Supreme Court Judgment on Banning of EVR’s Booklet on Ramayana

In 1970 the Government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order, under Section 99-A of the Cr.P.C, forfeiting the book "Ramayana: A True Reading" (and its Hindi translation) authored by EVR, the legendary rationalist thinker and social activist from Tamil Nadu. The High Court of Allahabad quashed the Government Order. The Government of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India against the High Court order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that, to quote, "the possible invocation of the powers under Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by various State Governments on several occasions induces us to enter a caveat. Basic unity amidst diversity notwithstanding, India is a land of cultural contrarieties, co-existence of many religions and anti-religions, rationalism and bigotry, primitive cults and materialist doctrines. The compulsions of history and geography and the assault of modern science on the retreating forces of medieval ways--a mosaic like tapestry of lovely and unlovely strands---have made large and liberal tolerance of mutual criticism, even though expressed in intemperate diction, a necessity of life. Governments, we are confident, will not act in hubris, but will weigh these hard facts of our society while putting into operation the harsh directives for forfeiture". 

The judgement was authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who passed away yesterday (04 December 2014). We reproduce the entire judgement in memory of Justice Krishna Iyer.

- Carvaka

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalai Singh Yadav on 16 September, 1976

Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 202, 1977 SCR (1) 616

Author: V R Krishnaiyer

Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.

Petitioner: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Respondent: Lalai Singh Yadav

Date of Judgement: 16/09/1976

Bench: Krishna Iyer, V.R

Bench: 

Krishna Iyer, V.R, 

Bhagawati P.N

Fazalali, Syed Murtaza.

CITATION: 1977 AIR 202 1977 SCR (1) 616 1976 SCC (4) 213 

ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 99-A - Scope of - Whether 'Statement of grounds' a mandatory provision. 

HEADNOTE: The appellant Government passed an order under Section 99-A of the Cr. P.C., for the forfeiture of a book entitled 'Ramayan: A true Reading' in English and its translation in Hindi, by Periyar EVR, of Tamil Nadu, on the ground that the book intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India, namely, the Hindus. Thereupon, an application was made by the respondent publisher of the book. under Section 99-C of the Code to the High Court, which by its special Bench, allowed the application and quashed the notification on the ground that the State Government had failed to state the grounds of its opinion as required in Section 99-A of the Code. The appellant contended that a specific statement of grounds by the Government, is not a mandatory requirement under Section 99-A of the Cr.P.C., & that it can be made by implication. 

Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: To relieve the State from the duty to state grounds of forfeiture, is to permit raptorial opportunity for use of such power over people's guaranteed liberty. Section 99-A says that you must state the ground and it is no answer to say that they need not be stated because they are implied. An order may be brief but not a blank. A formal authoritative setting forth of the grounds is statutorily mandatory.  Section 99-C enables the aggrieved party to apply to the High Court to set aside the prohibitory order and the Court examines the grounds of Government given in the order. The Court cannot make a roving enquiry beyond the grounds set forth in the order and if the grounds are altogether left out, the valuable r ight of appeal to the Court is defeated. [610G-H, 620B-C, G-H] Harnam Das v. State of U.P.A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1662, 1666 - dictum applied. Scheneck v.U.S. (1918) 249 U.S. 47, 527_-63 L.ed. 470, 473-474: Abrams v. U.S. (1919) 250 U.S. 616, 629=63 Led. 1173, 1180; Bowmen v. Secular Society Ltd. (1917) A.C. 406, 466-7; Arun Ranjan Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (I.L.R. 1957 2 Cal., 396), Jwalamukhi v. State of A.P. (I.L.R. 1973 A.P. 114) referred to. Mohammad Khalid v. Chief Commissioner (A.I.R. 1968 Delhi 18 FB) Chinna Annamalai v. State (A.I.R. 1971 Madras 448 F.B.), Bennet Coleman & Co. v. State of J & K (1974 J & K .L.R. 591) approved. 

JUDGMENT: 

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1971. 

(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19-1-1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 412/ 70). 

D.P. Uniyal and O.P. Rana, for the Appellant. S.N. Singh, for the Respondent. 

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Some cases, apparently innocent on their face and this appeal is one such--may harbour beneath the surface profoundly disturbing problems concerning freedoms, the unfettered enjoyment of which is the foundation for a democracy to flourish. 

The present appeal, by special leave, relates. to the forfeiture of a book captioned 'Ramayan: A True Reading' in English and its translation in Hindi, by the late political figure and leader of the Rationalist Movement, Periyar EVR, of Tamil Nadu, by an order of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, purporting to be passed under s. 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the view of the appellant government this book was sacrilegiously, outrageously objectionable, being 'deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India, viz., Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs and the publication whereof is punishable under s. 295A IPC'. This notification contained an appendix setting out in tabular form the particulars of the relevant pages and lines in the English and Hindi versions which, presumably, were the materials which were regarded as scandalizing. Thereupon an 'application was made by the respondent who was the publisher, under s. 99C of the Code, to the High Court which, by its special Bench, allowed the application and quashed the notification. The aggrieved State has appealed to this Court, by special leave. and counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the Government notification does not suffer from the vice which, according to the High Court, invalidated it and that the impugned book makes a foul assault on the sacred sentiments of the vast Hindu population of the State since the author anathematized in unvarnished language the great incarnations like Sree Rama and disdainfully defiled the divinely epic figures like Sita and Janaka all of whom are worshiped or venerated by the Hindu commonalty. Sidestepping this issue the High Court, by majority judgment, struck down the order on the short ground that 'the State Government did not state the grounds of its opinion as required in s. 99A o[ the Code. For that reason alone the petition has to be allowed and the order of forfeiture set aside in Court'. 

The anatomy of s. 99A falls to be studied at the thresh- old so that the pathology, if any, of the impugned order may be discovered. Shorn of phraseological redundancies (from the point raised in this case) the pertinent components of the provision, empowering forfeiture of materials manifesting written expression by citizens, are threefold, as flow from a reproduction of the relevant parts: "99-A(1) ---Where-

(a) any newspaper, or book ... or 

(b) any document, wherever printed, appears to the 'State Government to contain any .... or any matter which promotes or is intended to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India or which is deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of any such class by insulting the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, that is to say, any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book or other document to be forfeited to Government..." 

The triple facets of a valid order therefore are: 

(i) that the book or document contains any matter;

(ii) such matter promotes or is-intended to promote feelings of' enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens. of India; and

(iii) a statement of the grounds of Government's opinion. 

Thereupon the State Government may, by notification, declare every copy of the issue containing such matter to be forfeited. 

Does the present notification fulfill the third requisite of legal viability or is it still-born, being mortally wounded by absence of the statement of grounds ? The High Court holding this vital ingredient missing, has voided the order, but Sri Uniyal, counsel for the State, submits that though there is no express enunciation of the grounds for' Government's opinion, the appendix makes up for it. He argues that the numbers of the pages and lines of the of- fending publication supply both the 'matter' and the 'grounds', the latter being so patent that the. omission is inconsequential. More explicitly, the contention is that a mere reference to the matter, sufficiently particularised, functionally supplies, by implicit reading or necessary implication, the legal requirement of statement of grounds. The office of furnishing the reason or foundation for the governmental conclusion is substantially, though not formally, fulfilled where the appendix, an integral part of the order, sets out self-speaking materials. When the grounds are self-evident, silence is whispered speech and the law does not demand their separate spelling out as a ritualistic formality. The counter-contention is that express conditions for barricading the fundamental freedoms of expression designedly imposed by the Code cannot be whittled down by the convenient doctrine of implication, the right being too basic to be manacled without strict and manifest compliance with the specific stipulations of the provision. After. all fundamental rights are fundamental in a free Republic, except in times of national emergency, where rigorous restraints, constitutionally sanctioned, are clamped down. We are dealing with the Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code and these laws operate at all times. We have therefore to interpret the law in such a manner that liberties have plenary play, subject of course to the security needs of the nation, as set out in the Constitution and the laws. 

Even so, counsel for the appellant contends that the references in the forfeited book, as indicated in the appendix to the order, are so loudly repulsive and malevolently calumnious of Sree Rama, Sita and Janaka that the court must vicariously visualize the outraged feelings of the Hindus of Uttar Pradesh and hold that the grounds are written in the order in invisible ink. When we assess the worth of this submission we have to notice (a) the constitutional perspective, i.e., whether the basic freedoms are sought to be legally handcuffed; and (b) the existence of alternative possibilities of popular understanding of the prescribed publication which necessitate some statement of the circumstances and the reasons which induced the government in the given conditions of ethos and otherwise to reach the opinion it has recorded. 

The State, in India, is secular and does not take sides with one religion or other prevalent in our pluralistic society. It has no direct concern with the faiths of the people but is deeply obligated not merely to preserve and protect society against breaches of the peace and violations of public order but also to create conditions where the sentiments and feelings of people of diverse or opposing beliefs and bigotries are not so molested by ribald writings or offensive Publications as to provoke or outrage groups into possible violent action. Essentially, good government necessitates peace and security and whoever violates by bombs or books societal tranquility will become target of legal interdict by the State. 

We propose to view the issue before us both from the textual angle and from the larger standpoint and are led to the conclusion, by an interaction of both, that the High Court was not wrong and the appeal must fail. The-various High Courts in India have had occasion to consider this question but have come to divergent conclusions. as will presently appear. 

A drastic restriction on the right of a citizen when imposed by statute, calls for a strict construction, especially when quasi-penal consequences also ensue. The imperial authors of the Criminal Procedure Code have drawn up s. 99A with concern for the subject and cautionary man- dates to government. The power can be exercised only in the manner and according to the procedure laid down by the law. Explicitly the section compels the government to look at the matter which calls for action to consider it as to the clear and present danger it constitutes in the shape of promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between different segments of citizens or as to its strong tendency or intendment to outrage the religious feelings of such segments (there are other proclivities also stated in the section with which we are not concerned for the present purpose) and, quite importantly, to state the grounds of its opinion. We are concerned with the last ingredient. When the section says that you must state the grounds it is no answer to say that they need not be stated because they are implied. you do not state a thing when you are expressively silent about it. To state 'is to declare or to set forth especially in a precise, formal or authoritative manner; to say (something), especially in an emphatic way to assert' (Random House Dictionary). The conclusion is inescapable 8---1234SCI/76 that a formal authoritative setting forth of the grounds is statutorily mandatory. If you laze and omit, the law visits the order with voidness and this the State Government must realize especially because forfeiture of a book for a penal offence is a serious matter, not a routine act to be executed with unconcern or indifference. The wages of neglect is invalidity, going by the text of the Code. These considerations are magnified in importance when we regard the changeover from the Raj to the Republic and the higher value assigned to the great rights of the people. Where there is a statutory duty to speak, silence is lethal sin for a good reason disclosed by the scheme of the fasciculus of sections. For Section. 99C enables the aggrieved party to apply to the High Court to set aside the prohibitory order and the Court examines the grounds of Government given in the order and affirms or upsets it. The Court cannot make a roving enquiry beyond the grounds set forth in the order and if the grounds are altogether left out what is the Court to examine? And, by this omission, careless or calculated, the valuable right of appeal to the Court is defeated. A construction of the section, fraught with such pernicious consequence and tampering with the basic structure of the statutory remedy, must be frowned upon by the Court if the liberty to publish is to be restricted only to the limited extent the law allows. This reasoning is reinforced by Harnam Das v. State of U.P.(1) wherein this Court observed: 

"What then is to happen when the Government did not state the grounds of its opinion ? In such a case if the High Court upheld the order, it may be that it would have done so for reasons which the Government did not have in contemplation at all. If the High Court did that, it would really have made an order of forfeiture itself and not upheld such an order made by the Government. This, as already stated, the High Court has no power to do under s. 99-D. It seems clear to us, therefore, that in such a case the High Court must set aside the order under s. 99-D, for it cannot then be satisfied that the grounds given by the Government justified the order. You cannot be satisfied about a thing which you do not know." We do not mean to say that the grounds or reasons link- ing the primary facts with the forfeiter's opinion must be stated at learned length. That depends. In some cases, a laconic statement may be enough, in others a longer ratiocination may be proper but never laches to the degree of taciturnity. An order may be brief but not a blank. This conclusion establishes a constitutional rapport between the penal section 99A and the fundamental right Art. 

19. To relieve the State from the duty to state grounds of forfeiture, in the face of the words of s. 99A, is to permit raptorial opportunity for use of such power over people's guaranteed liberty. Why do we say so ? Surely, security of the State and peace of society demand restrictions on individual rights and we are the slaves of the law that we may be free. 

(1) A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1662, 1666. 

The fighting faith of our founding fathers respected Mills' famous statement and Voltaire's inspired assertion. We quote: 

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." (Mill in his essay 'On Liberty', pp. 19--20: Thinker's Library ed., Watts) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Attributed to Voltaire in S.G. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire, 1907) Rights and responsibilities 'are a complex system and the framers of our Constitution, aware of the grammar of anarchy; wrote down reasonable restrictions on libertarian exercise of freedoms. Dr. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, argued that it is incorrect to say that fundamental rights are absolute and quoted from Gitlow v. New York two self-speaking passages: 

"It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press, which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever. one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled licence that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom." 

"That a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, invite to crime or disturb the public peace, is not open to question ..... " 

Section 99A of the Code, construed in this candescent constitutional conspectus, bears out our interpretation. In the interests of public order and public peace, public power comes into play not because the heterodox few must be suppressed to placate the orthodox many but because every- one's cranium must be saved from mayhem before his cerebrum can have chance to simmer. Hatred, outrage and like feelings of large groups may have crypto-violent proneness and the State, in its well-grounded judgment, may prefer to stop the circulation of the book to preserve safety and peace in society. No enlightened State, would use this power to suppress advanced economic views, radical rational criticisms or fearless exposure of primitive obscurantism but ordered security is a constitutional value wisely to be safeguarded if progressives and regressives are to peacefully coexist. This is the spirit of s. 99A of the Code. The actual exercise will depend not on doctrinaire logic but practical wisdom. While the American theory of clear and present danger as the basis of restriction on fundamental rights does not necessarily apply in India, the illuminating observations of Holmes J., serve to educate the administrator and Judge. In Scheneck v. U.S.(1) Holmes J drove home the true test: 

"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done... The law's stringent protection of free speech, would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre, and causing panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

Developing this theory in a famous passage in Abrains v. U.S.(2) he said: 

"Persecution, for the expression of opinions, seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." 

Again in Bowmen v. Secular Society Ltd.,(2) Lord Summer underscored the dynamism of liberty and safety at once luminous and, elegant, in a purple passage: 

(1) (1918)249 U.S.47.52=63 L.E.d.470.473-474. (2) (1919) 250 U.S. 616, 629=63 L. ed. 1173, 1180.

(3) (1917) A.C. 406, 466-7. 

"The words, as well as the acts, which tend to endanger society differ from time to time in proportion as society is stable or insecure in fact, or is believed by its reasonable members to be open to assault. In the present day meetings or processions are held lawful which a hundred and fifty years ago would have been deemed seditious and this is not because the law is weaker or has changed, but because, the times having changed, society is stronger than before. In the present day reasonable men do not apprehend the dissolution or downfall of society because religion is publicly assailed by methods not scandalous. Whether it is possible that in the future irreligious attacks, designed to undermine fundamental institutions of our society, may come to be criminal in themselves, as constituting a public danger, is a matter that does not arise. The fact that opinion grounded on experience has moved one way does not in law preclude the possibility of its moving on fresh experiences in the other; nor does it bind succeeding generations, when conditions have again changed. After all, the question whether a given opinion is a danger to society is a question of the times and is a question of fact. I desire to say nothing that would limit the right of society to protect itself by process of law from the dangers of the moment, whatever that right may be, but only to say that, experience having proved dangers once thought real to be now negligible, and dangers once very possibly imminent to have now passed away, there is nothing in the general rules as to blasphemy and irreligion... which prevents us from varying their application to the particular circumstances of our time in accordance with that experience." Such is our constitutional scheme, such the jurisprudential dynamics and philosophical underpinnings of freedom and restraint, a delicate area of fine confluence of law and politics which judges by duty have to deal with. The journey's end has now arrived. Government has the power and responsibility to preserve societal peace and to forfeit publications which endanger it. But what is thereby prevented is freedom of expression, that promoter of the permanent interests of human progress. Therefore, the law (s. 99A) fixes the mind of the Administration to the obligation to reflect on the need to restrict and to state the grounds which ignite its action. To fall here is to fault the order. That is about all. 

Before concluding, we clarify that we express no view on the merits of the book or its provocative vitriol. It depends on a complex of factors. What offends a primitive people may be laughable for progressive communities. What is outrageous hearsay for one religion or sect or country or time may be untouchably holy for another. Some primitive people may still be outraged by the admonition of Swami Vivekananda : 'Our religion is in the kitchen, our God is the cooking pot, and our religion is don't touch me, I am holy' (quoted at p. 339 by Jawaharlal Nehru in Discovery of India). The rule of human advance is free thought and expression but the survival of society enjoins reasonable curbs where public interest calls for it. The balance is struck by governmental wisdom overseen by judicial review. We speak not of emergency situations nor of constitutionally sanctified special prescriptions but of ordinary times and of ordinary laws. 

A parting thought which we put to appellant's counsel may be stated here. If the State Government, judging by current circumstances, feels impelled to invoke s. 99A against the book in question it is free to do so, subject of course to fulfillment of the requirement to state the grounds of its opinion and the operation of s. 99C of the Code. Our detailed discussion disposes of the question of law and resolves the conflict immanent or apparent in the rulings of the various High Courts ranged against each other. They are: Arun Ranjan Ghose v. The State of West Bengal(1); and Jwalamukhi v. State of A.P. (2) which support the view propounded by the appellant; and Mohammad Khalid v. Chief Commissioner(3); China Annamalai v. State(4) and Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd v. State of J & K(5) which held with the Allahabad judgment under appeal. Perhaps there is no need to discuss the ratio in each of the above cases as the rival points of view have been already covered in the earlier part of this judgment. 

The possible invocation of the powers under s. 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by various State Governments on several occasions induces us to enter a caveat. Basic unity amidst diversity notwithstanding, India is a land of cultural contrarities, co-existence of many religions and anti-religions, rationalism and bigotry, primitive cults and materialist doctrines. The compulsions of history and geography and the assault of modern science on the retreating forces of medieval ways--a mosaic like tapestry of lovely and unlovely strands---have made large and liberal tolerance of mutual criticism, even though expressed in intemperate diction, a necessity of life. Governments, we are confident, will not act in hubris, but will weigh these hard facts of our society while putting into operation the harsh directives for forfeiture. From Galileo and Darwin, Thoreau and Ruskin to Karl Marx, H.G. Wells, Barnard Shaw and Bertrand Russel, many great thinkers have been objected to for their thoughts and statements-avoiding for a moment great Indians from Manu to Nehru. Even today, here and there, diehards may be found in our country who are offended by their writings but no Government will be antediluvian enough to invoke the power to seize their great writings because a few fanatics hold obdurate views on them. (1)I.L.R. [1957] 2 Cal. 396. (2) I.L.R. [1973] A.P. 114. (3) AIR 1968 Delhi 18 (F.B.). (4) AIR 1971 Madras 448 (FB). (5) 1974 J & K L.R. 591. 

A well-known Mao thought aptly expresses the liberalist approach to divergent schools of philosophy: 

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and sciences." 

HaroldLaski, who influenced many Indian progressives, in his 'A Grammar of Politics' states a lasting truth: 

"There is never sufficient certitude in social matters to make it desirable for any government to denounce it in the name of the State. American experience of the last few years has made it painfully clear that there will never be present in constituted authority a sufficient nicety of discrimination to make R certain that the opinion attacked is one reasonably certain to give rise to present disorder." 

"It is no answer to this view to urge that it is the coronation of disorder. If views which imply violence have a sufficient hold upon the State to disturb its foundations, there is some- thing radically wrong with the habits of that State." 

"Almost always - there are rare cases in which persecution has proved successful - the result of free expression is such a mitigation of the condition attacked as to justify its use; almost always,' also, to prohibit free speech is to drive the agitation underground. What made Voltaire dangerous to France was not his election to the Academy, but his voyage to England. Lenin was infinitely more dangerous to. Czarist Russia in Switzerland than he would have been in the Dume. Freedom of speech, in fact, with the freedom of assembly therein implied, is at once the catharsis of discontent and the condition of necessary re- form. A government can always learn more from the criticism of its opponents than from the eulogy of its supporters. To stifle that criticism is--at least ultimately--to prepare its own destruction." 

A note of circumspection. In the current context of constitutionally proclaimed emergency, the laws have perforce to act in the narrow limits inscribed in the Emergency provisions and this decision relates to the pre-Emergency legal order. We dismiss the appeal. 

M.R. Appeal dismissed

Read More

Perversity of Religious Belief

It is often asserted, even in the face of contrary evidence, by the believers of course, that the ‘truly religious’ people do not do any ham to others; that the terrorists are a misguided lot; that those who incite communal violence are in the grip of momentary passion; that the believers who commit human sacrifice and those who refuse to provide proper medical assistance to their nears and dears on religious ground are illiterate people; that these ‘aberrations’ cannot be used as a yardstick to measure the true nature of religion, which is essentially spiritual and hence benign, we are told.

Well, we reproduce a news item that shows, yet again, the darker side of religion. It shows, starkly, what grave harm people inspired by ‘true faith’ in religion do to others even in ‘normal times’.

Indian woman dies after being refused abortion

(The Hindu, Chennai, November 15, 2012) 

A woman of Indian origin has died after doctors in Ireland refused to perform an abortion, telling her that “this is a Catholic country”, sparking widespread outrage and renewed calls for immediate reforms to the Irish law to allow termination if the life of the mother is at risk.

Savita Halappanavar (31), who was a dentist, was 17 weeks pregnant when she died from septicaemia, according to an autopsy carried out two days after her death on Oct 28. Her family said she asked several times for her termination as she had severe back pain and was miscarrying but doctors at University Hospital Galway refused on the grounds that abortion was illegal in Ireland.

Her husband Praveen Halappanavar said he was certain that his wife would have still been alive if the termination had been allowed.

It was her first pregnancy, he said, and she was “on top of the world” before she started suffering back pain. When the pain persisted, she asked her consultant if she could be “induced” but was told “no”.

Savita Halappanavar

“They said unfortunately she can’t because it’s a Catholic country. Savita said to her [consultant] she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her. But she said, ‘I’m sorry, unfortunately it’s a Catholic country,’ and it’s the law that they can’t abort when the foetus is [alive],” he said.

The hospital has launched an internal investigation in addition to a separate inquiry ordered by Ireland’s Health Service Executive.

Mr. Halappanavar recalled that Savita “was so happy and everything was going well” until she was admitted to hospital with back pain.

“On the Saturday [Oct 20] night everything changed. She started experiencing back pain so we called the hospital, the university hospital... I got a call at about half [past] twelve on the Wednesday night that Savita’s heart rate had really gone up and that they had moved her to ICU. “Things just kept on getting worse and on Friday they told me that she was critically ill.” Savita died on Sunday.

Ireland Prime Minister Enda Kenny did not rule out an independent inquiry as pro-choice groups demanded immediate changes to the law.

“It would be very appropriate that we don’t rule anything out here, but there are two reports and investigations going on at the moment,” Mr. Kenny said.

Ireland’s strict anti-abortion law means that women routinely go abroad for abortion. Earlier this year, the government set up an expert group to make recommendations in response to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights judgment that Ireland had failed to implement existing rights to lawful abortion where a mother’s life was at risk.

Left-wing MPs Clare Daly and Joan Collins, who had introduced a bill in Parliament earlier this year to allow an abortion in specific life-threatening circumstances, said that had their proposals been accepted, Savita would have been alive.

“A woman has died because Galway University Hospital refused to perform an abortion needed to prevent serious risk to her life.

“This is a situation we were told would never arise. An unviable foetus — the woman was having a miscarriage — was given priority over the woman’s life, who unfortunately and predictably developed septicaemia and died,” Ms Daly said.

We do not think that the medical fraternity who refused to extend the required medical facility to that unfortunate woman are ‘bad people’; except for their religiosity they are ‘good people’. It is their ‘true faith’ in religion inspired by their faith (not just ‘as small as the mustard seed’ as their holy book demands, but ‘enough faith to move a mountain’) in their compassionate god that prevented them from extending medical help that was well within their reach.

As Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion”.

Read More

Rape: Patriarchy and Selective Historiography

Ram Puniyani

The spate of horrific rapes in Haryana in particular (Sept 2012) has drawn the national attention to this abominable phenomenon. Various diagnosis and prescriptions have also come forward about the causes and as to how to prevent these rapes is also being suggested by different people. Interestingly the world view of those advising on the issue is shaped their world view as such. While the progressive liberal tendencies and ideologies will link the phenomenon of rape to the prevalent uneven gender equations and so what follows as a preventive measure is the need to empower women and strengthen liberal norms in the society. The conservative opinions also have a wide shades of understandings.

Courtesy: wccpenang

Not too long ago a police top cop in Hyderabad linked rape to the clothes of girls, and he was applauded by the Rashtra Seviak Samiti, the women’s organization subordinate to the RSS. There is caste equation also in the phenomenon seen in caste atrocities where dalit women bear the large brunt of the phenomenon, the worst of which was witnessed in Khairlanji. In communal violence, the ‘women of other community’ are subjected to this humiliation. In a way the bodies of women become the site of contestation amongst these social groups, where women are regarded as the property of men.

In the spate of recent shameful incidents, the notorious Khaps gave the dictat that the age of marriage of girl should be lowered to 15 as now the girls reach puberty early, before 11 years of age so this change should be exercised. Omprakash Chautala, before retracting his statement later, said “In the past, especially in Mughal era, people used to marry their girls to save them from such atrocities. Currently a situation of similar kind is arising in Haryana.” This formulation has lot of holes in it. Does marriage prevent rapes? Married women are also subjected to this atrocity is too well known. Is it that the early marriage for girls has become because of the atrocities of Mughals on ‘Hindu’ women? The latter formulation is also a part of social common sense prevalent in the sections of society. Many an instances like Padminis’ Jauhar (Putting oneself in the fire) to prevent being humiliated by the rival king and the army is supposed to be one such example.

There is no doubt that many women might have committed such suicides to save themselves from anticipated situation. In the classic serial Tamas, a similar scene where women jump into the well to prevent their humiliation also starkly comes to one’s mind. But is it that the Mughal rule or the rule of Muslim kings in different parts of the country stands out for such horrendous ignominies, while rulers of other religions were protecting women? One recalls when Shivaji’s armies went to plunder Kalayan, apart from other loot they also brought the ‘daughter in law’ of Kalyan’s ruler as a gift for Shivaji. It is another matter that Shivaji sent her back with full honours. The plunder of wealth and the humiliation, rape of women by different armies was and is the part of the highhanded behaviour of the armies. Armies in the past, irrespective of being Hindus, Muslims or Christian did it and are doing it even now. One should shudder to think of the atrocities, which took place in Bosnia and Rwanda. Closer home this is what took place and is taking place in Kashmir or North East. The case of Manorama, who was abducted, raped and killed by the Indian army, will be etched in the memory of the nation as a dark spot on national conscience. After this event many a women protested in a most shaming way, stripping and carrying a banner “Indian Army rape us”. The phenomenon which has taken place has been due to the armed might of Kings-Generals- armies. This is a phenomenon cutting across religions. Here in India to attribute it to Muslims Kings and army alone is a part of ‘Communal historiography’ presented in a selective way. Incidentally, communal historiography is a way of presenting history through the prism of Kings’ religion, which was introduced in India by British to pursue their ‘divide and rule’ policy. One should also remember that the armies of Mughal kings were mixed, with Hindus and Muslims both being part of it. Do remember that the Commander of Chief of Akbar was Raja Mansingh and Aurangzeb had Mirza Raja Jaisingh as his associate.

As such the child marriage, early marriage and marrying the girls before they attain puberty had become a part of ‘religion’ so to say. During nineteenth century when the reformers were calling for the raise in the age of marriage of girls, the conservative sections argued that the Hindu girls must cohabit with their husbands before their first menses. During a debate on raising the age of consent for girls it was argued that raising the age of consent to 12 would increase such a possibility of a girl having her menses before cohabitation so such a move by the state will tantamount to the ruler interfering in Hindu religion. The trends for early marriage and few voices calling for the raise in the age of marriage has been debated since quite few centuries and those wanting to increase the age of marriage could succeed only gradually and more so after Independence. Even amongst Muslims the conservative sections have been demanding the lowering of the age of marriage for girls. Both conservative sections think alike, as the real issue is not religion, but control over lives of women, strengthening patriarchy. This patriarchy has been presented as the part of religious practice, and in that way the imposition of patriarchal norms becomes easier.

White Ribbon

Early marriage ensures a total slavery of the girls, apart from other miseries which follow due to early child bearing apart from the responsibility of household chores. The early marriage and pregnancy is also a biological risk to the mother and the child. So the struggle as such is between the attempt to rid the society of patriarchal control on one side and re-imposing the feudal norms in current times on the other. It is no wonder that Khaps, which are the most assertive in Haryana and other regions of North India, is also the area where the atrocities against Dalits are on the peak and the sex ratio is the lowest in the country. The agenda of these Khaps, the exclusive male bodies, is very visible in this area in the form of caste and gender subjugation. The Khaps, which are illegal, have been asserting and giving dictats on intra gotra marriages and the cases which are equivalent of honour killing are also visible on and off. Overall the likes of Chautala, may retract their statement due to the pressures of political considerations, but their articulations do express the reality of places like Haryana. The need for social reform, women’s education-employment-empowerment is one of the keys to overcome the fatwa’s of the self appointed lawmakers. These Khaps need to be done away and Panchayats with 50% reservation for women need to be empowered as per our Constitutional norms. The interesting point of the Haryana phenomenon is that the major victims of their agenda, women and dalits, both are facing the atrocities.

While multiple theories and opinions on why rape as a phenomenon prevails, the major cause of this phenomenon, the patriarchy and the uneven gender relations need to be highlighted to be able to go to the root of the issue. Doing away with Khap and promoting the grass root democracy through Panchayat system will be the way towards a more just, gender just, sans the chains of the likes of Khap or their equivalents in some form or the other.

Read More

Status of Minorities: A Tale of Two Neighbors

Ram Puniyani

Pakistan and India, these neighbors got Independence in the mid August 1947. Today 55 years after the Independence where do these two major countries of the subcontinent stand vis a vis their religious minorities, is the question which we need to answer to ensure a better and more democratic area.

On August 11, 2012, a mob of over 50000, mainly Muslims, assembled in Azad Maidan to protest against the ill treatment of Muslims in Assam and Myanmar. After some speeches full of provocation and after display of some provocative posters, the mob turned violent and vented its ire against the media for not covering the plight of Assam’s Muslims displaced in the July violence involving Bodos and Muslims. Needless to say that in Assam violence nearly 80 people have been killed and over 4 lakh people, mostly Muslims-Bodos, have been displaced, right under the nose of the ruling government. It burned few OB vans. Mob also took on the police. Humiliated-molested women police personnel and beat up other police personnel. While controlling the violence the police did the firing, which lead to death of two young men. In the whole scuffle many a police personnel also got injured. Now, the Raza Academy, the organizers, has issued an apology saying the meeting was infiltrated by provocateurs. Still the organizers cannot shun their responsibility from the whole tragedy. The protest has always to be on democratic lines, non violent and the speeches in meetings have to be on moderate lines, the hate speech and inciting the mobs is not excusable on any condition.

Courtesy: The Hindu

In the same week there is news that nearly 300 Hindus have crossed over to India from Pakistan. Ostensibly they have come here for pilgrimage, but many of them have stated that they will not go back as they don’t feel safe in Pakistan. Most of these Hindus are from Sind and Baluchistan. There are reports of forced abduction and conversion of Hindu girls there and the religious minorities have to live the life of second class citizens. The religious minorities persecuted in Pakistan are not just Hindus; Sikhs and Christians but also Shias and Ahmadiyas, a sect of Islam.

Where do we find ourselves nearly six decades down the line after we committed ourselves to democracy and secular principles? India came into being as a secular democratic state and even Pakistan which was formed in the name of Islam for the Muslim majority areas of British India began with the secular principles as enunciated in the oft quoted 11th August 1947 speech of Qaed-e-Azam Jinnah. In the speech he said that the state has nothing to do with the religion, people are free to go to their mosques, temples and churches or whatever, as it is their personal matter. He also said that the white color in Pakistan flag represents minorities. Still the logic of communalism was ‘built-in’ in the whole system. One can make a secular speech but the social base which had resulted in formation of Pakistan, the one of feudal elements was intact. Mere secular speeches don’t change the social reality. The communalism caught up in Pakistan in due course of time and in late seventies, with Zia ul Haq-Maulana Maududi duo ruling the roost, the Mullahs came to the fore-front. The Mullah-Military complex backed up by the United States, which had a substantial say in the affairs of Pakistan, violated every letter and the core spirit of the speech of Mr. Jinnah, to the extent that today even the Muslim minorities, Shias and Ahmadiays are as much victims of religious intolerance and it is getting reflected in their political status in the country. 

India with Gandhi and Nehru as the major pillars of shaping the values of Indian national movement, were unshakable in their commitment to secularism. Gandhi, the devout Hindu and Nehru the atheist had the vision of a state totally committed to respecting the people of all religious denominations, while keeping a distance from those trying to bring in matters related to faith in the ambit of the policies of state. Nehru while doing this realized two major handicaps. One that, while our constitution is secular, the society is in the grip of religiosity, so he found this as an obstacle in full implementation of secular policies. The second flaw he saw was that in his party, which was founded on the grounds of secular values has been infiltrated by communal elements. There was no one to heed to his warning, and in due course many an actions of some Congress leaders were indistinguishable from those of the communal elements, those forcing the country in the direction of religious nationalism.

The health of democracy in any country has to be gauzed by the security and equity of minorities in the country. Through the complicated mechanisms, the influence of communal elements has risen exponentially during last three decades in particular. The whole trajectory of these two countries has been very different. While in Pakistan, there was always a space for communalism to creep in comfortably, task of communal politics became still simpler with the country falling in to the grip of Military dictatorships time and over again. The intervention of United States and US policies in Afghanistan, in particular, added fuel to the fire.

In India, the opportunism, the fallacies of electoral system, first past the poll, the rising anxiety of sections of society, the successful effort of communal forces to project the fear of the small minorities to the big majority and the politics around emotive issues like Ram Temple completed the picture. Today roughly while Muslims are 13.4% in population, their percentage amongst violence victims is 90%. Today they are standing at the bottom of socio-economic indices. Sachar Committee has demonstrated it beyond any shadow of doubt. In Pakistan, the percentage of Hindu minorities has declined over a period of time and their security and social status is abominable. The injustices on minorities in one country are no justification for heaping of injustices in other country. The reactionary communalism is used by political forces in their own ways. The communal forces in India look at the Hindus exiling from Pakistan and the Assam violence as the attack on Hindus. In Pakistan the atrocities on Muslims in India give them a handle to further intimidate the Hindus there. In response to Babri demolition, many a temples were razed to dust in Pakistan.

All said and done there is a gross contrast between the situation in Pakistan and India. Despite setbacks, the secular democratic values are the foundation of Indian system, though very much compromised in recent decades. In Pakistan on the other hand, democracy has been a marginal value, there are efforts to root it in Pakistan but the obstacles are immense. The common factor is the suffering of minorities though the degree of this suffering is very different in both these countries.

Where will all this lead us to? The communal issue is a big brake to the social development of the countries as a whole. The values of affirmative action for weaker sections of society, the going an extra mile to protect them and to bring them up in social area is what is needed.  Sixty five years after coming out from the yoke of colonialism, it is time we remember the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the principles which guided our freedom movement. In India there is an urgent need to reform our electoral system to reflect our social and political needs. Communal violence and discrimination against minorities is an immense loss to our national ethos and humanism. Time to check it and reaffirm in practice, those values which made us India! And for Pakistan high time to come back to the values outlined in the speech of Jinnah on 11th August 1947, decline in the percentage of inorities and their exodus from Pakistan is a great insult to the founder of Pakistan!

Read More

Violence and ‘Clean Chits’: Sangma Backs BJP on Kandhamal

Ram Puniyani

Electoral politics is a strange game. We can observe that with the present weaknesses of electoral system many alliances are made up, which do not have much ideological basis. Amongst many flaws of the present system is the system of first past the poll. This prevents the true representation of people in the elected bodies. Many a times, the players on the political chess board, highlight and undermine facts depending on their political contingencies keeping in mind the need to keep their allies in good humor. One does not know whether these players of politics are ignorant about facts or choose to say things which are needed for their political victory or survival. Examples galore!

P.A. Sangma

Recently the candidate of President’s post, P.A. Sangma (June 25, 2012) when asked about Sangh’s alleged role in Kandhamal killings and Pastor Graham Stains murder said that there is no proof to suggest of their (Sangh-BJP) involvement in these killings. He was also asked about anti-Christian stance of Sangh Parivar and Jayalalita. One does not know how much track Sangama is keeping of the happenings in the Adivasi areas; where anti Christian violence has come up as a major phenomenon. Be it the Adivasi areas of Gujarat, MP, Maharashtra or Orissa, the Christians in the Adivasi areas and the priests and nuns working in these areas have been the victim of violence unleashed in these areas. Also one cannot forget Jayalalitha’s anti conversion bill and its withdrawal in due course.

The most heinous of these crimes was the burning alive of Pastor Graham Stewards Stains on the night of 23rd January 1999, in Keonjhar in Manoharpur district of Orissa. Pastor Stains and his two innocent sons Timothy and Philip (Age 10 and 6 respectively) were sleeping in a jeep, after the function in a village. They were burnt alive by Dara Singh of Bajrang Dal. Right next day the then Home minister Lal Krishna Advani said that Bajrnag Dal cannot do so, he knows them very well. Meanwhile a team of three central ministers, Murli Manohar Joshi, George Fernandez and Navin Pattnaik visited Keonjhar and proclaimed that international forces have done the act of burning as they want to destabilize the NDA Government.

Advani appointed Wadhva Commission. The commission in its report confirmed that the murder was done by Dara Singh alias Ravinder Kumar Pal who had instigated the local people. Dara Singh propagated that Pastor is anti Hindu, he is converting the people to Christianity and his work for leprosy patients is just a cover. Dara Singh was active in the local programs organized by Bajrang Dal and Sangh Privar associates.  Wadhva Commission did point out that there was no statistical significant increase in Christian population in the area where Pastor Stains was working. In 1991 it was 0.299% and in 1999 it became 0.307% The murder of Pastor Stains was part of the phenomenon of anti Christian violence which has been unleashed from last nearly two decades. The major role in this is the anti Christian propaganda done by Sangh Parivar, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and Bajrang Dal. BJP’s local leaders are also fairly active in these anti Christian activities. There is a great amount of overlap in the functions of these, progeny of RSS. In Orissa many a BJP MLA-leaders were very active in the process.

Graham Staines and family

The anti Christian violence has been investigated by various citizens’ tribunals and committees. In Gujarat  “Untold Story of Hindukaran in Gujarat’ by a citizens committee in 2006, in Orissa by the Indian People’s tribunal headed by Justice (Retd) K.K.Usha in 2006 and last one the National People’s tribunal (2010) headed by Justice A.P. Shah went into the Kandhamal violence. All reports showed that it is the hate propaganda unleashed by these communal organizations which is the base of violence in Adivasi areas. Interesting observation is that for the same type of activities the Christian missionaries in cities are not attacked by these groups. Moreover many a times the children of the practitioners of this politics do study in the schools run by Christian missionaries in the cities.

In case of Kandhmal, the story was the worst off and the tribunal named many a BJP leaders was playing a major role in the anti Christian violence in Kandhamal. The national people’ tribunal in its report pointed out ““The role of Hindutva organisations in fuelling and orchestrating the carnage has been officially acknowledged. In response to a question posed in the Legislative Assembly, the chief minister of Orissa – Naveen Patnaik – candidly admitted, through a written response, that it has been found from the investigation that “members of the RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal” were involved in the violence. The Chief Minister also disclosed that police had arrested 85 people from the RSS, 321 members of the VHP and 118 Bajrang Dal members in the attacks. He said that only 27 members from these groups were still in jail. This is just one of the observations. As such most of the committees which investigated these acts of violence opined in a similar fashion.

A Christian girl who was burned
 during religious violence in Orissa in 2008
Image Courtesy: Wikipedia

Sangma is not the first one to mislead the people on such issues. When Mayawati was in alliance with BJP, she came in to campaign for Modi in Gujarat elections and squarely blamed the Muslims for the carnage. Sangma adorns the cross of his religion and invoked that the principle of forgiveness is the essence of Christianity. Very true, that’s what Galdys Stains, the widow of the slain Pastor did. But in the overall case of violence forgiveness comes when the culprits express remorse for their acts and seek the pardon. In the cases of communal violence, the perpetrators are emboldened and become politically stronger after the act of violence, and generally blame the victims for the violence. How to apply the principle of forgiveness to those who uphold their crime? And in this case the people who can forgive these cruel acts are the victims or the survivors of the victims and no one else.

It’s not a coincidence that Sangama has formulated this ‘Sangh Parivar has no role in Kandhmal carnage after his being backed by BJP in the Presidential election!

Read More

Targeting Innocents: State and Human Rights of Minorities

Ram Puniyani

In Kalyan a Muslim youth Bilal Shaikh was slapped with a non-bailable cognizable offense (May 2012) under section 333, after he jumped the traffic signal. He was assaulted brutally by the police for having arguments with them, suffered a fracture in right arm and was in jail for eight days. The policemen who beat him up got released with the non cognizable warrant.

Another Muslim youth Mohammad Amir Khan, age 18, preparing for his school exam, was abducted by police, charged with being the mastermind of serial blasts in Delhi, was charged under all the possible sections, tortured in jail for 14 years and finally released in 2012 when no evidence was proved in the courts.

In the series of blasts, for which now Aseemanand-Pragyasingh Thakur and company is now cooling the heels in jails, many a Muslim youth were arrested after every blast in Malegaon, Mecca Masjid (Hyderabad), Ajmer and Samjhauta express. In all the cases the Muslim youth had to be released as police had no credible evidence of any sort. In the meanwhile many of them had to drop out from their studies and their careers were ruined.

In the recently released (June 2012) report by Tata Institute of Social Sciences, the observation is that 36% of the jail inmates in Maharashtra are Muslims while the population of Muslims in state is close to 10.6%. The report was sponsored by the Maharashtra States’ Minorities Panel. The findings of the report are in conformity with the Sachar Committee report and general observation of Human rights activists.

Most of the arrests of Muslim youth are prompted by the prevalent stereotype of ‘Muslims are criminals, terrorists’. These stereotypes are highly prevalent not only in society but also amongst the bureaucracy, particularly the police and amongst intelligence agencies. Many in the police force are totally in the grip of communal thinking and with their infinite power they unleash themselves against the Muslim youth at every conceivable opportunity. The rise of communalization of society and more particularly after the coming up of the terrorism of Al Qaeda variety, the stereotypes about Muslims have worsened. One recalls that this type of terrorism was subtly brought up by United States for pursuing its goal of controlling the oil wealth. The attitude of authorities has become more anti minority and this in turn has undermined their professionalism and they are guided more by their biases than by the rules of law.

There are multiple reasons for the Muslim youth being targeted by the state authorities. True, that some Muslim youth have fallen prey to the illegal activities due to the abject poverty which they have to suffer. Still the major reason for their being indiscriminately arrested by the police relates to the misconception regarding acts of terrorism and communal violence.

In communal violence, the major culprit instigating the violence is majoritiarian communal forces. The study of different inquiry committee reports by Teesta Setalvad (Communalism Combat, March 1998) shows that in most of the cases of violence it is the RSS related organization, already prevalent or floated specially for the occasion, which is in the lead. Even in Mumbai violence, Shrikrishna Commission held Shiv Sena as the major factor leading the violence. As such Muslims are 13.4% of the Indian population according to 2001 census, but amongst the violence victims 90% are Muslims. Police and many a times political leadership takes the attitude which increases the insecurity of the community.

The worst part of this phenomenon is that in popular perception it is alleged that it is Muslims, who start the riots. Dr. V.N. Rai, who has done a major study on the communal violence points out that generally a situation, is created where the minority community is forced to throw the first stone on many occasions. To worsen the matter, after the violence the majority of those who are arrested for communal violence are Muslims again.

The recent acts of terror and attitude of police are very reflective of the whole process. In most of these acts of terror, Malegaon, Ajmer, Jaipur and Samjhauta express blast, many a Muslim youth were arrested as the ones’ who have done the act. Police machinery produced evidence of their involvement with some Pakistan based terror group; SIMI was always blamed for many of these acts. Even at that time there were enough pointers that police investigations and action defies common sense. Police had the standard formula for arresting Muslim youth after every blast. They made it a practice to implicate the Muslim youth and put on their head the charge of blast and their link with Lashkar-E-Tayyaba, Indian Mujahideen, SIMI or some such group. Social activists kept pointing to the authorities about the leads showing in another direction from where the acts of terror were emerging. Police totally biased with prejudiced mind set kept on repeating the same pattern over and over again.

Once Hemant Karkar’s immaculate investigation showed the link of Malegaon blast to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur’s motor cycle and her links with many Hindutva groups the matters came to a halt. Sadhvi’s links with Swami Dayanand Pandey, Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, retired Major Upadhaya, Swami Aseemanand and many others of Hindutva ideology revealed that police till then was totally acting in a wrong manner. In this light Human Rights organization ANHAD (Act Now for Harmony And Democracy), organized a tribunal in Hyderabad, ‘Scapegoats and Holy Cows’. The report of this tribunal was very damning of the actions of the investigation authorities and the state. Logically with the arrest of Saffron terror gangs the acts of terror seem to have come to a halt.

Despite this, the attitude of police remains as biased as before and in the day to day life they display this partisan behavior. This biased attitude of state machinery, police and intelligence authorities in the main, has been ruining the life and careers of many a Muslim youth. The feeling of insecurity amongst the community as a whole is on the rise. This feeling of insecurity is crippling the possible growth of the community. Those implicated in such acts are also boycotted by the community and have faced immense personal, social and economic losses. It is time that the Human rights groups intensify their campaign to protect the innocent Muslim youth, the legal measures need to be strengthened whereby the police cannot exercise its biased attitude in arresting any Muslim youth. Measures are needed to ensure that police-intelligence agencies takes up more professional attitude overall and more particularly in the matters related to minority youth. The Government needs to wake up and apply the correcting measurs.

Apart from preventive legal steps we also need to work against the prevalent social biases against Muslims in particular. The myths against the community, which are historical and contemporary issues, which are related to the causes of acts of terrorism need to be countered by spread of truth about these myths. It is the duty of state and social organizations to undertake and promote such awareness programs through lectures, workshops, popular booklets and through mechanisms like T.V. and media in particular.

Read More