Wear and tear

By- Dr Nutan Thakur

From the various news that we are getting from across the world, it seems what a person can or shall wear is also slowly acquiring social relevance and has spilled from the realm of a completely private matter to something that concerns everyone else. To quote only a few examples, the Talibans and many such retrograde organizations have been issuing fatwa and firman for long warning the women and girls not wear all kinds of "western" dresses as also to strictly comply with the Purdah as prescribed by the rules of Shariat and other Islamic conventions. Going to the other extreme we have France where initially the government had banned the Sikhs from wearing turbans because they do not want any person to present a distinct look which they feel acts like a hindrance to the making of a homogenous society.

Extending it further, Sarkozi, their flamboyant President has only recently not only banned the women from wearing Purdah in public but has also come out in the open, with harsh words which condemn the system of purdah as being an unwanted and unwarranted burden imposed on the Muslim women, which is acting as a hindrance to their path of equality. Not to be left out, the Uttar Pradesh Principal's Council came with a diktat that tried to put a ban on girls wearing jeans and T-shirts etc in the colleges. The reason cited was that such a dress acted as a factor that increased the possibilities of girls being molested or ill treated. The order was promptly overruled by the State government to ward-off an unsavoury embarrassment.
Thus we find all kinds of dress-codes and dress related diktats coming up in all kinds of societies and this tendency seems to have increased in the recent times. The question is- "Are such dress-codes warranted?" Isn't it that imposing any kind of dress related limitation is something that should strictly be avoided save in such places which necessitate some kind of uniform for their job requirements. I mean, a woman in sarees or burqas can't work as a air-pilot nor can she work in a security-related Commando force. But save in such conditions, whenever any kind of dress-code is imposed, its only effect is that of stifling and congesting the normal pace of societal life. It acts as a restraining agent to the proper prospering of society and gives arbitrary and undeserving authority to a few people to act as moral-police. This is certainly bad for society, whether it is done in the way the Talibani have been imposing or even the way Sarkozi has promulgated. If a Muslim woman feels that she should wear burqa, I don't think the State should come in its way to define and interfere in a matter that is purely religious in nature. Much worse is the way the Talibanis, the hardliners, the Al-Quada people and all such other backward looking organizations have been pronouncing and implementing all sorts of abhorrent and abominable dress codes on hapless girls and women.
One interesting similarity in most of the cases is that such restrictions are being imposed on the women folk only. While the men are hardly being touched (except may be the Sikh vase in France), all these organizations never give any opportunity to come up with more and more restrictions on the women folk. Is this proper? Isn't it a clear sign of gender bias and the hiatus between the positions occupied by a man and a woman in our society? It is high time such tendencies were given up. in all circumstances and people be made free to wear a dress of their choice.(mediavigil)

The Lavalin Case- Rethinking over section 197 CrPC

Note: Procedural Establishments Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives protection to a person who is still a Public Servant at the time the prosecution is launched, and also when he is no longer a public servant. This is to protect the Public Servant from a case being filed against him after his retirement. When the government servant or the employee is not removable from his office without the sanction of the Central Government, then the same is necessary. Sanction under this section is not necessary before a Public Servant could be prosecuted for an offence of bribery under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are three facets in the consideration of the protection given by Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to the acts done by public officers. (i) The act complained attaches to it the official character of the person doing it; (ii) The official character or status of the accused gave him an opportunity of doing the act, and (iii) The offence is committed at a time when the accused was engaged in his official duty.

By- Nutan Thakur

Pinarayi Vijayan is the state Secretary of the Kerala CPI(M) and is also the member of the Central Polit bureau, which is the highest decision making body of the Party. The 19th Congress of the CPI(M) had elected a 87 member Central Committee, which on April 03, 2008 elected a 15 Member Polit Bureau. Pinarayi Vijayan is a member of both these.

The other members of this Polit Bureau include such stalwarts as the General Secretary Prakash Karat along with his wife Brinda, Sitaram Yechury, Biman Basu, Manik Sarkar, the two CPI(M) Chief ministers Buddhadev Bhattacharya and V S Achuthanandan along with others. He is thus among the most important members of the CPI)M).

The so-called Lavalin case relates to memorandum of understanding (MoU) Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) signed with SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian company in August 1995. During the initial period of the contract, G. Karthikeyan of the Congress Party was the Minister for Electricity. Later during further contracts in February 1997 Pinarai Vijayan was the Minister for Electricity.

Later the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) found that Lavalin was only a consultant intermediary and not the original equipment manufacturer and that the supply of goods and services was made by other firms at a much higher cost leading to excess expenditure. According to the CAG, various avoidable (and at times deliberate) failures on the part of the Board and the government to properly execute the deal resulted in heavy losses to the government of an amount nearly Rs 25 crores.

On 16 January 2007, Kerala High Court ordered a CBI enquiry into the scandal. On February 19, 2008, the CBI informed High court of Kerala that the investigation was progressing and hinted at the complicity of former Electricity Ministers Pinarayi Vijayan and G. Karthikeyan.

On 21 January 2009, the CBI filed a progress report on the investigation in the Kerala High Court where it named Pinarayi Vijayan as the 9th accused. A total of 11 persons have been arraigned.

As per CBI's version Vijayan, while serving as Electricity Minister between May 1996 and October 1998, colluded with K. Mohanachandran, Principal Secretary (Power) in a criminal conspiracy already in motion in the matter of awarding supply contracts of the projects to Lavalin.

The investigations revealed that the supply contract for renovation and modernisation of the Panniyar, Shengulam and Pallivasal hydel projects was given to SNC Lavalin at an exorbitant rate and the per MW cost for the same was the highest. This caused a loss to the Government of Kerala with corresponding wrongful. Thus CBI requested an order for prosecuting Vijayan.

Thus came the question of Prosecution. As per our statues, section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with prosecution of Judges and public servants. Section 197(1) states that when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the concerned government.

There are two important Supreme Court judgements in this regards, both exactly opposite to each other. While in the state of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh, the Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant cannot be given the protection of sanction under Section 197 CrPC if he is facing allegations of indulging in criminal offences.

The Court said that forgery, criminal conspiracy, cheating and taking gratification cannot form part of official discharge of duty by a public servant saying-''A public servant, however, is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities,''. The apex court also noted, "It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the code is therefore no bar."

At the same time, in another case related to some senior police officers of Maharashtra another bench of the SC had held the prosecution of these officers under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) illegal, on the ground that the accused cannot be prosecuted without proper prior sanction.

The CPI (M) leadership and the workers, both at the Center and in the state of Kerala have refused to take this prosecution lightly decided to fight it out. While the Press Statement in its statement dated June 8, 2009 said that the CBI case "is politically motivated" and that "it is unfortunate that the Governor of Kerala decided to grant permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate prosecution proceedings" , the workers on the street took the message wholeheartedly and went for a heavy rampage and large-scale ransacking and violence.

Previously Vijayan had also issued threats of retaliation and punishment to K. Gopalakrishnan, Editor, Mathrubhumi Malayalam for having played a lead role in exposing and pursuing the Lavlin case.

Thus all these efforts are being made to save a person who is primarily being seen as an accomplish in a criminal case where he has supposedly misused his official position to cause heavy losses to the State exchequer. This from a party that has always boasted of belonging to the toiling masses- the workers and the peasants. But more important than the individuals, it is the basic legal postulate that I want to harp upon. Do we really need section 197 of the CrPC?

Isn't this provision of law being misused persistently or is being used selectively for political ends? For the same criminal acts, the governments and the authorities go by different yardsticks. Against some they grant the prosecution sanction while for others they withhold it for years.

From all this, it seems that this provision of section 197 CrPC is primarily being misused or is being used for specific purposes. At least, it shall be scrapped for cases related with forgery, misappropriation, cheating, misuse of official positions for wrongful gains etc. This is something that is immediately required.(mediavigil)

Obama reinforces presumed religious identities

Marieme Helie Lucas asks, 'Where are women and secularists of Muslim countries in Obama's speech in Cairo?' (WLUML Networkers/SIAWI)

It is beyond doubt that many people around the world, of various political opinions and creeds, will feel relieved after the speech the President of the USA delivered in Cairo today. It is apparently a new voice, a voice of peace, quite far from Bush's clash of civilisations. But is it so?

I presume that political commentators will point out the fact that Obama equates violence on the part of occupied Palestinians to violence on the part of Israeli colonizers, or that he has not abandoned the idea that the United States should tell the world how to behave and fight for their rights, or that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reduced to a religious conflict, or that he still justifies the war in Afghanistan, etc...

All those are important issues that need to be challenged. However, what affects me most, as an Algerian secularist, is that Obama has not done away with the idea of homogeneous civilisations that was at the heart of the theory of the 'clash of civilisations'. Moreover, his very American idea of civilisation is that it can be equated to religion. He persistently opposes ' Islam and the West' (as two entities/civilisations), ' America and Islam'(a country vs. a religion); he claims that 'America is not at war with Islam'. In short 'the West' is composed of countries, while ' Islam' is not.

Old Jomo Kenyatta used to say of British colonizers: "When they came, we had the land, they had the Bible; now we have the Bible, they have the land." Obama's discourse confirms this: religion is still good enough for us to have, or to be defined by. His concluding compilation of monotheist religious wisdom sounds as if it were the only language that we, barbarians, can understand. These shortcomings have adverse effects on us, citizens of countries where Islam is the predominant and often the state religion.

First of all, Obama's discourse is addressed to 'Islam', as if an idea, a concept, a belief, could hear him; as if those were not necessarily mediated by the people who hold these views, ideas, concepts or beliefs. As Soheib Bencheikh, former Great Mufti of Marseilles and now Director of the Institute of High Islamic Studies in Marseilles, used to say: "I have never seen a Qur'an walking in the street..."

Can we imagine for one minute that Obama would address himself to ''Christianity' or to 'Buddhism'? No, he would talk to Christians or Buddhists – to real people, keeping in mind all their differences.

Obama is essentialising Islam, ignoring the large differences that exist among Muslim believers themselves, in terms of religious schools of thought and interpretations, cultural differences and political opinions. These differences indeed make it totally irrelevant to speak about 'Islam' in such a totalizing way. Obama would not dare essentialise, for instance, Christianity in such a way, ignoring the huge gap between Opus Dei and liberation theology...

Unfortunately, this essentialising Islam feeds into the plans of Muslim fundamentalists whose permanent claim is that there is one single Islam – their version of it – one homogeneous Muslim world, and subsequently one single Islamic law that needs to be respected by all in the name of religious rights. Any study of the laws in 'Muslim' countries show that these laws are pretty different from one country to the other, deriving not just from different interpretations of religion, but also from the various cultures in which Islam has been spreading on all continents, and that these supposedly Muslim laws are rooted, as well, in historical and political factors including colonial sources*, which are obviously not divine .

This is the first adverse consequence of Obama's essentialising Islam and homogenising Muslims: as much as he may criticize fundamentalists – who he calls 'a minority of extremists' – he is using their language and their concepts. This is unlikely to help the cause of anti-fundamentalists forces in Muslim countries.

It follows suite that Obama talks to religions, not to citizens, not to nations or countries. He assumes that anyone has to have a religion, overlooking the fact that in many instances, people are forced into religious identities. In more and more 'Muslim' countries, citizens are forced into religious practice **, and pay for dissent with their freedom and sometimes with their lives. It is a big blow to them, to their human rights, to freedom of thought and freedom of expression, that the President of the USA publicly confirms the view that citizens of countries where Islam is the main religion are automatically Muslims (unless they belong to a religious minority).

Regardless of the fact that one is a believer or not, citizens may choose not to have religion as the main marker of their identity; for instance, they may choose to give priority or prominence to their identity as citizens. Many citizens of 'Muslim' countries want to leave religion in its place and divorce it from politics. They support secularism and secular laws, i.e. laws democratically voted for by the people, changeable by the will and vote of the people; they oppose unchangeable, ahistorical, supposedly divine laws, as a process that is alien to democracy. They oppose the political power of clerics.

Obama is claiming to defend democracy, democratic processes, and human rights. How can this fit with addressing whole nations through their supposed, hence imposed, religious identities? Where is the place for secularists in Obama's discourse – for their democratic right to vote in laws rather than have laws imposed upon them in the name of God, for their human right to believe or not to believe, to practice or not to practice? Secularists simply do not exist. They are ignored. They are made invisible. They are made 'Muslims'. Not just by our oppressive undemocratic governments, but by Obama too... And when he talks of his own fellow citizens, these `Seven million American Muslims', has he asked them what their faith is or is he assuming faith based on geographical origin?

In this religious strait-jacket, women's rights are limited to their right to education, and Obama distances himself from arrogant westerners by making it clear that women covering is not seen by him as an obstacle to their emancipation – especially if it is 'their choice'... Meanwhile, Iran is next door, with its morality police that jail women whose hair slips out of the aforementioned covering, in the name of religious laws. And what about Afghanistan or Algeria where women were abducted, tortured, raped, mutilated, burnt alive, killed for not covering***?

At no point does he raise the issue of who defines culture, who defines religion, who speaks for 'the Muslims' – and why they could not be defined by individual women themselves, without clerics, without morality police, without self-appointed, old, conservative, male, religious leaders – if their fundamental human rights were to be respected. Obviously, Obama trades women's human rights for political and economic alliances with 'Islam'... 'Islam' definitely owns oil, among other things.

No, this discourse is not such a change for an American President: Obama remains within the boundaries of the clash of civilisations/religions. How can this save us from the global rise of religious fundamentalism, which this discourse was supposed to counter? He claims that "as long as our relationship is defined by differences, this will empower those who sow hatred.../... promote conflict...", but the only thing he finds we have in common is "to love our families, our communities, our God..." Muslim fundamentalists will not disown such a program. In God we trust....

Shooting the messenger

If the media is reporting the misuse of force by the state government against protesters is it unprofessional? NASEER A GANAI on Omar Abdullah’s outburst over the Shopian coverage.

Jun 06, 2009

On June 1, 2009, when Kashmir was on boil against the alleged rape and murder of two women in Shopian district of South Kashmir by security forces, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah addressed a press conference.

In Shopian the women went missing on May 29 after they set out for the apple orchards near the fields. Their bodies were found on the morning of May 30 on the riverside. The family members and the residents alleged that members of the security forces raped the women and then murdered them. The incidents evoked widespread protesters across Kashmir valley in which over 300 people have been injured, four of them are critical and one has succumbed to injuries.

Back to the press conference of June 1, held by the chief minister. The CM said his government enjoys credibility among people and he would sacrifice power for the sake of credibility. However at the same press conference he contradicted himself when he said people have no faith on the institutions of the State and even if the government would come up with the findings about killing of the two women, people will not believe the findings of the government. Then he announced a judicial probe. So far, fine.

But he didn't stop there. The chief minister asked the media not blow trivial issues out of proportion, and to use the word 'alleged' when the allegation has not been proved. He referred to an incident in which an army truck hit a scooter outside the 15 Corps headquarter killing a youth. He said people lodged protests against the accidental killing and blocked the road and media gave it full coverage.

On the same day, he said, three other incidents involving civilians took place in valley but no one protested against them. The chief minister is forgetting that the army represents the State and as he rightly pointed out, people have no faith in institutions of the State. So they believed that the army vehicle deliberately hit the scooter and killed the youth. Hence, widespread protests and the local media coverage.

Abdullah then went on to comment on the media reportage of the Shopian incident saying that some news channels were reporting "Bandh in the valley against the rape and murder of two women by security forces." He wanted to know: how did they establish that rape has taken place when his government has not yet been able to establish either rape nor the murder? He asked the media to be balanced.

But the question is, if the media is carrying the version of people of the Shopian district and family members of the two women, is it doing something wrong? If the State government has not been able to tell people of J&K who are protesting for last four days, whether the women have been subjected to rape or not, is it fault of media?

The police have not registered the rape and murder case despite the Supreme Court of India ruling last year: "In a given case, even if the doctor, who examined the victim, does not find [any] sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix." Now if the media is reporting about the misuse of force by the State government against the protesters is it unprofessional?

Doctors say that within 15 minutes it can be established whether rape has taken place or not but the State government that claims it has credibility among of people has failed to establish the cause of death of the young girls even after four days of the incident. And instead of accepting its incompetence it is trying to blame the media, particularly the local media and cable news networks in the valley. The State needs a scapegoat and it finds it in media here.

Last year when pro-freedom marches started in Kashmir the State acted in the same manner. In August 2008 over a million people marched upto the United Nations Militarily Observers Group office in Srinagar calling for independence. The million-man march embarrassed the Government of India and the State Government. So the government took two steps.

First, it went for undeclared curfew that has now become the norm, putting the whole valley under siege. Undeclared curfew is curfew without a formal announcement. In a situation of undeclared curfew, lawyers say there are more chances of killing as civilians don't know that stepping out would cost them with their lives. Last year the government placed barbed wires across the streets and highways and restricted the movement of people. It didn't allow anyone to come out. Almost all separatist leaders were booked under the Public Safety Act, under which a person is kept in jail without trial for 2 years. This year it followed same technique of undeclared curfew.

Its second step last year after curbing the movement of people was to curb the media. It closed down all cable news channels without issuing any order. In J&K, the State does not believe in written orders. It just tries to bring the 'order' without issuing any order. Democracy Zindabad!

The cable news channels, which were giving full coverage to protests and government action against protesters, were only allowed to work after they were forced to sign an agreement that they would show only to people what government wanted people should view. Here lies the difference between the sate and the national media: in Kashmir the media are being forced to comply with the State policies. The New Delhi-based news channels and newspapers comply with the State policies about Kashmir willingly.

However the cable news channels did not stick to that agreement this month when they saw thousands on streets protesting against the alleged rape and murder. They showed everything. Protests, statements and of course the government version. Now they have been asked to follow last year's guidelines. If they fail to, the government can close them down.

Last year the State government acted against the newspapers as well. It didn't allow journalists to move out of their homes, and those who came out had their identity cards torn, while many were thrashed. This way, it stopped publication of all newspapers across Kashmir valley for over eight days.

In Kashmir protesters accuse media of not giving enough space to them and the security forces beat them up for "inciting the masses." For the last two years over a dozen photo journalists, camera men were thrashed and beaten up by the security forces while doing their professional work. Number of times photo journalists have gone for sit-in against the atrocities of police and security forces against them but situation never improves for them. At times they get thrashing from people as well.

Last year when scores journalists were thrashed by the security forces for covering protesters in Sopore, the Srinagar-based journalists who were working for local, national and international media groups; perhaps for the first time, issued a statement. The September 2008 statement says it all:

"In the aftermath of the Amarnath land controversy, members of press in Kashmir have been coming under serious attack by the personnel of CRPF and in some measure by the crowds. We have reasons to believe that the attacks happen by deliberate design of the State agencies. When the governor N N Vohra was informed about these attacks, he pleaded ignorance and, in presence of some members of press and the secretary information, instructed the Director General of Police not to let such attacks to continue.

However, to cite just one instance, the attacks continued the next day, confirming our suspicion that the attacks are carried out by design. Journalists have faced irrational demands from CRPF personnel manning the streets like "you are not carrying a curfew pass for your camera." Such instances could tell volumes.It seems Omar too wants journalists in Kashmir to carry curfew passes for their cameras. (mediavigil)

Man sentenced to life for Mehar Bhargav's murder

Lucknow : A local court here awarded life imprisonment in connection with the Meher Bhargava murder case on Friday. According to the sources, Sunny Rawat, the prime accused in Meher Bhargava murder case, was found guilty, but the court acquitted three other accused due to lack of substantial evidence. Sunny Rawat shot at Meher Bhargava when she resisted an attempt to molest her daughter-in-law.

Sunny Rawat, arrested in connection with the Mehar Bhargava murder, confessed before the media to having fired the fatal shot at her in a fit of rage. ‘Yes, I fired the shot,' Rawat told reporters here after which he was produced before a local court as the main suspect. Rawat, who was presented by police at a news conference, claimed Mehar threatened him and his accomplices with dire consequences and also abused him following which he shot her in a fit of rage. ‘She (Mehar) used filthy language which I could not bear and fired at her,' he said.

He alleged that it was Pramod Singh who passed lewd remarks about Mehar's daughter-in-law near the stairs of their house on February 28 after which she scolded Singh and threatened to call the police.The family driver, Ganga Prasad, identified Rawat as the one who had fired the fatal shot after Rawat and another youth Sanjay Menon were arrested.

The four men, identified as Sachin Pahadi, Pramod Singh, Amit Singh and Jaiprakash came down from K D Singh's flat, where they had been drinking the previous night. The accused tried to flee when Meher threatened to call the police. When Meher's driver chased them, Sachin Pachadi shot at her. Two of the accused, Sachin and Amit, have a criminal history, with Sachin already having two murder charges against him. The reward on Sachin has been increased from Rs 2,500 to Rs 5,000, according to Hazratganj inspector D K Rai. Amit has cases lodged against him at Mughalsarai police station in Chandauli district. While Jaiprakash and Pramod have been arrested, Amit and Sachin are still missing.

Meher Bhargava was the 50-year old wife of senior Congress leader Luv Bhargava. A little more than an month after she was shot, barely metres from the Lucknow police superintendent's office, she succumbed to injuries and died at 6.15 pm on March 25th at the Apollo Hospital where she was admitted.