Use and Abuse of Sedition Laws : verdict of Mridula Garg, Soli Sorabjee, Fali Nariman and Others

By The Wire Staff on 18/02/2016 •

Eminent personalities such as former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, senior Supreme Court advocate Fali Nariman, constitutional expert PDT Achary, writer Mridula Garg and others share their views on the law of sedition.

Association For Democratic Rights wants to remind that before Jallianwal Bagh massacre in 1919 , the British Goverment brought the sedition Law then known as Rowallet Act , “ No Dallel No wakil “It is the same sedition act which is misused by BJP government.

Mridula Garg Writer

Mridual Garg.

Any country carrying a law of sedition on its statute books has no right to claim that its citizens possess the right to freedom of expression. Even Britain, who once imposed it on India, has repealed it. A foreign government needs it to prevent the enslaved from forming a democratic republic. But the Indian government has different reasons – not because it’s a colonial legacy but because it suits the temperament of our governance. Successive governments in India in the last six decades have proved that freedom of expression is not something they genuinely believe in. They only barely tolerate it in the name of democracy and the Constitution. Any excuse is seized to curb it.
The imposition of the Emergency banning all freedom of expression was an extreme step, but at least it was an overt one. The law of sedition is more insidious, hence more dangerous. It provides the government with covert means to create Emergency-like situations, that too with no warning. It is a measure of extreme repression.
The JNU Students’ Union President Kanhaiya Kumar is not the first one to be charged with sedition for allegedly raising anti-government slogans or inciting others to do so. Even though the law of sedition is expressly against violent action and not mere sloganeering, no government has respected that. Moreover, each government has acted time and again under the presumption that the government and the nation are synonymous, which they most certainly are not. The nation also consists of people outside of the government, whom the government merely represents for a prescribed period of time.
When the government is disposed towards curtailing the free flow of expression, it is ready to use any excuse to do so. The law of sedition makes it easy to club anti-government utterances with anti-national intentions. Intention is all that can be seen in expressions of dissent, however violently phrased. Verbal violence can be construed as criminal only if it is proven to lead to acts of actual physical violence, not because someone in the government thinks it might do so at some future date. A government that is ready to wreak havoc upon autonomous institutions of higher learning through police action can itself be held guilty of inciting violence. In as much as violation of the autonomy of such institutions is violation of democracy, can it not be fairly said that it is anti-national?
The Indian constitution guarantees us a democracy. If to violate this democracy and hence the constitution is not anti-national, then we need to rethink the meaning of the word ‘nation’.

---

Fali Nariman
Constitutional jurist and senior Supreme Court Advocate, writing in The Indian Express

Fali Nariman. Credit: PTI

… “sedition” in India is not unconstitutional, it remains an offence only if the words, spoken or written, are accompanied by disorder and violence and/ or incitement to disorder and violence. Mere hooliganism, disorder and other forms of violence, though punishable under other provisions of the penal code and under other laws, are not punishable under Section 124A of the penal code. Likewise, mere expressions of hate, and even contempt for one’s government, are not sedition. When a person is dubbed “anti-Indian”, it is distasteful to India’s citizenry, but then to be “anti-Indian” is not a criminal offence, and it is definitely not “sedition”. (It only means that you are a freak, and that it is high time to have your head examined!)
Citizens in India are free to criticise their governments at the Centre or in the states — which they do quite frequently, and boldly and fearlessly as well; as they must, because that is what a participatory democracy is all about. It behoves the men and women of the law who advise government to impress upon their client that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution — and to remind all governments (present and future) that “sedition” had been deliberately and designedly excluded by the framers of the Constitution from Article 19(2), the exception clause to free speech, only because, as the founding fathers had said, “Sedition is not made an offence in order to minister to the wounded vanity of governments!”

---

Soli Sorabjee
Former Attorney General of India, in an interview to The Indian Express

Soli Sorabjee. Credit: PTI

What did [Kanhaiya Kumar] do? Did he merely shout slogans like ‘Pakistan zindabad’? Arresting him for that? I mean that’s deplorable. That is not sedition. Sedition, the Supreme Court has said, are the acts which have a tendency and intention to disturb law and order or incite violence. After all, it is a section which gives you life imprisonment, has very serious consequences. So the Supreme Court has construed it in that fashion and said it very clearly that even if you use words that vigorously criticise the government or comment on the actions of the government, that is not sedition. That is our law, that is how Section 124A was interpreted and upheld as constitutional by a Constitution Bench.

---

Lawrence Liang
Advocate and co-founder of Bangalore Alternative Law Forum, writing for The Wire

Lawrence Liang. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

It is abundantly clear that freedom of speech and expression within the Indian legal tradition includes within its ambit any form of criticism, dissent and protest. It cannot be held hostage to narrow ideas of what constitutes “anti national” speech and we hope that the courts will step in not merely to defend free speech but also pass strictures on those who abuse the legal process to create a chilling effect on constitutional rights. This is particularly important in the context of the ongoing case against the students of Jawaharlal Nehru University because if free speech and thought is curtailed within universities, we run the risk of endangering one of the most crucial spaces of political freedom in the country.

---

NS Nappinai
Advocate, writing in The Times of India

NS Nappinai.

The genealogy of the colonial hand-me-down [of sedition], as a tool of suppression, is clearly contrary to even remote concepts of democracy and ought to have been discarded with the empire. Substitution of “Her Majesty” with “government established by law” did not take away the oppressive flavour but has in fact lent itself to further abuse. “Government” and “Nation” neither mean the same nor are they interchangeable. A nation is distinct from the persons administering it i.e., the government, vested with powers and duties to ensure cohesive functioning of the nation.

PDT Achary
Constitutional expert and former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, writing in The Hindu

PDT Achary. Credit: PTI

Sedition defined under Section 124A of the IPC is a colonial law meant to suppress the voice of Indian people. That is why the Indian law on sedition was different from the English law. Despite the strict construction adopted by the Supreme Court, the law enforcement agencies have always used it against artists, public men, intellectuals, et al for criticising the governments. In fact the Supreme Court itself did not apply these strict principles to the speech of Kedarnath and his conviction. The government and its agencies have, in reality, followed the law enunciated by the Privy Council and not by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath. The governments in free India continue to use it for the very purpose for which the colonial government used it.
Therefore, since the governments and its agencies have strictly gone by the text of Section 124A though the Supreme Court itself did not apply these principles to the speech of Kedarnath, the law declared in Kedarnath has lost its potency. The Supreme Court, being the protector of the fundamental rights of the citizens may step in now and declare Section 124A unconstitutional. India of the 21st century does not require a law used by the colonial government to suppress India’s voice.

---

Mrinal Satish

Associate Professor of Law at National Law University Delhi, writing for IBNLive

Mrinal Satish. Credit: Twitter

Our Sedition law is archaic and draconian. It was introduced by the British to keep leaders like Mahatma Gandhi in jail. Mahatma Gandhi wanted the Independent India to abolish the Sedition law. Unfortunately, we still have it. We are continuing it with even after so many years. Sedition law is a weapon in the hand of the state. It can be misused by the state in many ways. If somebody is charged with sedition, it will take a long time to get the bail and come out. The punishment is also very harsh.
Amnesty International

Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) makes public order a ground, among others, for restricting freedom of expression. However India’s Supreme Court has ruled that such restrictions must be authorized by law and must not be excessive or disproportionate. The Court has also ruled that restrictions relying on the ground of public order are valid only when there is a close connection between the speech and public disorder, and there is an imminent threat of lawlessness.

… However the law continues to be used to suppress critics. Successive governments in India have deployed it against journalists, activists and human rights defenders. In 2015, the law was used to arrest a Dalit folk singer in Tamil Nadu for songs criticizing the state government, and a community leader in Gujarat protesting for quotas in education and employment.

The trouble with spurious nationalism

Spurious nationalism begets a spurious democracy. Because there won’t be much to differentiate a reign of error from a reign of terror. It will be a vicious cycle

Sudeep Chakarvarti

 

Activists and students from various organisations during their march from Mandi House to Jantar Mantar in solidarity with the JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar in New Delhi on Thursday. Photo: PTI

How dangerous are errors for the well-being—emotional and integral security—of a country? This past week’s fracas over protests at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) points to a direction where lies the possibility of greater strife and further alienation—and, therefore, greater aggression—among the Hindu underclass of the Dalits and others and many in the Muslim and Christian communities who, in spite of decades of affirmative action, are today increasingly vocal victims. It doesn’t make for a pretty picture.
It is only a short step from a reign of error to a reign of terror.
Nearly two years after winning a massive political mandate in the elections to the Lok Sabha in May 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance appears to be in crisis. It surely is a sign of the times that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), which India’s citizens emphatically voted out of power for, among other things, the perception of its sloth, inefficiency, corruption and sycophantic rule, is today gaining in public relations. While the UPA government was not exactly progressive, NDA, with its firm charioteer, the BJP, has proved to be less than democratic.
In part, this is because of the firm ideological charioteers of the BJP: the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Hindu Mahasabha, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and others of Hindu fundamentalist mode that firmly compete with Muslim and Christian fundamentalism. Leaders of these organizations regularly motor-mouth their way through this republic of continual rage. Some, even as legislators in the Lok Sabha and various provincial assemblies on the BJP ticket, as well some vanilla BJP ministers in central and state governments, have variously asked Muslims to go to Pakistan, supported the lynching of a Muslim gentleman for allegedly eating beef, insulted Dalits, and have even asked for India’s tricolour to only retain a Hindu saffron, insisting on that most vexing of contradictions: a totalitarian India that is also benevolent.
Such singularity is distressing. The BJP’s quiet in these matters, lubricated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s long, disquieting silences, has only increased the perception of an arrogant government. In the backdrop is an implied electoral commitment as internal security threat: the insistence on building a grand temple in Ayodhya that will surely, if not spark communal conflagration, speed recruitment to several jihadist causes.
The JNU incident and its aftermath is part of this arc of command-and-control. I’m not surprised with the over-reaction in arresting JNU’s students union president on the charge of sedition. Or, to rapidly transform this episode and the suicide of Rohith Vemula, a research scholar at Hyderabad Central University, from government snafus into matters of “anti-national” interest, dealt by misapplication of law. So, the crucible is now patriotism, not the kind of disturbing politics in which BJP and its allies are as adept as any party in India. How seamlessly error turns to terror.
This nationalistic agenda presumes nobody but this government and its imagistas have national interest at heart. It is as if all socioeconomic growth, increased infrastructure, increased defence spending, and diplomatic initiatives including the nuclear deal with the US in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014 were for the express benefit of some country other than India.
It also presumes everyone but the BJP and its allies are anti-national, anti-constitutional. It is as if the land acquisition ordinance, which was bolstered by untruths spoken and tweeted by the BJP’s top leadership, including the prime minister (which will remain an anti-poor, anti-farmer millstone around the BJP’s neck), was to the detriment of land owners and to the demolition of human rights in another country. The BJP-led government of Chhattisgarh last month nixed tribal rights over forest land to make way for coal mining. But wait. Chhattisgarh might as well be in Australia.
It is good to see a handful among BJP’s leadership condemn the over-reaction in JNU. While such retrospective sanity may prove to be too little in the face of an economy in stall, share markets and currency in free fall, and several impending elections to state assemblies—all prime reasons to intensify the drumbeat of nationalism with the heaviest hands and closed minds—they do provide a slim hope.
The alternative won’t be in the national interest.
Because spurious nationalism begets a spurious democracy. Because there won’t be much to differentiate a reign of error from a reign of terror. It will be a vicious cycle.
Sudeep Chakravarti’s latest book is Clear. Hold. Build: Hard Lessons of Business and Human Rights in India. His previous books include Red Sun: Travels in Naxalite Country and Highway 39: Journeys through a Fractured Land. This column, which focuses on conflict situations in South Asia that directly affect business, runs on Fridays.

We are of this country and love the soil of India: Full text of Kanhaiya Kumar’s speech

Speech made by JNUSU president on JNU campus, February 10

Written by Kanhaiya Kumar | Updated: February 18, 2016 7:56 am

They are the people who burn the tricolour; they are the stooges of Savarkar, who apologised to the British. They are the people who, right now, in Haryana, run the Khattar government that has renamed after a Sanghi an airport named after Shaheed Bhagat Singh. The upshot is, we don’t need a certificate of patriotism from the RSS. We don’t need the RSS to certify us as nationalists.
We are of this country and love the soil of India. We fight for those 80 per cent of this country’s people who are poor. For us, this is desh bhakti. We have full faith in Babasaheb. We have full faith in our country’s Constitution. And we want to firmly assert that if anyone lifts a finger against this country’s Constitution — whether the Sanghis or anyone else — we won’t tolerate it. We have faith in the Constitution. But we have no faith in the constitution that is taught at Jhandelwala and Nagpur. We have no faith in the Manusmriti. We have no faith in or trust in the deep-rooted caste system in this country. That very Constitution, that same Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, talk about constitutional remedies in the Constitution. That same Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar talked about abolishing capital punishment. That same Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar talked of freedom of expression. We uphold the Constitution. We want to uphold our basic right, our constitutional right.

But it is a matter of great shame, a matter of great sorrow, that today, the ABVP, with its media partners, is orchestrating a campaign. It is diluting issues. Yesterday, the ABVP’s joint secretary said that they fight for fellowships. It is so ridiculous to hear this because their government, Madam Manu-Smriti Irani, cut fellowships and the ABVP says “We fight for fellowships”. Their government has cut the higher education budget by 17 per cent. Our hostel hasn’t been built in four years. We haven’t got wifi till date. One bus was given to us by Bhel — but the administration doesn’t have money to pay for fuel. The ABVP’s people take photographs like Dev Anand in front of rollers and say that they are getting hostels made and bringing wifi and increasing fellowships. Their lies will be exposed, friends, if there is a debate in this country on fundamental questions. And I am proud that we JNU-ites discuss and raise fundamental questions.
[Subramanian] Swamy says that there are jihadis in JNU. He says that people at JNU spread violence. On behalf of JNU, I challenge RSS pracharaks to come and debate with us. We want to debate on the concept of violence. And we want to raise questions. We want to raise questions on the ABVP’s slogan that says “khoon se tilak karenge, goliyon se aarti”. Whose blood do you want to let flow in this country? You have offered bullets, alongside the British, and used them against people who were fighting for this country’s independence. When the poor in this country demand food, when people dying of starvation talk of their rights, you use bullets against them. You have used bullets against Muslims. And against women when they raise the issue of their rights. You say that the five fingers of a hand cannot be equal, that women should live like Sita and should have to go through trials by fire like Sita. But there is democracy in this country, and democracy gives everyone the right to equality. Whether they be a student or a karamchari or a poor person or a worker or a farmer or Ambani or Adani; everybody has equal rights. So when we talk about women’s right to equality, they say that we want to ruin Indian culture. We do want to trash traditions of exploitation, casteism (jaativad), Manuvad and Brahmanwad.
So why are they so uncomfortable? They have a problem when the people of this country talk about democracy. When people do a neela salaam along with a lal salaam. When alongside Marx, people talk about Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar. When people talk of Ashfaqulla Khan, then they can’t tolerate it.
They are conspiring, they are stooges of the British. Come, bring a case of defamation against me. I say that the RSS’s history is the history of standing strong with the British. And these traitors of the nation today distribute certificates of desh bhakti. Check my mobile, friends, they are viciously abusing my mother and sister. Of which Bharat Mata do you speak if my mother is not part of this Bharat Mata? I do not agree with that Bharat Mata concept. My mother is an anganwadi worker. My family survives on Rs 3,000. And they are abusing my mother. I am ashamed that the mothers of the poor, workers, Dalits, farmers of this country are not part of Bharat Mata. I will hail Bharat’s many matas, fathers, sisters, farmers, workers, Dalits, Adivasis. If you have the guts, then say “inquilab zindabad”. Say “Long live Bhagat Singh”. Say “Long Live Sukhdev”. Say “Long live Ashfaqulla Khan”. Say “Long live Babasaheb”. Then we will believe that you have faith in this country
You do a drama of celebrating Babasaheb’s 125th birth anniversary. If you have the guts, then raise the issues that Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar raised. In this country, casteism is the biggest issue. Speak against casteism. Bring reservation. Bring reservation in the private sector.

This nations was never yours — and will never be yours. A nation is made of its people. If the nation doesn’t have space for the hungry, the poor, the workers, then it is not a nation. Yesterday, I was saying this at a TV debate to Deepak Chaurasiaji: “Chaurasiaji this is a sombre moment, remember this”. Even the media won’t be safe from the way fascism is creeping in this country. The media will get scripts written at the Sangh offices — just like it used to get scripts written at the Congress offices in Indira Gandhi’s time. Remember this.
If you really want to show your desh bhakti. Some media people were saying that JNU runs on taxpayer money, on subsidy. Yes, this is true. JNU runs on taxpayer money. It runs on subsidy. But a question arises: What is a university for? A university is there to critically analyse society’s “common conscience”. To promote critical thinking. If universities fail in this job then there can be no nation, there will be no people’s participation. The country will only be fodder for capitalists. It’ll only be fodder for loot and exploitation. If the people’s culture, values, rights are not included, then there will be no nation. We stand by this country and that dream that Bhagat Singh and Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar saw. We stand by the dream of equality for all, the dream of the right to live, the right to food, water and shelter. We stand by these dreams. Rohith gave his life to stand by these dreams. But I want to tell these Sanghis, shame on your government. I challenge the Central government, what you did in Rohith’s case, we won’t let happen in JNU. We will remember Rohith’s sacrifice. We stand by the side of freedom of expression.
Forget Pakistan and Bangladesh, we say that the whole world’s poor should unite, workers should unite. We salute the humanity of the world, the humanity of India. We have today identified the group that stands against this humanity. This is the most serious issue before us today. We must not forget this identification. That face of casteism, that face of Manuvad, that face of the alliance between Brahmanwad and capitalism. We have to expose these faces. Real democracy, real freedom, everyone’s freedom is what we want to establish in this country.
That freedom will come and it will come with the Constitution, Parliament and democracy. That’s why I beseech all my friends to set aside their differences. We have to safeguard our freedom of expression, our Constitution, our country. We have to stay united to keep the country together, to counter the divisive forces — the forces that give shelter to terrorists.
Who is Kasab? Who is Afzal Guru? Who are these people who have reached a point that they are willing to blow themselves up? If this question is not raised in a university then I don’t think there is any point in having a university.
If we don’t define violence, how do you see violence? Violence is not just killing people with guns. Violence also occurs when the JNU administration refuses to honour the rights given to Dalits by the Constitution. That is called institutional violence. These people talk about justice. Who will decide what is justice? When Brahmanism was dominant, Dalits were not allowed to enter temples. At that time, that was justice. During British colonial rule, dogs and Indians were not allowed to enter restaurants. At that time, that was justice. We challenged this justice. And today as well, we challenge the RSS and the ABVP’s notion of justice.
If your notion of justice does not accommodate my notion of justice, then we won’t accept your concept of justice. We won’t accept your concept of freedom. We will consider this country free when everyone gets their constitutional rights. When every individual in this country is equal under the Constitution, then we will accept that there is justice.
The JNUSU does not support any violence, any terrorist , any terror attack, any anti-national activity. I want to reassert this in no uncertain terms. There are some unidentified people who have raised the slogan of “Pakistan zindabad”. The JNUSU strongly denounces them.
I also want to share a question for the JNU administration and the ABVP. A thousand things happen in this campus. Please listen carefully to the ABVP slogans. They say “communist kutte [dogs]”, they say “Afzal Guru ke pille [puppies]”, they say “jihadiyon ke bachhe [children]”. Don’t you agree that if this Constitution has given us the rights of a citizen, then calling my father a dog, is it not the trampling of our constitutional rights? I ask this to the ABVP. I want to ask this question to the JNU administration: Who do you work for? Who do you work with? And on what basis do you work?
Today it has become absolutely clear that the JNU administration first gives permission. Then, after receiving a call from Nagpur, it takes back its permission. This process of granting and retracting permission has become just as frequent as the process of granting and retracting fellowships. Like they first announce an increase in fellowships and then turn around to say fellowships have been stopped. This is the Sanghi pattern. This is the RSS-ABVP pattern. The pattern on which they want to run this country. And they run the JNU administration on the same pattern.
We want to question the JNU VC. There were posters displayed in JNU, pamphlets distributed in the mess. If you had a problem, then you should not have given permission. But once you gave the permission, the JNU administration must clarify what caused it to take it back.
I also want to tell you the truth about these people. Please don’t hate them because we cannot hate anyone. In fact, I pity them. They are cock-a-hoop. Why? They believe that just like Gajendra Chauhan was made to sit [as the head of the FTII], they will get a Chauhan, diwan and farman. They think they will send farmans and they will keep getting jobs with these farmans. That is why, when they yell “Bharat Mata ki jai”, you should immediately understand that they are about to appear in an interview. But as soon as they get the job, they will forget about patriotism and Bharat Mata. Forget the tricolour, which they never recognised, they won’t even honour the saffron flag.
I want to ask them, what kind of patriotism is this? If an employer doesn’t treat the employee well, if the farmer does not treat the labourer well, if the capitalist doesn’t treat his employees properly, and all these TV journalist who work for Rs 15,000, even your CEO does not treat them properly.
The ABVP-RSS’s patriotism is limited to an India-Pakistan match. That’s why when they are out on the streets, they mistreat the fruit-seller. When the fruit-seller says, “Sahib, the bananas are Rs 40 a dozen”, they hurl an abuse and say, “You people are looting us. We will give only Rs 30”. But what will happen the day the fruit-seller turns around to say, “You are the biggest looter. You have looted crores”? Then, they will label him anti-national.
I know a lot of friends in the ABVP. I often ask them, “Do you really feel patriotic?” They say, “What to do? The government is for five years. Two years have gone by. Three years’ talk time is left. Whatever we have to do, we will do in these remaining years.” So I tell them that if you lie about JNU, then tomorrow someone might catch your collar too. Perhaps it will be one of your friends who will do that, the kind who checks beef in trains. He’ll catch you and lynch you and tell you that you are anti-national because you are a JNU-ite. Do you understand the danger in what you are doing? They say, we understand this and that is why we oppose #JNUShutdown.
I said that’s great. First create the atmosphere for #JNUShutdown and then oppose it because you have to stay in JNU. That’s why I want to tell all JNU-ites, there will be an election in March and the ABVP will come to you with the Om symbol. Please tell them, “We are anti-nationals, jihadi terrorists. If you take our vote you will also become anti-national.”
Make sure you say this. Then they will say, “No, no, it’s not you. Those were some other people.” Then ask them, “Why did you not say that those were some other people [and not the whole of JNU] before the media? Why didn’t your VC say that? Why isn’t your registrar saying that?”
And what about those few people? Are they saying that we did not raise the slogans of “Pakistan zindabad”? Aren’t those few people saying that we are not in favour of terrorism? Aren’t those few people saying that retracting permission, which was duly acquired, is an attack on their democratic rights? Those few people are saying that if a battle is being fought in some part of the country, then we will stand by it. They will never understand this small thing.
But I am sure that people who have assembled here on short notice, they are getting this. And you people will go to each student of this campus. The ABVP is trying to break this country, it is trying to break JNU. We won’t let JNU be divided. Long live JNU! All the struggles that are currently on in the country, JNU will wholeheartedly participate in them and strengthen the voice of democracy, voice of independence, strengthen the freedom of expression.
We will go forward. We will struggle and we will win and defeat the traitors of this city. With these words, I appeal for unity.
Jai Bhim, lal salaam!
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/kanhaiya-kumar-speech-jnu-row-is-this-sedition/#sthash.lGLlAmS1.dpuf

Why Kanhaiya Kumar J NU student president is seditionist  ?

Because he says that the question  on basic issues concerning  Indian Janta will be asked  and more listen to his complete speech at you tube .

According to ANI Kanhaiya Kumar said, “This is false. I did not raise any slogan. They don’t have evidence against me.” He also added, “This is an excuse, I defeated ABVP in Student Union elections that is why this is happening.” The JNU Teachers’ Association condemned the arrest as well and said, “This sentiment makes us express strong opposition to attempt to use law and police to suppress democratic dissent and conduct witch-hunt on campus.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFIJPykCi28

Be Warned, the Assault on JNU is Part of a Pattern

By Romila Thapar  16 Feb 2016, The Wire

She is a historian of international fame ,who taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University for many years.

Some Major Points 

 "There is by now little doubt that we are currently being governed by those that seem to have an anti-intellectual mind-set. This spells trouble for universities that are concerned with high standards of teaching and research:"

"Recent events at JNU raise many questions pertinent to us as citizens of India. The questions have become imperative because it is apparent that many who govern us have little sensitivity to understanding the fundamental issues crucial to governance. For example, what are the necessary aspects of a democratic system, or how essential are equality and human rights as components of democracy to be taught and nurtured in educational institutions. Every articulation of thought and action is judged these days by its immediate political implications and seldom by the wider context of ethics, society and citizenship." 

"A recent example was the discussion on capital punishment where a handful of students had gathered on the JNU campus. Obviously the names of those recently given this punishment cropped up in the discussion, and very soon this became the dominant political aspect and the sole consideration, setting aside all other questions."

"Capital punishment is not just an issue of concern to nationalism alone. It involves aspects of ethics, morality, religion as well as the context of the punishment, and it is not in the least bit surprising that opinions differ on all these issues. The logical follow-up could have been a more extended discussion of the subject, from other perspectives, rather than the insistence by some of those present that this was an anti-national issue, and their then proceeding to have the government intervene and clamp down on it."

"Charges of sedition, extremely serious as they are, nevertheless are slapped on anyone for virtually any critical opinion about the country. Even the dictionary meaning of sedition is enticement to violence and the overthrow of the state/government. As others have pointed out, there is a considerable difference between advocacy of violent methods and actual incitement to violence. But such distinctions seem to be beyond the comprehension of most politicians."

"The debate on sedition goes back to the early years of independence when the attempt to silence free speech was successfully resisted by the Supreme Court, (Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi and Romesh Thapar vs. Union of India). Nehru was in favour of expunging sedition as unconstitutional. Those were the days when democracy was valued and was nurtured. We should familiarise ourselves with the many occasions when sedition has been objected to and on valid grounds, and therefore consider its removal from the body of laws. Laws that can be easily misused should be reconsidered. Governance does imply taking an intelligent interest in the debates on the laws by which we are meant to be governed."

"Governments turn by turn have described people as anti-national but the frequency of this accusation has increased in the last couple of years. It has been applied so often by the BJP that the word has become virtually meaningless, but not harmless, because it can be used to politically persecute a person."

"In the latest move of the BJP-RSS government pertaining to universities, the student union president who was arrested at JNU has been accused of being anti-national and indulging in sedition. He has been accused of raising slogans on independence for Kashmir and praise of Pakistan. The irony is that the student union president who was doing just the opposite of what would be regarded as anti-national and seditious and was trying to close the discussion, was the one who was arrested."

"Does government evidence rely on tweets? And are dubious tweets enough to accuse a person of sedition ? This is not just a case of the government and the police being adamant, but it appears to be a well-planned strategy to destabilise JNU. There was just too much unusual alacrity in the way events moved. One can’t help but feel that somewhere along the line, the present government has lost its initial confidence in itself and is now resorting to unpleasant tactics."

"Education as catechism

The ideology central to the BJP-RSS has no space or use for liberal thought. Education for such organisations means only what can be called a kind of catechism. This is a memorisation of a narrow set of questions rooted in faith and belief and an equally narrow set of answers that prohibit any doubt or deviation. The same technique applies to all subjects. Therefore educational centres that allow questioning and discussion are anathema and have to be dismantled."

" However, in the Hindutva version of Hinduism, aimed at establishing a Hindu Rashtra – a state where Hindus are the primary citizens and the purpose of governance is to uphold Hindu principles – the notion of a kind of blasphemy is applied to those that are critical of Hindutva that is equated with the Hindu Rashtra. This is then equated with the nation. Criticism of it is described as anti-nationalism so such criticism can be silenced. To call criticism as “hurt sentiment” is now much too mild. It has to be treated as blasphemy/anti-nationalism, and treated as a serious crime. This helps to convert a secular state into a religious state, which ultimately is the aim of the RSS."

"The BJP-RSS government currently in power is unable to have a dialogue with an institution such as the JNU and other similar universities such as the Hyderabad Central University. The emphasis from the start in such universities has been on questioning existing knowledge, exploring new knowledge and relating knowledge to the existing reality. This is the very opposite of merely handing down selected information without questioning it. This is a problem that the BJP-RSS government has to face with a number of pace-setting prestigious centres of learning that do not substitute catechism for learning, and instead demand the right to debate a subject that may be thought to be blasphemous to the nation as defined by Hindutva. So the alternative is to try and dismantle such centres of learning by creating disturbances. This will eventually prevent them from functioning as they are intended to do."

" Method in the madness
There seems to be something of a pattern in the organisation of such disturbances, since there is a repetition of the same procedure in each case. The similarities are curious. The first step is to ensure that the person appointed in a position of authority in the institution is relatively unknown, as have been many of the directors, chairmen, and vice-chancellors appointed in the last 18 months in various institutions. They are relied upon to follow the orders of the government. The next step is to locate a group preferably debating contemporary issues, and instruct the local AVBP cadres to create a confrontation with such a group in the course of the meeting, and the confrontation could even result in some violence. This allows the ABVP to claim that they were attacked first and for a complaint to be made to the local BJP politician, readily to hand, who then takes it up with the minister, and who then orders the authority concerned to rusticate the students, to bring the police into the premises and arrest the non-AVBP students, irrespective of whether or not they were involved in the confrontation.
The normal university reaction in the past has been not to allow police on the campus or to make arrests. The exception was during the Emergency. Generally, a committee of enquiry is appointed by the university. It is treated as an internal matter of the institution. Police action can only be permitted if there is a serious breach of law. A group of students shouting slogans is not a serious breach of law. What was done in the JNU reminds me of the saying “to bring a sledge-hammer to crack an egg.” The intention was obviously not just to crack the egg but to smash it completely. But it looks as if the egg is now on the face of the government.
One might well ask why the BJP-RSS is so bent on dismantling institutions of learning and converting them into teaching shops. Is it the premium on conformity and out-of-date knowledge that the BJP-RSS would like to define as education? Is it the kind of education that is given in the shishu–mandirs and madrassas that is seen as ideal in form? Interestingly the institutions that come under attack are those that are associated with freedom of thought, the asking of questions, the advancing of knowledge. Those that conform to education as learning by rote and providing supervised answers are not interfered with all that much, since this pattern of learning fits into a catechism style.
There is by now little doubt that we are currently being governed by those that seem to have an anti-intellectual mind-set. This spells trouble for universities that are concerned with high standards of teaching and research, and it would seem beyond the comprehension of those governing. One can only ask why the government is so apprehensive of intellectuals? Is the government being ham-handed with universities because from the minister down they fear the potential power of those universities that encourage their students to think independently? Or is this a deliberate way of creating a general ambience of fear in the institutions? The existence of such a fear would make it easier to impose syllabi, courses and methods of teaching emanating from the think tanks of the RSS. Not to mention that it makes those employed in universities more pliant."

"JNU was founded on the principles of democratic functioning, both administratively and in the content of the education it imparted. It meant a generally positive relationship between teacher and student, and a frequency of free discussion both on matters academic and on the world we live in. It meant more rigorous training in the subjects taught and this experience improved the work both of teachers and students, and all of which was underlined by an insistence on critical enquiry. We were conscious of stretching our minds to beyond what was readily known and in encouraging students to look beyond the obvious. It was these factors that made it into a prestigious university, a trend-setter in many subjects that were taught in other Indian universities. It was again these factors that gave it international recognition, on par in many subjects with the best universities outside India."

"And that excellence it has experienced. As one academic who lived a substantial part of my life working in the JNU, and contributing to this vision, the hostility of the current government to the JNU leaves me with a sense of despair and sadness for the future of universities in India. However, I must add that experiencing the protest of the JNU community against the attack that has been mounted on it, does make me feel that perhaps the values that we had tried to inculcate in its early years have taken root. When JNU recovers from the trauma of this attack it is likely to be even more committed to the values for which it was created – excellence not only in intellectual enterprise but also in endorsing a humane and open society upholding the rights of every Indian citizen."

for complete write up

http://thewire.in/2016/02/16/be-warned-the-assault-on-jnu-is-part-of-a-pattern-21795/

 more by Romila Thapar

http://thewire.in/2016/02/15/romila-thapar-the-protests-by-jnu-students-teachers-have-been-remarkable-21706/

 

 

JNU stir: Why ‘anti-nationalism’ is an empty abuse that has no place in a free society

February 17, 2016 SA Aiyar in Swaminomics  India Economic Times

 

Some highlights of this article

 

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. The current rant against ‘anti-national’ slogans at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) highlights the abundance of scoundrels among Indian politicians and television anchors. The notion that there can be only one concept of what constitutes a nation, and that every other view is anti-national, is intellectually empty at best and authoritarian at worst."

 " In all free societies, students have espoused all sorts of extreme positions, and must be free to do so. That is why they are called free societies."

"

Their right to dissent was not questioned even by those who condemned their views.

Oxford University is very establishment. But in 1933, the Oxford Union held a famous debate on the motion, ‘This house will in no circumstances fight for its King and country.’ The Union voted for the motion by 275 votes to 153. This ‘Oxford Pledge’ was later adopted by students at the universities of Manchester and Glasgow. This sent shock waves through Britain. The students were denounced as morons, cowards, anti-nationals and communist sympathisers.

But none dreamed of arresting the students for sedition. That puts in perspective the authoritarian interpretation of sedition by the NDA government. Worse is the ranting of media stars who ask in outrage how any student dare call for the break-up of India. They seem singularly ignorant of what a free society means."

"India’s sedition law has been misused grossly for jailing a Tamil folk singer, sundry cartoonists, demonstrators against the Kudankulam power station, and even some people who simply ‘liked’ a Facebook post.

To me, these are all anti-national acts for which those in power should be held accountable. I reject the anti-national definition of the government."

Condemn The False Case Filed Against JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar

By Democratic Teachers' Network

15 February, 2016
Countercurrents.org

We condemn in the strongest terms the police raid upon student hostels in Jawaharlal Nehru University. JNU Students Union President Kanhaiya Kumar, a charismatic voice of the democratic aspirations of students, was lifted by plain clothes police in what appeared to bystanders to be a vigilante attack rather than a police action. Male police have been breaking into and entering hostels including women’s hostels, in a blatant violation of the rule of law. The fact that a student leader was arrested on charges of sedition, a draconian colonial law intended to break the Indian National freedom struggle, demonstrates the anti-national character of the police and the fascist government directing them. The case was filed directly by BJP MP Maheish Girri, who is proudly taking forward the deadly persecution of marginalised people that has come to characterize BJP MPs and MLAs - other examples include Sangeet Som who incited the Muzaffarnagar riots and the lynch mob against Aqlakh Ahmad (despite himself being a beef exporter), and Ramchander Rao and Bandaru Dattatreya who hounded dalit student Rohith Vemula to death.

Further, Kanhaiya has been at the forefront of protests before the MHRD against their shutting down non-NET fellowships for University students, and against their role in the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula. Is the education of students, the democratization of universities, an anti-national cause? Is it anti-national to oppose the death penalty - which has been abolished by 140 other countries - the majority of countries in the world? Are those countries acting against their own national interests when they abolished death penalty? What kind of nation believes the death of a human being is necessary for national integrity?

The particular islamophobic blood-thirsty campaign that the ABVP-RSS and their paid media outlets such as Zee News, etc. are running against Umar Khalid, one of the organisers of the protest meeting at JNU, demonising his Muslim identity, yet again displays their blatant hatred towards anyone who is not a caste Hindu. This hatred is extended to all those who have been in the forefront of the struggle against Fascism. This falls right in line with the killings of Prof. Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabolkar, Ujjain University professor Dr. Sabharwal, and many others, by the Sangh Parivar. This is in addition to other acts of vandalism such as the attack on a meeting regarding Justice for Rohith Vemula at Mahatma Gandhi University, Nalgonda, and similar other attacks on protest gatherings at Lucknow University, Ambedkar University, brutal beatings assisted by the police on protesting students at Delhi, etc. The Haryana Central University in fact even filed FIRs against its own students who had only taken out a candle march in the memory of Rohith, accusing them of “anti-national activities” and has banned all protests in future.

The unfolding fascist face of the BJP is also evident when we consider that the last time a JNUSU president was arrested was during the Emergency period from 1975-77. If student leaders can be arbitrarily picked up under colonial laws, another Emergency under these communal fascists is not far away. The general public should realise the growing spread of undemocratic RSS control over every supposedly independent and

autonomous space. The JNU Vice-Chancellor is an example of this trend, being a person who is comfortable attending “science events” organised by RSS-related organization, Vijnana Bharati, despite the profoundly unscientific statements made by RSS members including the current Prime Minister. The VC’s statement about this event reveals both his bias and his ignorance of constitutional law; he seems to not be aware of Article 19 of the Constitution which upholds freedom of speech and association. A constitutional bench of 5 Supreme Court judges has examined the Sedition Act in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955), and concluded that comments, “however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of the actions of Government”, under which Kanhaiya has been charged, “without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal”. Several other judgments have upheld this distinction between criticism, however strongly worded, and an incitement to “imminent lawless action”. It is notable that Mr. Sangeet Som is more guilty of inciting “imminent lawless action” than anyone else mentioned in this statement.

Over the last one and half years, we have seen planned takeover of Central Institutions by the RSS through either coercion and cooption of the administrative bodies supposed to govern these institutions, or through blatant use of crude force by using the police and their own vigilante groups. Since the current BJP government has come to power, it has been in the news either for the unsuitable appointments to head institutions such as ICHR, FTII; packing positions in the CBI with Gujarat cadre who have protected Modi from being charged for his murderous riot-mongering in Gujarat; or for their unapologetic interference in the functioning of the top institutions in this country to shut down the progressive voices of this country's institutions. This includes banning the Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (APSC) in IIT-Madras, targeting the ASA students in UoH, abruptly terminating the appointment of Gandhian activist and professor Sandeep Pandey at IIT-BHU, accusing him of absurd charges of being “anti-national” and “naxalite” at the behest of the VC of Banaras Hindu University (known to be an RSS pracharak from Allahabad university), clamping down upon the campus community at Pondicherry University accusing the entire community of “Islamization”, ABVP preventing Siddharth Varadarajan from speaking at Allahabad University etc. All of these instances show a clear disregard for universities as spaces of debate, dialogue and critical thinking spaces. It also demonstrates the policy of intimidation to frighten and silence the voices of students and teachers in the universities who question the status quo. It is time that all the citizens of this country who believe in democracy make their voices heard against this muffling of dissent that is highly detrimental to the democratic functioning of this country.

We demand that the Union Government must take immediate steps to prevent the intimidation of students and to immediately withdraw this patently false case that tramples on Kanhaiya and others’ Constitutional rights. We demand that the police should immediately leave JNU campus, and that all other campuses across the country should be demilitarized, which includes the revoking of all anti-democratic circulars and bans on student activities in educational institutions. The Sedition Act, and other such colonially imposed draconian laws, must be immediately revoked by anyone who claims to have national interests in mind.

ਚੋਟੀ ਦੇ ਮਾਰਕਸੀ ਚਿੰਤਕ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਰਣਧੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਸਦੀਵੀ ਵਿਛੋੜਾ ਦੇ ਗਏ

ਜਮਹੂਰੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਸਭਾ ਵਲੋਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਦੇਹਾਂਤ ਉੱਪਰ ਡੂੰਘੇ ਦੁੱਖ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਗਟਾਵਾ

ਅੱਜ ਇਥੇ ਪ੍ਰੈੱਸ ਬਿਆਨ ਜਾਰੀ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਜਮਹੂਰੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਸਭਾ, ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੇ ਸੂਬਾ ਪ੍ਰਧਾਨ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਏ.ਕੇ. ਮਲੇਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਰਲ ਸਕੱਤਰ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਜਗਮੋਹਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਉੱਘੇ ਮਾਰਕਸੀ ਚਿੰਤਕ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਰਣਧੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਦੇਹਾਂਤ ਉੱਪਰ ਡੂੰਘੇ ਦੁੱਖ ਦਾ ਇਜ਼ਹਾਰ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਦੀਵੀ ਵਿਛੋੜੇ ਨਾਲ ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ ਇਕ ਉੱਚਕੋਟੀ ਦੇ ਜ਼ਹੀਨ, ਇਨਸਾਨੀਅਤ ਪ੍ਰੇਮੀ ਚਿੰਤਕ ਤੋਂ ਵਾਂਝੀ ਹੋ ਗਈ ਹੈ। ਉਹ ਦਿੱਲੀ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਿਟੀ ਵਿਚ ਰਾਜਨੀਤਕ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਰਹੇ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਬੇਸ਼ੁਮਾਰ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਗਿਆਨਕ ਸਮਾਜਵਾਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰੀਏ ਨਾਲ ਜੋੜਿਆ। ਉਹ ਇਨਕਲਾਬੀ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਤਬਦੀਲੀ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਏ ਕਮਿਊਨਿਸਟ ਨਜ਼ਰੀਏ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਬਧ ਚਿੰਤਕ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਨਾਤੇ ਫਿਰਕਾਪ੍ਰਸਤੀ, ਮੂਲਵਾਦ ਸਮੇਤ ਹਰ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਪਿਛਾਖੜੀ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਤਿੱਖੇ ਆਲੋਚਕ ਅਤੇ ਔਰਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਬੰਦਖ਼ਲਾਸੀ ਦੇ ਦਿ੍ਰੜ ਮੁਦੱਈ ਸਨ। 1939 'ਚ ਕਮਿਊਨਿਸਟ ਲਹਿਰ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਤੋਂ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਆਖ਼ਰੀ ਦਮ ਤਕ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਸਮਾਜ ਦੇ ਆਦਰਸ਼ ਨੂੰ ਬੁਲੰਦ ਰੱਖਿਆ। ਆਪਣੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਦੇ ਭਖਦੇ ਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਕ ਸਿਆਸੀ ਸਵਾਲਾਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਡੱਟਕੇ ਸਟੈਂਡ ਲਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਸਮਾਜਵਾਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧ ਨੂੰ ਲੱਗੀ ਪਛਾੜ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਆਲੋਚਨਾਤਮਕ ਅਧਿਐਨ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਵੱਡ-ਅਕਾਰੀ ਭਰਵਾਂ ਵਿਸ਼ਲੇਸ਼ਣ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤਾ। ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਸੱਤ ਦਹਾਕੇ ਲੰਮੀ ਸਰਗਰਮ ਚਿੰਤਨਸ਼ੀਲ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਗੀ ਵਿਚ ਭਖਵੇਂ ਸਵਾਲਾਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਬੇਸ਼ੁਮਾਰ ਲੈਕਚਰ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਅਤੇ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਇਲਾਵਾ 'ਕਰਾਸਿਸ ਆਫ ਸੋਸ਼ਲਿਜ਼ਮ, ਰਿਜ਼ਨ, ਰੈਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਐਂਡ ਪੁਲੀਟੀਕਲ ਥਿਊਰੀ, ਫਾਈਵ ਲੈਕਚਰਜ਼ ਇਨ ਮਾਰਕਸਿਸਟ ਮੋਡ, ਆਫ ਮਾਰਕਸਿਜ਼ਮ ਐਂਡ ਇੰਡੀਅਨ ਪਾਲਿਟਿਕਸ, ਮਾਰਕਸਿਜ਼ਮ-ਸੋਸ਼ਲਿਜ਼ਮ ਐਂਡ ਇੰਡੀਅਨ ਪਾਲਿਟਿਕਸ, ਕਾਨਟੈਂਪਰੇਰੀ ਇਕਾਲੋਜੀਕਲ ਕਰਾਸਿਸ, ਇੰਡੀਅਨ ਪਾਲਿਟਿਕਸ ਟੂਡੇ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ 'ਚ ਸੱਤ ਬਹੁਮੁੱਲੀਆਂ ਕਿਤਾਬਾਂ ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ ਦੀ ਝੋਲੀ ਪਾਈਆਂ। ਸਭਾ ਦੇ ਆਗੂਆਂ ਨੇ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੇ ਡੂੰਘਾ ਅਧਿਐਨ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਤਬਦੀਲੀ ਲਈ ਸਰਗਰਮ ਸਿਆਸੀ ਤਾਕਤਾਂ, ਬੁੱਧੀਜੀਵੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਮੁੱਲਾ ਬੌਧਿਕ ਖ਼ਜ਼ਾਨਾ ਹਨ।
1 ਫਰਵਰੀ 2016

ਸ਼ੀਤਲ ਫਾਈਬਰ ਕਾਂਡ ਦੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਬਰੀ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੀ ਨਾਲਾਇਕੀ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰ-ਜਮਹੂਰੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਸਭਾ

ਅੱਜ ਇਥੇ ਪ੍ਰੈੱਸ ਬਿਆਨ ਜਾਰੀ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਜਮਹੂਰੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਸਭਾ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੇ ਸੂਬਾ ਪ੍ਰਧਾਨ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਏ.ਕੇ. ਮਲੇਰੀ ਅਤੇ  ਸੂਬਾ ਜਨਰਲ ਸਕੱਤਰ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਜਗਮੋਹਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਜਲੰਧਰ ਦੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਲੋਂ ਸ਼ੀਤਲ ਫਾਈਬਰ ਫੈਕਟਰੀ ਹਾਦਸੇ ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਵਿਚ ਫੈਕਟਰੀ ਮਾਲਕ ਸ਼ੀਤਲ ਵਿੱਜ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਮੁਲਜ਼ਮਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬਰੀ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਪੁਰਜ਼ੋਰ ਨਿਖੇਧੀ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ। ਅਪ੍ਰੈਲ 2012 'ਚ ਹੋਏ ਇਸ ਜਾਨਲੇਵਾ ਹਾਦਸੇ ਵਿਚ 22 ਮਜ਼ਦੂਰ ਮਾਰੇ ਗਏ ਸਨ। ਇਸ ਹਾਦਸੇ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਜੱਗ ਜ਼ਾਹਰ ਹੋਈਆਂ ਫੈਕਟਰੀਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਨਿਹਾਇਤ ਅਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਕੰਮ ਹਾਲਤਾਂ ਦੇ ਬਾਵਜੂਦ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਵਲੋਂ ਇਸ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਗੰਭੀਰਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਬੇਨਿਯਮੀਆਂ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਫੈਕਟਰੀ ਮਾਲਕ, ਠੇਕੇਦਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਕਿਰਤ ਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਸਬੰਧਤ ਵਿਭਾਗਾਂ ਦੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਢੁੱਕਵੀਂ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਦਿਵਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਲੋੜੀਂਦੀ ਪੈਰਵਾਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ। ਇਸ ਮਿਲੀਭੁਗਤ ਕਾਰਨ ਅਤਿ ਸੰਗੀਨ ਬੇਨਿਯਮੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਗ਼ੈਰਕਾਨੂੰਨੀਆਂ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਸੱਤਾਧਾਰੀ ਧਿਰ ਦਾ ਖ਼ਾਸ-ਮ-ਖ਼ਾਸ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਫੈਕਟਰੀ ਮਾਲਕ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਸਬੰਧਤ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਬਰੀ ਹੋ ਗਏ। ਸਭਾ ਦੇ ਆਗੂਆਂ ਨੇ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਸਪਸ਼ਟ ਕਰੇ ਕਿ ਜੇ ਫੈਕਟਰੀ ਮਾਲਕ ਤੇ ਇਸ ਕੇਸ ਵਿਚ ਨਾਮਜ਼ੱਦ ਕੀਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਤਾਂ ਫਿਰ 22 ਮਜ਼ਦੂਰਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਜਾਨਾਂ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਹਾਦਸੇ ਦੇ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰ ਕੌਣ ਸਨ? ਇਕ ਪਾਸੇ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਲੋਕ ਸੰਘਰਸ਼ਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਸਰਕਾਰੀ ਤੇ ਨਿੱਜੀ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ ਨੂੰ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦਾ ਹਊਆ ਖੜ੍ਹਾ ਕਰਕੇ ਕਾਲੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਪਾਸ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ਦੂਜੇ ਪਾਸੇ ਫੈਕਟਰੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਕੰਮ ਦੀਆਂ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਸਰਮਾਏਦਾਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਠੇਕੇਦਾਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਜੁਰਮਾਂ ਤੇ ਲਾਕਾਨੂੰਨੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਜ਼ਰਅੰਦਾਜ਼ ਕਰਕੇ ਸਮਾਜ ਦੀ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਕੀਮਤੀ ਦੌਲਤ ਕਿਰਤ-ਸ਼ਕਤੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਜਾਨਾਂ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਅਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਕੰਮ ਹਾਲਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹੋਰ ਅਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਬਣਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ। ਸਭਾ ਦੇ ਆਗੂਆਂ ਨੇ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੀ ਨਾਲਾਇਕੀ ਅਤੇ ਗ਼ੈਰਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰੀ ਕਾਰਨ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਜਾ ਰਹੇ ਅਜਿਹੇ ਦੋਹਰੇ ਮਿਆਰਾਂ ਵਾਲੇ, ਮਜ਼ਦੂਰ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਅਤੇ ਸਰਮਾਏਦਾਰੀ ਪੱਖੀ ਫ਼ੈਸਲਿਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਕਿਰਤ ਕਾਨੂੰਨਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਕਾਰਪੋਰੇਟ ਸਰਮਾਏਦਾਰੀ ਪੱਖੀ ਸੋਧਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੱਦੇਨਜ਼ਰ ਟਰੇਡ ਯੂਨੀਅਨਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਲੋਕ ਜਥੇਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਸ਼ਾਲ ਜਨਤਕ ਲਹਿਰ ਉਸਾਰਕੇ ਮਜ਼ਦੂਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਗੀ ਦੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਜਥੇਬੰਦਕ ਤਾਕਤ ਨੂੰ ਮਜ਼ਬੂਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਅਪੀਲ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ।ਮਿਤੀ: 29 ਜਨਵਰੀ 2016

dilqW dI ‘nvIN pCwx’

sæuD dilq Aqy dyS BgqW dI pRIBwSw rwStrI soiem syvk sµG Anuswr hI hovygI

Ap¨rvwnµd

Sur¨AwqI mµdI hwlq coN sµBldy hI rwStrI soiem syvk sµG(Awr.AYs.AYsN) Aqy ies dI srkwr ny roihQ vomylw Aqy ausdy swQIAW nwl kIqy vrqwau ƒ vwjb Tihrwaux leI ‘AµbydkvbwdI’ kOmvwdI hmlw iv~F id~qw hY[ Tµfw m~Tw rvwieqI A&sos pRgt krn dw iKAwl r~Kx dI AwpxI sImq zuµmyvwrI qoN mukq hox qoæ ip~CoN auhnW(Awr.AYs.AYs. Aqy ies dI srkwr) ny s~B qo pihlW roihQ dy dilq hox ’qy svwl KVw kIqw[ auhnW dwAvw kIqw ik roihQ pRmwixq dilq nhIN sI ikauNik aus dy mWipaU coN ie~k gYr dilq sI[ aus dw bwp p~CVIAW SRyxIAW nwl sbµiDq hY[ ikauNik qhwfI pihcwx ipqw nwl juVI hoeI hY, ies kr ky roihQ AslI dilq hox dw dwAvw nhIN kr skdw[

ieh kihky ik ‘roihQ ny dilq hox dw mKOtw pwieAw hoieAw sI’ dilqW ƒ roihQ dI mOq nwl srokwr nw r~Kx leI pRorx dw inµdxXog Xqn Awr.AYs.AYsN dI isAwsq dy AslI Axmnu~KI suBwA dw pRgtwvw hY[ ijvyN ies q~Q roihQ dI mOq G~t duKdweI bxw dyvygw[

d¨srw kµm Awr.AYs.AYs. ny roihQ Aqy ausdI jQybµdI Aµbydkr ividAwrQI AYsosIeySn (ey.AYs.ey.)dI isAwsq ’qy svwl auTwky kIqw hY[ roihQ dI Awqmh~iqAw qoN isrP ie~k idn bwAd hI dlIl id~qI geI ik ey.AYs.ey. dI isAwsq dw dilq muµidAW nwl koeI irSqw nhIN sI[ ieh dyS ivroDI iksm dy mu~dy auTw rhI sI ijs kr ky roihQ smyq ey.AYs.ey.Aqy ausdy mYNbr iksy hmdrdI dy kwbl nhIN hn[ G~to G~t dySBgq dilq ey.AYs.ey. dI hmwieq iv~c nw inqrn[

Xwk¨b mYnn dI PWsI dw ivroD krn Aqy p~CmI au~qr pRdys iv~c i&rk¨ ihµsw ’qy AwDwirq ‘muz~Prngr bwkI hY’ nwmI dSqwvyjI iPlm idKwaux aupr hoey hmly ivru~D jQybµd kIqy ros mwrc iv~c Swml hox krky ey.AYs.ey. ƒ dyS DrohI grdwinAw igAw[

ieh is~D krn leI ik roihQ Aqy aus dI jQybdI ey.AYs.ey. Asl iv~c Aµbydkr dI byiezqI kr rhy sn hYrwnIjnk dlIl id~qI geI[ ikauNik Xwk¨b mYnn ƒ bwbw swihb duAwrw ilKy sµivDwn dIAW DwrwvW hyT GVy FukvyN kwƒnW Anuswr hI szw id~qI geI hY ies kr ky szw dy ivroD dI kwrvweI bwbw swihb ƒ nIcw idKwauxw hY[ roihQ ies byAdbI dw doSI hY[

Awr.AYs.AYs. dy ividAwrQI ivµg ƒ idSw inrdyS dyx vwly ie~k sµG pRcwrk ny tI.vI. A~gy ikhw ik AlIgV musilm X¨nIvristI Aqy jwmIAw mIlIAw ieslwmIAW sµsQwvW v~loN pCVy vrgW Aqy AYs.sI./AYs.tI. ividAwrQIAW ƒ rwKvW krn dy h~k qoN vWJy r~Kx ivru~D roihQ Aqy aus dI jQybdI ey.AYs.ey. ny kdy vI Awvwz nhIN auTweI Aqy kdy vI iehnW sµsQwvW dy G~t igxqI cirqr ƒ cuxOqI nhIN id~qI[ ies qy swbq huµdw hY ik roihQ Aqy aus dI jQybdI ey.AYs.ey. dilqW dy h~kW v~l iDAwn nhIN idµdI sI[ ie~Qy iPr suJwA id~qw jw irhw hY ik quhwƒ dilq swbq hox leI iehnW sµsQwvW dy G~t igxqI cir~qr au~pr svwl auTwauxw hovygw[

ieh dlIl pihcwx dy mwp dµf im~Qx Aqy ies ƒ ihµd¨qvI eyjµfy nwl n~QI krn dw Xqn hY[ ihµd¨qvI iksm dy rwStrvwd dw iksy vI Fµg nwl ivroD krdI dilq isAwsq Awpxy Awp dyS ivroDI Aqy hmly dy lwiek bx jWdI hY [ Awr.AYs.AYs. dilqW ƒ Awpxy mu~idAW Aqy sµGI swQIAW dI cox dy h~k qoN vWJy krn dw Xqn kr rhI hY[ jy auh soVI soc muqwbk gYr dilq mu~idAW auBwrdy hn jW hor vI bdq~r jy auh musilm mu~idAW ƒ Awpxy mu~idAW vjoN lYNdy hn qW auhnW ƒiDrkwr id~qw jWdw hY[

Awr.AYs.AYs dw Aµbydkr nuµ inglx leI AKiqAwr kIqw hmlwvr ru~K ipCly do dhwikAW ’c smwijk inAW dIAW lihrW v~loN pYdw kIqI aUrzw ƒ vrqx ’c rhI nwkwmI dw pRgtwvw hY[ dilq Aqy p~CVy vrgW dI isAwsI jmh¨rI kwrvweIAW iv~c BwgIdwrI dI ie~Cw ƒ pihcwxdy hoey sµG Awpxy mwArky dy dilq Aqy p~CVy vrg isrjx dy Fµg qrIikAW Koj irhw hY[ ikauNik iehnW dI jwgRqI dy mu~Fly dOr iv~c dilqWp~CVy vrgW Aqy musilmW dy eyky dw nwArw id~qw igAw, sµG pirvwr musilmW ƒ inKyV ky bwkIAW ƒ Awpxy klwvy iv~c lYxw cwhuµdw hY[ ey.AYs.ey vrgIAW jQybµdIAW sµG dy ies cwl iv~c roVw bx rhIAW hn ikauNik AijhIAW jQybµdIAW hr iksm dy d~by ku~cly BweIcwirAW dw ie~k morcw auswr ky smwijk mukqI dy pRojYkt dI smr~Qw hwsl krn dw Xqn kr rhIAW hn[ ey.AYs.ey. ny AwpxIAW srgrmIAW rwhIN szw Xukq muslmwnW ƒ hmwieq dw pRgtwvw kIqw hY ,sµG isAwsq ies ƒ brdwSq nhIN kr skdI[

ieh hYrwnIvwlI g~l nhIN ik AijhI du~K dI GVI iv~c vI Awr.AYs.AYs. ny roihQ Aqy ausdy dosqW au~qy auhnW dy AD¨ry dyS ivroDI dilq idKwvy ’qy hmlw krn qoN sµkoc nhIN kIqw[

srkwr v~loN mwnv sryq ivkws mµqrwly dI ip~T ’qy Awauxw mµdBwgw Aqy dlIl rihq hY[ ieh hux dSqwvyjW duAwrw swbq ho cu~ikAw hY ik mµqrwly ny bµfwr¨ d~qwqRyAw dI bynqI aupr loV qoN v~D qv~jo id~qI[ swƒ swirAW ƒ pqw hY ik koeI AiDkwrI rojmrHw dy msilAW iv~c lgwqwr cwr Xwd p~qr Byjx dw joKæm nhIN auTwauNdw[ [ ieh iblkul sp~St hY ik iSkwieq krqw (ies mwmly ’c mµqrI) dI qs~lI krvwaux leI X¨nIvristI aupr ie~k ivsæyS Fµg nwl kwrvweI krn leI Tos r¨p iv~c dbw pwieAw igAw[

simRqI ierwnI dy sp~sætI krn iv~c DoKw sw& Jlkdw hY[ auh doS lwauNdI hY ik ieh ividAwrQIAW dy do gu~tW ’c tkrw sI Aqy ies iv~c koeI jwqI svwl nhIN sI[ auh ie~k mh~qv p¨rn q~Q ƒ CupwauNdI hY ik ausdw mµqrwlw ijs ividAwrQI jQybµdI dw p~K lY rhI hY auh Awr.AYs.AYs. nwl sbµiDq hY Aqy mµqrI Kæud vI sµG pirvwr dw ih~sw hY[ ies kr ky auh ies mwmly ’c p~Kpwq dy doS ƒ nkwr nhIN skdI[ d¨jw auh koeI hor ies ƒ jwqpwqI mwmlw bnwaux dI gµdI Kyf bxwaux iv~c Swml nhIN hY[ ausdy Awpxy swQI bµfwr¨ d~qwqRyAw ny hI ieh doS lwieAw ik X¨nIvristI kYNps iv~c jwqpwqI Aqy dyS ivroDI DVy srgrm hn[

mµqrI AD¨rI scweI dI klw iv~c inpuµn hox dw Xqn kr rhI jwpdI hY pr hr vwrI ausdw pwj Ku~l jWdw hY[ jdoN ausny kWgrs nyqw dI ic~TI ieh swbq krn leI pys kIqI ik aus dw mµqrwlw ivroDI iDr dy Awg¨AW v~loN auTwey mu~idAW dI vI pYrvweI krdw hY, auh ieh q~Q Cupw jWdI hY ik ies d¨sry mwmly ƒ Aihm nhIN smiJAw igAw Aqy X¨nIvristI ny vI ies ƒ gµBIrqw nwl nhIN ilAw sI[ pr ies qwzw mwmly iv~c mµqrwly v~loN lgwqwr hukmW dI qwmIl krn dy dbw kwrn X¨nIvristI ny roihQ ƒ szw nw dyx dy Awpxy pihly PYsly ƒ aultw id~qw[

ie~k d¨rdrSn it~pxIkwr ny svwl ijs ƒ swfy coN bhuqy mwm¨lI smJdy hn auTwieAw ik pIVq ividAwrQI jQybµdI mµqrI kol ikauN cIkdI kurlwauNdI rhI? kI ausƒ XkIn sI ik mµqrI auhnW coN hox kwrn auhnW dI CyqI m~dd krygw? mµqrI ny ividAwrQI jQybµdI dy khy ƒ s~c ikvyæ mµn ilAw? kI ausny koeI qPqIS kIqI? ieh aus v~loN ByijAw koeI Awm not nhIN sI ijhVw aus vrgy ivAkqI l¨µ ausdy AiDkwr Kyqr coN iksy v~loN aus q~k phuµc krn vyly rvwieqI qOr ’qy aus kol ByijAw jWdw hY[ ieh ey.AYs.eyN dy AprwDW dI sp~St qOr ’qy s¨cI bnwauNdw hY Aqy rwStr ivroDI jwqpwqI q~qW dy ivru~D X¨nIvristI v~loN kwrvweI krvwauNx leI mµqrwly dy dKl mµg krdw hY[ auh dwAvw nhIN kr skdw ik auh inrp~K hY[

Awqmh~iqAw ip~CoN aup kulpqI dy pRqIkrm smyq X¨nIvsistI dw rol bVw hI Srmnwk hY[ auh ƒ APsos hY pr ieh nhIN smJ skdw ik roihQ ny ieh isry dw kdm ikauN auTwieAw? pr jdoN ausƒ pu~iCAw igAw ik ausny roihQ dy du~K Bry p~qr qoN bwAd aus q~k phuµc ikauN nw kIqI qW aus ƒ kihxw ipAw ik ausƒ kwiedy kwƒnw Anuswr kwrvweI krnI peI[

ies Tµfy, vihSI kOmvwdI julm ny roihQ iv~c iek~lypx dI Bwvnw Br id~qI ijs qoN auh Awpxw jIvn Kqm kr ky Cutkwrw pw skdw sI[ jy mYN Awpxy ivAkqIqv ƒ pRgt krnw cwhuµdw hW qW mYƒ ies dyS BgqI dI dusætqw qy fuplIkosI is~Dy m~Qy tkrxw pvygw[ jy AsIN smyN isr kwrvweI nw kIqI Aqy ieh ƒ s~qw qoN pwsy nw kIqw qW hor bhuq ijµdgIAW clIAW jwxgIAW[

(dw itRibaUn coN Dnvwd sihq)