New on my other blogs

KERALA LETTER
"Gandhi is dead, Who is now Mahatmaji?"
Solar scam reveals decadent polity and sociery
A Dalit poet writing in English, based in Kerala
Foreword to Media Tides on Kerala Coast
Teacher seeks V.S. Achuthanandan's intervention to end harassment by partymen

വായന

17 March, 2011

AHRC's new website

The following is a communication from the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong:

Dear Friends,

Following the introduction a few months ago of the new website of the Asian Human Rights Commission we wish to inform you that the AHRC will discontinue its old website at www.ahrchk.net with effect from today. We invite all friends, partners, activists and interested persons to visit the AHRC's new website at
www.humanrights.asia



The new online portal about the human rights situation in Asian countries features search specific RSS feeds, improved content integration, a live search and the AHRCs' new podcasts together with many other new features. A complete review of the page's design, content structure and facilities makes information and contents more easily accessible and the site one of the most resourceful places about human rights in Asia in the internet with updates and new cases every few hours.

What this change means for visitors:
• You will find all past and future updates about the human rights situation in Asia on www.humanrights.asia
• Visitors to the old site be automatically redirected to www.humanrights.asia
• The old site will not be updated and no content additions will be made there
• You will be able to find your content much faster with the search box in www.humanrights.asia
• You can follow us via news feeds on the themes and countries you are interested in
• Other websites under subdomains of ahrchk.net will still be available under their old address such as material.ahrchk.net
• You can follow AHRC on twitter and facebook at http://twitter.com/humanrightsasia and http://www.facebook.com/asianhumanrightscommission

For any feedback and questions about www.humanrights.asia, please contact us at http://www.humanrights.asia/contact-us and Select Department: Webmaster in the form. We will add more features in the coming months to the site.



Please subscribe to our weekly digest newsletter, which summarises all of the human rights news from the AHRC of the last 7 days in one convenient email. To subscribe click here and select Weekly Digest.

The website of the Asian Legal Resource Centre, the sister organisation of the AHRC remains available at www.alrc.net.

14 March, 2011

Marching into old age

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

About half of India’s population is younger than 25 years. According to some experts, between 2010 and 2030 the country’s working-age population will grow by 241 million while China’s will grow by only 10 million. This is supposed to give India a distinct advantage in the perceived economic competition with its neighbour.

There is, however, no room for euphoria. The old age population — those aged 60 years and above — which registered only a small increase in the last century, from 5.06 per cent in 1901 to 7.70 per cent in 2001, is set to grow at a fast pace. It is expected to soar to 23 and 30 per cent by 2050.

Some parts of India are already facing the problem of an ageing population. The problem appears to be more acute in the villages than in the urban areas. A national sample survey held a few years ago showed that 84 out of 1,000 aged persons in rural areas could not move and were confined to the bed or home as against only 77 out of 1,000 in the urban areas.

Ageing has assumed serious proportions in Kerala, which boasts of social development indices comparable to those of the West. The state had an old age population of 8.2 per cent at the time of the 2001 census. While the 2011 census data is still being processed, it is estimated that the state’s old age population is now around 11 per cent and may rise to 20 per cent in a decade.

Kerala, which accounts for only about 3.5 per cent of India’s population, already had about 11 per cent of its old age population of 77 million in 2001. An expert group of the Planning Commission has estimated that, life expectancy in the state, which is 71 years for men and 76 years for women, may rise to 75 years and 79 years respectively in 20 years. This means the state is close to the stage where it will have to take care of two generations of old people.

Kerala’s predicament is the result of a successful family planning programme. Tamil Nadu, which has the best record in population control after Kerala, also has a growing geriatric population.

1n 1999, the Indian government formulated a National Policy on Older Persons to ensure the well-being of senior citizens. It envisages provision of state support for financial and food security, health care, shelter and other needs of older persons, an equitable share in development, protection against abuse and exploitation, and certain services to improve the quality of their lives.

Although the Centre advised the states to formulate separate policies of their own to supplement its efforts, few has done so. At present the Centre is reviewing the working of the national policy. This exercise is likely to result in some changes in the policy.

In 2007, the Centre enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act to cast on the younger generation an obligation to provide need-based maintenance to parents and other senior citizens. If children fail to discharge their duty, parents can seek relief from a tribunal set up for the purpose. The law provides for protection of life and property of senior citizens, revocation of transfer of property and award of penalty in case of negligence or abandonment by relatives.

Almost all states have brought the law into force but many of them are yet to take follow-up measures like framing of rules, appointment of maintenance officers and setting up of maintenance tribunals.

The increasing number of cases of neglect of parents reported from Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which have taken follow-up measures, indicates that the law is not yielding the desired results. Last November Tehelka magazine reported that in some villages of Tamil Nadu family members use the services of quacks to extinguish the lives of senior citizens by administering some poisonous stuff as they are not able to bear the burden of looking after them.

The law is failing as it does not address some critical issues. A comprehensive social security system is needed to ensure that the old do not become a burden on the young. The limited geriatric care facilities available in the country are located in the cities. Such facilities must be available at the primary health centres which serve the rural population. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, March14, 2011

08 March, 2011

AHRC: Unabated violence against women impedes social change

The following is a statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission on the occasion of International Human Rights Day:

For 100 years now, a strong struggle for equal rights between genders has been taking place in the world. International women's day is the opportunity to celebrate women's economic, political and social achievements. It is the day to acknowledge the enormous potential of women in service of the prosperity of their communities and the core societal role they have to play for peace and political and economic development in their countries. Having educated and empowered women actively participating in every sphere of the public life of their country has for long been acknowledged as the key to development and prosperity in all the countries of the world. Discrimination against women has been formally recognized as a violation of human dignity and as riding roughshod over the concept that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights. Nevertheless, in numerous corners of the Asian region, direct and indirect violence and discrimination, under various forms continue to oppress women and prevent them from fully achieving their potential for change. Through 2010 and since the beginning of 2011, the Asian Human Rights Commission has been aware of numerous cases of such oppression. The diversity of Asia clearly illustrates that the formal recognition of equal rights without discrimination based on gender and criminalization of gender-based violence has failed to materialize in practice. Violence against women is sometimes justified through the evocation of tradition and religion and is exploiting the weak rule of law framework of numerous Asian countries to the advantage of the male-dominated society. It is used to control the behaviour of women, prevent them from freely taking part in public debate and continuously undermines the expression of women's potential for change in Asia.

The Global Gender Gap Index of 2010 offered a clear overview of the disparities which exists in the Asian region with regard to the country level of advancement in terms of equality of rights and opportunities between genders. The Philippines and Sri Lanka rank respectively as 9th and 16th out of 134 countries in terms of gender equality, mostly due to the achievements of those two countries in reducing the gender-gap in education and health while Pakistan ranks the third worst country in the world in terms of gender equality. Thailand ranks 57th globally but ranks among the best countries in terms of maternal health and 36th in terms of economic opportunity for the women, with women representing the majority (51%) of the non-agricultural labour force, a rarity in the Asian context. The gender situation in Bangladesh and Indonesia is less optimistic: ranking respectively as 82th and 87th. The scores of both countries are increased only by the fact that they have women as their head of State, but their scores in terms of economic empowerment, access to education and health are very low. Closing this ranking are India (112th), Nepal (114th) and Pakistan (132th) with extremely important discrepancies between genders in all spheres of life.

In a number of Asian countries patriarchal cultural and religious traditions are invoked to systematically control women's lives, their free will and even their bodies and hamper the full realization of their potential. In India, discrimination rooted in gender prejudices that foster stereotypical roles for the girl child and women is one of the reasons for the poor state of affairs of women. The concept of purity and submission superimposed upon women by cultural and religious practices, restrict their access to education and limits their freedom to choose the employment of their choice. The continuing practice of demanding and paying dowry, though prohibited by the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 limits the parents' interest to educate a girl child.

Another example is the common practice in some communities in Pakistan that at the time of birth of a girl, she is declared engaged to be married to a boy which will prevent the 'engaged' girl from freely choosing her future as her fate is sealed from the day of her birth.

Similarly, honour killings remain a strong issue in South Asia. The women being seen as carrying the honour of the family can be murdered if a family or the community considers that she is following a path different to what was expected of her. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 5,000 women die each year in honour killings worldwide. However, the actual number is likely to be much higher as the cases largely go unreported.

Another example of religion or tradition being invoked by the community to control the lives of the women was seen in a case reported in August 2010 from Sri Lanka. A husband was forced by community members of the local mosque to sign a document agreeing to the punishment of his 17-year-old wife for having given birth to a child as a result of an extra-marital relationship. The woman, who was sick, was then beaten 100 times with the hard centre stem of a coconut frond.

Similarly, in Bangladesh, the Committee on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women expressed its concern in February 2011 that "despite the High Court's decision that the extra-judicial punishments, fatwas, are illegal, there are reports of illegal penalties being enforced through shalish rulings to punish "anti-social and immoral behaviour". In January 2011, a 14-year-old girl was "lashed to death" following a punishment given by a village court consisting of elders and clerics under the Shari'ah law, after being accused of having an affair with a married man.

In some countries the "traditions" invoked to maintain the women in a state of oppression benefit from the support of the authorities, like in Pakistan, or are even reflected in the legal framework like in Aceh where some of the criminal laws are based on the misinterpretation of the Shari'ah. A 2010 report by Human Rights Watch "Policing morality" on the law related to "seclusion" which makes association with a unmarried member of the opposite sex a criminal offense punishable by caning and a fine and to public dress requirement, two of the five Shari'ah laws in Aceh, revealed that these laws are abusively implemented by the authorities and document cases of aggressive interrogation, including beating of the suspects, forcing the suspects to marry and forcing women and girls to submit to virginity examinations as part of the investigation.

The Jirga courts in Pakistan oppress women's rights and, though illegal, are tolerated or even supported by the authorities. Jirgas deny the equality between women and men, apply corporal or capital punishments upon women whose behaviour is seen as deviating from traditional standards and lack standards of fair trial. In July 2010, a woman was condemned to stoning to death by a Jirga merely for having been seen as walking alone with a man. In May 2010, a young couple was marked for death by a Jirga that included police officers because the woman had denied a suitor selected by her family in favour of her husband, who came from outside of the tribe. Despite an eventual Sindh High Court ruling in favour of the couple, community members and police continued to persecute the couple and the groom's family. Legal and social complicity results in near impunity for those who continue to abide by the Jirga rather than law and perpetrates honour killings. The government has not been seen to take any sort of action to pronounce the Jirgas' ruling as illegal and to dismantle them by taking action against the individuals engaged in running them.

Those cultural and religious representations remain strong obstacles in the way of women who want to take an active part in the future of their communities. Even in countries which are trying to achieve a 33% representation of women in the Parliament, such target remains very hard to reach; Nepal being the only Asian country to have achieved that goal so far. Women seeking emancipation are the target of those who want to maintain the patriarchal order of the society and see female emancipation as a direct threat to their own power and social status.

Acid attacks in Bangladesh and Pakistan against women who dare to say "no" to a marriage or a relationship are a case in point. Threats and harassment against women human rights defenders in Nepal further show the society resistance to those seen as challenging the established social order.

In some countries, women are considered as simple chattel that can be exchanged to maintain the relationship between families; to settle conflicts or a commodity that can, more simply, be sold. In February 2011, the AHRC documented a case of marriage which was opposed by the 70-year-old father of the bride in Pakistan. As "compensation" for the marriage and the loss of his daughter, the father demanded the barter of a girl from the groom's family.

In South Asia, cases of dowry disputes and dowry deaths also reveal the value placed upon a woman's life. These are cases where the groom's family claims that they had not received enough material benefits to accept the woman into the family. Those claims may result in assault, mental and physical harassment of the bride, and ultimately, in her killing.

Further, Asia continues to suffer from a massive phenomenon of trafficking in women. In many cases the authorities cooperate with trafficking rings and brothels were women are kept, effectively imprisoned for sex work. Due to the irregular immigration of trafficked women, the victims often have no legal status in the country where they are trafficked to and risk detention should they try to escape or lodge a complaint with the local authorities. In Thailand, sex workers are particularly at risk of exploitation and stigmatisation with cases of arrest and humiliation commonly reported, while rape cases of women sex workers are not properly dealt with.

All the cases mentioned above clearly show a pattern that, although the attitude of state actors is primordial in dealing with cases of violence against women, the functioning of law enforcement agencies in practice reflects the patriarchal values of the society and further contribute to oppress the women. The systematic failures of the criminal justice systems have been exploited by perpetrators to deny justice and protection to the victims of gender-based violence and to maintain the women in a situation of vulnerability. For instance, in almost all the countries in Asia, authorities at all levels of the judicial system have denied assistance and justice to rape victims and protected the perpetrators, resulting in a de facto "decriminalisation of rape". Victims of rape and gender-based violence seeking legal redress face harassment, threats from the authorities and community members and often the courage required to confront such obstacles to get justice is only rewarded with impunity for the perpetrators. This starts from the moment the victim makes the complaint of rape. In almost all of Asia there are incidents of police officers refusing to accept the complaint, forcing the victim to negotiate a settlement with the perpetrators or in specific countries even to marry the perpetrators.

Collusion between the perpetrators of rape and police officers is common. Further, the social stigma surrounding rape and women filing cases in the police station and economic dependency of women are the most important of all obstacles hampering the women's access to redress.

In a case in Nepal last July, the police took the rape victim in custody twice at the demand of the perpetrators which resulted in having all the physical traces of rape disappear. In Sri Lanka, in January 2011, the family of a 23-year-old physically and mentally disabled rape victim was forced by the police to accept monetary compensation from the perpetrator as a settlement for the case. In Pakistan, in December 2010, a woman was raped by a local gangster with the help of two police informers and was forced by the police to withdraw her complaint. In India, women face additional risks at the hands of law enforcement officers than their male counterparts due to the risk of sexual harassment and even custodial rape. In a case reported on 1 February this year, once again from Assam state, the police officers assaulted and sexually abused a woman and her mother when the officers came to their house in search of a male suspect. In this case too, the police have refused to register a case against the accused despite written complaints.

These cases, from different corners of Asia, illustrate that protecting the right of women is intrinsically linked to the state of rule of law in the country, in particular to a sensitisation of the police and to the introduction of accountability within the ranks of law enforcement agencies.

All over Asia, the situation of women belonging to communities which are traditionally marginalized and discriminated against deserves a special mention as those women will be exploited at several levels with even less access to judiciary and state institutions than women belonging to the dominant majority in the country.

In India and Nepal for instance, women belonging to the Dalit or tribal communities are more vulnerable to rape as their lives and dignity are seen as less valuable and they have less access to judicial institutions. Nepal has also recently seen an increase in cases of isolated women, often widows and often from the Dalit community, being trashed, violently beaten, tortured and forced to eat human excreta after being accused of "witchcraft" by villagers. The Women's Rehabilitation Center (WOREC) has documented 82 such cases within two years. In Pakistan, women from religious minorities are targeted, abducted and forcibly married to convert them to Islam. It is estimated that 20 to 25 Hindu girls are abducted each month and forcibly converted to Islam. In March 2010, the family of a 17-year-old Hindu girl who was kidnapped by three influential Muslim brothers and raped by one of them, was pressured into accepting her wedding to her rapist and her conversion to Islam by a jirga. Judicial and police inaction went as far as arresting the victim's father under a fake case and intense pressure from ruling party members and local landlords prevented the family from seeking further assistance.

The targeting of women from marginalized castes or classes or religious and ethnic minorities is not an aimless and insignificant act; on the contrary it has calculated implications and impact. Raping or abusing the women aims at not only destroying the victim but also, through her, the community. Rape and violence against women has become an instrument of power in the hands of the dominant majority. The victimization of women from marginalized castes or classes contributes to the maintenance of power and the domination of "upper" classes or castes while the victimization of women from minorities, religious or ethnic, aims at destroying the whole structure of that community, integrating them into the "mainstream" majority through the destruction of their identity. This aspect is particularly evident in the case of Burma, where women from ethnic minorities are the target of systematic, state-induced campaigns of rape and other forms of sexual abuses by soldiers in order to "spread the blood" of the ethnic majority and to humiliate and oppress. "Licence to Rape", a June 2002 report by the Shan Women's Action Network documented 173 cases of rape and other forms of sexual violence, with 625 Shan girls and women victimized by Burmese soldiers from 1996 to 2001 and showed that rape was condoned as a weapon of war from the Burmese state in order to subjugate and control ethnic minorities. Documentation by women's groups shows that such cases of rape; torture and killings of women continue unabated in other areas of ethnic conflict.

More generally speaking, women in areas of conflict suffer from specific abuses and often find themselves deprived of any legal remedy; in the South of Thailand, women are facing unrest and loss but have not been provided any kind of remedies. The Victim Protection Scheme is inappropriately implemented, which deprives the victims seeking justice with any kind of remedy. In Nepal, during the decade-long conflict, the women faced gender-based violence and sexual violence but such victims have remained invisible and absent of the government relief programmes and compensation schemes for conflict victims, a joint report by Advocacy Forum and the International Center for Transitional Justice found.

Gender bias is also visible in larger issues like poverty and malnutrition. For instance, in South Asia and South-East Asia, in both urban and rural poverty, often the direct victim of poverty and malnutrition is the women and/or the girl child. In most cases reported by the AHRC, the pattern shows that it is the mother and the girl child which face the worst brunt of poverty.

Women therefore suffer from multi-layered, multi-facetted discrimination and forms of violence in Asia. The malfunctioning of the rule of law framework is exploited by those who want to prevent women from playing a major role in the public sphere.

Nevertheless, throughout Asia, women continue to gather, organise and defend their rights and the rights of their community. The fight of those thousands of anonymous women not only contributes to the promotion of the "rights of women" but also to the advancement of democracy in their community as a whole.

In countries where reservations were made to ensure the representation of women in elected bodies, especially at the local level, women have been able to make use of such arenas to raise concrete issues of tremendous importance for the community, such as access to water.

In Nepal, women have played a tremendously important role in the popular uprising of 2006 which lead to the end of the conflict and the establishment of democracy in the country. Similarly in India, it is a woman, Ms. Iron Chanu Sharmila of Manipur, who has today become the beacon of hope and peace. Sharmila has undergone a ten-year-long fast in protest against the ongoing violence and impunity in India, committed both by the state and non-state actors. The state attempted to stifle her protest by keeping Sharmila in arbitrary and solitary detention in a hospital room for the past ten years in which she is force fed through a nasal tube. In Burma, it is also the fight of a woman, Aung San Suu Kyi that has become the incarnation of the hopes for peace, human rights and democracy of the people. In Sri Lanka, women activists and lawyers are taking a great role in the fight against torture and support to the victims. In Pakistan, it is a woman parliamentarian who had the courage to deposit a law in the Parliament seeking to amend the Blasphemy law under which religious minorities face persecutions.

On Women International Day, the AHRC calls for comprehensive action, from all forces of the society, to create the conditions for women to fully express their potential for better change.

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

07 March, 2011

Justice won and lost as corruption cases drag on

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Two Indian court verdicts of last week bear out the old dictum “You win some, you lose some.”

First, the success: the Supreme Court eased out of office the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, PJ Thomas, who was installed at the top of the anti-graft machinery while he was an accused in a corruption case.

Now, the failure: a Delhi magistrate’s court allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation to close the case against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, an accused in the Bofors case, which was the country’s biggest corruption case until the 2G scam surfaced.

In March 1986 the Swedish Radio reported that arms manufacturers AB Bofors had paid kickbacks to Indian politicians and middlemen to obtain Rs14.37 billion order the previous year for the supply of 400 howitzers.

The government’s claim that there were no intermediaries collapsed when the media published documents relating to transfer of funds by the company to several unknown entities, and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had to quit.

Bofors representative Win Chadha, the Hinduja brothers with business interests in India and abroad, and Quattrocchi, a family friend of Rajiv Gandhi, were said to be among the beneficiaries of the deal.

The CBI caught up with Quattrocchi twice - in Malaysia and Argentina - but could not get him to India.

Inability to apprehend foreign offenders is a glaring weakness of the Indian judicial process.

Apart from Quattrocchi and Martin Ardbo, both of whom figured in the Bofors case, former Union Carbon Company chief Warren Anderson, accused in the Bhopal gas tragedy case, and Jean Claude Pingat of the Canadian SNC-Lavalin Group, wanted in the Lavalin case in which Communist Party of India-Marxist state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan is also an accused, are among the foreigners who have dodged legal proceedings.

In 2004, nearly 13 years after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, the Delhi high court quashed the charges against him in the Bofors case.

So far, the government has spent Rs 2.5 billion on the investigation of this case.

“How long can we allow the hard-earned money of the aam aadmi (common man) to be used for this case?” asked Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vinod Yadav while allowing the CBI to end the Quattrocchi chase.

The Edamalayar case had dragged on for 25 years before the Supreme Court last month awarded a year’s rigorous imprisonment to former Kerala minister R. Balakrishna Pillai and two others.

The palmolein case in which the ousted Chief Vigilance Commissioner is an accused has been around for 20 years without going beyond preliminary hearing.

The Lavalin affair, dating back to 1998, is still in the investigation stage.

Against the background of inordinate delays, a decision in the case of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner within six months of Thomas’s assumption of office is a refreshing change.

However, questions about the quality of justice remain.

The Supreme Court quashed Thomas’s appointment, as he is accused No. 8 in criminal case CC 6 of 2003.

The case was registered 12 years after the palmolein deal took place but the trial could not be continued during the past four years as the apex court had stayed the proceedings on a plea by the main accused, former chief minister K. Karunakaran.

The stay was vacated two months ago after Karunakaran died at the ripe old age of 93.

The pending case did not prevent Thomas from moving up the ladder and becoming chief secretary under Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, who had been pursuing the case since he was Leader of the Opposition.

This strengthens the suspicion that his was a case of collateral damage in the war between two political potentates.

If the criminal justice system was reasonably fast the case might have been disposed of years ago and Thomas would have ceased to be accused no. 8.

He might have been found guilty and sent to jail or found not guilty and cleared of all charges.

In the latter case, there would have been no bar to his becoming the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.

Was this then a case where justice was done? Or was this a case where justice was delayed, and consequently denied?

As these lines are written, the “law” is waiting helplessly outside the home of former Kerala State Electricity Board chairman S. Ramabhadran Nair, who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with Balakrishna Pillai.

Aged 81, he is suffering from Alzheimer’s, and does not know he has been convicted.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, March 7, 2011.

03 March, 2011

Centre criticized for granting clearance to POSCO project

The following is a statement issued by a group of concerned citizens:

We the undersigned condemn the brazenly illegal and unjust clearance granted by the Environment Ministry to the POSCO project in Orissa. The actions of this Ministry and the government of India with respect to this project show total disregard for the basic norms of law, democracy and environmental protection. This project will destroy the livelihoods of more than 20,000 people and threaten the homes and lives of tens of thousands more. In particular:

• This project is repeatedly described as one of "strategic importance." Strategic importance for whom? Studies have shown that the project will destroy at least twice as many livelihoods as the jobs it will create. They have also shown that the tax revenues projected are the stuff of fantasy. Both the employment and tax projections come from studies paid for by POSCO. This project will benefit no one except the company in question and enable huge amounts of smuggling through the proposed private port. Is this what our government calls "development"?

• The plant and port site is the home of more than 4,000 families, who cultivate betel vines and other cash crops on the land in question and also depend on the forests of the area for forest produce and other livelihood activities. This is a thriving agricultural economy in which even a tenth of an acre is enough to sustain entire families. There is a sizable community that is dependent on pisciculture and the proposed port will destroy the lives and livelihoods of the fisherfolks. All of this is to be destroyed permanently to make way for a company's super profits.

• As established conclusively from government records by the Ministry's own POSCO Enquiry Committee, these people have rights to this land under the Forest Rights Act of 2006. As such the forest land in question cannot be taken for the project except if their rights are finally recognised and their consent taken.

• Three separate official bodies - two enquiry committees and the Ministry's own statutory Forest Advisory Committee -- agreed that the Orissa government has not implemented the Act and lied about the eligibility of the people of the area. All three also agreed that the forest clearance given to the project must be withdrawn. Yet now the Ministry says the project can go ahead if the Orissa government gives it a "categorical assurance" that the people of the area are not eligible under the Act. Is this the manner in which the UPA government intends to implement its "landmark legislation"? By telling officials caught lying that all they need to do is "categorically" repeat their lies?

• In the words of the POSCO Enquiry Committee, the project risks "potentially disastrous impacts" not only on the immediate area but on the entire surrounding district, which have “not even been assessed, leave alone planned for." This includes the potential catastrophe in case of a cyclone as well as the enormous water usage of the plant, which will harm agriculture in the entire surrounding area. In the clearance we find these impacts dealt with in a completely farcical manner. On water, the covering letter says the company should "voluntarily sacrifice" water in case of a shortage – but even this ludicrous "condition" is not mentioned in the clearance itself. On most other aspects, the clearance requires the company to simply “ensure” that the possible impact will not happen. Without assessing what that impact is, without deciding on whether it can in fact be dealt with or not, the Ministry has transferred its entire regulatory responsibility to the company. If this is the kind of "conditions" that are going to be imposed, why do we have an environment clearance process at all? Is this how the Ministry intends to fulfil its responsibilities?

• The POSCO project is not confined to the plant and the port now cleared; the government has committed to providing POSCO with mammoth captive iron ore mines, the lease to which has been struck down by the Orissa High Court. This robbery of natural resources is guaranteed to generate massive profits for POSCO while destroying huge areas and displacing even more people including one of the most traditional tribal communities, the Paudi Bhunyan who have been inhabiting the Khandadhar mountains since time unknown. If the plant and the port are allowed to come up without the mine, POSCO will resort to blackmail, threatening that its activities will not be“viable” if it is not granted a mining lease and the requisite environmental and forest clearances instantly as per its desire. Since the viability of corporate super profits is clearly more important to this government than either law or people's rights, we can imagine the consequences.

Therefore we condemn this decision and, in accordance with the findings of multiple enquiry committees, call for the immediate withdrawal of this clearance and a criminal investigation into the actions of officials involved and their brazen violations of law. We join the people of the area in opposing this project and support their democratic struggle to ensure that it does not go ahead.

Signed by


Ashok Agrawal, Lawyer, Supreme Court, Delhi
Ashok Choudhary, National Forum of Forest people and Forest Workers, India
Manoranjan Mohanty, Council for Social Development, New Delhi
Madhuresh Kumar, National Alliance of Peoples’ Movements, India
Surya Shankar Dash, Independent Filmmaker, Bhubaneswar
Madhumita Dutta, Corporate Accountability Desk, The Other Media, Chennai
Nityanand Jayaraman, Independent Journalist, Chennai
Anil Tharayath Varghese, Programme for Social Action, New Delhi
Manju Gardia, Nawa Chhattisgarh Mahila Sangathan, Pithora, Chhattisgarh
Mamta Kujur, Adivasi Mahila Mahasangh, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
Bipin Chandr Chaturvedi, Update Collective, New Delhi
Joe Athialy, Delhi Solidarity Group
Prafulla Samntara, President, Lok Shakti Abhijan & Convenor, NAPM India
Ranjana Padhi, Pune
Sanjiv Pandita, Director, Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC) , Hong Kong
Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group, Bangalore
Vijayan MJ, Delhi Forum
Kanchi Kohli of Kalpavriksh, New Delhi
Shankar Gopalakrishnan, Campaign for Survival and Dignity, New Delhi

For more details, please contact,
Bipin Chandra Chaturvedi
New Delhi
Delhi Forum: +91 11 26680883/11 26680914

01 March, 2011

FORUM-Asia defends Teesta Setalvad's right to contact UN body

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) has described the Supreme Court order barring Teesta Setalvad of the Citizens for Justice and Peace from communicating to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)as a clear case of reprisal against a woman human rights defender who cooperated with a UN agency.

In a communication, Forum=Asia refers to the Supreme Court order asking Ms. Setalvad to stop communicating to the UN OHCHR regarding the investigation of the Gulbarg Society massacre, in which 69 people were killed, and says:

On 5 October 2010, Ms. Setalvad wrote a letter to Mr. R. K. Raghavan, the Chairman of the SIT, regarding the lack of protection for Mr. S. M. Vora, a senior advocate appearing for eyewitnesses and survivors of the massacre. She informed him that Mr. Vora has received threatening phone calls. The copy of this letter was sent to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

On 7 October 2010, Ms. Setalvad wrote another letter to Mr. Raghavan regarding the lack of protection for herself since she has also been facing false allegations filed by a Mr. Rais Khan Pathan, a former employee of the Citizens for Justice and Peace. Mr. Pathan and the SIT alleged that she had tutored several witnesses to give false testimony before the court. She furnished a copy of this letter too to the UN OHCHR.

An amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court by Mr. Harish Salve On 17 February 2011 drew its attention to Ms. Setalvad’s practice of furnishing the OHCHR copies of her letters. The Court asked her to explain this. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, counsel of Ms. Setalvad, said she had the right to do so since the OHCHR can keep information on all matters pertaining to human rights from all over the world.

On 3 March 2011, the Court issued the written order saying Ms. Setalvad should not send any communication anymore to the OHCHR in Geneva regarding information on the proceedings surrounding the investigation of the massacre.

FORUM-ASIA believes Ms. Setalvad has every right to communicate with any UN agency including OHCHR. Article 5(c) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, at the national and international level; to communicate with non-governmental or inter-governmental organizations”.

FORUM-Asia asks human rights organizations to write letters to Chief Justice of India S. H. Kapadia (supremecourt@nic.in ) and the National Human Rights Commission of India (covdnhrc@nic.in, ionhrc@nic.in and hrd-nhrc@nic.in) voicing their deep concern over the Supreme Court order and requesting them to recommend the court to drop the order and allow Ms. Setalvad to communicate with OHCHR.

For more information, please contact the Human Rights Defenders Department of FORUM-ASIA at hrd@forum-asia.org.

28 February, 2011

Crucial election for Left

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

West Bengal and Kerala, strongholds of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, are among four Indian states going to the polls shortly. For the Left movement, the outcome of the assembly elections in these states is crucial.

In West Bengal, the Left Front, headed by the CPI-M, has been in office continuously since 1977. The severe setbacks the party suffered in last year’s municipal elections and the previous year’s Lok Sabha elections have damaged its winning record.

The Left’s main challenger in West Bengal is the All India Trinamool Congress, founded by Mamata Banerjee after quitting the Congress in 1997 saying it was soft on the CPI-M. It quickly became the main opposition.

In 2004 the Trinamool Congress aligned itself with the Bharatiya Janata Party in the Lok Sabha poll and became a partner in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government. Now it is a partner of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government. Last week Mamata Banerjee, as Railway Minister, offered a bouquet of projects to West Bengal to woo the voters.

The Congress, which has had a troubled relationship with the volatile Mamata Banerjee, has reconciled itself to being a junior partner of the Trinamool Congress.

The CPI-M is facing the electorate with a severe handicap as the bitterness caused by its high-handed action in Nandigram and Singur against those opposing forcible acquisition of land for industrial projects has not subsided. Mamata Banerjee personally led the agitation in both places.

Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya lacks the charisma of Jyoti Basu, whom he had succeeded a decade ago, and the LF partners who unquestioningly accepted the CPI-M’s dictates earlier are now remonstrating.

The CPI-M national leadership is hoping for gains in Kerala to compensate for likely losses in West Bengal.

In the last three decades, Kerala has voted the Left Democratic Front, led by the CPI-M, and the United Democratic Front, led by the Congress, to power in alternate elections. The LDF, which will have to make way for the UDF this year if the trend continues, is making a bold bid to break the jinx and win a second successive term.

The poll season began, as usual, with ministers laying foundation stones for projects and the parties organising marches to enthuse the cadres. Away from public gaze, other strategies were also taking shape.

An estranged relative of Muslim League leader and former UDF minister PK Kunhalikutty, whose name had cropped up in a sex scandal in the 1990s, and a television channel spilt into the public domain information on how he had got away without even figuring as an accused in the case. The government promptly asked the police to investigate the matter.

It also sought the Vigilance court’s nod for further investigation in the palmolein case which Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan had been pursuing from the time he was Leader of the Opposition. The prime accused in the case, former Chief Minister K Karunakaran, died recently. The fresh probe is aimed at bringing Leader of the Opposition Oommen Chandy into the net.

The CPI-M had demoted Achuthanandan from the Politburo in 2009 as a disciplinary measure. But his image as a crusader against corruption has brightened with the Supreme Court awarding a year’s rigorous imprisonment to Kerala Congress (B) leader and former UDF minister R Balakrishna Pillai in another case which too he had been pursuing independently of the government. However, it is not clear whether the party is ready to restore his Politburo membership and give him another term as chief minister.

Responding to the revival of the old cases against its leaders, the UDF also tried to breathe new life into some old allegations. Its primary target now is Achuthanandan’s son, VA Arunkumar, not any of the ministers against whom it had previously levelled charges.

The re-floated scandals are unlikely to sway the fronts’ traditional supporters whose loyalties are primordial. Will they persuade the non-partisan voters whose swing from one front to the other leads to a change of government? The answer to this question must wait.

Although the CPI-M does not figure in power play outside Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura, its decline has implications for the nation as a whole. It will further reduce the influence of the Left which has raised its voice against the evils of globalisation even though it has generally comprised with them where it is in power. --Gulf Today, February 28, 2011.

21 February, 2011

Curbs on poll spending

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Personal greed is not the only factor responsible for the spiralling growth of corruption in India. The high cost of electioneering also contributes to it. The efforts by the government and the Election Commission to keep poll expenses under check are, therefore, timely. However, there is room to doubt if any new measure will yield better results than earlier ones.

When the last elections to the 543-member Lok Sabha were held, the electorate exceeded 670 million, which meant that each candidate had to reach out to an average of 1.23 million voters. With the population rising and the number of constituencies remaining constant, the size of the electorate grows from poll to poll.

Some of the measures taken to limit the role of money power in elections actually did more harm than good. As contributions by the rich were suspect, political donations by companies were banned by law. This led to the corporate sector generating black money and channelling it to the parties.

The law has since been changed. Companies can now make donations but the parties continue to depend upon black money. Those who wield power have found ways to generate money, as the scams under investigation show.

There is a ceiling on the expenditure a candidate can incur. It is no secret that many exceed the limit set by law, which is Rs2.5 million for a Lok Sabha candidate and Rs1 million for an Assembly candidate.

There is no ceiling on the expenditure a party can incur. However, recognised parties are required to file statements stating how much money they raised and spent. The statements they give, like those that individual candidates provide, do not generally reveal the true state of affairs.

Going by the returns filed after the 2009 Lok Sabha poll, the Congress, which contested 389 seats, spent Rs3.80 billion but the Bharatiya Janata Party, which contested 383 seats, spent only Rs1.63 billion. While the Communist Party of India-Marxist, which contested 82 seats nationally, put its expenditure at Rs11.47 million, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which fielded 22 candidates, all in Tamil Nadu, admitted to an expenditure of Rs77.68 million.

With money power and muscle power emerging as crucial factors in elections, moneybags and musclemen on whom parties relied for victory, started stepping out and seeking seats for themselves either on party tickets or as independents. The present Lok Sabha has about 70 billionaires and about150 persons who have been involved in criminal cases.

The Election Commission has asked the government to raise the ceiling on poll expenses to Rs4 million in the case of Lok Sabha candidates and Rs1.6 million in the case of Assembly candidates. It is also reportedly considering a proposal to prohibit all forms of contact with the electorate, including door-to-door canvassing, during a 48-hour period before the conclusion of polling, in order to prevent parties and candidates from offering inducements in cash or kind to influence voting.

Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi has said the Commission is examining the possibility of checking poll-day advertisements in the print media. During the last Assembly elections in Maharashtra, some newspapers in the state had carried paid reports eulogising candidates.

A committee on electoral reforms is currently holding consultations at various levels on measures to strengthen the electoral system. After the process is completed, the Centre is expected to bring forward a bill to amend the electoral laws in consultation with the Election Commission.

Law Minister Veerappa Moily has hinted that the proposals under the government’s consideration go beyond the issue of election expenses. The possibility of barring persons involved in criminal proceedings from contesting elections and requiring all contesting parties to disclose their assets and liabilities is also being examined.

In recent years the Election Commission has made arrangements to monitor poll expenses on a continuing basis during the campaign phase. However, parties and candidates have been able to keep themselves out of the arms of the law.

Experience shows that tightening of controls is not enough. There has to be strict enforcement. The crux of the problem is the low level of honesty in public life. Two years ago, official complicity in the enrolment of a large number of fake voters in Kerala came to light. A case was registered againsr the erring officials but the state government has shown little interest in their prosecution.

14 February, 2011

Tracking corruption at top

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

There are hopeful developments on the anti-corruption front. Prodded by the Supreme Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is pursuing cases against political leaders with some vigour. For the time, a former state minister faces the possibility of having to spend a year in jail.

Corruption of different kinds afflicts traditional and modern societies. In India, where the old and the new coexist, both kinds of corruption exist.

The corruption stories making big headlines in the media these days reveal graft of the kind that is familiar in the modern societies. They involve siphoning off of resources to corporate entities.

Corruption of this kind has grown alarmingly since India, under prime minister PV Narasimha Rao, took to the path of economic liberalisation in 1991. Some captains of Indian industry who figure in the Forbes list of the rich are beneficiaries of this trend.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, the constitutional authority mandated to look into government spending, reported last year that the manner in which the government allocated 2G spectrum to mobile companies had resulted in a loss of Rs1,760 billion. He is now examining a deal between the Indian Space Research Organisation’s commercial subsidiary and a private company floated by a former ISRO official, which, according to media reports, has inflicted an even greater loss. The deal gives the private operator free access to costly S-band spectrum.

At government establishments, including hospitals and police stations, citizens often encounter corruption of another kind. This involves having to pay bribes to get services which they are entitled to get free of cost. This kind of corruption hurts the poor directly and immediately. Transparency International’s India chapter, which studied the working of 11 government services, including the police, three years ago, estimated that people living below the poverty line paid over Rs9 billion annually as bribes to get basic need-based services.

Throughout the country the police was thought to be the most corrupt department and primary school education the least corrupt, it said.

The burden of corruption at higher levels also falls mainly on ordinary folks since manufacturers and distributors routinely transfer their costs to the consumers. However, people do not realise that the bribe component is also worked into the prices they pay. When the government bestows concessions on companies, normally they do not pass the benefit on to the consumer.

Unlike the other major countries of Asia like China, Japan and South Korea, India has a poor record in tracking down corruption at the top. Narasimha Rao, who was tried after he laid down office, was found not guilty. A Supreme Court judge who was impeached got away as members of parliament, voting according to party dictates, gave a majority verdict in his favour.

Against this background, the ongoing CBI investigations hold out some hope of action. Former Central minister A Raja and senior officials who worked with him were arrested recently in connection with the 2G scam. The net is closing in on Suresh Kalmadi, who was chief organiser of the Commonwealth Games held in New Delhi, and his close associates.

Raja is a leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which is Tamil Nadu’s ruling party and a constituent of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance which wields power at the Centre. Kalmadi is a leader of the Congress party.

The CBI, the premier investigative agency of the country, is directly under the prime minister. Opposition parties have alleged that it is often guided by political considerations. The Supreme Court’s monitoring of highly sensitive cases has limited the scope for political interference in the investigation.

Last week, the apex court awarded a year’s rigorous imprisonment to Kerala Congress (B) leader R Balakrishna Pillai in a case relating to the period when he was the state’s power minister. He is the first minister in the country to be given a jail term by the highest court of the land. His party is a constituent of the Congress-led United Democratic Front, which is now in the opposition.

Sukh Ram, a former Union Communication Minister, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on corruption charges by the trial court two years ago. The last word in that case is still a long way off. His appeal is now before the high court. If he loses there, he can go to the Supreme Court. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, February 14, 2011,

13 February, 2011

Police action against peaceful protesters in Mumbai

Students and human rights activists holding peaceful protests in Mumbai against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s denial of bail to Dr. Binayak Sen were dragged to police stations.

In a statement the Committee for the Release of Binayak Sen, Mumbai, unequivocally condemned the brutal and undemocratic police action against the demonstration at Churchgate and sit-in at The Oval Maidan, Churchgate.

The Committee said:

The demonstration was against the manifestly unjust decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court prolonging the incarceration of Dr. Binayak Sen, an internationally renowned physician, who is facing the persecution by the state because he spoke up for the oppressed and Adivasis.

Daniel Mazgaonkar, a septuagenarian Gandhian activist, along with others, mostly college professors and students, were jostled and dragged away to the Azad Maidan police station.

Kamayani Bali Mahabal, a lawyer and human rights activist, was brutally assaulted by the police and dragged to the Colaba police station, along with student bystanders who protested against such high-handedness. Her crime: standing at Kala Ghoda silently with a poster proclaiming peace and justice!

If, in a democracy, the law and its guardians act with such impunity in throttling every voice of public dissent, then democracy and civil liberties and human rights are in grave peril.

11 February, 2011

Sedition: I plead guilty

Below is the text of a petition drafted by Arvind Kejriwal. Those who endorse its contents can sign it online. The petition will be submitted to all the persons to whom it is addressed and also possibly submitted in the court as an affidavit. Kindly note that, even though very small, there is a chance that some kind of action may be initiated by Government against the signatories but then the whole purpose of the petition is to provoke the Government to do so and challenge this sedition law.


To:

Dr. Manmohan Singh
The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India
South Block, Raisina Hill
New Delhi
India - 110 101
Telephone: 91-11-23012312
Fax: 91-11-23019545 / 91-11-23016857


Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil
The Hon'ble President of India
Rashtrapati Bhavan
New Delhi
India - 110 004
Telephone : 91-11-23015321
Fax : 91-11-23017290 / 91-11-23017824


Dr. Raman Singh
The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh
Room No. 303
Mantralaya
D.K.S. Bhavan
Raipur,
India - 492 001
Fax: +91 771 2221206


The judgement in Binayak Sen case has raised several issues which are extremely critical for Indian democracy and important for every
Indian.

I am not writing this to defend Binayak Sen. I am sure that he willfinally be exonerated as the case rests on weak conjectures rather than on legally admissible evidence.

I am writing this because I am deeply concerned that the laws under which he has been convicted can be used against any one of us; and at anytime, pretty much anyone could be convicted and sent behind bars, if we become too inconvenient for our politicians, bureaucrats and industrialists.

After this judgment, I actually read all the sections under which Binayak Sen has been convicted. He has been convicted of "sedition". Section 124A of IPC defines "sedition" as

124A. Sedition - Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts
to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards, the government established by law in India,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be
added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which
fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1 - The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and
all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2 - Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of
the government with a view to obtain their alterations by lawful
means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3 - Comments expressing disapprobation of the
administrative or other action of the government without exciting or
attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constitute an offence under this section.

Therefore, sedition is defined as an act which causes contempt or hatred or disaffection against the "government" - not against the "country" or the "constitution".

Most of us working against corruption and injustice in and by various governments could be easily prosecuted and successfully convicted under the above section because we often criticize various governments in the strongest imaginable terms. It's a fine line and completely open to interpretation as to what constitutes mere criticism and what amounts to "hatred". Going strictly by the language of this section of the law, one can easily argue that all our opposition parties no matter which party might be in power very often do everything possible to spread "disaffection" against the government in power. Therefore, all opposition leaders at some point or the other have been guilty of
"sedition".

While this section of the law can be fairly easily misused to suppress genuine dissent and democratic freedoms, it does not treat grave offences, which have the potential of destabilizing Indian economy, as "sedition". For example, take the case of the recent 2G scam which is believed to have caused a mind-boggling loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crores to our country. This is almost 25% of annual Gross Tax Receipts of
Government of India. Therefore, the individuals concerned almost threatened the economic sovereignty of India. Interestingly, this is not sedition. This is "corruption", which invites the same punishment as would be awarded to a Railway Ticket Inspector who takes Rs 1000 bribe to give a railway ticket. How ridiculous is that?

IPC was written in 1860 by the British! If you think back to the British times these laws made perfect sense as it suited their basic objectives. The intended purpose of these laws was to ensure that the British rulers could economically plunder India while ensuring that no native of India stood in the way of achieving these goals. Anyone who resisted these efforts was automatically a traitor in the eyes of the
British rulers and their activities were declared as "sedition".

Section 120B of IPC is another section under which Binayak Sen has been convicted. This Section 120B refers of criminal conspiracy. If anyone conspires in a crime, he is liable for the same punishment as is the person committing the original crime.

The Nira Radia tapes show how many of the journalists, several businessmen and a number of politicians were collectively involved in lobbying to plant their favoured person as the minister who will serve their vested interest, thus making a mockery of our democratic set up and threatening India's political and economic stability. The tapes indicate that our cabinet positions are effectively available for sale! Isn't this a fundamental threat to our constitution?

All these individuals are certainly guilty of criminal conspiracy under section 120B read with the Prevention of Corruption Act and should be tried as such, even under the present laws.

In the case of the 2G scam, wasn't the Prime Minister of India fully aware of the corrupt practices of the Telecom Minister in his cabinet? If so, wasn't it his constitutional duty to intervene? Did he turn a blind eye? Did he try to protect the Minister's misdeeds? Why did he stall on the request of Dr Subramaniam Swamy for more than eleven months seeking permission to prosecute the Telecom Minister? Why
didn't the CBI, which operates directly under the Prime Minister, investigate the case for almost a year after registering the FIR despite strong displeasure expressed by the Supreme Court on several occasions? Why did the CBI start moving only when the Court decided to monitor the CBI's investigations? Shouldn't such abetment and protection by the Prime Minister amount to sedition? Unfortunately,
the British laws under which independent India functions do not treat such serious charges as sedition.

At a minimum, the PM is guilty of criminal conspiracy under section 120B read with the Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal breach of trust and should be tried as such even under the present laws.

The reality is that the role of none of the above players would even be honestly investigated because the CBI, which is the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting them, works directly under the command of the accused. Even if they were tried and convicted, they would be guilty of "corruption", which carries a punishment of six months to a maximum of seven years.

The media has been replete with stories of how Chief Ministers in power - Dr. Raman Singh, Yedyurappa, and Naveen Patnaik, to name a few - are responsible for the sale of minerals of this country at throwaway prices. They are apparently giving licenses for mining, not because these minerals are needed for India, but for exporting most of these minerals. On one hand, many countries have put restrictions on export of their minerals to preserve them for their own future needs, our politicians are facilitating exports of our minerals at throwaway prices. For instance, the state gets a royalty and cess of Rs 64 per ton of bauxite mined, cost of mining is roughly Rs 160 per ton and the mining company sells it in international market at more than Rs 1000 per ton. Likewise, cost of mining iron ore is Rs 300, the state has been getting a royalty of Rs 27 per ton of ore and the companies sell it in international market at more than Rs 5000 per ton. The economics of mining of almost all minerals is as absurd to say the least. Not just that, mining companies, with full knowledge of the government agencies, mine much more illegally than they are permitted. Illegal
mining is so rampant that it is feared that some of our mines would be completely depleted within the next few years. Royalty rates are fixed by the central government. Licenses and permissions are given together by both the central and the state governments. Sadly, even inter-party antagonism does not stand in the way when it comes to corruption at the expense our natural resources. Complete bonhomie is evident between the BJP in the states and the Congress at the centre in these
corrupt dealings.

Aren't all these honourable Chief Ministers, who are acting in collusion with the various ministries of the Central Government, guilty of sedition/ criminal conspiracy? They are doing precisely what their British predecessors did. Loot this country and take the wealth out of the country. Since we work under the same British laws, their loot is not a serious crime but anyone who dares to "hate" their
activities or resist them and incite "contempt" or "disaffection" against such open loot of the country is "sedition". How can one call himself an Indian and not "hate" such practices?

We fought against British not because of the colour of their skin but also because of the exploitative character of their government. Unfortunately, the character of the present governments has become far more exploitative.

The judgement in the Binayak Sen case clearly raises a larger issue about our legal system and its interpretations - what exactly is tantamount to a serious crime under the Indian law? Under our present legal system, economic plundering of our precious national resources and invaluable revenue streams is a petty offence called "corruption". But anyone who resists that or "hates" such practices is guilty of "sedition". Surely, while this makes no sense whatsoever.

The 2G scam, the Nira Radia tapes, and the mining scandal are just three examples from very recent times that highlight the fallacies surrounding our legal systems and the desperate need for complete reform.

These laws are no longer suited to modern-day India. It protects those in power and gives them the freedom to use these laws against innocent people when it suits their convenience or to stifle dissent when so desired. In fact, it helps those in power to continue the economic plunder of the country, as was done by the British, under the guise of "democracy". They need such complete overhauls that it would not be an
exaggeration if I say that we need to overthrow them and replace them with systems which are far more democratic and in tune with the aspirations of the people of an independent India.

While the Binayak Sen's case has hit the headlines, there are many lesser known people, some of whom are tribals, who have been unfortunately languishing in jails due to these laws. It is learnt that many of them are in jails for several years without any trial. Some of them have not been produced in courts even once.

We demand complete overhaul of this legal system. Plunder of economic and natural resources of India should be declared as "sedition". Having disaffection against such loot and human rights abuses should be termed as patriotism rather than sedition. And all the players mentioned above who have either looted the country or have abetted the same should be tried for sedition, criminal conspiracy and criminal
breach of trust.

I wish to declare that I have strong "disaffection" for the government of India, the government of Chhattisgarh and all other governments which indulge in corruption, human rights abuses and inflict injustices upon its people. I have "contempt" for many of their policies. I "hate" many of the systems prevalent in these governments.
I call upon the people of India to likewise have "disaffection" against these governments. I will do everything at my command and with all the energy, strength and resources at my disposal to resist such unjust and deprecatory systems. I "hate" this system and am doing everything to spread "hatred" against this system amongst public.

But I love my country - India. I love the natives of my country - my fellow Indians. In my own humble ways, I have been working towards fighting injustices and for the welfare of my countrymen. But I will continue to have strong "disaffection" against successive Indian Governments as long as they persist with their unjust and corrupt
practices.

Under section 124A of IPC, I am guilty of "sedition" and I plead guilty of the same. Jai Hind!


TO SIGN ONLINE PETITION kindly visit http://www.petitiononline.com/sen2010/petition.html

Mahasweta Devi proposes sit-in at Raipur jail for Binayak Sen's release

Demanding unconditional release of Binayak Sen, noted social activist and litterateur Mahasweta Devi has called for a sit-in demonstration in front of the Raipur Central jail, where the physician has been lodged following a life sentence allegedly for having collaboration with Maoists.

''I would suggest that a team goes to Raipur and stages a sit-in in front of the jail. I shall participate in it,'' she said at a press conference in Kolkata, according to a UNI report.

''The time demands that the protests raised across the country against Sen's unjust conviction spread further among the people,'' she said.

The Magsaysay award winner alleged that Sen was not given any scope to defend himself in the court and the charges levelled against him did not call for life imprisonment.

She said Sen, who was engaged in social activism in Chhatisgarh, had devoted himself to the service of the poor poeple without any self interest.

''But this was considered by the administration as the greatest punishable offence,'' she said.

The programme was organized by Bandi Mukti Committee (Committee with the demand for release of political detenus), a human rights platform with several luminaries drawn from different fields.

Among other speakers, noted poet Joy Goswami said Sen's conviction came to the people of the country as nothing but a 'gross unjust' act of the administration.

Prof Ashokendu Sengupta said the conviction was a part of the countrywide violation of democratic and human rights.

09 February, 2011

Nobel laureates express dismay over unjust sentencing of Dr Binayak Sen

Following the lead of Prof. Amartya Sen, India's only living Nobel laureate, an informal group of 40 other Nobel laureates from twelve different countries has raised their powerful voices on behalf Dr. Binayak Sen whom they refer to as "an exceptional, courageous and selfless colleague, dedicated to helping those in India who are least able to help themselves".

The following is the statement issued by them:


We, the 38* undersigned Nobel Laureates, respectfully express our astonishment and dismay at the unjust life sentence handed down last month in India to a fellow scientist and human rights advocate, 61-year-old Dr. Binayak Sen.

We note that, when Dr. Sen was on trial in 2008 and many of us appealed for his release on bail, a year later the Supreme Court of India concurred with our opinion and ordered his immediate release. Several months after voicing our concern about Dr. Sen’s detention, one of us traveled to Chhattisgarh; met government officials; consulted Dr. Sen’s family, lawyers, and colleagues; visited his remote clinic to learn more about his selfless work with the Adivasis; and, after a few days and many hours spent waiting in the Raipur prison yard, finally met with Dr. Sen himself in the presence of the prison warden.

We have seen that Dr. Sen is an exceptional, courageous, and selfless colleague, dedicated to helping those in India who are least able to help themselves. Yet his recompense has been two years in prison under difficult conditions, a blatantly unfair trial lasting two years in the so-called “Fast Track” Sessions Court, an unjust conviction of sedition and conspiracy, and condemnation to life imprisonment.

We earnestly hope that our renewed appeal is heard. We know that there are leaders in India who have the power, humanity, patriotism, and decency to speak out against this injustice. We entreat those leaders to act now, to urge Dr. Sen’s immediate release on bail, and insist that this time his appeal is heard without delay under the highest standards of Indian law.

Surely, those who would see the largest democracy in the world survive and thrive can do no less at this crucial time for both Dr. Sen and for the future of justice in India.

Respectfully,

Peter Agre, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2003

Kenneth J. Arrow, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1972

Richard Axel, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2004

David Baltimore, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1975

Martin Chalfie, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2008

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1997

Robert Curl, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996

Johann Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1988

Richard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1991

Edmond H. Fischer, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1992

Walter Gilbert, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1980

Roy J. Glauber, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2005

Paul Greengard, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2000

David J. Gross, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004

Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1977

Dudley Herschbach, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986

Antony Hewish, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1974

H. Robert Horvitz, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2002

François Jacob, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1965

Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 2002

Eric R. Kandel, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2000

Lawrence R. Klein, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1980

Roger D. Kornberg, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2006

Sir Harold W. Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996

Finn E. Kydland, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 2004

Yuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986

Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1986

Roderick MacKinnon, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2003

Sir James Mirrlees, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1996

Joseph E. Murray, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1990

Douglas D. Osheroff, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1996

John C. Polanyi, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986

V. Ramakrishnan, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2009

Sir Richard Roberts, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1993

Jens C. Skou, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1998

Jack Steinberger, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1988

Sir John Sulston, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2002

Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1964

Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1985

Torsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1981


*After this appeal was released two more Nobel Laureates requested to sign it, bringing the total number of signatories to 40 as of 18h EST on Tuesday, February 8. Their names are included above.

07 February, 2011

Counting the numbers

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

The massive operation of counting the people of India enters the final phase this week when 2.7 million trained personnel will spread across the country to enumerate all those whom they can find. Census operations have been a regular decennial exercise since late 19th century. Rising population has made every census a bigger undertaking than the previous one.

China and India are the only countries with populations in excess of one billion. China crossed the one billion mark in 1980. India followed 19 years later. Currently China’s population is estimated at more than 1.3 billion and India’s at close to 1.2 billion. Demographers say there is little possibility of any other country entering the Billion Club.-- ulGf Today, Sharjah, February 7, 2011.

A few years ago the UN Population Division estimated that by 2016 India will have a population of 1.22 billion, which will be larger than the combined population of the countries of Europe including Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and the United States.

It also said that by 2045 India, with a population of 1.501 billion, will replace China, with a population of 1.496 billion, as the most populous country.

The British Indian authorities scheduled the first census in the subcontinent for 1871 but it materialised only in the following year. Since 1881 census operations have taken place every 10 years.

Departing from the practice at home, the British included in the Indian census data on race, religion and caste presumably to fine-tune their divide-and-rule policy. Early in the 20th century, one U.N. Mukherji of Kolkata, citing census figures, claimed Hindus would be swallowed up by others in about 420 years. The fear that he kindled still animates Hindu communalism.

The census data helped the socially backward sections to understand their plight and demand justice. By the 1930s, progressive princely states like Kolhapur, Mysore, Travancore and Baroda and British-ruled Madras Presidency introduced reservation in the services and in educational institutions for them.

In 1941, the colonial administration, under the influence of the dominant castes already well entrenched in the bureaucracy, decided to stop collection of caste data. However, at the instance of an organisation of the Maithili Brahmins of Bihar, it gathered data about that community that year for a small fee.

The Constitution, as amended in 1951, empowers the government to make special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. Absence of reliable caste data has hindered identification of groups which need such provisions. Conceding demands by some political parties and social organisations, the government has agreed to gather caste data this year. This will be done separately between June and September, after the census operations are completed.

Work on the 2011 census began on April 1 last year. By September, the enumerators completed listing of houses in all but some villages under the control of Maoist rebels. An attempt will be made soon to go into those villages too.

This time, besides counting all people in the territory of India and classifying them on the basis of gender, religion, occupation and education, the enumerators will gather data on a number of other subjects. These will include personal particulars like nationality and whether they have bank accounts and cell phones and whether they use the Internet.

On the basis of the data the government will prepare a National Population Register which will contain photographs and fingerprints of all persons. It will be sent to the Unique Identification Authority of India which has been authorised to generate a Unique Identity (UID) for each resident of India who has completed 18 years and issue a smart card.

The UID project, estimated to cost about Rs1,500 billion, has been entrusted to an independent authority headed by information technology expert Nandan Nilekani.

The government claims the data bank will help draw up focussed development plans. However, a section of civil society views it as an intrusion into civil liberties and has mounted a campaign against it.

“Let us not be naïve,” Jean Drèze, development economist with special interest in issues like hunger, rural employment and gender inequality, said recently. “This is not a social policy initiative. It is a national security project.”

Critics point out that India, which has no reliable data protection law, is not equipped to deal with problems like trading and selling of information which other countries with national identification systems have faced.

31 January, 2011

Bolstering civil society

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

India has a comprehensive and progressive legal framework which guarantees human rights and fundamental freedoms but there are widespread deficiencies in implementation, Margaret Sekaggya, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, said on the conclusion of an 11-day visit to the country earlier this month.

The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate flows from the UN General Assembly’s 1998 declaration on human rights defenders, was on a fact-finding visit. She interacted with officials in New Delhi and in the states of Orissa, West Bengal, Assam, Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir and received representations from several human rights organisations.

“Throughout my mission,” Ms Sekaggya said, “I heard numerous testimonies about male and female human rights defenders and their families who have been killed, tortured, ill-treated, disappeared, threatened, arbitrarily arrested and detained, falsely charged, under surveillance, forcibly displaced, or their offices raided and files stolen, because of their legitimate work in upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

She noted that the violations were generally attributed to law enforcement authorities. However, there were also cases in which they colluded with armed groups.

She saw all this as evidence of shrinking of the space for civil society. She observed that the working of the judiciary, the primary avenue for legal redress, was hampered by backlog and delays in the handling of cases of human rights violations.

Pending the formulation of detailed proposals after analysing the material she had received, Ms Sekaggya made a few preliminary recommendations before leaving the country. As a first step, she asked the central and state administrations to publicly acknowledge the importance and legitimacy of those who are working individually or in association with others to realise, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.

While acknowledging that India faces security challenges, Ms Sekaggya voiced deep concern over the arbitrary application of security laws, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states, which affected the work of human rights defenders. She also objected to the branding and stigmatisation of human rights defenders who are labelled as Naxalites, Maoists, militants, anti-nationals etc. She noted that journalists who report rights violations are targeted by both security forces and insurgents.

Her observations must be seen in this context of the attempts to silence writers, journalists and others who have raised their voice against the wanton use of force by the state.

Ms Sekaggya called for training of security forces to sensitise them on the role and activities of human rights defenders “with technical advice and assistance from relevant UN entities, non-governmental organisations and other partners.”

It is not security personnel alone that need to be sensitised. Some recent pronouncements by members of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary indicate that there is inadequate appreciation of the role of civil society in all three limbs of the state.

The Constitution of India, which came into force in January 1950, incorporates most of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN 13 months earlier. To its eternal shame, during the Emergency of 1975-77, the Supreme Court upheld the Executive’s claim that it had the power to suspend all fundamental rights, including the right to life.

Recently an apex court bench formally repudiated that obnoxious judgment. But, then, another bench, recently reprimanded Teesta Setalvad, a human rights defender, for having written two letters to Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, viewing it as an attempt to seek foreign interference on a matter before the court.

One of the judges reportedly said, “We don’t appreciate letters being sent to a foreign country, we can’t approve of it.” If the report is correct, there is grave deficiency in the learned judge’s understanding of the role of the UN system in promoting human rights ideals worldwide.

The High Commissioner is mandated to promote and protect the enjoyment and full realisation, by all people, of all rights established in the UN Charter and in international human rights laws and treaties. It is a grave error to represent contact with a UN agency as contact with a foreign country.

Ms Sekaggya’s visit came even as some governments and political parties are making motivated attempts to discredit human rights defenders, whom they see as obstacle in the way of operations against terror groups. Implementation of her preliminary recommendations will help bolster India’s civil society.

27 January, 2011

UN fact-finding on human rights defenders in India welcomed

The following is a statement issued by the Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN in New Delhi:

The Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN (WGHR) commends the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Ms. Margaret Sekaggya, for the successful completion of her fact-finding mission to India, which took place from 10 to 21 January
2011.

WGHR welcomes the Special Rapporteur’s recently released statement which summarises her main interim findings concerning the alarming situation of human rights defenders in India, and gives preliminary recommendations to relevant stakeholders.

WGHR echoes the Special Rapporteur’s statement and commends the Government of India for inviting the Special Rapporteur to India, and allowing her to travel and hold regional consultations with a broad range of civil society representatives in five states (Orissa, West Bengal, Assam, Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir) and in the capital, New Delhi. These consultations were very significant for human rights defenders, as expressed by Babloo Loitongbam, Director, Human Rights Alert: “This is the first ever visit of a UN Special Rapporteur to the North-East. Ms. Sekaggya’s empathetic listening to the struggles of the human rights defenders of this isolated region has generated a lot of hope”.

The Special Rapporteur’s statement brings to light the severe assault on human rights defenders, by both state and private actors, in India today. During her 12-day mission in India. Ms. Sekaggya heard testimonies from defenders of killings, torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearances, threats, arbitrary arrests and detention, filing of false charges against defenders, surveillance, forcible displacement, raiding of defenders’ offices and stealing of documents and files, and illegitimate restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly.

While Ms. Sekaggya notes that India is home to a comprehensive and progressive rights-based legal framework, and welcomes the existence of numerous human rights institutions, she points to “widespread deficiencies” in implementation of laws and failings in institutional responses with serious adverse impact on the safety and security of human rights defenders.

The Special Rapporteur expresses serious concern over the plight of defenders working on a range of issues, including:

.. Defenders engaged in denouncing development projects that threaten or destroy the land, natural resources and livelihoods of communities;

.. Defenders working for the rights of marginalized people (Dalits, adivasis), religious minorities and sexual minorities

.. Right to Information activists

.. Defenders working on women’s and child rights, particularly women human rights defenders

.. Defenders fighting impunity for human rights violations

.. Defenders seeking accountability for communal pogroms

.. Defenders upholding the rights of political prisoners, journalists, lawyers, labour activists, humanitarian workers, and church workers

.. Defenders working in insurgency and conflict affected areas

.. Defenders working in rural India (who according to the Special Rapporteur are “often more vulnerable”)

Henri Tiphagne, Convenor of Human Rights Defenders Alert – India, observes: “Pervasive human rights violations, compounded by the non-accountability of state actors and institutions, have also triggered the emergence of new groups of defenders, made up of ordinary citizens and grassroots communities, fighting for their rights”.

Ms. Sekaggya points to the “arbitrary application” of security laws, particularly in conflict affected areas of the country such as Jammu and Kashmir and the North-East states. These laws are used to target and brand human rights defenders (including journalists) as anti-national, terrorists, Naxalites, and other perceived enemies of the state. The Special Rapporteur recommends the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, and also calls for a review of other security laws in force. Based on her observations at the Special Rapporteur’s consultation with civil society in Kashmir, Advocate Vrinda Grover states: “Parents of victims, human rights activists, the Srinagar Bar Association and journalists all underscored the rampant violations of human rights and the impunity enjoyed by the security forces in Kashmir. Moved by the accounts of young persons killed and
detained under draconain laws, the Special Rapporteur observed that Kashmir should be understood through the human rights violations suffered by the people”.

WGHR expresses deep concern for the safety and security of human rights defenders under severe assault across the country, and calls on the Central and state governments to consider and implement the Special Rapporteur’s preliminary recommendations without delay.

WGHR also calls attention to what the Special Rapporteur’s findings reveal about the larger situation of human rights protection in India, which is seriously and alarmingly lacking. The deliberate and often violent targeting of human rights defenders is facilitated by failing institutional responses, particularly of the National and state human rights commissions. The Special Rapporteur clearly identified the systemic problems in the performance of human rights commissions, which have led defenders to lose all faith in
these institutions. This was reaffirmed at a roundtable meeting hosted by the National Human Rights Commission for civil society representatives and the Special Rapporteur, at which speaker after speaker identified the need for a strong, independent, effective and transparent Commission. WGHR urges central and state governments, and the commissions themselves, to urgently take steps to rectify these failings.

“We hope this mission signifies that the Government of India will now regularly invite Special Procedures mandate holders to the country. We trust this step indicates a new era of collaboration with the UN human rights programme and demonstrates India’s firm resolve to respect its international human rights commitments, including timely implementation of Special Rapporteur and UN treaty body recommendations”, says Miloon Kothari, Convenor of WGHR. ..

For more information, please contact:
Henri Tiphagne: +919894025859,
Miloon Kothari +919810642122 or
Vrinda Grover: +919810806181

The Statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders is available at: www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10660&LangID=E

The Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN – a national coalition of fourteen human rights organizations and independent experts – works towards the realization of all civil, cultural, economic, political and social human rights in India and towards holding the Indian government accountable to its national and international human rights obligations.

For information on WGHR, please visit: www.wghr.org

Martyrs Day rallies in support of Binayak Sen

Various human rights groups have called for observance of Sunday, January 30, as a day of protest against anti-democratic laws and demand the immediate release of Dr. Binayak Sen.

More than a month has passed since a Chhattisgarh court held the noted physician and human rights defender guilty of sedition and sentenced him to life imprisonment. An appeal filed by him is now pending before the state high court. The way the court gave a long adjournment after hearing the arguments of Ram Jethmalani, who appeared for Dr. Sen, seeking suspension of the sentence pending disposal of the appeal, is typical of the way our judicial machinery grinds. Apparently the horror expressed by human rights defenders the world over has not persuaded the court to act with a sense of urgency.

Against this background, the planned activities on January 30, the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, which is observed nationally as Martyrs Day, assumes special significance.

The specific demands to be raised on that day include immediate release of Dr. Sen, repeal of Section124 (A) IPC (sedition) and the obnoxious provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Armed Forces Special Provisions Act (AFSPA) and the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA)

The slogans:
Hum Sab Binayak Sen, Hum Sab Jail Jayenge
(We all are Binayak Sen, We all will go to jail)

Agar Sach Bolna Rajdroh hai, toh hum Sab Rajdrohi hai (If speaking the truth is sedition, we all have committed sedition)
Rallies, meetings, seminars etc are taking place in many places in the country.

Prof. Ilina Sen, wife of Dr. Binayak Sen, writes:

As we celebrate 61 years of India becoming a Socialist Democratic Republic we are shocked to witness that the spirit of our Constitution stands violated every so often today, sacrificing people's democratic rights and throttling the socialist dream of our Constitution makers.

Speaking out against the conviction and incarceration of Dr. Binayak Sen's case has to be seen in that larger context of lending our voice against the gross injustice that we witness as a daily happening in India day after day.

Today when we demand his release we must also raise our voice against all those who remain hungry, malnourished, and without secure means of livelihood, as well as those who have been dispossessed, killed, tortured, humiliated, disappeared, threatened, arbitrarily detained and arrested, falsely charged and under surveillance because of their
legitimate work in upholding democratic rights and fundamental freedoms. In the last two days I too have been a victim of this in Wardha, Maharashtra (Central India) where I teach.

Dr. Binayak Sen has completed more than a month in this leg of his imprisonment. The hearing for the suspension of his sentence continues. It is not a testing time for us alone but more for our political and judicial systems, which are on trial for accountability,
rationality, justice and equity.

Finally, I would like to thank all of you for holding our hands in this period of suffering and anguish faced by me, Binayak's mother, daughters, brothers and all his friends.

I would like to end with a verse of Faiz

bol ke lab aazaad haiN tere
bol zabaaN ab tak terii hai
teraa sutvaaN jism hai teraa
bol ke jaaN ab tak terii hai

dekh ke aahaNgar kii dukaaN meN
tuNd haiN shole surKh hai aahan
khulne lage qufloN ke dahaane
phailaa har ek zanjiir kaa daaman
bol ye thoRaa vaqt bahut hai
jism-o-zubaaN kii maut se pahle
bol ke sach ziNdaa hai ab tak
bol jo kuch kehnaa hai keh le


English translation:

Speak up, while your lips (thoughts) are (still) free
speak up, (while) your tongue is still yours
Speak, for your strong body is your own
speak, (while) your soul is still yours

Look at the blacksmiths shop
hot flames makes the iron red hot
opening the (jaws of) locks
every chain opens up and begins to break

Speak, for this brief time is long enough
before your body and words die
speak, for the truth still prevails
speak up, say what you must.

WE WILL BE VINDICATED!!!

Prof. Ilina Sen,
Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya
Hindi Vishwavidyalay,
Wardha,
Maharashtra


January 26, 2011