a two-time MP from the island, was disqualified and the Election Commission of India announced bye-polls.
However, on January 25, a single bench of the Kerala High Court actually suspended Faizal's conviction. In a speaking order, while suspending the NCP leader's conviction, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the High Court expressed concerns about the wasteful expenditure of a bye-poll, especially when the term of the Lok Sabha is set to expire within one and a half years. Justice Thomas also noted that no dangerous weapons were found to have been used by the accused in the case and that the wound certificates did not indicate any serious injuries.
Even after the suspension of conviction, the Election Commission chose not to act in furtherance of the press note for bye-elections. Though the Lakshadweep administration approached the Supreme Court, a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna refused to stay the High Court's order on February 20. In the latest petition, Faizal has strongly contended the refusal of the lower house of Parliament, the Lok Sabha to reinstate him him is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Lok Prahari case which holds that once the conviction is stayed, the disqualification will also get suspended.
"The petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, against the unlawful inaction on the part of the respondent, Secretary General of the Lok Sabha Secretariat in not withdrawing the notification dated January 13, 2023, whereby the petitioner was disqualified from his membership of Parliament from the Lakshadweep parliamentary constituency," the plea said. [Case Title: UT Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 1644/2023 and Mohammed Faizal PP v. Secy General WP(C) No. 405/2023]
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Finally Dalit Christians in SC list, Valmikis as STs: YSR Jagan Reddy in Andhra
With these state government resolutions, Jagan pushes ahead with outreach to the marginalised; both groups backed the YSRCP to the hilt in the 2019 elections; Andhra CM also assures other tribal groups that inclusion of Valmikis won’t affect existing quotas.
Over a month after the Telangana Assembly passed a resolution on including the Boya or the Valmiki community in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list, the Andhra Pradesh government last week pushed through a similar resolution in the Assembly.
However Andhra Pradesh went further. The Andhra Stage Assembly on Friday, March 24 also passed a resolution urging that the Union Government include Dalit Christians in the Scheduled Castes (SC) list, with Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy saying that the social and economic status of people doesn’t change automatically just because they convert to another religion. The issue of granting SC status to Dalit Christians was discussed during the tenure of Jagan’s father Dr Y S Rajashekar Reddy. This is a long standing demand of the Dalit Christian community with the matter being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Earlier, the Congress government of undivided Andhra Pradesh had also urged the Centre to accept the recommendation. Though both the YSR Congress Party of the CM and the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) jostled for their votes, in the last elections in May 2019 they shifted they backed the ruling party.
Currently, a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan is examining the issue of quotas for Dalit Muslims and Christians. The ideological fountainhead of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), however, has said recently that the current reservation system should not be tinkered with and quota should not be extended to Muslim and Christian Dalits since their religions claim to be egalitarian.
Meanwhile, after the Assembly passed the resolution on including Valmikis in the ST category, Reddy quickly reassured other tribal groups that the inclusion of the Boyas would not affect the existing quotas. In Andhra Pradesh, STs enjoy six per cent reservation. The CM said the resolution was introduced to fulfil a promise he had made to the community during a padayatra he undertook before coming to power in May 2019.
The CM allayed fears that including Valmiki community people from Kurnool, Kadapa, Anantapu
This inclusion of Boyas or Valmikis may only have a negligible impact on Group 1 jobs that come under the non-zoning category. It becomes negligible as only 386 Group 1 jobs have been notified in the last 10 years and the six per cent reservation only amounts to 21 or 22 posts.
The one-man Commission of retired IAS officer Samuel Anand Kumar who studied the social and economic conditions of the Boyas in the four districts and the ST Commission also agreed with this assessment, said the Chief Minister. State government jobs in the zoning system and districts constitute 99 per of the total jobs and the STs of the tribal agency areas would suffer no job loss because of the proposed inclusion of the group.
“The biggest fear of STs is a loss of jobs when other communities are added to the group. The zoning system may offset the inclusion of Boyas/Valmikis in the ST list, it remains to be seen what will happen in other sectors where there is no zoning system,” said ST leader V Ranga Rao.
The Boyas traditionally supported the Congress but as the grand old party’s electoral footprint shrank after the state’s bifurcation in 2014, they shifted to the YSRCP, backing it to the hilt in 2019. The TDP government had also proposed to include Boyas in the ST list. After losing power in 2019, when the demand for inclusion in the ST list was again raised by the community, TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the matter, saying the community needs help, and requested the Centre to introduce a Bill in Parliament.
“The TDP tried to create divisions by proposing the resolution but not implementing it. We have passed the resolution and will implement it. Boya community is now fully with YSRCP,’’ said Tribal Welfare Minister P Rajanna Dora.
Consequently, on February 10 this year, the Telangana government passed a resolution in Assembly recommending to the Centre to include Valmiki Boyas in the ST list along with other caste groups such as the Pedda Boyas, Khaiti Lambadas, Mali Saha Bedars, Kiratakas, Nishadis, Bhat Mathuralus, Chamar Mathuras, Chunduwals, and Thalayaris.
CM K Chandrashekar Rao, who introduced the resolution, said the state government had accepted the recommendation of a Commission of Inquiry for Scheduled Tribes in 2016 for the inclusion of the Valmiki Boyas, Kirataka, and other groups and submitted the same to the Centre.
Since no response had been received from the Union government, the Assembly unanimously resolved to recommend to the Centre to include the communities in the ST list, said the CM, reading out the resolution. Besides, he also proposed that the Mali community living in the districts of Adilabad, Komram Bheem Asifabad and Mancherial be included in the ST list, given their socio-economic conditions.
A comprehensive report on this has been filed in The Indian Express.
Related:
Why Should Dalit Christians not get Reservations as Scheduled Castes, Notice to Centre: SC
Finally Dalit Christians in SC list, Valmikis as STs: YSR Jagan Reddy in Andhra
With these state government resolutions, Jagan pushes ahead with outreach to the marginalised; both groups backed the YSRCP to the hilt in the 2019 elections; Andhra CM also assures other tribal groups that inclusion of Valmikis won’t affect existing quotas.
Over a month after the Telangana Assembly passed a resolution on including the Boya or the Valmiki community in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list, the Andhra Pradesh government last week pushed through a similar resolution in the Assembly.
However Andhra Pradesh went further. The Andhra Stage Assembly on Friday, March 24 also passed a resolution urging that the Union Government include Dalit Christians in the Scheduled Castes (SC) list, with Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy saying that the social and economic status of people doesn’t change automatically just because they convert to another religion. The issue of granting SC status to Dalit Christians was discussed during the tenure of Jagan’s father Dr Y S Rajashekar Reddy. This is a long standing demand of the Dalit Christian community with the matter being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Earlier, the Congress government of undivided Andhra Pradesh had also urged the Centre to accept the recommendation. Though both the YSR Congress Party of the CM and the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) jostled for their votes, in the last elections in May 2019 they shifted they backed the ruling party.
Currently, a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan is examining the issue of quotas for Dalit Muslims and Christians. The ideological fountainhead of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), however, has said recently that the current reservation system should not be tinkered with and quota should not be extended to Muslim and Christian Dalits since their religions claim to be egalitarian.
Meanwhile, after the Assembly passed the resolution on including Valmikis in the ST category, Reddy quickly reassured other tribal groups that the inclusion of the Boyas would not affect the existing quotas. In Andhra Pradesh, STs enjoy six per cent reservation. The CM said the resolution was introduced to fulfil a promise he had made to the community during a padayatra he undertook before coming to power in May 2019.
The CM allayed fears that including Valmiki community people from Kurnool, Kadapa, Anantapu
This inclusion of Boyas or Valmikis may only have a negligible impact on Group 1 jobs that come under the non-zoning category. It becomes negligible as only 386 Group 1 jobs have been notified in the last 10 years and the six per cent reservation only amounts to 21 or 22 posts.
The one-man Commission of retired IAS officer Samuel Anand Kumar who studied the social and economic conditions of the Boyas in the four districts and the ST Commission also agreed with this assessment, said the Chief Minister. State government jobs in the zoning system and districts constitute 99 per of the total jobs and the STs of the tribal agency areas would suffer no job loss because of the proposed inclusion of the group.
“The biggest fear of STs is a loss of jobs when other communities are added to the group. The zoning system may offset the inclusion of Boyas/Valmikis in the ST list, it remains to be seen what will happen in other sectors where there is no zoning system,” said ST leader V Ranga Rao.
The Boyas traditionally supported the Congress but as the grand old party’s electoral footprint shrank after the state’s bifurcation in 2014, they shifted to the YSRCP, backing it to the hilt in 2019. The TDP government had also proposed to include Boyas in the ST list. After losing power in 2019, when the demand for inclusion in the ST list was again raised by the community, TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the matter, saying the community needs help, and requested the Centre to introduce a Bill in Parliament.
“The TDP tried to create divisions by proposing the resolution but not implementing it. We have passed the resolution and will implement it. Boya community is now fully with YSRCP,’’ said Tribal Welfare Minister P Rajanna Dora.
Consequently, on February 10 this year, the Telangana government passed a resolution in Assembly recommending to the Centre to include Valmiki Boyas in the ST list along with other caste groups such as the Pedda Boyas, Khaiti Lambadas, Mali Saha Bedars, Kiratakas, Nishadis, Bhat Mathuralus, Chamar Mathuras, Chunduwals, and Thalayaris.
CM K Chandrashekar Rao, who introduced the resolution, said the state government had accepted the recommendation of a Commission of Inquiry for Scheduled Tribes in 2016 for the inclusion of the Valmiki Boyas, Kirataka, and other groups and submitted the same to the Centre.
Since no response had been received from the Union government, the Assembly unanimously resolved to recommend to the Centre to include the communities in the ST list, said the CM, reading out the resolution. Besides, he also proposed that the Mali community living in the districts of Adilabad, Komram Bheem Asifabad and Mancherial be included in the ST list, given their socio-economic conditions.
A comprehensive report on this has been filed in The Indian Express.
Related:
Why Should Dalit Christians not get Reservations as Scheduled Castes, Notice to Centre: SC
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Illegal mining: Only 6% cases ended up as FIRs in 2022
The data provided for 16 states in the Rajya Sabha indicated that while incidents of illegal mining were substantial, the rate of registration of FIRs was abysmally low
Representation Image
Rather shocking data was presented in Rajya Sabha about illegal mining in the country, which indicated that out of the 60,419 cases of illegal mining in 16 states, only 3,686 FIRs were lodged. The question was raised by Dr Prashanta Nanda (BJD) and Ms Sulata Deo (BJD) to the Ministry of Mines on March 20.
Mining in India is regulated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act). Penalty for illegal mining was made more stringent by amendment of the MMDR Act in 2015. Penalties for contravention of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Act have been increased from Rs. 25 thousand per hectare to Rs. 5 Lakh per hectare and the term of imprisonment has been increased from 2 years to 5 years.
A total of 22 states have framed rules to curb illegal mining. Illegal mining is when mining is carried without license or outside the licensed area or when more than the permissible amount is extracted.
As per the latest data provided by the Ministry, pertaining to the period between April 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022, a total of 60,419 cases of illegal mining occurred in which only 3,686 FIRs were lodged and even lower 2,931 cases were filed in court. The highest number of cases were from Telangana (17,938) and the lowest from Goa (1). The highest number of FIR’s were from Sikkim (1,245) and zero FIRs filed in Andhra Pradesh (4,296 cases), Goa (1 case), Himachal Pradesh (1,934 cases), Kerala (,3617 cases), Odisha (7 cases), Tamil Nadu (4,495 cases) and Uttar Pradesh (757).
As per earlier data provided by the government and analysed by Down to Earth.org, Maharashtra had the highest number of cases of illegal mining in 2015-16 with 33,621 cases. Looking at this one can say, there has definitely been a dip in such cases, since the highest number of illegal mining cases for April-September 2022 is 17,938 from Telangana. Odisha is said to have made considerable progress in curbing illegal mining as it reduced the number of cases by more than 90 per cent, from 487 in 2009-10 to just 45 in 2016-17 and just 7 cases in 2022.
The complete answer may be read here:
Related:
Armed cops, paramilitary sent to 'protect' top mining group, 'oppose' Odisha tribal rights
Adivasi activist Hidme Markam walks out of jail 22 months after being branded a “terrorist”
NCST firm on its stand, Forest Conservation Rules violate Forest Rights
Odisha: Over 1.5 lakh Individual Forest Rights claims rejected without reason!
Illegal mining: Only 6% cases ended up as FIRs in 2022
The data provided for 16 states in the Rajya Sabha indicated that while incidents of illegal mining were substantial, the rate of registration of FIRs was abysmally low
Representation Image
Rather shocking data was presented in Rajya Sabha about illegal mining in the country, which indicated that out of the 60,419 cases of illegal mining in 16 states, only 3,686 FIRs were lodged. The question was raised by Dr Prashanta Nanda (BJD) and Ms Sulata Deo (BJD) to the Ministry of Mines on March 20.
Mining in India is regulated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act). Penalty for illegal mining was made more stringent by amendment of the MMDR Act in 2015. Penalties for contravention of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Act have been increased from Rs. 25 thousand per hectare to Rs. 5 Lakh per hectare and the term of imprisonment has been increased from 2 years to 5 years.
A total of 22 states have framed rules to curb illegal mining. Illegal mining is when mining is carried without license or outside the licensed area or when more than the permissible amount is extracted.
As per the latest data provided by the Ministry, pertaining to the period between April 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022, a total of 60,419 cases of illegal mining occurred in which only 3,686 FIRs were lodged and even lower 2,931 cases were filed in court. The highest number of cases were from Telangana (17,938) and the lowest from Goa (1). The highest number of FIR’s were from Sikkim (1,245) and zero FIRs filed in Andhra Pradesh (4,296 cases), Goa (1 case), Himachal Pradesh (1,934 cases), Kerala (,3617 cases), Odisha (7 cases), Tamil Nadu (4,495 cases) and Uttar Pradesh (757).
As per earlier data provided by the government and analysed by Down to Earth.org, Maharashtra had the highest number of cases of illegal mining in 2015-16 with 33,621 cases. Looking at this one can say, there has definitely been a dip in such cases, since the highest number of illegal mining cases for April-September 2022 is 17,938 from Telangana. Odisha is said to have made considerable progress in curbing illegal mining as it reduced the number of cases by more than 90 per cent, from 487 in 2009-10 to just 45 in 2016-17 and just 7 cases in 2022.
The complete answer may be read here:
Related:
Armed cops, paramilitary sent to 'protect' top mining group, 'oppose' Odisha tribal rights
Adivasi activist Hidme Markam walks out of jail 22 months after being branded a “terrorist”
NCST firm on its stand, Forest Conservation Rules violate Forest Rights
Odisha: Over 1.5 lakh Individual Forest Rights claims rejected without reason!
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
M’tra d’ty CM Devendra Fadnavis defends rallies against ‘love jihad’, promises law against mixed marriages
Speaking within the state legislative council he also said that his government would decide on ‘love jihad’ law soon even while his minister, Mangal Prabhat Lodha faces a privilege motion for grossly exaggerating numbers of cases before this ‘Committee’
MUMBAI: Deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday stated that the sentiment of so many people attending ‘love jihad’ morchas must be respected and therefore the Eknath Shinde (Shiv Sena SS)- Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government may bring in a law against such marriages soon. He was speaking in the state legislative council.
Phadnavis controversially added that prima facie it seems there is a design behind love jihad-type incidents taking place in the state! He also said that “the state government has taken cognisance of the 50 Hindu Jan Aakrosh Morcha rallies across the state demanding a law against love jihad, and will soon take an appropriate decision on bringing a law against ‘love jihad’ after studying similar laws brought in by other states. All the approximately 25 such rallies have generated huge concern among citizens for the accelerated use of hate and targeted speech against minorities at them.
Ironically just three days ago, the Maharashtra minister for women’s development, Mangal Prabhat Lodha faces a privilege motion for making a false statement before the state assembly on the subject. Speaking during the budget session, Lodha had brazenly stated that that the state of Maharashtra had over one lakh 'love jihad' cases. The BJP leader made the remark during the Maharashtra Assembly Budget Session. Lodha had stated that “Maharashtra had more than one lakh cases of love jihad, which upset society." he had then said that “the state government's interfaith marriage committee has no say in anyone's personal life or religion. But we want to avoid another Shraddha Walkar case. This is the government's responsibility." The Samajwadi Party president, Abu Hashim Azmi filed privilege motion against BJP leader Lodha for making false claims of having received 152 cases in the state assembly, even as the Bombay High Court allowed PIL by Rais Shaikh against the Maharashtra government’s resolution.
After the formation of the controversial 12-member committee (Inter-Faith Marriage Coordination Committee) on December 13, 2022, Samajwadi Party MLA, Rais Shaikh had – through a letter written on February 16, 2023, sought a response from the ministry on the number of cases of such marriages pending before it. Now, as per a response received by Samajwadi Party MLA Rais Shaikh from the government ministry, even after months have passed since the setting up of the 12 member Inter-faith Marriage-Family Coordination Committee, there are currently zero cases before the panel. On Monday, March 20, Rais Shaikh received a response stating that there was currently no case before the committee, as reported by Hindustan Times. Yet Fadnavis persists with the unsubstantiated claims that such cases occur!
Read how CJP has been relentlessly tracking hate speeches and complaining too. CJP has also started an online campaign to the political leadership to adhere to constitutional values not divisive politics,
While the situation on the ground spirals towards polarisation, clearly the political leadership is in no mood to listen. In that context Fadnavis’ statement that the interfaith marriage-family coordination committee set up by the women and child welfare department doesn't supersede any existing law and its scope is only limited to connecting families of girls such as Shraddha Walkar whose parents couldn't contact her is questionable. In fact, the Maharashtra police has been turning a blind eye to over three dozen complaints filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace, Tushar Gandhi and even the recently formed Salokha Samiti, an umbrella organisation consisting of 45 organisations in Maharashtra.
Fadnavis was replying to a call to attention motion on increasing cases of alleged love jihad in the legislative council raised by MLC Gopichand Padalkar.
The deputy CM also said the new law against love jihad which was under active consideration will be within the constitutional framework. Fadnavis also announced that the director general of police will be told to sensitise the police and soon a standard operating procedure (SOP) will be issued for taking timely action in cases where parents complain their daughters have been cheated in alleged love jihad cases and cannot be contacted.
"It is a fact that between 30,000 and 50,000 people have taken part in these morchas in various districts. We don't think that there should be no interfaith marriages. They can do it, but this must not be done with the intention to cheat. This is very serious. So we have taken cognisance of the sentiments of the people. We are studying love jihad-type laws that have been passed by other states and an appropriate decision on bringing such a law will be taken soon. This law will be within the constitutional framework," Fadnavis said.
"The interfaith marriage-family coordination committee will not supersede any existing law. It is only to establish contact between parents of girls and the girl if she is not at her home like it happened in the Shraddha Walkar case. Had the police taken action in time and had the parents been able to reach her in time, she could have probably been saved. The parents were saying they only wanted to contact her one time and see if she was well or not. If the existing laws are not able to provide enough protection, then there is a need for a special law. The government is serious about this issue. If so many people are taking part in morchas, then there is a sentiment in the people and the government has taken note of it," he said.
Just last week the Bombay High Court has converted a petition filed by SP MLA from Bhiwandi, Rais Shaikh into a PIL which will be heard soon. Citizens for Justice and Peace (Cjp.org.in) has challenged similar laws brought in by nine states and the matter is being currently heard in the Supreme Court. The last hearing was on March 17 and the matter is likely to come up after a month.
Related:
CJP intimates Maharashtra Police about HJS Gudi Padwa events
M’tra d’ty CM Devendra Fadnavis defends rallies against ‘love jihad’, promises law against mixed marriages
Speaking within the state legislative council he also said that his government would decide on ‘love jihad’ law soon even while his minister, Mangal Prabhat Lodha faces a privilege motion for grossly exaggerating numbers of cases before this ‘Committee’
MUMBAI: Deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday stated that the sentiment of so many people attending ‘love jihad’ morchas must be respected and therefore the Eknath Shinde (Shiv Sena SS)- Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government may bring in a law against such marriages soon. He was speaking in the state legislative council.
Phadnavis controversially added that prima facie it seems there is a design behind love jihad-type incidents taking place in the state! He also said that “the state government has taken cognisance of the 50 Hindu Jan Aakrosh Morcha rallies across the state demanding a law against love jihad, and will soon take an appropriate decision on bringing a law against ‘love jihad’ after studying similar laws brought in by other states. All the approximately 25 such rallies have generated huge concern among citizens for the accelerated use of hate and targeted speech against minorities at them.
Ironically just three days ago, the Maharashtra minister for women’s development, Mangal Prabhat Lodha faces a privilege motion for making a false statement before the state assembly on the subject. Speaking during the budget session, Lodha had brazenly stated that that the state of Maharashtra had over one lakh 'love jihad' cases. The BJP leader made the remark during the Maharashtra Assembly Budget Session. Lodha had stated that “Maharashtra had more than one lakh cases of love jihad, which upset society." he had then said that “the state government's interfaith marriage committee has no say in anyone's personal life or religion. But we want to avoid another Shraddha Walkar case. This is the government's responsibility." The Samajwadi Party president, Abu Hashim Azmi filed privilege motion against BJP leader Lodha for making false claims of having received 152 cases in the state assembly, even as the Bombay High Court allowed PIL by Rais Shaikh against the Maharashtra government’s resolution.
After the formation of the controversial 12-member committee (Inter-Faith Marriage Coordination Committee) on December 13, 2022, Samajwadi Party MLA, Rais Shaikh had – through a letter written on February 16, 2023, sought a response from the ministry on the number of cases of such marriages pending before it. Now, as per a response received by Samajwadi Party MLA Rais Shaikh from the government ministry, even after months have passed since the setting up of the 12 member Inter-faith Marriage-Family Coordination Committee, there are currently zero cases before the panel. On Monday, March 20, Rais Shaikh received a response stating that there was currently no case before the committee, as reported by Hindustan Times. Yet Fadnavis persists with the unsubstantiated claims that such cases occur!
Read how CJP has been relentlessly tracking hate speeches and complaining too. CJP has also started an online campaign to the political leadership to adhere to constitutional values not divisive politics,
While the situation on the ground spirals towards polarisation, clearly the political leadership is in no mood to listen. In that context Fadnavis’ statement that the interfaith marriage-family coordination committee set up by the women and child welfare department doesn't supersede any existing law and its scope is only limited to connecting families of girls such as Shraddha Walkar whose parents couldn't contact her is questionable. In fact, the Maharashtra police has been turning a blind eye to over three dozen complaints filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace, Tushar Gandhi and even the recently formed Salokha Samiti, an umbrella organisation consisting of 45 organisations in Maharashtra.
Fadnavis was replying to a call to attention motion on increasing cases of alleged love jihad in the legislative council raised by MLC Gopichand Padalkar.
The deputy CM also said the new law against love jihad which was under active consideration will be within the constitutional framework. Fadnavis also announced that the director general of police will be told to sensitise the police and soon a standard operating procedure (SOP) will be issued for taking timely action in cases where parents complain their daughters have been cheated in alleged love jihad cases and cannot be contacted.
"It is a fact that between 30,000 and 50,000 people have taken part in these morchas in various districts. We don't think that there should be no interfaith marriages. They can do it, but this must not be done with the intention to cheat. This is very serious. So we have taken cognisance of the sentiments of the people. We are studying love jihad-type laws that have been passed by other states and an appropriate decision on bringing such a law will be taken soon. This law will be within the constitutional framework," Fadnavis said.
"The interfaith marriage-family coordination committee will not supersede any existing law. It is only to establish contact between parents of girls and the girl if she is not at her home like it happened in the Shraddha Walkar case. Had the police taken action in time and had the parents been able to reach her in time, she could have probably been saved. The parents were saying they only wanted to contact her one time and see if she was well or not. If the existing laws are not able to provide enough protection, then there is a need for a special law. The government is serious about this issue. If so many people are taking part in morchas, then there is a sentiment in the people and the government has taken note of it," he said.
Just last week the Bombay High Court has converted a petition filed by SP MLA from Bhiwandi, Rais Shaikh into a PIL which will be heard soon. Citizens for Justice and Peace (Cjp.org.in) has challenged similar laws brought in by nine states and the matter is being currently heard in the Supreme Court. The last hearing was on March 17 and the matter is likely to come up after a month.
Related:
CJP intimates Maharashtra Police about HJS Gudi Padwa events
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Remembering Bhagat Singh, Reclaiming the Right to be A Free Thinker
It is quite a striking experience when, in Europe – including in France which is the historical birthplace of secularism –, one gets automatically told, for example, "Oh, you are a Hindu!" if one says one is Indian, or "Oh, you are a Muslim! if one says one is Algerian.
First publihsed on: 27 Apr 2017
One witnesses a forceful return of religions’ political hold, which corners our diasporas into a mix of ethnic-cultural-religious syncretic identity, and traps us, as if we were under ‘house arrest’, into our presumed religion or culture. In fact, this is an ahistorical fantasy, which denies us any access to freedom of thought and universal rights.
In these dire circumstances, we welcome the translation into French, the publication and the wide distribution of Bhagat Singh’s 1930 pamphlet "Why I am an atheist" as particularly timely.
As feminists, we already faced the identity sledgehammer argument in our countries of origin: "Feminism is Western; you are traitors to your own country, to your culture, to your origins; you have sold out to the West, to capitalism, to Western imperialism" etc…
However, a research undertaken by feminist activists in the ’90s in so-called Muslim countries shows that women, since the inception of Islam, already demanded the right to education, to freedom of movement, to political representation, to financial autonomy, to celibacy or to the right to chose one’s partner after thorough agreements had been designed in order to draft a contract which was satisfactory to both parties, etc…
From that time onwards, women took action to guarantee all these rights (1) We had to fight hard to get back the ownership of our long lived feminist history, by challenging the Sirens’ song of reactionary identity politics – and as well, one must emphasise here, the Sirens’ song of patriarchy happily covering up in the midst of our Left forces, in our countries.
As revolutionaries as well, we had to confront the identity argument: "Marxism is a Western way of thinking, alien to our culture; you are traitors to the nation; sold out to the West, etc…"
And now once more, we must reclaim and own back our revolutionary history, by bringing together the stories and analysis of the many agnostics, atheists and secularists in our countries. For, as Bhagat Singh says, "All religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion. "
In order to reclaim our historical right to atheism, to ground ourselves into our long secular tradition, we must today confront on the ground the Hindutva as well as Daesh (ISIS) and many other – intolerant Buddhists, orthodox Jews, Opus Dei, etc... religious extreme-rights, which, when they are in power, claim their gods granted them the right and duty to physically eliminate all the Untermensch. "Divine Repression", as Bhagat Singh would say… Be it in India, in Bangladesh, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Nigeria, or … in Paris and Brussels, many lost their lives, including recently, for having claimed this universal right: to live as a freethinker and to mock the official representatives of established creeds.
Let us pay tribute here to the Bangladeshi and Saudi bloggers, to the Indian writers, to the Pakistani activists struggling against the Blasphemy Law, to the French cartoonists, etc … who fought for our freedom.
Clearly, it is an illusion to hope that the West will be spared by the rise of religious extreme-rights and that their sphere of influence will be limited to the African and Asian countries we came from. In Europe and North America, societies are increasingly dividing themselves along the lines of ethnic or religious antagonistic ‘communities’ which want to be ruled by their own religious laws ("Do not say that it is His law!", exclaims Bhagat Singh) and their own customs. In the process, they get rid of democracy and universal rights, in the name of an ‘identity’ which only keeps from the past the most conservatives elements – especially regarding women’s rights.
Even in France, the very principle of secularism is now under threat – whether because it is gradually abandoned by political forces, formerly on the Left, who made secularism happen, or whether it is sidetracked by political forces, on the extreme-right.
In these troubled times, translating and publishing in the French language this book by Bhagat Singh reminds all those who, right here, deny us our libertarian history – in the name of an identity they believe is necessarily grounded in religion – and who grant a growing political power to religions’ official representatives, that "The morbid alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power" constitutes a mortal danger.
The writer is Algerian sociologist, founder and former international coordinator of the Women Living Under Muslim Laws international solidarity network (wluml.org), founder and present international coordinator of the international network, Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (siawi.org).
This article was published in French by Editions de l’Asymétrie, as a forward to Bhagat Singh’s "Why I am an atheist". The author has translated it into English.
Remembering Bhagat Singh, Reclaiming the Right to be A Free Thinker
It is quite a striking experience when, in Europe – including in France which is the historical birthplace of secularism –, one gets automatically told, for example, "Oh, you are a Hindu!" if one says one is Indian, or "Oh, you are a Muslim! if one says one is Algerian.
First publihsed on: 27 Apr 2017
One witnesses a forceful return of religions’ political hold, which corners our diasporas into a mix of ethnic-cultural-religious syncretic identity, and traps us, as if we were under ‘house arrest’, into our presumed religion or culture. In fact, this is an ahistorical fantasy, which denies us any access to freedom of thought and universal rights.
In these dire circumstances, we welcome the translation into French, the publication and the wide distribution of Bhagat Singh’s 1930 pamphlet "Why I am an atheist" as particularly timely.
As feminists, we already faced the identity sledgehammer argument in our countries of origin: "Feminism is Western; you are traitors to your own country, to your culture, to your origins; you have sold out to the West, to capitalism, to Western imperialism" etc…
However, a research undertaken by feminist activists in the ’90s in so-called Muslim countries shows that women, since the inception of Islam, already demanded the right to education, to freedom of movement, to political representation, to financial autonomy, to celibacy or to the right to chose one’s partner after thorough agreements had been designed in order to draft a contract which was satisfactory to both parties, etc…
From that time onwards, women took action to guarantee all these rights (1) We had to fight hard to get back the ownership of our long lived feminist history, by challenging the Sirens’ song of reactionary identity politics – and as well, one must emphasise here, the Sirens’ song of patriarchy happily covering up in the midst of our Left forces, in our countries.
As revolutionaries as well, we had to confront the identity argument: "Marxism is a Western way of thinking, alien to our culture; you are traitors to the nation; sold out to the West, etc…"
And now once more, we must reclaim and own back our revolutionary history, by bringing together the stories and analysis of the many agnostics, atheists and secularists in our countries. For, as Bhagat Singh says, "All religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion. "
In order to reclaim our historical right to atheism, to ground ourselves into our long secular tradition, we must today confront on the ground the Hindutva as well as Daesh (ISIS) and many other – intolerant Buddhists, orthodox Jews, Opus Dei, etc... religious extreme-rights, which, when they are in power, claim their gods granted them the right and duty to physically eliminate all the Untermensch. "Divine Repression", as Bhagat Singh would say… Be it in India, in Bangladesh, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Nigeria, or … in Paris and Brussels, many lost their lives, including recently, for having claimed this universal right: to live as a freethinker and to mock the official representatives of established creeds.
Let us pay tribute here to the Bangladeshi and Saudi bloggers, to the Indian writers, to the Pakistani activists struggling against the Blasphemy Law, to the French cartoonists, etc … who fought for our freedom.
Clearly, it is an illusion to hope that the West will be spared by the rise of religious extreme-rights and that their sphere of influence will be limited to the African and Asian countries we came from. In Europe and North America, societies are increasingly dividing themselves along the lines of ethnic or religious antagonistic ‘communities’ which want to be ruled by their own religious laws ("Do not say that it is His law!", exclaims Bhagat Singh) and their own customs. In the process, they get rid of democracy and universal rights, in the name of an ‘identity’ which only keeps from the past the most conservatives elements – especially regarding women’s rights.
Even in France, the very principle of secularism is now under threat – whether because it is gradually abandoned by political forces, formerly on the Left, who made secularism happen, or whether it is sidetracked by political forces, on the extreme-right.
In these troubled times, translating and publishing in the French language this book by Bhagat Singh reminds all those who, right here, deny us our libertarian history – in the name of an identity they believe is necessarily grounded in religion – and who grant a growing political power to religions’ official representatives, that "The morbid alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power" constitutes a mortal danger.
The writer is Algerian sociologist, founder and former international coordinator of the Women Living Under Muslim Laws international solidarity network (wluml.org), founder and present international coordinator of the international network, Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (siawi.org).
This article was published in French by Editions de l’Asymétrie, as a forward to Bhagat Singh’s "Why I am an atheist". The author has translated it into English.
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Freedom from Communalism & Religious Intolerance was Bhagat Singh’s Ideal, Never Hindu Rashtra
Hindu Communalists have forever sought to appropriate the young and fiery martyr in Goebbellsian ways perpetuating lies and falsehoods that include falsely promoting February 14 (Valentine’s Day) as his Death Anniversary rather than March 23, when he was actually hanged
A tribute on the legendary martyr’s birth anniversary
First published on: 28 Sep 2016
“The communists’ ideologues conveniently ignore the truth that the roots of Bhagat Singh’s ideology lie in the very concept of Hindu Rashtra,” claimed an article by Dipin Damodharan, published on the birth anniversary of Bhagat Singh, September 28, 2010.
Damodharan, as introduced at the end of the article, is a student pursuing Masters in Communication and Journalism (MCJ) at the Calicut University of Kerala. He argues: “To my knowledge, he sacrificed his precious life for a noble cause, for the liberation of Bharat from the invaders, for nationalism. Undoubtedly Bhagat’s legacy belongs to every Bharati. But for the communists (experts in transforming sheep to dog), he died for communism and not for nationalism. They are incessantly advocating Bhagat as their poster boy, for several years they have been using Goebbelsian tricks to claim Bhagat’s legacy.”
The author further argues, “They are injecting fake stories about Bhagat into the blood of youth who are ignorant about Bharat’s history. Discarding the historical facts, the communists become angry with the Sangh inspired organizations for propagating Bhagat’s ideals”.
To justify his claims, the author cites examples like Bhagat Singh was born in a family who were staunch followers of the Arya Samaj, was educated at Dayanad Anglo Vedic (DAV) School and National College of Lahore, was inspired by the sagas of two great patriots Chatrapati Shivaji and Maharana Pratap and finally, they link at his association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Of course, without any reference! To any of us who has read Bhagat’s writings, it is nothing but absurd or, if we go by Damodharan’s own definition — it is an attempt to transform sheep in to a dog.
Bhagat Singh himself, in his most famous writing, ‘Why I Am An Atheist’ clarifies the above absurdities.
Bhagat Singh wrote, “I deny the very existence of that Almighty Supreme being… My grandfather under whose influence I was brought up as an orthodox Arya Samajist. An Arya Samajist is anything but an atheist. After finishing my primary education I joined the DAV. School of Lahore and stayed in its Boarding House for one full year… Later on, I joined the revolutionary party… My previous faith and convictions underwent a remarkable modification… I had become a pronounced atheist.”
Dismissing Dipin Damodharan’s remarks as absurd and ignoring them is not what we should do, as these attempts are not abrupt. They are pre-planned and occupy various forms of mass communication. Communal forces are not letting go of any chance to misuse these heroes for furthering their communal agendas.
Last year (2010), a month before the Ayodhya verdict, the ‘Bhagwa Brigade’ (saffron brigade) gave a public call to recruit 10,000 Hindu youth from Madhya Pradesh (MP) for the mission to establish a Hindu Rasthra.
To do so, they issued a poster and pasted copies of it all over the state of Madhya Pradesh. Notably in the poster, with Sawarkar, Shivaji and others, one finds pictures of Bhagat Singh, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose, being portrayed as Hindu revolutionaries! One might not have any objection in portraying Shivaji, Maharana Pratap, Jhansi ki Rani and Chandra Sekhar Azad as Hindu icons, but portrayal of Bhagat Singh, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose in the same vein is really objectionable and very disturbing, because of their known commitment to secularism and for being non communal.
Like Bhagat Singh, it was very clear to Subhas Chandra Bose of who he was and what he wanted. In 1929, while delivering a speech at Lahore Students’ Conference, Lahore, he famously said, If we are to bring about a revolution of ideas, we have first to hold up before us, an ideal which will galvanise our whole life. That ideal is Freedom. But freedom is a word which has a varied connotation and even in our country, the conception of freedom has undergone a process of evolution. By freedom I mean all-round freedom i.e., freedom for the individual as well as for society, freedom for man as well as for woman, freedom for the rich as well as for the poor, freedom for all individuals and for all classes. This freedom implies not only emancipation from political bondage but also equal distribution of wealth, abolition of caste barriers and social iniquities and destruction of communalism and religious intolerance. This is an ideal which may appear Utopian to hard-headed men and women — but this ideal alone can appease the hunger of the soul.”
An archive photograph of Bhagat Singh in jail in Lahore. Image: The Hindu
Ambedkar converted to Buddhism in protest of the jati-varna system of Hinduism, and was very clear about what he stood for. He repeatedly opposed the system of Hinduism let alone the ideology of Hindutva. He had asked his followers to stop the Hindu Rashtra from becoming a reality at all costs.
But again, Hindu communal political parties like the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), spread deliberate confusion about him by misquoting him and depicting him as ‘their’ leader. Last year (2010), on the eve of 6th December (anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition), on the walls on Jamia Nagar, a new kind of poster was seen.
The poster was put up by Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha (BJYM), the youth wing of BJP, and read thus, ‘Yugh Purush Baba Saheb Ambedker ke nirvana divas par Dr. Bheem Rao Ambeker Cricket Tournament-10’, with a relatively larger picture of Baba Saheb (as compared to) other leaders of BJYM, who were shown promoting the event.
The event which was scheduled to take place in Malviya Nagar had absolutely no connection with Jamia Nagar, except that both finish on the same last name! While seeing the poster, one wonders what it has to do with Jamia Nagar. At the same time, the same or any other poster about the event was not seen in neighbouring Jullena or Sukhdev Vihar, which have a dominant non-Muslim population, let alone other areas of Delhi. But of course, it was put up for diverting the attention of the Muslims from the anniversary of demolition of Babri Masjid. Moreover, to my understanding, it was meant to convey a message to the ordinary resident of Jamia nagar (read Muslim) that either, Ambedkar was a leader of the BJP, or at least somebody who sympathised with its ideology and those of its allies, which is absolutely wrong and ridiculous, to say the least.
Hindutva-waadis are hell bent on distorting facts and influencing the common sense through the medium of mass communication.
On the eve of Valentine’s Day, these forces spread a rumor that on February 14, 1931, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru & Sukhdev were hanged till death by British government and we celebrate this day as Valentine day! Isn’t it surprising & painful? I am told by a journalist friend of mine from south India that, this is the standard question you have to counter if you say what is wrong with celebrating Valentine’s Day! This, when it is a well-established historical fact that Bhagat Singh, along with Sukhdev and Rajguru were martyred on March 23, 1931 and not on February 14.
The zealots don’t stop there. They have even tried spreading misinformation through Wikipedia, the preferable web dictionary for the net savvy, to know who is who and what is what.
According to a news report that had appeared in The Hindu, ‘the Wikipedia page on Bhagat Singh underwent many editing changes on February 13 and 14, Valentine’s day ’. The date of Bhagat Singh’s hanging had been changed from March 23 to February 14, 1931. And it was due to such propaganda that an international news website, reported, “While the whole world observes 14th February as Valentine’s Day, not many Indians remember that the day was also when the Indian freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged to death by the Britishers in Lahore, Pakistan”. Similarly, this February 13, (2011) Twitter was on fire with talk of the February 14 as Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom day next day, and even the editor of a Hindi news channel mourned that everyone was looking forward only to Valentine’s Day. He was shamed into apologising the next day.
We will have many days every year to remember Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Ashfaqullah Khan, Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and others, on their martyrdom, death, and birth anniversaries. This puts greater responsibility on us—the responsibility of not believing in distorted facts, but to keep alive the belief of what these revolutionaries had lived and died for.
In order to pay our real tribute to the makers of modern India, we should counter the propaganda of communal forces at various levels. The choice is ours, whether we want to contest such vandalism or let it go uncontested until such time as the common masses have no option but to believe, A for Ambedkar – A for Advani, B for Bhagat Singh, B for Bhagwa, S for Subhas Chandra Bose, S for Savarkar…
Are we ready for that?
(Mahtab Alam is an activist and writer. He tweets @MahtabNama . This article was first published in Kafila.org on March 23, 2011)
Freedom from Communalism & Religious Intolerance was Bhagat Singh’s Ideal, Never Hindu Rashtra
Hindu Communalists have forever sought to appropriate the young and fiery martyr in Goebbellsian ways perpetuating lies and falsehoods that include falsely promoting February 14 (Valentine’s Day) as his Death Anniversary rather than March 23, when he was actually hanged
A tribute on the legendary martyr’s birth anniversary
First published on: 28 Sep 2016
“The communists’ ideologues conveniently ignore the truth that the roots of Bhagat Singh’s ideology lie in the very concept of Hindu Rashtra,” claimed an article by Dipin Damodharan, published on the birth anniversary of Bhagat Singh, September 28, 2010.
Damodharan, as introduced at the end of the article, is a student pursuing Masters in Communication and Journalism (MCJ) at the Calicut University of Kerala. He argues: “To my knowledge, he sacrificed his precious life for a noble cause, for the liberation of Bharat from the invaders, for nationalism. Undoubtedly Bhagat’s legacy belongs to every Bharati. But for the communists (experts in transforming sheep to dog), he died for communism and not for nationalism. They are incessantly advocating Bhagat as their poster boy, for several years they have been using Goebbelsian tricks to claim Bhagat’s legacy.”
The author further argues, “They are injecting fake stories about Bhagat into the blood of youth who are ignorant about Bharat’s history. Discarding the historical facts, the communists become angry with the Sangh inspired organizations for propagating Bhagat’s ideals”.
To justify his claims, the author cites examples like Bhagat Singh was born in a family who were staunch followers of the Arya Samaj, was educated at Dayanad Anglo Vedic (DAV) School and National College of Lahore, was inspired by the sagas of two great patriots Chatrapati Shivaji and Maharana Pratap and finally, they link at his association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Of course, without any reference! To any of us who has read Bhagat’s writings, it is nothing but absurd or, if we go by Damodharan’s own definition — it is an attempt to transform sheep in to a dog.
Bhagat Singh himself, in his most famous writing, ‘Why I Am An Atheist’ clarifies the above absurdities.
Bhagat Singh wrote, “I deny the very existence of that Almighty Supreme being… My grandfather under whose influence I was brought up as an orthodox Arya Samajist. An Arya Samajist is anything but an atheist. After finishing my primary education I joined the DAV. School of Lahore and stayed in its Boarding House for one full year… Later on, I joined the revolutionary party… My previous faith and convictions underwent a remarkable modification… I had become a pronounced atheist.”
Dismissing Dipin Damodharan’s remarks as absurd and ignoring them is not what we should do, as these attempts are not abrupt. They are pre-planned and occupy various forms of mass communication. Communal forces are not letting go of any chance to misuse these heroes for furthering their communal agendas.
Last year (2010), a month before the Ayodhya verdict, the ‘Bhagwa Brigade’ (saffron brigade) gave a public call to recruit 10,000 Hindu youth from Madhya Pradesh (MP) for the mission to establish a Hindu Rasthra.
To do so, they issued a poster and pasted copies of it all over the state of Madhya Pradesh. Notably in the poster, with Sawarkar, Shivaji and others, one finds pictures of Bhagat Singh, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose, being portrayed as Hindu revolutionaries! One might not have any objection in portraying Shivaji, Maharana Pratap, Jhansi ki Rani and Chandra Sekhar Azad as Hindu icons, but portrayal of Bhagat Singh, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose in the same vein is really objectionable and very disturbing, because of their known commitment to secularism and for being non communal.
Like Bhagat Singh, it was very clear to Subhas Chandra Bose of who he was and what he wanted. In 1929, while delivering a speech at Lahore Students’ Conference, Lahore, he famously said, If we are to bring about a revolution of ideas, we have first to hold up before us, an ideal which will galvanise our whole life. That ideal is Freedom. But freedom is a word which has a varied connotation and even in our country, the conception of freedom has undergone a process of evolution. By freedom I mean all-round freedom i.e., freedom for the individual as well as for society, freedom for man as well as for woman, freedom for the rich as well as for the poor, freedom for all individuals and for all classes. This freedom implies not only emancipation from political bondage but also equal distribution of wealth, abolition of caste barriers and social iniquities and destruction of communalism and religious intolerance. This is an ideal which may appear Utopian to hard-headed men and women — but this ideal alone can appease the hunger of the soul.”
An archive photograph of Bhagat Singh in jail in Lahore. Image: The Hindu
Ambedkar converted to Buddhism in protest of the jati-varna system of Hinduism, and was very clear about what he stood for. He repeatedly opposed the system of Hinduism let alone the ideology of Hindutva. He had asked his followers to stop the Hindu Rashtra from becoming a reality at all costs.
But again, Hindu communal political parties like the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), spread deliberate confusion about him by misquoting him and depicting him as ‘their’ leader. Last year (2010), on the eve of 6th December (anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition), on the walls on Jamia Nagar, a new kind of poster was seen.
The poster was put up by Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha (BJYM), the youth wing of BJP, and read thus, ‘Yugh Purush Baba Saheb Ambedker ke nirvana divas par Dr. Bheem Rao Ambeker Cricket Tournament-10’, with a relatively larger picture of Baba Saheb (as compared to) other leaders of BJYM, who were shown promoting the event.
The event which was scheduled to take place in Malviya Nagar had absolutely no connection with Jamia Nagar, except that both finish on the same last name! While seeing the poster, one wonders what it has to do with Jamia Nagar. At the same time, the same or any other poster about the event was not seen in neighbouring Jullena or Sukhdev Vihar, which have a dominant non-Muslim population, let alone other areas of Delhi. But of course, it was put up for diverting the attention of the Muslims from the anniversary of demolition of Babri Masjid. Moreover, to my understanding, it was meant to convey a message to the ordinary resident of Jamia nagar (read Muslim) that either, Ambedkar was a leader of the BJP, or at least somebody who sympathised with its ideology and those of its allies, which is absolutely wrong and ridiculous, to say the least.
Hindutva-waadis are hell bent on distorting facts and influencing the common sense through the medium of mass communication.
On the eve of Valentine’s Day, these forces spread a rumor that on February 14, 1931, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru & Sukhdev were hanged till death by British government and we celebrate this day as Valentine day! Isn’t it surprising & painful? I am told by a journalist friend of mine from south India that, this is the standard question you have to counter if you say what is wrong with celebrating Valentine’s Day! This, when it is a well-established historical fact that Bhagat Singh, along with Sukhdev and Rajguru were martyred on March 23, 1931 and not on February 14.
The zealots don’t stop there. They have even tried spreading misinformation through Wikipedia, the preferable web dictionary for the net savvy, to know who is who and what is what.
According to a news report that had appeared in The Hindu, ‘the Wikipedia page on Bhagat Singh underwent many editing changes on February 13 and 14, Valentine’s day ’. The date of Bhagat Singh’s hanging had been changed from March 23 to February 14, 1931. And it was due to such propaganda that an international news website, reported, “While the whole world observes 14th February as Valentine’s Day, not many Indians remember that the day was also when the Indian freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged to death by the Britishers in Lahore, Pakistan”. Similarly, this February 13, (2011) Twitter was on fire with talk of the February 14 as Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom day next day, and even the editor of a Hindi news channel mourned that everyone was looking forward only to Valentine’s Day. He was shamed into apologising the next day.
We will have many days every year to remember Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Ashfaqullah Khan, Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and others, on their martyrdom, death, and birth anniversaries. This puts greater responsibility on us—the responsibility of not believing in distorted facts, but to keep alive the belief of what these revolutionaries had lived and died for.
In order to pay our real tribute to the makers of modern India, we should counter the propaganda of communal forces at various levels. The choice is ours, whether we want to contest such vandalism or let it go uncontested until such time as the common masses have no option but to believe, A for Ambedkar – A for Advani, B for Bhagat Singh, B for Bhagwa, S for Subhas Chandra Bose, S for Savarkar…
Are we ready for that?
(Mahtab Alam is an activist and writer. He tweets @MahtabNama . This article was first published in Kafila.org on March 23, 2011)
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
No NCRB data on journalist, media personnel arrested under UAPA and other penal laws: IBM
As another Kashmiri journalist gets detained, Centre shrugs off any responsibility of maintaining data on journalists that have been booked over the years
Image courtesy: The Quint/Erum Gour
In the ongoing budget session of the Parliament, Lok Sabha member Shri Pradyut Bordoloi (INC) brought the issue of journalists being arrest under the charges of Unlawful Activities Prevention Amendment (UAPA) Act. Bordoloi had asked the ministry of Information And Broadcasting to provide the Lok Sabha with the details and the number of journalists arrested under UAPA, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other penal laws during the last five years and the current year. The member had also enquired about the details and the number of Information Technology surveys and raids carried out at News organisations by the Government during the last five years and the current year.
Responding to these queries, Shri Anurag Singh Thakur, the Minister of Information and Broadcasting and Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports, informed the Lok Sabha that the above-mentioned matters are state are state subjects, as ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ fall under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Thus, the State Governments are responsible for prevention, detection and investigation of crimes and for prosecuting the criminals through their law enforcement agencies. Additionally, it also informed that even the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) does not maintain data separately for Journalists and media personnel.
The question can be read here:
In a country where authorities are increasingly targeting journalists and online critics for their critiques of government policies and practices, including by bringing charges against them under counterterrorism and other penal laws, this response reflects the authorities' indifference to ensuring the safety of journalists in India.
The Indian authorities and state agencies have repeatedly violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. An increasing number of journalists are detained on trumped-up or politically motivated charges for critical reporting, and they are then imprisoned for years, with the goal of targeting journalists, spreading fear, and silencing independent media.
The targeting of journalists by the authorities, combined with a more extensive restriction on dissent, has enabled the Hindu nationalists to intimidate, persecute, and abuse journalists critical of the Indian government, both online and offline, with impunity.
Against the backdrop of increasing restrictions on media freedom, Indian authorities have arrested journalists on bogus terrorism and seditious charges, and have consistently aimed at critics and independent news organisations, even raiding their offices. Even though it has only been three months since the beginning of this year, there have already been numerous reports of journalists being arrested and charged with UAPA, as well as raids on media outlets. In the month of March itself, 2 such cases have been reported, which are as follows:
-
On March 20, 2023, Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj was arrested by the National Investigation Agency from Srinagar in a case registered under the UAPA. In a 2020 case of terror funding allegedly through NGOs, Mehraj was the first accused arrested following an alleged comprehensive investigation. In a statement, the central agency said that Mehraj is a close associate of human rights activist Khurram Parvez, who was arrested in November 2021 under sections of the UAPA which deal with terror funding. On March 22, a Delhi Court had now remanded Mehraj to NIA custody for 10 days in a case registered under UAPA.
Mehraj and Parvez are both associated with the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, a coalition of non-profit campaign and advocacy organisation based in Srinagar. Mehraj founded Wande Magazine and now works as a senior editor at TwoCircles.net. He has tirelessly contributed to leading news publications such as The Indian Express, Al Jazeera, Himal Southasian, DW, and TRT World, and has worked tirelessly to ensure that the truth about the atrocities in Kashmir reaches the world.
It is also worth noting that Parvez, who was arrested by the NIA in November 2021 under the draconian UAPA on charges of criminal conspiracy, waging war against the government, and terror funding, is still detained.
-
On March 13, Sanjay Rana, a YouTube reporter, was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police for asking a question to an elected state functionary. On March 12, Rana had questioning the state minister for secondary education Gulab Devi at a function about unfulfilled promises. He asked “questions to a minister over her unfulfilled promises of development work during a function”. Devi had visited Budh Nagar Khandwa to inaugurate a dam. Rana was eventually granted bail but not before remaining in police custody for over 30 hours. The Union noted that not even a day had passed since the event when the Sambhal police arrested Rana based on a complaint by a leader associated with the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM), the BJP’s youth wing. An FIR under IPC Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), was filed against Rana.
In February, the income tax department had raided the Mumbai and Delhi office of the BBC News. The raids, which the income tax officials have described as "surveys," follows the recent controversy over the BBC's showing of a two-part investigative documentary, titled India: The Modi Question, which for the first time revealed a confidential investigation by the British government into the 2002 Gujarat riots that left more than a thousand Muslims dead. On February 26, a journalist employed with a TV channel was shot at by two unidentified bike-borne gunmen in Jaunpur district of Uttar Pradesh. In his FIR, journalist Devendra Khare had alleged that he was allegedly being pressuring against reporting a recent attack on Akhil Bhartiya Brahman Mahasabha national president Rajendra Tripathi and his family. On February 6, hours after a Ratnagiri-based local daily carried a front-page story about a land agent with alleged criminal antecedents, the story’s reporter was mowed down by a car allegedly driven by the subject of the story. Furthermore, Indian authorities have also been implicated in using the Israeli-produced spyware Pegasus to target journalists.
These are just a few examples of incidents that have occurred this year. It is worth noting that many journalists who have had cases filed against them in recent years are either still in jail or are out on bail, fighting against the current tyranny. Given the polarised environment, India has been labeled as dangerous for journalists. Freedom of expression protection in India has never been strong, and it is now dwindling even further.
Related:
Remove distasteful tickers targeting Teesta Setalvad: NBDSA directs Times Now
TV Journalist Shot Twice in UP’s Jaunpur District
Attack on journalists in Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha condemned: DUJ
Journalist detained for interrogation for report on right wing groups
Journalist Shashikant Warishe murdered for uncovering anomalies in the Barsu Refinery project
No NCRB data on journalist, media personnel arrested under UAPA and other penal laws: IBM
As another Kashmiri journalist gets detained, Centre shrugs off any responsibility of maintaining data on journalists that have been booked over the years
Image courtesy: The Quint/Erum Gour
In the ongoing budget session of the Parliament, Lok Sabha member Shri Pradyut Bordoloi (INC) brought the issue of journalists being arrest under the charges of Unlawful Activities Prevention Amendment (UAPA) Act. Bordoloi had asked the ministry of Information And Broadcasting to provide the Lok Sabha with the details and the number of journalists arrested under UAPA, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other penal laws during the last five years and the current year. The member had also enquired about the details and the number of Information Technology surveys and raids carried out at News organisations by the Government during the last five years and the current year.
Responding to these queries, Shri Anurag Singh Thakur, the Minister of Information and Broadcasting and Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports, informed the Lok Sabha that the above-mentioned matters are state are state subjects, as ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ fall under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Thus, the State Governments are responsible for prevention, detection and investigation of crimes and for prosecuting the criminals through their law enforcement agencies. Additionally, it also informed that even the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) does not maintain data separately for Journalists and media personnel.
The question can be read here:
In a country where authorities are increasingly targeting journalists and online critics for their critiques of government policies and practices, including by bringing charges against them under counterterrorism and other penal laws, this response reflects the authorities' indifference to ensuring the safety of journalists in India.
The Indian authorities and state agencies have repeatedly violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. An increasing number of journalists are detained on trumped-up or politically motivated charges for critical reporting, and they are then imprisoned for years, with the goal of targeting journalists, spreading fear, and silencing independent media.
The targeting of journalists by the authorities, combined with a more extensive restriction on dissent, has enabled the Hindu nationalists to intimidate, persecute, and abuse journalists critical of the Indian government, both online and offline, with impunity.
Against the backdrop of increasing restrictions on media freedom, Indian authorities have arrested journalists on bogus terrorism and seditious charges, and have consistently aimed at critics and independent news organisations, even raiding their offices. Even though it has only been three months since the beginning of this year, there have already been numerous reports of journalists being arrested and charged with UAPA, as well as raids on media outlets. In the month of March itself, 2 such cases have been reported, which are as follows:
-
On March 20, 2023, Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj was arrested by the National Investigation Agency from Srinagar in a case registered under the UAPA. In a 2020 case of terror funding allegedly through NGOs, Mehraj was the first accused arrested following an alleged comprehensive investigation. In a statement, the central agency said that Mehraj is a close associate of human rights activist Khurram Parvez, who was arrested in November 2021 under sections of the UAPA which deal with terror funding. On March 22, a Delhi Court had now remanded Mehraj to NIA custody for 10 days in a case registered under UAPA.
Mehraj and Parvez are both associated with the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, a coalition of non-profit campaign and advocacy organisation based in Srinagar. Mehraj founded Wande Magazine and now works as a senior editor at TwoCircles.net. He has tirelessly contributed to leading news publications such as The Indian Express, Al Jazeera, Himal Southasian, DW, and TRT World, and has worked tirelessly to ensure that the truth about the atrocities in Kashmir reaches the world.
It is also worth noting that Parvez, who was arrested by the NIA in November 2021 under the draconian UAPA on charges of criminal conspiracy, waging war against the government, and terror funding, is still detained.
-
On March 13, Sanjay Rana, a YouTube reporter, was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police for asking a question to an elected state functionary. On March 12, Rana had questioning the state minister for secondary education Gulab Devi at a function about unfulfilled promises. He asked “questions to a minister over her unfulfilled promises of development work during a function”. Devi had visited Budh Nagar Khandwa to inaugurate a dam. Rana was eventually granted bail but not before remaining in police custody for over 30 hours. The Union noted that not even a day had passed since the event when the Sambhal police arrested Rana based on a complaint by a leader associated with the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM), the BJP’s youth wing. An FIR under IPC Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), was filed against Rana.
In February, the income tax department had raided the Mumbai and Delhi office of the BBC News. The raids, which the income tax officials have described as "surveys," follows the recent controversy over the BBC's showing of a two-part investigative documentary, titled India: The Modi Question, which for the first time revealed a confidential investigation by the British government into the 2002 Gujarat riots that left more than a thousand Muslims dead. On February 26, a journalist employed with a TV channel was shot at by two unidentified bike-borne gunmen in Jaunpur district of Uttar Pradesh. In his FIR, journalist Devendra Khare had alleged that he was allegedly being pressuring against reporting a recent attack on Akhil Bhartiya Brahman Mahasabha national president Rajendra Tripathi and his family. On February 6, hours after a Ratnagiri-based local daily carried a front-page story about a land agent with alleged criminal antecedents, the story’s reporter was mowed down by a car allegedly driven by the subject of the story. Furthermore, Indian authorities have also been implicated in using the Israeli-produced spyware Pegasus to target journalists.
These are just a few examples of incidents that have occurred this year. It is worth noting that many journalists who have had cases filed against them in recent years are either still in jail or are out on bail, fighting against the current tyranny. Given the polarised environment, India has been labeled as dangerous for journalists. Freedom of expression protection in India has never been strong, and it is now dwindling even further.
Related:
Remove distasteful tickers targeting Teesta Setalvad: NBDSA directs Times Now
TV Journalist Shot Twice in UP’s Jaunpur District
Attack on journalists in Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha condemned: DUJ
Journalist detained for interrogation for report on right wing groups
Journalist Shashikant Warishe murdered for uncovering anomalies in the Barsu Refinery project
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Right to Same Sex Marriages is not a right that can be claimed: Union to SC
The obdurate rejection of this right by the union of India throttles the very concept of constitutional morality in evolving jurisprudence
A five-judge bench has been constituted to hear the petitions on same sex marriage, and in this case, the counter affidavit filed by the union of India on March 12, 2023 sharply opposes the prayers of the petitioners. Several arguments—some based on the “sanctity of the institution of marriage” and “others relying on precedents”—were made by the Union in its affidavit.
This article discusses the union of India’s counter affidavit and the mask of legislative competence it uses to cover the lack of understanding of rights jurisprudence that has evolved over the past few years. The first part deals with the affidavit itself, while the second part deals with a brief history of how amendments in marriage laws were received in the country. The third part deals with the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India and its relevance to the present case, which the union of India appears to have wilfully ignored.[1]
The decriminalisation of Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Supreme Court in the case of Navtej was only the first of the many progressive steps that are needed for the protection of rights of LGBTQ community.
The petitions that were filed in the Supreme Court deal with three laws. One is the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(HMA); Special Marriage Act, 1954(SMA); Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and the Citizenship Act, 1955. The prayers in the petitions range from pleading that the court gives its interpretation on the notice period and objections to be allowed under the SMA to also urge the provisions of this law to allow and include same sex marriages. A detailed understanding of the provisions under this law is kept for another day.
I. What does the Centre’s Counter affidavit say?
The arguments in the controversial affidavit are two pronged. The first is a mix between separation of powers, sanctity of marriage and compelling state interest. Second is the countering of the progressive interpretation of Navtej Singh Johar and Puttuswamy judgements to state that there is no fundamental right to marriage that can be claimed, under Part III of the Constitution.
Sanctity of Marriage, Legislative Competence & Intent, and Compelling State Interest.
The affidavit states that religious notions or codified personal laws of the country govern the institution of marriage, and the population only regards a biological man and woman as participants of marriage. According to the affidavit, since this is a question of which social relationships should be recognised (or not)—essentially a matter for the society and people to decide—the legislature should be the one to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognised or not. This is the first line of defence.
The second part is that, if same-sex marriages are recognised, associated laws such as adoption, divorce, domestic violence and penal laws would come into play and these were not enacted keeping this development in mind. The affidavit argues that this would lead to recognition of marriage without any associated laws having the required framework to accommodate this new development. Therefore, the recognition of same-sex marriages, the affidavit argues, be left to the legislature.
The third point of the affidavit is an interesting one. It connects the continuance of the institution of state to the institution of marriage. It states as follows:
“It is submitted statutory recognition of marriage limited to marriage/union/relation as being heterosexual in nature, is the norm throughout history and are foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State.”
The affidavit states that heterosexual nature of marriage is foundational to the state and does not essentially go into any details substantiating the claims of this connection.
Decriminalisation of Homosexuality is not equal to the right to marriage.
The second prong of the affidavit goes on to negate the existence of a right to marry under Part III of the constitution for the LGBTQ community. The affidavit states that the separate treatment given to heterosexuals is a reasonable classification since it has a rational nexus with the object of ensuring social stability via recognition of marriages and therefore, Article 14 is not violated.
With respect to Article 15, 19 and 21- the affidavit relies on case laws or interprets landmark judgements in the narrowest possible manner to negate the claim of right to marriage. The affidavit argues that the discrimination marker under Article 15 (1) cannot be adjudged for the issue of sexual relations between same sex couples since, even heterosexual, live in couples are not (in law) given the same status as married couples. The presumption of marriage in live-in relationships is rebuttable as held in Badri Prasad vs. Director of Consultation.
On Article 19, the affidavit argues that while Article 19 gives a person the right to form associations, there is no “concomitant right” that such association must necessarily be granted legal recognition by the state. Further it argues that right to a same-sex marriage cannot be claimed under Article 21, since the judgement in Navtej Singh Johar case only extends to the private sphere of individuals and not to a “public institution such as marriage”.
II. A pattern of opposition to progressive change.
Marriage- The touch-me-not institution
Family and marriage, and in general, the sphere of personal laws have always been relatively hard to amend, from the state’s perspective. Why is there a need to understand the history of how the institution of marriage has undergone changes? It is important to establish a pattern as to how almost all progressive changes with respect to personal laws, have been resisted by a conservative section, in one or the other way.
For example, Divorce is an alien concept to Hindu law, and to date, the family law regime in the country works to preserve the institution of marriage by enabling counselling to the spouses who want to get a divorce. Moreover, a different scholarship also argues that divorce or some sort of separation existed in different cultures in pre-colonial India, and therefore, it cannot be said that Divorce was completely unknown to India until the 20th century.
Irrespective of this, it is well known that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 faced stiff opposition from the conservative section of the country, when it incorporated provisions for Divorce. It is important to note that several women’s organisations were working on incorporating divorce provisions in marriage laws from the 1930s.[2] The compromises of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are very interesting to note especially because of how radical it was to have provisions for Divorce in a country newly formed with powerful lobbies against these provisions. The act was still pushed, even with poor implementation and little to no change in women’s status in the immediate aftermath of passage of the act. Some members of the Rajya Sabha did point out the limitations of the Hindu Marriage Bill in empowering women to the fullest extent but supported it for being a progressive legislation nevertheless. The CPI member from Madras- Pravathi Krishnan said the following, while expressing her opinion on the bill:[3]
While we, as a party, support this Bill, we must make it absolutely clear that we do not feel that it is going to solve the problem finally. We welcome it because we know that it is a very essential measure in our country; we welcome it because, insofar as it goes, this piece-meal measure guarantees and bestows certain benefits, particularly on women. On the one hand we find that it restricts polygamy and bigamy which have been the bane of the women of our country for innumerable years, and. On the other hand, it creates the right of divorce. Although we do not either advocate or accept that people will queue up outside divorce courts, at the same time we feel that in any civilised country it is necessary that such a right should exist for those few people who find it impossible to live together as husband and wife. In supporting this right, we support it from the angle that it is an essential right of the individual to be able to live a life of happiness and a life free from all worry; we also maintain that in such cases where reconciliation is absolutely impossible, to safeguard the interests of the children, to prevent children being born and brought up in an atmosphere of un-happiness, an atmosphere of petty strife, an atmosphere of constant friction between father and mother, it is very necessary that this right should be bestowed and should be guaranteed to our people.
This view by Parvathi Krishnan was a minority one, with most of the conservatives and a good section of other parliamentarians not liking the provisions for divorce finding place in the bill.
Even though Divorce is still frowned upon by society, it is an important part of the family law regime, giving the right of separation for the spouses. Another example is the Supreme Court’s ruling that instant triple talaq is unconstitutional where an old custom which was being used to violate rights of people, within their marriage, was declared unconstitutional in the case of Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. [4]
If we go a little further into history, when the Age of Consent Act, 1891 was enacted, there was widespread agitation against it. The British passed the Age of Consent Act, 1891 which mandated that a girl child must be at least 12 years old for them to get married, and it applied to all religions. The act was passed because of a campaign by a Parsi Social Reformer- Behramji Malabari from Bombay. Justice Ranade and some other reformists did support this development but influential leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak decried that the act was being passed without listening to people.[5] Much earlier, when Widow Remarriage was being campaigned, anger of conservatives was inescapable. One criticism against the pre-colonial changes in personal laws is that those were British attempts to break the family system. However, the British tried to not interfere into the complex family system of India, as much as possible since it would be counter productive to its economic interests. However, the campaigns of Indian Social Reformers, whom we hail today as heroes, was a main driving factor in having the British enact whichever legislations they did in the sphere of family law.
These examples show a pattern where any change to the family system, of any religion has attracted some or the other opposition. Moreover, even though the Hindu law or in general in the Indian Culture, marriage is seen as a lifelong commitment, without any end to it, and even beyond lives —the laws have allowed divorce, recognising and realising the change the institution has to undergo to suit the sensibilities of the population. This means that the notion of marriage being only and only a holy union and nothing else is not entirely correct. And this also shows that changes in the institution of marriage are not some threats to the state as the state is showing it to be, to claim the defence of compelling state interest.
The institution of marriage should be viewed as a social institution, rather than a religious one, whether it be Islamic, Hindu or otherwise. If marriage is viewed as an institution with social characteristics, along with hints of religion, then it is only natural that the social characteristics of the institution change over time.
III. Missing by Miles - Narrow understanding of Navtej Singh Johar
A. The Judgement
The Supreme Court judgement in Navtej Singh Johar is also based on the court’s ruling in Justice KS Puttuswamy in which right to privacy was recognised as a fundamental right.
There are two relevant discussions from the judgement, for the topic related to same sex marriages. One is the discussion on Constitutional Morality-Progressive Realisation of Rights, and second is the emphasis on Dignity, throughout the judgement.
-
Constitutional Morality- Progressive Realisation of Rights
Constitutional Morality-according to the judgement is different from the societal or majoritarian morality. This means that the values and goals imbibed in the constitution have a separate path within which they are to be realised- whether it be pluralism, equality or justice. The morality such path requires and emits, is Constitutional Morality. The court stated as follows, talking about Constitutional Morality:
…. Rather it embraces within itself virtues of a wide magnitude such as that of ushering a pluralistic and inclusive society, while at the same time adhering to the other principles of constitutionalism.
This means that the morality within which law has to operate or within which the citizens have to conduct themselves is not societal or majoritarian morality but constitutional morality. Progressive Realisation of Rights means that the rights provided in the constitutional scheme should evolve to suit ever changing values within society and to that extent, the Constitution is and should be a living document.
Essentially, the Supreme Court held that the contours of constitutional morality should be drawn with the help of a progressive realisation of rights.
-
Dignity
One of the most recurring and highly emphasised concepts in the judgement, in all opinions, is the concept of Dignity and how it is inalienable to the rights of individuals. The court stated that the changing nature of the Constitution means that it recognises the dignity of individuals and the fostering in all spheres including socially. The court stated as follows:
Dignity is an inseparable facet of every individual that invites reciprocative respect from others to every aspect of an individual which he/she perceives as an essential attribute of his/her individuality, be it an orientation or an optional expression of choice.
The court stated as follows on how the law should be, with respect to the constitutional ethos and values:
The law provides legitimacy for social institutions. In a democratic framework governed by the rule of law, the law must be consistent with the constitutional values of liberty, dignity and autonomy.
B. Affidavit’s inconsistencies vis-à-vis Navtej Singh Johar
The affidavit took the stance of restricting the rich jurisprudence of Navtej Singh’s case to just decriminalisation of Section 377. The affidavit stated as follows:
After the decision in Navtej Singh Johar (supra) the only change is that persons of the same sex can engage in consensual sexual intercourse without being held criminally liable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This, and no more than this, is what has been held in that case.
The judgement read the right to privacy, expression of sexual orientation into Article 21 and 19, and as a result, found the restriction of the homosexuality unconstitutional. Now, when sexual orientation and expression of it forms part of the fundamental right— the ways in which such sexual orientation manifests itself also should have legitimacy. This means that people who are expressing their love for each other, in the form of a commitment to live with each other, should be allowed to do so, only because their sexual orientation is different. And no amount of discrimination shall be practiced by the state against those who are expressing their sexual orientation and choice.
Discrimination based on Article 15.
Article 15 of the constitution states as follows:
5. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
The affidavit states that there is no discrimination based on sex whereas it has already been established by the Supreme Court in the case of NALSA vs Union of India that discrimination based on gender identity is also discrimination on the basis of Article 15. This also has been reiterated as the correct view by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (Now Chief Justice) in the case of Navtej Singh Johar case.[6]
The affidavit states that the current status quo of not recognising same sex marriage is not violative of Article 15. It tries to substantiate this argument by trying to equate same sex couples with heterosexual couples in a live-in relationship and therefore, the basis for different treatment is not sex.
The affidavit fails to recognise the fact that there is a possibility that heterosexual live-in has the possibility to be recognised as a marriage without there being a traditional marriage in some cases. There is no such possibility for same sex companionship or relationships and there exists the discrimination against LGBTQ people.
A large part of the union of India’s affidavit rests itself on narrow interpretation and selective quoting of very progressive judgements. However, one leg of the argument of the union that states that associated legislations are not well equipped to deal with same sex marriages is of some significance. It is yet to be seen if the Supreme Court will go on to recognise the right and let the government legislate to incorporate the right.
[2] Sinha, C., 2012. Debating patriarchy: The Hindu code bill controversy in India (1941–1956), pp. 211.
[3] Parvathi Krishnan, Rajya Sabha Debate, 7th December 1954, Available at https://rsdebate.nic.in/handle/123456789/583713?viewItem=browse
[4] (2017) 9 SCC 1
[5] Kosambi, M., 1991. Girl-brides and socio-legal change: age of consent bill (1891) controversy. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.1857-1868.
[6] AIR 2014 SC 1863
Related:
Same sex marriage is not an elitist concern: Akkai Padmashali
Right to Same Sex Marriages is not a right that can be claimed: Union to SC
The obdurate rejection of this right by the union of India throttles the very concept of constitutional morality in evolving jurisprudence
A five-judge bench has been constituted to hear the petitions on same sex marriage, and in this case, the counter affidavit filed by the union of India on March 12, 2023 sharply opposes the prayers of the petitioners. Several arguments—some based on the “sanctity of the institution of marriage” and “others relying on precedents”—were made by the Union in its affidavit.
This article discusses the union of India’s counter affidavit and the mask of legislative competence it uses to cover the lack of understanding of rights jurisprudence that has evolved over the past few years. The first part deals with the affidavit itself, while the second part deals with a brief history of how amendments in marriage laws were received in the country. The third part deals with the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India and its relevance to the present case, which the union of India appears to have wilfully ignored.[1]
The decriminalisation of Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Supreme Court in the case of Navtej was only the first of the many progressive steps that are needed for the protection of rights of LGBTQ community.
The petitions that were filed in the Supreme Court deal with three laws. One is the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(HMA); Special Marriage Act, 1954(SMA); Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and the Citizenship Act, 1955. The prayers in the petitions range from pleading that the court gives its interpretation on the notice period and objections to be allowed under the SMA to also urge the provisions of this law to allow and include same sex marriages. A detailed understanding of the provisions under this law is kept for another day.
I. What does the Centre’s Counter affidavit say?
The arguments in the controversial affidavit are two pronged. The first is a mix between separation of powers, sanctity of marriage and compelling state interest. Second is the countering of the progressive interpretation of Navtej Singh Johar and Puttuswamy judgements to state that there is no fundamental right to marriage that can be claimed, under Part III of the Constitution.
Sanctity of Marriage, Legislative Competence & Intent, and Compelling State Interest.
The affidavit states that religious notions or codified personal laws of the country govern the institution of marriage, and the population only regards a biological man and woman as participants of marriage. According to the affidavit, since this is a question of which social relationships should be recognised (or not)—essentially a matter for the society and people to decide—the legislature should be the one to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognised or not. This is the first line of defence.
The second part is that, if same-sex marriages are recognised, associated laws such as adoption, divorce, domestic violence and penal laws would come into play and these were not enacted keeping this development in mind. The affidavit argues that this would lead to recognition of marriage without any associated laws having the required framework to accommodate this new development. Therefore, the recognition of same-sex marriages, the affidavit argues, be left to the legislature.
The third point of the affidavit is an interesting one. It connects the continuance of the institution of state to the institution of marriage. It states as follows:
“It is submitted statutory recognition of marriage limited to marriage/union/relation as being heterosexual in nature, is the norm throughout history and are foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State.”
The affidavit states that heterosexual nature of marriage is foundational to the state and does not essentially go into any details substantiating the claims of this connection.
Decriminalisation of Homosexuality is not equal to the right to marriage.
The second prong of the affidavit goes on to negate the existence of a right to marry under Part III of the constitution for the LGBTQ community. The affidavit states that the separate treatment given to heterosexuals is a reasonable classification since it has a rational nexus with the object of ensuring social stability via recognition of marriages and therefore, Article 14 is not violated.
With respect to Article 15, 19 and 21- the affidavit relies on case laws or interprets landmark judgements in the narrowest possible manner to negate the claim of right to marriage. The affidavit argues that the discrimination marker under Article 15 (1) cannot be adjudged for the issue of sexual relations between same sex couples since, even heterosexual, live in couples are not (in law) given the same status as married couples. The presumption of marriage in live-in relationships is rebuttable as held in Badri Prasad vs. Director of Consultation.
On Article 19, the affidavit argues that while Article 19 gives a person the right to form associations, there is no “concomitant right” that such association must necessarily be granted legal recognition by the state. Further it argues that right to a same-sex marriage cannot be claimed under Article 21, since the judgement in Navtej Singh Johar case only extends to the private sphere of individuals and not to a “public institution such as marriage”.
II. A pattern of opposition to progressive change.
Marriage- The touch-me-not institution
Family and marriage, and in general, the sphere of personal laws have always been relatively hard to amend, from the state’s perspective. Why is there a need to understand the history of how the institution of marriage has undergone changes? It is important to establish a pattern as to how almost all progressive changes with respect to personal laws, have been resisted by a conservative section, in one or the other way.
For example, Divorce is an alien concept to Hindu law, and to date, the family law regime in the country works to preserve the institution of marriage by enabling counselling to the spouses who want to get a divorce. Moreover, a different scholarship also argues that divorce or some sort of separation existed in different cultures in pre-colonial India, and therefore, it cannot be said that Divorce was completely unknown to India until the 20th century.
Irrespective of this, it is well known that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 faced stiff opposition from the conservative section of the country, when it incorporated provisions for Divorce. It is important to note that several women’s organisations were working on incorporating divorce provisions in marriage laws from the 1930s.[2] The compromises of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are very interesting to note especially because of how radical it was to have provisions for Divorce in a country newly formed with powerful lobbies against these provisions. The act was still pushed, even with poor implementation and little to no change in women’s status in the immediate aftermath of passage of the act. Some members of the Rajya Sabha did point out the limitations of the Hindu Marriage Bill in empowering women to the fullest extent but supported it for being a progressive legislation nevertheless. The CPI member from Madras- Pravathi Krishnan said the following, while expressing her opinion on the bill:[3]
While we, as a party, support this Bill, we must make it absolutely clear that we do not feel that it is going to solve the problem finally. We welcome it because we know that it is a very essential measure in our country; we welcome it because, insofar as it goes, this piece-meal measure guarantees and bestows certain benefits, particularly on women. On the one hand we find that it restricts polygamy and bigamy which have been the bane of the women of our country for innumerable years, and. On the other hand, it creates the right of divorce. Although we do not either advocate or accept that people will queue up outside divorce courts, at the same time we feel that in any civilised country it is necessary that such a right should exist for those few people who find it impossible to live together as husband and wife. In supporting this right, we support it from the angle that it is an essential right of the individual to be able to live a life of happiness and a life free from all worry; we also maintain that in such cases where reconciliation is absolutely impossible, to safeguard the interests of the children, to prevent children being born and brought up in an atmosphere of un-happiness, an atmosphere of petty strife, an atmosphere of constant friction between father and mother, it is very necessary that this right should be bestowed and should be guaranteed to our people.
This view by Parvathi Krishnan was a minority one, with most of the conservatives and a good section of other parliamentarians not liking the provisions for divorce finding place in the bill.
Even though Divorce is still frowned upon by society, it is an important part of the family law regime, giving the right of separation for the spouses. Another example is the Supreme Court’s ruling that instant triple talaq is unconstitutional where an old custom which was being used to violate rights of people, within their marriage, was declared unconstitutional in the case of Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. [4]
If we go a little further into history, when the Age of Consent Act, 1891 was enacted, there was widespread agitation against it. The British passed the Age of Consent Act, 1891 which mandated that a girl child must be at least 12 years old for them to get married, and it applied to all religions. The act was passed because of a campaign by a Parsi Social Reformer- Behramji Malabari from Bombay. Justice Ranade and some other reformists did support this development but influential leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak decried that the act was being passed without listening to people.[5] Much earlier, when Widow Remarriage was being campaigned, anger of conservatives was inescapable. One criticism against the pre-colonial changes in personal laws is that those were British attempts to break the family system. However, the British tried to not interfere into the complex family system of India, as much as possible since it would be counter productive to its economic interests. However, the campaigns of Indian Social Reformers, whom we hail today as heroes, was a main driving factor in having the British enact whichever legislations they did in the sphere of family law.
These examples show a pattern where any change to the family system, of any religion has attracted some or the other opposition. Moreover, even though the Hindu law or in general in the Indian Culture, marriage is seen as a lifelong commitment, without any end to it, and even beyond lives —the laws have allowed divorce, recognising and realising the change the institution has to undergo to suit the sensibilities of the population. This means that the notion of marriage being only and only a holy union and nothing else is not entirely correct. And this also shows that changes in the institution of marriage are not some threats to the state as the state is showing it to be, to claim the defence of compelling state interest.
The institution of marriage should be viewed as a social institution, rather than a religious one, whether it be Islamic, Hindu or otherwise. If marriage is viewed as an institution with social characteristics, along with hints of religion, then it is only natural that the social characteristics of the institution change over time.
III. Missing by Miles - Narrow understanding of Navtej Singh Johar
A. The Judgement
The Supreme Court judgement in Navtej Singh Johar is also based on the court’s ruling in Justice KS Puttuswamy in which right to privacy was recognised as a fundamental right.
There are two relevant discussions from the judgement, for the topic related to same sex marriages. One is the discussion on Constitutional Morality-Progressive Realisation of Rights, and second is the emphasis on Dignity, throughout the judgement.
-
Constitutional Morality- Progressive Realisation of Rights
Constitutional Morality-according to the judgement is different from the societal or majoritarian morality. This means that the values and goals imbibed in the constitution have a separate path within which they are to be realised- whether it be pluralism, equality or justice. The morality such path requires and emits, is Constitutional Morality. The court stated as follows, talking about Constitutional Morality:
…. Rather it embraces within itself virtues of a wide magnitude such as that of ushering a pluralistic and inclusive society, while at the same time adhering to the other principles of constitutionalism.
This means that the morality within which law has to operate or within which the citizens have to conduct themselves is not societal or majoritarian morality but constitutional morality. Progressive Realisation of Rights means that the rights provided in the constitutional scheme should evolve to suit ever changing values within society and to that extent, the Constitution is and should be a living document.
Essentially, the Supreme Court held that the contours of constitutional morality should be drawn with the help of a progressive realisation of rights.
-
Dignity
One of the most recurring and highly emphasised concepts in the judgement, in all opinions, is the concept of Dignity and how it is inalienable to the rights of individuals. The court stated that the changing nature of the Constitution means that it recognises the dignity of individuals and the fostering in all spheres including socially. The court stated as follows:
Dignity is an inseparable facet of every individual that invites reciprocative respect from others to every aspect of an individual which he/she perceives as an essential attribute of his/her individuality, be it an orientation or an optional expression of choice.
The court stated as follows on how the law should be, with respect to the constitutional ethos and values:
The law provides legitimacy for social institutions. In a democratic framework governed by the rule of law, the law must be consistent with the constitutional values of liberty, dignity and autonomy.
B. Affidavit’s inconsistencies vis-à-vis Navtej Singh Johar
The affidavit took the stance of restricting the rich jurisprudence of Navtej Singh’s case to just decriminalisation of Section 377. The affidavit stated as follows:
After the decision in Navtej Singh Johar (supra) the only change is that persons of the same sex can engage in consensual sexual intercourse without being held criminally liable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This, and no more than this, is what has been held in that case.
The judgement read the right to privacy, expression of sexual orientation into Article 21 and 19, and as a result, found the restriction of the homosexuality unconstitutional. Now, when sexual orientation and expression of it forms part of the fundamental right— the ways in which such sexual orientation manifests itself also should have legitimacy. This means that people who are expressing their love for each other, in the form of a commitment to live with each other, should be allowed to do so, only because their sexual orientation is different. And no amount of discrimination shall be practiced by the state against those who are expressing their sexual orientation and choice.
Discrimination based on Article 15.
Article 15 of the constitution states as follows:
5. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
The affidavit states that there is no discrimination based on sex whereas it has already been established by the Supreme Court in the case of NALSA vs Union of India that discrimination based on gender identity is also discrimination on the basis of Article 15. This also has been reiterated as the correct view by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (Now Chief Justice) in the case of Navtej Singh Johar case.[6]
The affidavit states that the current status quo of not recognising same sex marriage is not violative of Article 15. It tries to substantiate this argument by trying to equate same sex couples with heterosexual couples in a live-in relationship and therefore, the basis for different treatment is not sex.
The affidavit fails to recognise the fact that there is a possibility that heterosexual live-in has the possibility to be recognised as a marriage without there being a traditional marriage in some cases. There is no such possibility for same sex companionship or relationships and there exists the discrimination against LGBTQ people.
A large part of the union of India’s affidavit rests itself on narrow interpretation and selective quoting of very progressive judgements. However, one leg of the argument of the union that states that associated legislations are not well equipped to deal with same sex marriages is of some significance. It is yet to be seen if the Supreme Court will go on to recognise the right and let the government legislate to incorporate the right.
[2] Sinha, C., 2012. Debating patriarchy: The Hindu code bill controversy in India (1941–1956), pp. 211.
[3] Parvathi Krishnan, Rajya Sabha Debate, 7th December 1954, Available at https://rsdebate.nic.in/handle/123456789/583713?viewItem=browse
[4] (2017) 9 SCC 1
[5] Kosambi, M., 1991. Girl-brides and socio-legal change: age of consent bill (1891) controversy. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.1857-1868.
[6] AIR 2014 SC 1863
Related:
Same sex marriage is not an elitist concern: Akkai Padmashali
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Selling One's Soul - The betrayal of Christ and Constitution
For the past couple of days, electronic and print mainstream media in the country, have been highlighting the public ‘promise’ made by the Archbishop of Tellicherry. During a protest rally of some Catholic rubber farmers, he offered to “help the BJP” open an account in Kerala in the next election, provided the price of rubber is increased to Rs 300 per kilogram. In doing so, the Archbishop, has done great disservice to Christ and the Constitution of India. This on several counts which include: no hierarchy or clergy is expected to take sides with any political party (though, in fitness of things they are duty-bound to expose the wrong that is taking place); the BJP has proved to be an anti-minority party, the attacks on Christian personnel and institutions continue all over the country; not long ago, farmers from all over the country protested for over a year against the anti-farmer laws being introduced by the BJP. There are no records that show that the Archbishop took up cudgels on behalf of the small farmers of the country (including those in his diocese); he has also not condemned the minority-bashing which is taking place in the country today!
The Archbishop’s ‘promise’ has naturally drawn plenty of flak from all sections of society but particularly from those who cherish the secular and democratic fabric of the country! The minuscule Christian community - which officially comprises just about 2.3% of the country’s population, has been hogging the headlines, recently and for all the wrong reasons! In the past, several Christians who took part in the freedom struggle, were members of the Constituent Assembly and who contributed significantly to the visionary Constitution that has guided the nation. Christians have been at the forefront of education - educating the ‘creme de la crème’ and others of the nation, providing medicare to those who were sick and above all, reaching out to the poorest of the poor, the excluded and the exploited, through selfless service which empowered the subalterns with an empowered sense of justice, dignity and equity and ensured their rightful place in society. All these works continue today, but they seem to fade into insignificance, with the new narrative which is throttling our nation .
The last few years have witnessed a dramatic change with the political ethos and morality of the country at its nadir. Several politicians from across the spectrum today demonstrate an unbridled lust for power. Serving the people selflessly - is apparently no longer the top priority for many of them; to gain power by hook or by crook) and to stay in power, is all that matters! Many of the politicians do not care about the consequences and of the harm they are doing to the democratic structure, the diversity and the secular fabric of the country.
The new narrative is made manifest with the systematic polarization which the country currently is painfully going through. The votaries of the ‘Hindutva’ ideology, which in nature is fascist, fundamentalist and fanatic - are at the helm of this. Besides the ideology does not have any allegiance to the Constitution. They have one clear aim to make of India a Hindu - nation state by 2025(when the parent organization, the RSS, completes hundred years of existence). A full page advertisement in Hindi in several Varanasi based Hindi dailies on 15 March 2023 entitled ‘Call to become Sanyasi’ says “ Those who have resolved to establish Hindu Sanatan Dharm as National and World Religion ” with a nine day rigorous training programme beginning March 22 and ending on Ram Navami, is a clear sign of things to come.
A visible strategy to realise this exclusive and anti - national agenda is the targeting of minorities- particularly Muslims and Christians - through a continual process of demonisation, denigration and discrimination. They often succeed with their manipulative ploy. Venomous hate speeches are on the rise; those who indulge in them do so with impunity knowing fully well that the ruling regime will provide them with all the immunity and protection needed. The anti - conversion laws which have been passed by some States, though still in the hearing stage in the Supreme Court provide vigilantes, in an unhealthy nexus with local police to take law and order in their own hands. routine prayer services are disrupted and attacked; false cases of so- called ‘forced’ conversion are made: priests and religious sisters are arrested and even denied bail on the flimsiest of reasons. There are instances when Hindutva elements have demanded exorbitant sums of money from priests, threatening them with false cases, if the money is not received.
On the other hand, some Christians including hierarchy, clergy and laity are far from being authentic witnesses to the person and message of Jesus; there are instances of financial scams, sexual misconduct, and other improprieties, which make both individual and institution extremely vulnerable and pliable. There are examples of how the ruling regime has hammered powerful Christians to submission, the underlying posturing is that ‘nothing will happen to you, if you join (or are with) us; if you do not do so, then we will destroy you.’ When a person has lost all credibility, the so-called ‘Christian’ has no choice but to succumb to the blackmail and the threats of the powers that apparently control their destinies.
People often wonder why MLAs and MPs who have been elected under the banner of a political party easily ‘cross the floor’ and join the ruling regime. The answer is obvious! Besides, the ruling regime has plenty of black money to buy up politicians from opposition parties. The recent political imbroglio in Maharashtra, which is awaiting a Supreme Court verdict, is a case in point! Many Christian politicians are also easy prey: we have the classic example of ‘Catholic’ politicians, in the Goa Assembly elections having absolutely no qualms of conscience to leave the party they were elected from, to join the ruling party.
The recent elections in the three North Eastern states of Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura calls for great introspection. The Christian population of Nagaland is estimated to be around 90% and that of Meghalaya around 75%; Tripura has a much smaller Christian population of about 4%. Today, however in all these States, the BJP is calling the shots, setting the political agenda and in fact, ruling (despite getting just two seats in Meghalaya) .The reasons for this seismic political change are several. Many of the politicians (despite being Christian) are corrupt; this is no State secret and which the BJP can exploit to their advantage. Then the BJP also used the Christian card, singing ‘Alleluias’ and ‘Praise the Lord’ in their campaigning. The BJP was happily legitimising the eating of beef in the north-east; whereas in most parts of India they and their ilk, lynch and kill minorities even if the latter just happen to ferry a cow in a vehicle. Then of course, the Sangh Parivar has its whole armoury of money, muscle, mafia, media and manipulations.
Sadly, several of the Christian politicians (and surely some people too) were trapped into playing the ‘religion’ card whether it was campaigning with Christian rhetoric or organising a patently unconstitutional swearing -in ceremony for the newly elected legislators of Nagaland. Having a pastor pray and a choir sing a Christian song has only made it easier for the BJP to give legitimacy for Hindu rituals at Government functions and thus to effectively destroy the secular fabric of the country. Of course, several Christians, (who hardly bother about Constitutional propriety and the severe repercussions such so-called ‘Christian’ acts would have on the future of the country) went ‘ga-ga’ when they watched clippings of the Nagaland swearing- in ceremony; there was a similar response when the CM of Meghalaya went to Vailankanni; those who cheered him did not care a hoot for the fact that CM has literally sold his state to a fascist regime.
The big news a few days ago, is that the BJP is going all out to woo the Christians of Kerala during Easter season. The Archbishop of Tellicherry’s public statement came only after some of the BJP functionaries met him. Several efforts have also been made in the past. The last elections however, in God’s own country was an overwhelming defeat for the BJP. The ground realities are different now; the BJP has the upper hand in the face of growing scandals among sections of the Kerala Christians. Some Christians (including some hierarchy and clergy) are warming up to the BJP. Besides opportunism, everyone knows why!!!
Few Christians in the country stand up and speak up for the values of the Gospel which are so beautifully enshrined in the Constitution of India. The nation today is suffering as never before! Communalism, Casteism, Criminalisation of politics, Corruption and Consumerism are rampant. At the receiving end of a brutal, unjust and inhuman system are the excluded and exploited, the migrants and labourers, the minorities: Muslims, Christians and others; human rights defenders and those who cherish freedom of speech and expression and a free press; those who defend the right to preach, practise and propagate one’s faith; those who are victims of venomous hate speeches and attacks, of demonization and discrimination. Those who have false cases foisted on them – with Government (Constitutional and quasi) bodies breathing fire on them. Then we have the fisherfolk of Kerala and others who have been displaced by megaprojects and the mining mafia (who destroy our precious natural resources); those who are concerned about the ecology (Josimath is a classic case) and environmental justice; the LGTBQIA community; the small farmers and land-holders; the small investors who have fallen prey to a corrupt regime which has been hijacked by crony capitalists like Adani. The Adivasis who are denied their jal, jungle aur jameen, the Dalits and other vulnerable sections of society. There are many more; the list is endless! How many of our Christians (particularly politicians) or the Church as a body, spoken out against all these evils taking place in the country today?
Interestingly, in February 2012 at the 30th CBCI Meeting in Bangalore on the theme ‘The Church’s Role for a Better India’, the Catholic Bishops stated, “We sensed in our hearts our country’s yearning for a Better India. Our country has been noted for its deep spirituality, its saints and sages, its rich diversity of cultures and religions. People yearn for the ideal enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India of a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic which will secure for its citizens Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; Fraternity
Today, times are far worse! Will our Bishops today demonstrate the much-needed prophetic courage and speak up for truth and justice and for the values of the Constitution, in the same manner they did in 2012?
Those who call themselves ‘disciples’ of Jesus have no qualms of conscience to hobnob (to sup and more) with fascists fundamentalists and fanatics, who brazenly destroy the sanctity of the Constitution and the secular, pluralistic fabric of the country. These ‘disciples’ find it easier to indulge in a politics of convenience and compromise. They support Hindutva terms like ‘love jihad’ and ‘drug jihad’; they do not to take on the Government and police, if schools/institutions are attacked by the Sangh Parivar or if religious sisters are harassed and hounded out of a train. They are afraid to call for the revocation of the CAA amendments, the UAPA and other sedition laws; or for the total repeal of the draconian anti-conversion laws; they are frightened to support the protesting farmers or workers or for that matter, the unconstitutional abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A where Kashmir is concerned. For these Christians standing up to the ruling regime is just not possible. They prefer the more ‘diplomatic’ and ‘cautious’ approach: ‘silence’ they say is important for the ‘greater good.’ Some of them selectively use scriptural texts to justify their fears, ignorance and exclusiveness! All these are sinful!
Jesus and his gospel without compromise are about exactly the opposite. Jesus says “fear no one; I am with you!” When Christians have no courage to take a stand for justice and truth, because those who rule us may take away our possessions, privileges, power, position whatever – we are in fact sending a stronger message which is contra-witness: that our faith in Jesus is shallow, mere lip-service; that we really do not believe in him; that our treasures are with the rulers of this world! Ignorance is never a value: Jesus himself warned us about our inability to “read the signs of the times.” If we don’t stick our necks out -one will perhaps still lose everything, but also one’s own credibility! Christians of India must wake up now, stop selling one’s soul, betraying Jesus and the Constitution of India!
In ‘Evangelii Gaudium’, Pope Francis reminds us that, “The dignity of the human person and the common good rank higher than the comfort of those who refuse to renounce their privileges. When these values are threatened, a prophetic voice must be raised.” Is anybody listening?
(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer)
Selling One's Soul - The betrayal of Christ and Constitution
For the past couple of days, electronic and print mainstream media in the country, have been highlighting the public ‘promise’ made by the Archbishop of Tellicherry. During a protest rally of some Catholic rubber farmers, he offered to “help the BJP” open an account in Kerala in the next election, provided the price of rubber is increased to Rs 300 per kilogram. In doing so, the Archbishop, has done great disservice to Christ and the Constitution of India. This on several counts which include: no hierarchy or clergy is expected to take sides with any political party (though, in fitness of things they are duty-bound to expose the wrong that is taking place); the BJP has proved to be an anti-minority party, the attacks on Christian personnel and institutions continue all over the country; not long ago, farmers from all over the country protested for over a year against the anti-farmer laws being introduced by the BJP. There are no records that show that the Archbishop took up cudgels on behalf of the small farmers of the country (including those in his diocese); he has also not condemned the minority-bashing which is taking place in the country today!
The Archbishop’s ‘promise’ has naturally drawn plenty of flak from all sections of society but particularly from those who cherish the secular and democratic fabric of the country! The minuscule Christian community - which officially comprises just about 2.3% of the country’s population, has been hogging the headlines, recently and for all the wrong reasons! In the past, several Christians who took part in the freedom struggle, were members of the Constituent Assembly and who contributed significantly to the visionary Constitution that has guided the nation. Christians have been at the forefront of education - educating the ‘creme de la crème’ and others of the nation, providing medicare to those who were sick and above all, reaching out to the poorest of the poor, the excluded and the exploited, through selfless service which empowered the subalterns with an empowered sense of justice, dignity and equity and ensured their rightful place in society. All these works continue today, but they seem to fade into insignificance, with the new narrative which is throttling our nation .
The last few years have witnessed a dramatic change with the political ethos and morality of the country at its nadir. Several politicians from across the spectrum today demonstrate an unbridled lust for power. Serving the people selflessly - is apparently no longer the top priority for many of them; to gain power by hook or by crook) and to stay in power, is all that matters! Many of the politicians do not care about the consequences and of the harm they are doing to the democratic structure, the diversity and the secular fabric of the country.
The new narrative is made manifest with the systematic polarization which the country currently is painfully going through. The votaries of the ‘Hindutva’ ideology, which in nature is fascist, fundamentalist and fanatic - are at the helm of this. Besides the ideology does not have any allegiance to the Constitution. They have one clear aim to make of India a Hindu - nation state by 2025(when the parent organization, the RSS, completes hundred years of existence). A full page advertisement in Hindi in several Varanasi based Hindi dailies on 15 March 2023 entitled ‘Call to become Sanyasi’ says “ Those who have resolved to establish Hindu Sanatan Dharm as National and World Religion ” with a nine day rigorous training programme beginning March 22 and ending on Ram Navami, is a clear sign of things to come.
A visible strategy to realise this exclusive and anti - national agenda is the targeting of minorities- particularly Muslims and Christians - through a continual process of demonisation, denigration and discrimination. They often succeed with their manipulative ploy. Venomous hate speeches are on the rise; those who indulge in them do so with impunity knowing fully well that the ruling regime will provide them with all the immunity and protection needed. The anti - conversion laws which have been passed by some States, though still in the hearing stage in the Supreme Court provide vigilantes, in an unhealthy nexus with local police to take law and order in their own hands. routine prayer services are disrupted and attacked; false cases of so- called ‘forced’ conversion are made: priests and religious sisters are arrested and even denied bail on the flimsiest of reasons. There are instances when Hindutva elements have demanded exorbitant sums of money from priests, threatening them with false cases, if the money is not received.
On the other hand, some Christians including hierarchy, clergy and laity are far from being authentic witnesses to the person and message of Jesus; there are instances of financial scams, sexual misconduct, and other improprieties, which make both individual and institution extremely vulnerable and pliable. There are examples of how the ruling regime has hammered powerful Christians to submission, the underlying posturing is that ‘nothing will happen to you, if you join (or are with) us; if you do not do so, then we will destroy you.’ When a person has lost all credibility, the so-called ‘Christian’ has no choice but to succumb to the blackmail and the threats of the powers that apparently control their destinies.
People often wonder why MLAs and MPs who have been elected under the banner of a political party easily ‘cross the floor’ and join the ruling regime. The answer is obvious! Besides, the ruling regime has plenty of black money to buy up politicians from opposition parties. The recent political imbroglio in Maharashtra, which is awaiting a Supreme Court verdict, is a case in point! Many Christian politicians are also easy prey: we have the classic example of ‘Catholic’ politicians, in the Goa Assembly elections having absolutely no qualms of conscience to leave the party they were elected from, to join the ruling party.
The recent elections in the three North Eastern states of Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura calls for great introspection. The Christian population of Nagaland is estimated to be around 90% and that of Meghalaya around 75%; Tripura has a much smaller Christian population of about 4%. Today, however in all these States, the BJP is calling the shots, setting the political agenda and in fact, ruling (despite getting just two seats in Meghalaya) .The reasons for this seismic political change are several. Many of the politicians (despite being Christian) are corrupt; this is no State secret and which the BJP can exploit to their advantage. Then the BJP also used the Christian card, singing ‘Alleluias’ and ‘Praise the Lord’ in their campaigning. The BJP was happily legitimising the eating of beef in the north-east; whereas in most parts of India they and their ilk, lynch and kill minorities even if the latter just happen to ferry a cow in a vehicle. Then of course, the Sangh Parivar has its whole armoury of money, muscle, mafia, media and manipulations.
Sadly, several of the Christian politicians (and surely some people too) were trapped into playing the ‘religion’ card whether it was campaigning with Christian rhetoric or organising a patently unconstitutional swearing -in ceremony for the newly elected legislators of Nagaland. Having a pastor pray and a choir sing a Christian song has only made it easier for the BJP to give legitimacy for Hindu rituals at Government functions and thus to effectively destroy the secular fabric of the country. Of course, several Christians, (who hardly bother about Constitutional propriety and the severe repercussions such so-called ‘Christian’ acts would have on the future of the country) went ‘ga-ga’ when they watched clippings of the Nagaland swearing- in ceremony; there was a similar response when the CM of Meghalaya went to Vailankanni; those who cheered him did not care a hoot for the fact that CM has literally sold his state to a fascist regime.
The big news a few days ago, is that the BJP is going all out to woo the Christians of Kerala during Easter season. The Archbishop of Tellicherry’s public statement came only after some of the BJP functionaries met him. Several efforts have also been made in the past. The last elections however, in God’s own country was an overwhelming defeat for the BJP. The ground realities are different now; the BJP has the upper hand in the face of growing scandals among sections of the Kerala Christians. Some Christians (including some hierarchy and clergy) are warming up to the BJP. Besides opportunism, everyone knows why!!!
Few Christians in the country stand up and speak up for the values of the Gospel which are so beautifully enshrined in the Constitution of India. The nation today is suffering as never before! Communalism, Casteism, Criminalisation of politics, Corruption and Consumerism are rampant. At the receiving end of a brutal, unjust and inhuman system are the excluded and exploited, the migrants and labourers, the minorities: Muslims, Christians and others; human rights defenders and those who cherish freedom of speech and expression and a free press; those who defend the right to preach, practise and propagate one’s faith; those who are victims of venomous hate speeches and attacks, of demonization and discrimination. Those who have false cases foisted on them – with Government (Constitutional and quasi) bodies breathing fire on them. Then we have the fisherfolk of Kerala and others who have been displaced by megaprojects and the mining mafia (who destroy our precious natural resources); those who are concerned about the ecology (Josimath is a classic case) and environmental justice; the LGTBQIA community; the small farmers and land-holders; the small investors who have fallen prey to a corrupt regime which has been hijacked by crony capitalists like Adani. The Adivasis who are denied their jal, jungle aur jameen, the Dalits and other vulnerable sections of society. There are many more; the list is endless! How many of our Christians (particularly politicians) or the Church as a body, spoken out against all these evils taking place in the country today?
Interestingly, in February 2012 at the 30th CBCI Meeting in Bangalore on the theme ‘The Church’s Role for a Better India’, the Catholic Bishops stated, “We sensed in our hearts our country’s yearning for a Better India. Our country has been noted for its deep spirituality, its saints and sages, its rich diversity of cultures and religions. People yearn for the ideal enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India of a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic which will secure for its citizens Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; Fraternity
Today, times are far worse! Will our Bishops today demonstrate the much-needed prophetic courage and speak up for truth and justice and for the values of the Constitution, in the same manner they did in 2012?
Those who call themselves ‘disciples’ of Jesus have no qualms of conscience to hobnob (to sup and more) with fascists fundamentalists and fanatics, who brazenly destroy the sanctity of the Constitution and the secular, pluralistic fabric of the country. These ‘disciples’ find it easier to indulge in a politics of convenience and compromise. They support Hindutva terms like ‘love jihad’ and ‘drug jihad’; they do not to take on the Government and police, if schools/institutions are attacked by the Sangh Parivar or if religious sisters are harassed and hounded out of a train. They are afraid to call for the revocation of the CAA amendments, the UAPA and other sedition laws; or for the total repeal of the draconian anti-conversion laws; they are frightened to support the protesting farmers or workers or for that matter, the unconstitutional abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A where Kashmir is concerned. For these Christians standing up to the ruling regime is just not possible. They prefer the more ‘diplomatic’ and ‘cautious’ approach: ‘silence’ they say is important for the ‘greater good.’ Some of them selectively use scriptural texts to justify their fears, ignorance and exclusiveness! All these are sinful!
Jesus and his gospel without compromise are about exactly the opposite. Jesus says “fear no one; I am with you!” When Christians have no courage to take a stand for justice and truth, because those who rule us may take away our possessions, privileges, power, position whatever – we are in fact sending a stronger message which is contra-witness: that our faith in Jesus is shallow, mere lip-service; that we really do not believe in him; that our treasures are with the rulers of this world! Ignorance is never a value: Jesus himself warned us about our inability to “read the signs of the times.” If we don’t stick our necks out -one will perhaps still lose everything, but also one’s own credibility! Christians of India must wake up now, stop selling one’s soul, betraying Jesus and the Constitution of India!
In ‘Evangelii Gaudium’, Pope Francis reminds us that, “The dignity of the human person and the common good rank higher than the comfort of those who refuse to renounce their privileges. When these values are threatened, a prophetic voice must be raised.” Is anybody listening?
(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer)