An open letter to the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Honorable Sir,
These are troubled times in India. There is great erosion in our value system at every level and sphere of our society. Corruption has reached new heights and no institution is free from this malady. Many of our elected representatives are notorious criminals, with some of them even involved in serious offences like rape and murder. Despite such a dismal scenario, we still have not lost faith in the Supreme Court of India and look forward to it to ensure justice and rule of law. We still consider it as a sacred institution which will ever remain as our ultimate saviour. However at the same time, I cannot hold back the truth about the shock and hurt that I, and many others like me , experienced after hearing some of the recent judgments of the highest court in India, as stated below.
S.C. verdict goes in favour of MaoistsThe Supreme Court on July 5th 2011 ordered the Chattisgarh government to disband and disarm 6500 special police officers (SPOs) engaged in anti-Maoist operations, stating that the use of such ill-trained and under-qualified tribals as SPOs is against the moral and constitutional mandate of the Government. This has put the Chattisgarh government, which has borne the brunt of Maoist violence, in great difficulty as the S.C order has seriously upset all its efforts to neutralize the Maoist threat. Blaming the Maoist violence on the iniquitous policies of the state and striking down the centrally funded scheme to arm the tribal youth as counterweight to extremists, a S.C. bench ordered the Union Government to ‘cease and desist’ forthwith, from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging them in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoist/ Naxalite groups. The Chhattisgarh Government has recruited the SPOs from mostly amongst the ranks of the Salva Judum, a people’s resistance movement by anti-Maoist tribals who enjoyed the support of the State and all political parties. The ‘Salva Judum’, meaning ‘peace march’, was formed by the people of Chhattisgarh as a last resort against the incessant atrocities like extortion, kidnapping and murder by the Maoists. The formation of the ‘Salva Judum’ had given a big jolt to the Maoist movement and that is the reason why the civil society activists have now come to their rescue. The verdict against the SPOs has come as a big set back to the fight against the Maoists. The judgment will have a crippling effect on anti-naxal operations in six states where the Centre has financed the recruitment of SPOs who would help the under-staffed local police with their knowledge of the terrain and utility in intelligence collection.
The Supreme Court judgment against funding and recruitment of SPOs for the purpose of anti-Maoist operations has pleased only the Maoists and their supporters, mainly the NGO and human rights activists who now project themselves as civil society activists. It is these civil society activists like Prof. Nandini Sunder, historian Ramachandra Guha, Swami Agnivesh and former bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma who had approached the Supreme Court seeking a ban on ‘Salva Judum’ and SPOs. Who are these activists? Please find a brief note on each of these activists to know their personal credentials.
Nandini SundarNandini Sundar, is a professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University. She has held visiting positions at Paris, Yale, Michigan, Cambridge, and Chandigarh universities. She is also a prominent civil society activist and a staunch supporter of Maoist movement. Prof. Nandini Sundar has written many articles in support of Maoist movement and has also approached the Supreme Court on earlier occasions also challenging the activities of ‘Salva Judum’ , an anti-Maoist movement.
(http://beyondheadlines.in/2011/02/tribals-are-soft-targets-for-police-and-rebels-sociologist-nandini-sundar/ .)
Nandini Sundar was a member of the six-member team of civil society activists who under the label of Independent Citizens’ Initiative had undertaken a six-day visit to Chattisgarh from May 17 to 22, 2006 to conduct an in-depth study and assessment about the civil war-like situation in the State. The six-member team in its report accused the Government of Chattisgarh of encouraging fratricidal killings among the tribals of Chattisgarh by pitting ‘Salva Jjudum’ against Maoists. It described the ‘Salva Judum’ experiment as a big failure as its formation had only resulted in the worsening of the law and order situation in the State. It also accused the State Government of stepping up police operations causing more civilian casualties and blatant human rights violations, instead of undertaking development works like construction of schools, hospitals and providing employment opportunities. The report asked for the immediate intervention by the Centre to save the State from disaster. It also recommended an immediate ceasefire and opening of a dialogue with the Maoists and an impartial inquiry into all incidents of violence and punishment of all those found guilty.
Ramachandra Guha:
This noted historian and civil society activist is also known for his support to Maoist movement and opposition to all mega development projects in the country and India’s nuclear programmes. On 23, June, 2010, during a lunch-time lecture on his book "India after Gandhi"organized by Nyenrode, Netherlands Institute of International Relations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ramachandra Guha asserted that despite its impressive economic growth, India can never become an economic super power. According to him, India’s enormous economic growth contains a multitude of sins and he felt that beset with internal problems, fissures and contradictions, India is unlikely to survive as a nation.
(http://technik.co.in/wp/index.php/2010/08/ramachandra-guha-ten-reasons-why-india-will-not-become-a-superpower/)Ramachandra Guha was also a member of the six-member team that visited Chattisgarh in May 2006 to conduct an in-depth study of the violence and confrontation between the Maoists and ‘Salva Judum’ in the State.
Swami Agnivesh
This fake Hindu leader is notorious for his close links with the Maoists. On March 26, 2011, Swami Agnivesh and his supporters who went to Dantewada area in Chattisgarh with some relief materials for the pro-Maoist villagers whose houses were allegedly burned down by the police and ‘Salva Judum’ activists, were roughed up and chased out of the area by angry villagers because of Agnivesh’s links with Maoists. Swami Agnivesh had also raised slogans hailing Maoists following the release of five abducted policemen of Chattisgarh by the Maoists on April 15, 2011, as per an affidavit submitted by the Chattisgarh government in the Supreme Court. (http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MP-RAI-swami-agnivesh-attacked-by-protesters-in-chhattisgarh-1965422.html?PRV=)
E.A.S.SarmaThis retired IAS officer who had earlier served as a Secretary to the Government of India is now a prominent civil society activist and a supporter of Maoist movement. His petition against the activities of ‘Salva Judum’, an anti-Maoist movement, in the Supreme Court itself exposes his Maoist leanings. As an environmental activist he is now opposing all the thermal power projects in Andhra Pradesh. He, along with other civil society activists, is also vehemently opposed to the Jaitapur nuclear power project and continues to campaigns against it. (http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/do-not-ignore-fukushima/274727.html.)
E.A.S.Sarma was also part of the six-member committee that toured Chattisgarh from May 17 to 22, 2006 to conduct an in-depth study of the situation in the State and submitted a report that gave a clean chit to the Maoists and held the State Government and the ‘Salva Judum’ responsible for all the violent incidents in the State.
Thus, it is clear that these activists are staunch supporters of the Maoist movement. They had also submitted some extracts from the reports of Human Rights Watch and a documentary telecast by Channel 4 of Britain on Maoist struggle in India in the court as evidence in support of their argument. The Human Rights Watch and Channel 4 of Britain are notorious for their blatant criticism against Indian security personnel for their alleged excesses and gross human rights violations against ‘poor and innocent’ Maoists, Kashmiri separatists and other militant elements in the country. However supporting the petitioners, the Supreme Court has held the iniquitous policies of the Government responsible for the Maoist violence. The poverty and unemployment is certainly a grave problem in all interior and tribal areas in the country and to a greater extent the Government’s callous indifference is responsible for the plight of tribals and other marginalized sections of people in such areas. However, as far as the Maoist menace is concerned, there is irrefutable evidence to conclude that certain western NGOs and human rights organizations and Christian funding agencies, guided by their own strategic designs and need for creating mayhem and chaos in India, have played a key role in promoting Maoism in India, taking advantage of acute poverty and unemployment of people in the remote villages. Financial assistance received from these foreign agencies are utilized by some Indian NGOs and human rights organizations to build up the Maoist movement in India. The intelligence wing of the Maharashtra police had identified and submitted to the state home department in March 2008 a list of 56 NGOs that raise funds and help the Maoists in recruiting new cadres. These NGOs work under the umbrella of the Tactical United Front (TUF), a conglomerate of groups sympathizing with the Naxals’ cause. (http://naxalwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/56-ngos-raising-funds-cadres-for-naxals.html).
How some western agencies and Nobel laureates conducted a campaign in support of Dr. Binayak Sen, a civil society leader and pro-Maoist human rights activist, when he was arrested by Chattisgarh police in 2007 in connection with his Maoist links clearly illustrates the support and patronage the Maoists are getting from certain western agencies. Before his arrest in May, 2007, Binayak Sen was hardly known to anybody outside Chattisgarh. But after his arrest, there were protest demonstrations organized by civil society groups in different parts of the country and even in some cities outside the India. The declaration of Binayak Sen as the winner of R.R.Keithan Gold Medal by the Indian Academy of Social Sciences in December, 2007 and the Global Health Council’s announcement of Jonathan Mann Award for him in 2008, both while he was still held in jail, and the subsequent campaign by 22 Nobel laureates for Sen’s release to enable him to go to Washington to receive the Jonathan Mann award, were all well-orchestrated moves by the civil society groups and some Government agencies in India to give a big image boost to Binayak Sen. The wide-spread protest programmes by civil society groups in many West-European cities after Binayak Sen was sentenced to life imprisonment on December 24, 2010 on sedition charges and the on-line protest campaign by 40 Nobel laureates demanding Sen’s immediate release were also part of a well-planned strategy by certain western agencies to project him as an international celebrity. The fact that the European Union had sent an eight-member team of observers to watch the proceedings at the Chattisgarh High Court to see for themselves as to how the Indian court was going to deal with Binayak Sen’s bail application shows the unusual interest taken by the western agencies in supporting the cause of a pro Maoist activist.
In August 2007, when Maharashtra police had arrested two senior Naxalite leaders, Vernom Gonsalves and Sridhar Srinivasan, civil society groups in London had made a big hue and cry about their illegal detention. The London-based Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers also had expressed serious concern over the illegal detention and alleged torture of the said two senior naxalite leaders. In its annual general body meeting held on October 9, 2007, the society had passed a motion dubbing their arrest as ‘targeted intimidation’ by the police. The lawyers’ body had also written to Susan Abrham, Vernon’s wife, about the need for a concerted effort to facilitate the early release of the two leaders. http://naxalresistance.wordpress.com/page/39/?pages-list .
Senior police officials of Chattisgarh had in the past had taken strong objection to certain western aid agencies like Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visiting Maoist camps in Chattisgarh admittedly to attend to the medical needs of the Maoists. The police and local villagers are highly suspicious and annoyed about the mysterious camaraderie existing between the western aid agencies personnel and the Maoists in the backdrop of continued atrocities by the Maoists against the innocent villagers and the security personnel. (http://article.wn.com/view/2011/01/21/Police_officer_warns_ICRC_MSF_on_treating_Maoists/ .)
All these instances show the strong support that the Maoist movement is getting from various western agencies and organizations. It also indicates that the Maoist movement is not a spontaneous rebellion by the rural poor and the tribals against the oppressive administration and law enforcing agencies or exploitative forest and mining mafia, as being projected by the civil society groups. On the contrary, it is a movement plotted, promoted and financed by some western agencies, as part of a deep-rooted conspiracy to destabilize India, and it is being strongly supported, guided and controlled by the civil society activists, who act as a regular fifth column in India. Remember, it is the civil society activists who approached the Supreme Court, seeking a ban on ‘Salva Judum’. The Maoist movement is supported by only some anti-national elements projecting themselves as civil society activists and a section of misguided rural and tribal supporters. Where as, the ‘Salva Judum’ is a people’s movement, formed in sheer desperation by the villagers of Chhattisgarh to resist the Maoist killers, rapists and extortionists. It has the support of all sections of people irrespective of their political affiliation. And yet, the Supreme Court by its judgment on July 5th 2011, has taken the side of Maoists and the civil society groups without checking the ground realities. The Maoists are jubilant and celebrating their victory. They have also put up posters in many places in Chhattisgarh threatening the SPOs to be ready to face the consequences for their sin of opposing the Maoists. I am not a lawyer. But I have enough intelligence and common sense to conclude that the Supreme Court judgment banning the ‘Salva Judum’ and SPOs was an anti-people move. Where will the people of Chhattisgarh go now for justice?
This is not the first time that a Supreme Court judgment has led to utter disbelief and serous consternation among the people of this country. The Delhi police had arrested Kobad Ghandy, a top Maoist leader and a politburo member from Bhikaji Kama locality in Delhi on September 20, 2009. He is said to have played a leading role in the formation of the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations in South Asia (CCOMPOSA) and was also engaged in liaison work with the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN). The Delhi trial court, as per its order on 31st October, 2009, had allowed the Delhi police to conduct a narco analysis test on Kobad Ghandy, which could have helped the Delhi police to unearth a lot of information about the Maoist activities in India and also about their internal and external links. However some civil society activists had immediately moved the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order allowing the Delhi police to conduct narco analysis test on him, raising the issue of violation of his personal liberty and seeking a stay of the trial court order. The Delhi High Court, delivering its verdict on November 5, 2009, stayed the trial court order allowing the narco test on Kobad Ghandy pointing out that since a verdict on the validity of narco analysis test is already pending with the Supreme Court and was expected shortly, it will be in the fitness of things for all the parties to wait for the apex court verdict in this matter. The Supreme Court had earlier reserved its verdict on a bunch of petitions moved by some mafia leaders like Santokben Jadeja, Arun Gawli and others challenging the validity of the narco analysis teast, brain mapping and polygraphic test. The Supreme Court giving its final verdict on May 5, 2010 termed the narco analysis test as unconstitutional as it amounted to a violation of personal liberty. The Court said that a person could not be forced to undergo narco analysis test, brain mapping and polygraphic test as they violate the Article 20 (3) of the Constitution that says that no accused can be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Information obtained through narco analysis test is not admissible as evidence before a court of law. But such information gives valuable clues to the police and other investigative agencies in nailing the culprits involved in some important and complicated cases. For instance, the narco test was very helpful in cracking the ‘Telgi Scam’. Though the use of third degree methods has no legal sanction in India, it is a fact that such unethical methods are still widely used by the police in India as an easy option to crack many of the criminal cases, despite opposition to it from all sections of the society. Many legal luminaries and other intellectuals in the country often advocate the need for sticking to only scientific methods for interrogation of criminals, as is the case in many of the developed countries, instead of taking recourse to old and barbarian methods of torture. The narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraphic test are all scientific methods widely used in many countries for obtaining information from the criminals and other wrong doers. Why should the Supreme Court ban it in India, a country worst-affected by terrorism? It is for the concerned State Governments and the Centre to decide what appropriate measures are required to be taken to contain the Maoist menace or the Islamic terrorism. The special police officers (SPOs) are not regular police officers. The SPOs with lesser qualification are recruited for a specific role to meet a special contingency situation created by the Maoists. Now that the Supreme Court has banned the SPOs, will the court make some alternative arrangement to counter the Maoist menace? To me, it appears that the learned Supreme Court judges for some strange reason, overstepped its jurisdiction and have taken the side of Maoists. I am of the firm view that the decision to ban the ‘Salva Judum’ and SPOs should be reviewed and reversed by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court approves attacks on our culture and traditionsA Supreme Court bench comprising of Arijit Passayat and P.Sathasivan on January 17, 2008, ruled that a live-in relationship should be treated as equivalent to marriage. It further said that the children born to such parents would be called legitimate and they will have the rights in their parent’s property. After this judgment, the government of Maharashtra in a bid to give some sanctity to live-in relationships had sent a proposal to the Centre to amend Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and expand the definition of the word wife to include a woman involved in a live-in relationship with a man for a reasonably long period. The decision to seek such an amendment to Section 125 of the CrPC was taken by the Maharashtra state cabinet on October 8, 2008. The cabinet decision was based on the recommendations of the Malimath Committee appointed by the Centre to suggest reforms in the CrPC.
Live-in partners are those who do not believe in the institution of marriage. When they voluntarily enter into such an arrangement, they know very well that it is only an ‘ad hoc’ arrangement and in case of a break up, none of the partners will be entitled to make any legal claims for any kind of compensation. How can the Supreme Court say that it is equivalent to marriage? This judgment is a challenge to the sanctity of the institution of marriage and a threat to our moral and family values.
The above mentioned controversial court decisions and the English media’s support for such unconventional verdicts have created a lot of confusion as well as resentment among substantial sections of people in India. The marriage is a sacred and time-tested institution which existed in our society since time immemorial. It binds a man and a woman in a life-long companionship. The family and social structure is rooted in the institution of marriage. The sanctity of this institution has been severely eroded in many of the Western countries since last few decades with many of the youngsters and radical sections of people in those countries challenging the so-called shackles of the institutionalized set up of marriage and opting to indulge in live-in relationship, unnatural sex, etc. This virus of rebellion against family values and traditions has started affecting third world countries like India also lately with some of the elite sections of the society in cities like Mumbai and Delhi also challenging the most sacred institution of marriage and foolishly aping the degraded western trends and practices like live-in relationship and sexual perversions. They reject the institution of marriage and the sanctity attached to it. However, it is gratifying to note that such misguided elements still constitute only a miniscule section of the Indian society, that too in urban centres like Mumbai and Delhi, and by and large most Indians still respect the sanctity of the institution of marriage and our value system like giving respect to parents, teachers, elders and in upholding the family ties and bonds. These are the values that fortify India’s unity in diversity. And it is this value system that the enemies of this country are trying to destroy by promoting sexual perversions and attacking the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
S.C. judgment backed by a controversial thesis
Delivering its judgment on a Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2011 filed against a judgment and order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in a case about the brutalities and humiliation suffered by a tribal woman over an alleged illicit relationship with an upper caste man, a Supreme Court of India Bench comprising Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra made the following remarks (only the gist) on January 5, 2011.
"If North America is predominantly made up of new immigrants, India is largely a country of old immigrants, which explains its tremendous diversity. It was believed earlier that Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India. Now the generally accepted belief is that the pre-Dravidian aborigines, that is, the ancestors of the present tribals or Adivasis were the original inhabitants of India. Probably about 92 per cent of people living in India today are descendants of immigrants. The injustice done to tribal people of India is a shameful chapter in our country’s history. The tribals were called ‘rakshasas’ (demons), ‘asuras’, etc, and they were slaughtered in large numbers. Their descendants were degraded, humiliated and all kinds of atrocities inflicted on them for centuries. They were deprived of their lands and pushed into forests and hills where they eke out a miserable existence of poverty, illiteracy and disease. And now efforts are being made by some people to deprive them even of their forest and hill land where they are living, and the forest produce on which they survive." The learned judges also cite the story of Eklavya in the Mahabharata as a classic instance of historical injustice done to the tribals in India.
The learned judges say that about 92 per cent of the people in India are immigrants. The total Scheduled Tribe population in India is estimated to be about eight per cent. So, according to this judgment, the tribals (Adivasis) are the only original inhabitants of this country and all other sections of people are outsiders who have come to this country as immigrants. It is an outrageous statement to suggest that Hinduism originated in some other country and that Hindus were originally invaders who came from outside and settled down in India. It is the Christian missionaries who propagate such stories in the tribal areas of the country in their bid to convert Adivasis into Christianity. The Adivasis who worship nature like sun, fire, rains and mountains and indulge in idol worship and other rituals like pujas are not different from Hindus. Yet the Christian missionaries who woo the Adivasis with various incentives try to convince them that they were the only original inhabitants of India and the Hindu invaders who came form outside first usurped all their fertile land pushing them into forests and hills and now even their forest land is taken over by the government dominated by Hindu upper caste people forcing them to live as encroachers on their own land. By such propaganda, the missionaries also intend to convince them that Hinduisn is as alien to India as Islam and Christianity and the Adivasis who followed their own separate religion, customs and practices were never had any links with Hinduism. The Christian missionaries were indulging in such propaganda to create a feeling of alienation among the Adivasis from the Hinduism which will make it that much easier for them to execute their own agenda of promoting Christianity. However, why should the esteemed judges of the Supreme Court give any credence to such myths and propaganda stories which have no scientific basis. Recent studies conducted by some scientists in the west on DNA samples taken from people belonging to different castes and communities in India, including Brahmins, Dalits and Adivasis, have shown broad similarities indicating that they all have common ancestors. This totally negates the Christian theory of Hindus being foreign invaders. If the learned judges genuinely believed in such myths and theories, they could have presented their thesis in an article in a newspaper or a news magazine. Projecting such improbable and highly controversial theories as gospel truth and presenting it as part of a judgment is highly unethical and deplorable.
Sir, as you know, what is happening now in the country is most horrible and unbelievable. Many innocent Indians are being killed and many more are getting injured in continued terror attacks orchestrated directly or indirectly by a neighboring enemy country and the Government is unable to stop it or take any retaliatory action. Many of our important temples, railway stations, trains, buses, markets, high courts, stock exchange buildings and even the Parliament House were attacked by the terrorists in the past and the Government continues to remain as a passive and mute spectator. Apparently the Government has failed in its basic duty of giving protection to the lives and property of people. Hundreds of innocent people and security personnel are routinely butchered by the Maoists and yet the government is still debating whether adequate force could be deployed to crush a ‘socio-economic problem’ like the Maoist movement. The Supreme Court is unable to enforce its own verdicts like the death sentence given to Afzal Guru, involved in the Parliament attack case, or on identification and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants from India, because of opposition from the powerful civil society lobby, backed by some ruling Congress stalwarts. Under such circumstances, if some of the learned judges of the Supreme Court also appear to be supporting the wrong causes and wrong people, where shall we, the law-abiding citizens of this country, go for justice? If this letter, written under sheer frustration and helplessness, has hurt you in any manner, I may please be pardoned.
With thanks and warm regards,
Yours sincerely,
N.T.Ravindranath,.:
Honorable Sir,
These are troubled times in India. There is great erosion in our value system at every level and sphere of our society. Corruption has reached new heights and no institution is free from this malady. Many of our elected representatives are notorious criminals, with some of them even involved in serious offences like rape and murder. Despite such a dismal scenario, we still have not lost faith in the Supreme Court of India and look forward to it to ensure justice and rule of law. We still consider it as a sacred institution which will ever remain as our ultimate saviour. However at the same time, I cannot hold back the truth about the shock and hurt that I, and many others like me , experienced after hearing some of the recent judgments of the highest court in India, as stated below.
S.C. verdict goes in favour of MaoistsThe Supreme Court on July 5th 2011 ordered the Chattisgarh government to disband and disarm 6500 special police officers (SPOs) engaged in anti-Maoist operations, stating that the use of such ill-trained and under-qualified tribals as SPOs is against the moral and constitutional mandate of the Government. This has put the Chattisgarh government, which has borne the brunt of Maoist violence, in great difficulty as the S.C order has seriously upset all its efforts to neutralize the Maoist threat. Blaming the Maoist violence on the iniquitous policies of the state and striking down the centrally funded scheme to arm the tribal youth as counterweight to extremists, a S.C. bench ordered the Union Government to ‘cease and desist’ forthwith, from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging them in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoist/ Naxalite groups. The Chhattisgarh Government has recruited the SPOs from mostly amongst the ranks of the Salva Judum, a people’s resistance movement by anti-Maoist tribals who enjoyed the support of the State and all political parties. The ‘Salva Judum’, meaning ‘peace march’, was formed by the people of Chhattisgarh as a last resort against the incessant atrocities like extortion, kidnapping and murder by the Maoists. The formation of the ‘Salva Judum’ had given a big jolt to the Maoist movement and that is the reason why the civil society activists have now come to their rescue. The verdict against the SPOs has come as a big set back to the fight against the Maoists. The judgment will have a crippling effect on anti-naxal operations in six states where the Centre has financed the recruitment of SPOs who would help the under-staffed local police with their knowledge of the terrain and utility in intelligence collection.
The Supreme Court judgment against funding and recruitment of SPOs for the purpose of anti-Maoist operations has pleased only the Maoists and their supporters, mainly the NGO and human rights activists who now project themselves as civil society activists. It is these civil society activists like Prof. Nandini Sunder, historian Ramachandra Guha, Swami Agnivesh and former bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma who had approached the Supreme Court seeking a ban on ‘Salva Judum’ and SPOs. Who are these activists? Please find a brief note on each of these activists to know their personal credentials.
Nandini SundarNandini Sundar, is a professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University. She has held visiting positions at Paris, Yale, Michigan, Cambridge, and Chandigarh universities. She is also a prominent civil society activist and a staunch supporter of Maoist movement. Prof. Nandini Sundar has written many articles in support of Maoist movement and has also approached the Supreme Court on earlier occasions also challenging the activities of ‘Salva Judum’ , an anti-Maoist movement.
(http://beyondheadlines.in/2011/02/tribals-are-soft-targets-for-police-and-rebels-sociologist-nandini-sundar/ .)
Nandini Sundar was a member of the six-member team of civil society activists who under the label of Independent Citizens’ Initiative had undertaken a six-day visit to Chattisgarh from May 17 to 22, 2006 to conduct an in-depth study and assessment about the civil war-like situation in the State. The six-member team in its report accused the Government of Chattisgarh of encouraging fratricidal killings among the tribals of Chattisgarh by pitting ‘Salva Jjudum’ against Maoists. It described the ‘Salva Judum’ experiment as a big failure as its formation had only resulted in the worsening of the law and order situation in the State. It also accused the State Government of stepping up police operations causing more civilian casualties and blatant human rights violations, instead of undertaking development works like construction of schools, hospitals and providing employment opportunities. The report asked for the immediate intervention by the Centre to save the State from disaster. It also recommended an immediate ceasefire and opening of a dialogue with the Maoists and an impartial inquiry into all incidents of violence and punishment of all those found guilty.
Ramachandra Guha:
This noted historian and civil society activist is also known for his support to Maoist movement and opposition to all mega development projects in the country and India’s nuclear programmes. On 23, June, 2010, during a lunch-time lecture on his book "India after Gandhi"organized by Nyenrode, Netherlands Institute of International Relations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ramachandra Guha asserted that despite its impressive economic growth, India can never become an economic super power. According to him, India’s enormous economic growth contains a multitude of sins and he felt that beset with internal problems, fissures and contradictions, India is unlikely to survive as a nation.
(http://technik.co.in/wp/index.php/2010/08/ramachandra-guha-ten-reasons-why-india-will-not-become-a-superpower/)Ramachandra Guha was also a member of the six-member team that visited Chattisgarh in May 2006 to conduct an in-depth study of the violence and confrontation between the Maoists and ‘Salva Judum’ in the State.
Swami Agnivesh
This fake Hindu leader is notorious for his close links with the Maoists. On March 26, 2011, Swami Agnivesh and his supporters who went to Dantewada area in Chattisgarh with some relief materials for the pro-Maoist villagers whose houses were allegedly burned down by the police and ‘Salva Judum’ activists, were roughed up and chased out of the area by angry villagers because of Agnivesh’s links with Maoists. Swami Agnivesh had also raised slogans hailing Maoists following the release of five abducted policemen of Chattisgarh by the Maoists on April 15, 2011, as per an affidavit submitted by the Chattisgarh government in the Supreme Court. (http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MP-RAI-swami-agnivesh-attacked-by-protesters-in-chhattisgarh-1965422.html?PRV=)
E.A.S.SarmaThis retired IAS officer who had earlier served as a Secretary to the Government of India is now a prominent civil society activist and a supporter of Maoist movement. His petition against the activities of ‘Salva Judum’, an anti-Maoist movement, in the Supreme Court itself exposes his Maoist leanings. As an environmental activist he is now opposing all the thermal power projects in Andhra Pradesh. He, along with other civil society activists, is also vehemently opposed to the Jaitapur nuclear power project and continues to campaigns against it. (http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/do-not-ignore-fukushima/274727.html.)
E.A.S.Sarma was also part of the six-member committee that toured Chattisgarh from May 17 to 22, 2006 to conduct an in-depth study of the situation in the State and submitted a report that gave a clean chit to the Maoists and held the State Government and the ‘Salva Judum’ responsible for all the violent incidents in the State.
Thus, it is clear that these activists are staunch supporters of the Maoist movement. They had also submitted some extracts from the reports of Human Rights Watch and a documentary telecast by Channel 4 of Britain on Maoist struggle in India in the court as evidence in support of their argument. The Human Rights Watch and Channel 4 of Britain are notorious for their blatant criticism against Indian security personnel for their alleged excesses and gross human rights violations against ‘poor and innocent’ Maoists, Kashmiri separatists and other militant elements in the country. However supporting the petitioners, the Supreme Court has held the iniquitous policies of the Government responsible for the Maoist violence. The poverty and unemployment is certainly a grave problem in all interior and tribal areas in the country and to a greater extent the Government’s callous indifference is responsible for the plight of tribals and other marginalized sections of people in such areas. However, as far as the Maoist menace is concerned, there is irrefutable evidence to conclude that certain western NGOs and human rights organizations and Christian funding agencies, guided by their own strategic designs and need for creating mayhem and chaos in India, have played a key role in promoting Maoism in India, taking advantage of acute poverty and unemployment of people in the remote villages. Financial assistance received from these foreign agencies are utilized by some Indian NGOs and human rights organizations to build up the Maoist movement in India. The intelligence wing of the Maharashtra police had identified and submitted to the state home department in March 2008 a list of 56 NGOs that raise funds and help the Maoists in recruiting new cadres. These NGOs work under the umbrella of the Tactical United Front (TUF), a conglomerate of groups sympathizing with the Naxals’ cause. (http://naxalwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/56-ngos-raising-funds-cadres-for-naxals.html).
How some western agencies and Nobel laureates conducted a campaign in support of Dr. Binayak Sen, a civil society leader and pro-Maoist human rights activist, when he was arrested by Chattisgarh police in 2007 in connection with his Maoist links clearly illustrates the support and patronage the Maoists are getting from certain western agencies. Before his arrest in May, 2007, Binayak Sen was hardly known to anybody outside Chattisgarh. But after his arrest, there were protest demonstrations organized by civil society groups in different parts of the country and even in some cities outside the India. The declaration of Binayak Sen as the winner of R.R.Keithan Gold Medal by the Indian Academy of Social Sciences in December, 2007 and the Global Health Council’s announcement of Jonathan Mann Award for him in 2008, both while he was still held in jail, and the subsequent campaign by 22 Nobel laureates for Sen’s release to enable him to go to Washington to receive the Jonathan Mann award, were all well-orchestrated moves by the civil society groups and some Government agencies in India to give a big image boost to Binayak Sen. The wide-spread protest programmes by civil society groups in many West-European cities after Binayak Sen was sentenced to life imprisonment on December 24, 2010 on sedition charges and the on-line protest campaign by 40 Nobel laureates demanding Sen’s immediate release were also part of a well-planned strategy by certain western agencies to project him as an international celebrity. The fact that the European Union had sent an eight-member team of observers to watch the proceedings at the Chattisgarh High Court to see for themselves as to how the Indian court was going to deal with Binayak Sen’s bail application shows the unusual interest taken by the western agencies in supporting the cause of a pro Maoist activist.
In August 2007, when Maharashtra police had arrested two senior Naxalite leaders, Vernom Gonsalves and Sridhar Srinivasan, civil society groups in London had made a big hue and cry about their illegal detention. The London-based Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers also had expressed serious concern over the illegal detention and alleged torture of the said two senior naxalite leaders. In its annual general body meeting held on October 9, 2007, the society had passed a motion dubbing their arrest as ‘targeted intimidation’ by the police. The lawyers’ body had also written to Susan Abrham, Vernon’s wife, about the need for a concerted effort to facilitate the early release of the two leaders. http://naxalresistance.wordpress.com/page/39/?pages-list .
Senior police officials of Chattisgarh had in the past had taken strong objection to certain western aid agencies like Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visiting Maoist camps in Chattisgarh admittedly to attend to the medical needs of the Maoists. The police and local villagers are highly suspicious and annoyed about the mysterious camaraderie existing between the western aid agencies personnel and the Maoists in the backdrop of continued atrocities by the Maoists against the innocent villagers and the security personnel. (http://article.wn.com/view/2011/01/21/Police_officer_warns_ICRC_MSF_on_treating_Maoists/ .)
All these instances show the strong support that the Maoist movement is getting from various western agencies and organizations. It also indicates that the Maoist movement is not a spontaneous rebellion by the rural poor and the tribals against the oppressive administration and law enforcing agencies or exploitative forest and mining mafia, as being projected by the civil society groups. On the contrary, it is a movement plotted, promoted and financed by some western agencies, as part of a deep-rooted conspiracy to destabilize India, and it is being strongly supported, guided and controlled by the civil society activists, who act as a regular fifth column in India. Remember, it is the civil society activists who approached the Supreme Court, seeking a ban on ‘Salva Judum’. The Maoist movement is supported by only some anti-national elements projecting themselves as civil society activists and a section of misguided rural and tribal supporters. Where as, the ‘Salva Judum’ is a people’s movement, formed in sheer desperation by the villagers of Chhattisgarh to resist the Maoist killers, rapists and extortionists. It has the support of all sections of people irrespective of their political affiliation. And yet, the Supreme Court by its judgment on July 5th 2011, has taken the side of Maoists and the civil society groups without checking the ground realities. The Maoists are jubilant and celebrating their victory. They have also put up posters in many places in Chhattisgarh threatening the SPOs to be ready to face the consequences for their sin of opposing the Maoists. I am not a lawyer. But I have enough intelligence and common sense to conclude that the Supreme Court judgment banning the ‘Salva Judum’ and SPOs was an anti-people move. Where will the people of Chhattisgarh go now for justice?
This is not the first time that a Supreme Court judgment has led to utter disbelief and serous consternation among the people of this country. The Delhi police had arrested Kobad Ghandy, a top Maoist leader and a politburo member from Bhikaji Kama locality in Delhi on September 20, 2009. He is said to have played a leading role in the formation of the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations in South Asia (CCOMPOSA) and was also engaged in liaison work with the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN). The Delhi trial court, as per its order on 31st October, 2009, had allowed the Delhi police to conduct a narco analysis test on Kobad Ghandy, which could have helped the Delhi police to unearth a lot of information about the Maoist activities in India and also about their internal and external links. However some civil society activists had immediately moved the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order allowing the Delhi police to conduct narco analysis test on him, raising the issue of violation of his personal liberty and seeking a stay of the trial court order. The Delhi High Court, delivering its verdict on November 5, 2009, stayed the trial court order allowing the narco test on Kobad Ghandy pointing out that since a verdict on the validity of narco analysis test is already pending with the Supreme Court and was expected shortly, it will be in the fitness of things for all the parties to wait for the apex court verdict in this matter. The Supreme Court had earlier reserved its verdict on a bunch of petitions moved by some mafia leaders like Santokben Jadeja, Arun Gawli and others challenging the validity of the narco analysis teast, brain mapping and polygraphic test. The Supreme Court giving its final verdict on May 5, 2010 termed the narco analysis test as unconstitutional as it amounted to a violation of personal liberty. The Court said that a person could not be forced to undergo narco analysis test, brain mapping and polygraphic test as they violate the Article 20 (3) of the Constitution that says that no accused can be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Information obtained through narco analysis test is not admissible as evidence before a court of law. But such information gives valuable clues to the police and other investigative agencies in nailing the culprits involved in some important and complicated cases. For instance, the narco test was very helpful in cracking the ‘Telgi Scam’. Though the use of third degree methods has no legal sanction in India, it is a fact that such unethical methods are still widely used by the police in India as an easy option to crack many of the criminal cases, despite opposition to it from all sections of the society. Many legal luminaries and other intellectuals in the country often advocate the need for sticking to only scientific methods for interrogation of criminals, as is the case in many of the developed countries, instead of taking recourse to old and barbarian methods of torture. The narco analysis, brain mapping and polygraphic test are all scientific methods widely used in many countries for obtaining information from the criminals and other wrong doers. Why should the Supreme Court ban it in India, a country worst-affected by terrorism? It is for the concerned State Governments and the Centre to decide what appropriate measures are required to be taken to contain the Maoist menace or the Islamic terrorism. The special police officers (SPOs) are not regular police officers. The SPOs with lesser qualification are recruited for a specific role to meet a special contingency situation created by the Maoists. Now that the Supreme Court has banned the SPOs, will the court make some alternative arrangement to counter the Maoist menace? To me, it appears that the learned Supreme Court judges for some strange reason, overstepped its jurisdiction and have taken the side of Maoists. I am of the firm view that the decision to ban the ‘Salva Judum’ and SPOs should be reviewed and reversed by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court approves attacks on our culture and traditionsA Supreme Court bench comprising of Arijit Passayat and P.Sathasivan on January 17, 2008, ruled that a live-in relationship should be treated as equivalent to marriage. It further said that the children born to such parents would be called legitimate and they will have the rights in their parent’s property. After this judgment, the government of Maharashtra in a bid to give some sanctity to live-in relationships had sent a proposal to the Centre to amend Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and expand the definition of the word wife to include a woman involved in a live-in relationship with a man for a reasonably long period. The decision to seek such an amendment to Section 125 of the CrPC was taken by the Maharashtra state cabinet on October 8, 2008. The cabinet decision was based on the recommendations of the Malimath Committee appointed by the Centre to suggest reforms in the CrPC.
Live-in partners are those who do not believe in the institution of marriage. When they voluntarily enter into such an arrangement, they know very well that it is only an ‘ad hoc’ arrangement and in case of a break up, none of the partners will be entitled to make any legal claims for any kind of compensation. How can the Supreme Court say that it is equivalent to marriage? This judgment is a challenge to the sanctity of the institution of marriage and a threat to our moral and family values.
The above mentioned controversial court decisions and the English media’s support for such unconventional verdicts have created a lot of confusion as well as resentment among substantial sections of people in India. The marriage is a sacred and time-tested institution which existed in our society since time immemorial. It binds a man and a woman in a life-long companionship. The family and social structure is rooted in the institution of marriage. The sanctity of this institution has been severely eroded in many of the Western countries since last few decades with many of the youngsters and radical sections of people in those countries challenging the so-called shackles of the institutionalized set up of marriage and opting to indulge in live-in relationship, unnatural sex, etc. This virus of rebellion against family values and traditions has started affecting third world countries like India also lately with some of the elite sections of the society in cities like Mumbai and Delhi also challenging the most sacred institution of marriage and foolishly aping the degraded western trends and practices like live-in relationship and sexual perversions. They reject the institution of marriage and the sanctity attached to it. However, it is gratifying to note that such misguided elements still constitute only a miniscule section of the Indian society, that too in urban centres like Mumbai and Delhi, and by and large most Indians still respect the sanctity of the institution of marriage and our value system like giving respect to parents, teachers, elders and in upholding the family ties and bonds. These are the values that fortify India’s unity in diversity. And it is this value system that the enemies of this country are trying to destroy by promoting sexual perversions and attacking the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
S.C. judgment backed by a controversial thesis
Delivering its judgment on a Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2011 filed against a judgment and order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in a case about the brutalities and humiliation suffered by a tribal woman over an alleged illicit relationship with an upper caste man, a Supreme Court of India Bench comprising Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra made the following remarks (only the gist) on January 5, 2011.
"If North America is predominantly made up of new immigrants, India is largely a country of old immigrants, which explains its tremendous diversity. It was believed earlier that Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India. Now the generally accepted belief is that the pre-Dravidian aborigines, that is, the ancestors of the present tribals or Adivasis were the original inhabitants of India. Probably about 92 per cent of people living in India today are descendants of immigrants. The injustice done to tribal people of India is a shameful chapter in our country’s history. The tribals were called ‘rakshasas’ (demons), ‘asuras’, etc, and they were slaughtered in large numbers. Their descendants were degraded, humiliated and all kinds of atrocities inflicted on them for centuries. They were deprived of their lands and pushed into forests and hills where they eke out a miserable existence of poverty, illiteracy and disease. And now efforts are being made by some people to deprive them even of their forest and hill land where they are living, and the forest produce on which they survive." The learned judges also cite the story of Eklavya in the Mahabharata as a classic instance of historical injustice done to the tribals in India.
The learned judges say that about 92 per cent of the people in India are immigrants. The total Scheduled Tribe population in India is estimated to be about eight per cent. So, according to this judgment, the tribals (Adivasis) are the only original inhabitants of this country and all other sections of people are outsiders who have come to this country as immigrants. It is an outrageous statement to suggest that Hinduism originated in some other country and that Hindus were originally invaders who came from outside and settled down in India. It is the Christian missionaries who propagate such stories in the tribal areas of the country in their bid to convert Adivasis into Christianity. The Adivasis who worship nature like sun, fire, rains and mountains and indulge in idol worship and other rituals like pujas are not different from Hindus. Yet the Christian missionaries who woo the Adivasis with various incentives try to convince them that they were the only original inhabitants of India and the Hindu invaders who came form outside first usurped all their fertile land pushing them into forests and hills and now even their forest land is taken over by the government dominated by Hindu upper caste people forcing them to live as encroachers on their own land. By such propaganda, the missionaries also intend to convince them that Hinduisn is as alien to India as Islam and Christianity and the Adivasis who followed their own separate religion, customs and practices were never had any links with Hinduism. The Christian missionaries were indulging in such propaganda to create a feeling of alienation among the Adivasis from the Hinduism which will make it that much easier for them to execute their own agenda of promoting Christianity. However, why should the esteemed judges of the Supreme Court give any credence to such myths and propaganda stories which have no scientific basis. Recent studies conducted by some scientists in the west on DNA samples taken from people belonging to different castes and communities in India, including Brahmins, Dalits and Adivasis, have shown broad similarities indicating that they all have common ancestors. This totally negates the Christian theory of Hindus being foreign invaders. If the learned judges genuinely believed in such myths and theories, they could have presented their thesis in an article in a newspaper or a news magazine. Projecting such improbable and highly controversial theories as gospel truth and presenting it as part of a judgment is highly unethical and deplorable.
Sir, as you know, what is happening now in the country is most horrible and unbelievable. Many innocent Indians are being killed and many more are getting injured in continued terror attacks orchestrated directly or indirectly by a neighboring enemy country and the Government is unable to stop it or take any retaliatory action. Many of our important temples, railway stations, trains, buses, markets, high courts, stock exchange buildings and even the Parliament House were attacked by the terrorists in the past and the Government continues to remain as a passive and mute spectator. Apparently the Government has failed in its basic duty of giving protection to the lives and property of people. Hundreds of innocent people and security personnel are routinely butchered by the Maoists and yet the government is still debating whether adequate force could be deployed to crush a ‘socio-economic problem’ like the Maoist movement. The Supreme Court is unable to enforce its own verdicts like the death sentence given to Afzal Guru, involved in the Parliament attack case, or on identification and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants from India, because of opposition from the powerful civil society lobby, backed by some ruling Congress stalwarts. Under such circumstances, if some of the learned judges of the Supreme Court also appear to be supporting the wrong causes and wrong people, where shall we, the law-abiding citizens of this country, go for justice? If this letter, written under sheer frustration and helplessness, has hurt you in any manner, I may please be pardoned.
With thanks and warm regards,
Yours sincerely,
N.T.Ravindranath,.:
No comments:
Post a Comment