The physical violence that happened at the campus of the reputed Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi is horrifying, yet it’s not surprising. Going by the level of polarisation in campuses along ideological lines, and going by the resultant vitiation in the academic environment, a showdown of this nature is only logical. In this context, isn't this the high time that student unions in college campuses are thoroughly depoliticised and any affiliation of student bodies with any political party is outlawed?&nbsp;

Rampant politicisation of student bodies in universities is the biggest ailment that plagues our educational institutions and poisons our academic environment.&nbsp;

Student politics in academic campuses have mostly resulted in the opposite of what was originally intended behind creation of student unions – creation of leaders in society who could bring about harmony among divergent thoughts and ideas through debates and discussions, and who could promote critical thinking among the young generations to take the legacies of democracy and pluralism forward; it further intended to promote a culture where right to question and dissent - the cornerstone of all human progress - could be respected.&nbsp; 
However, our experiences tell that over the past few decades, the student union's politics has done more harm to the cause of students than benefitting them. In reality, it has brought academia in bad repute by poisoning and criminalising the academic environment.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
In JNU, a group of masked men and women wielding lathis, sharp weapons and sledgehammers entered hostels on Sunday and allegedly carried out a targetted attack on students, faculty members and guards and damaged vehicles before vanishing from the scene. The cops arrived on the scene following written permission from the JNU administration. However, till the time, the script had been played out, leaving a ransacked campus and terror-struck souls that may take years to repair.&nbsp;

But, is the incident just one-off clash to be brushed aside as a mere law and order problem that may be set right through proctorial interventions or is it symptomatic of a deeper malady afflicting the student politics across India?

This incident in JNU is said to be preceded by a series of skirmishes that had broken out earlier on the New Year’s Day and also on Saturday, between the members of the left and ABVP, in which the president of the JNUSU is said to have played an active role. The Sunday attack is said to be the culmination of such skirmishes.&nbsp;

As it emerges, a fight had broken out over non-functioning of the registration servers on which the new students were supposed to register for the new session. The pro-registration students alleged that the left-dominated student union, under the leadership of its president, Aishee Ghosh, had locked the server room and disrupted servers to prevent registration of students willing to join new classes. The Leftists, long on protest against fee hikes, have been boycotting classes and hence any registration by new students and resumption of academic activities would mean the defeat of their strategy. Hence they allegedly devised the conspiracy to disrupt new registrations.&nbsp;

This just reflects the degree of politicisation prevalent in the university campuses across India leading to a culture of conspiracies and the mutual distrust among the inmates. 
&nbsp; 
As usual, the incident drew swift battle-lines and the civil society players took positions, firing salvos as per the ideological ground they stood across the divide. Even before the police had taken over the scene of crime, Congress had begun a frontal attack on the Prime Minister and the Home Minister of India, implicating them directly in the incident. Soon enough, tweets, laced with ideological insinuations, and innuendoes aimed at inflaming passions and inciting the youth, flew thick in the air. &nbsp;

The barter of charges on political and ideological lines would go on for aeons but the larger picture is that the student politics in India has much degenerated in today’s times, turning the university campuses into full-blown political constituencies as far violent showdowns are concerned. The modern university campuses have become the microcosm of the wider political universe displaying all the quirkiness of the nationwide politics.

Right to protests and to indulge in union politics, both are fundamental to the students’ campus life. Right to protest within the university campus is a right available to each student as a part of their fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. But, thanks to rampant politicisation of campus lives, protests are becoming horrible and, most of the times, they cross all limits of decency.

As part of the mainstream protest practices in campuses, faculty members are heckled inside and outside the classrooms, are subjected to consistent slogan-raisings and are catcalls on their way to work; faculty and administrative officials are gheraoed, subjected to physical violence or threats of it, and locked from outside or prevented from using washrooms etc till demands are met. Such innovative ideas of protest don’t stop here as the students even go to storm the homes of the officials, scaring their family members who, while terrified and tormented, have no solace available than to keep praying for their safety.&nbsp;

On March 26, 2019, Vice-Chancellor of the JNU, Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, had shot a panicky tweet, “Yesterday when students broke into my residence terrorising my wife who was alone at home, it was the wives of JNU faculty members who rescued my wife with the help of security guards and took her to hospital. Grateful to them for their kindness.” When the Vice-Chancellor of a prestigious university like the JNU is not safe what can be said about smaller universities and their staffs?&nbsp;

Are such things just and fair in the names of protests? Protest is a fundamental right, but protesting with the intention of insulting and terrorizing innocent officials isn’t. It’s a violation of someone else’s fundamental right and hence criminal. However, the students dare to breach the lines of discipline and indulge in such criminal modes of protests only because they enjoy complete protection of the political class, who frustrate all attempts of the administrators within the campus to enforce discipline.

Last month, the Governor of Bengal, who also happens to be the Chancellor of all Universities in Bengal, was prevented by angry students from entering the campus of the Jadavpur University. Similarly, on another occasion, Babul Supriyo, a central government minister, was manhandled and pulled by his hairs inside the same university campus by students belonging to the left-wing and the TMC camps. Protesting with the aim of intimidation and of jeopardising the national interest can never be the objective behind the creation of Unions and their activities within campuses.&nbsp;

In January 2017, activists of the Student's Federation of India (SFI) had snatched principal's chair from her office inside the 144-year-old prestigious Maharaja College in Kochi - boasting of alumni like politicians AK Antony and Vayalar Ravi, the former Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, and figures like, Swami Chinmayananda and actor Mammootty - and burnt it at the main entrance of the campus, as a 'warning' during their 'symbolic protest' against her 'moral policing', because the Principal, NL Beena, tried to introduce a dress code on the campus.

Do such protests go to train and create a breed of the responsible citizenry for running a civilized democracy or do they create a bunch of bullies learning the knack of having their way by threats and jeers?

Democracy is not always about protests; it’s mostly about the art of striking consensus and harmony through collaboration and dissent management. In the Constitution of the Delhi University Student’s Union (DUSU), promotion of mutual contact, democratic outlook and a spirit of oneness among the students of the University of Delhi is mentioned as one of the aims and objects of the Union. However, the kind of democracy that the student unions promote inside the university campuses is all about coercion and bullying that can only lead to tyranny and disorder, not democracy.

Student unions are mostly populated with students having criminal mindsets who use money and muscle power to win elections that are fought with the active support of major political parties. The lure of money, power, recognition and of perceived respectability sucks in ambitious youths into campus politics who look into it an opportunity to launch themselves in the real political world.

Student politics and their success give the young generation an instant feel of power. But this power is like riding a tiger; the moment the delicate balance is upset, one is certain to become a victim of this power, instead of being the master.

University campuses are live theatres for training the youths and preparing them for the future so that they could take the socio-political legacies forward. Thus, a certain amount of authority must be vested in the administrative functionaries to enable them to inculcate a sense of discipline among the future citizens of the nation. The Principals, the Vice Chancellors, etc must have certain inherent authority - of course, the bare minimum and accountable - under their command so that necessary discipline in institutions could be maintained. &nbsp;

The matter of strengthening the administrative powers of the principals and vesting punitive authorities in them has been examined by the High Courts and the Supreme Court at different occasions and they've made decisions in its favour.&nbsp;

Referring to various such decisions, a division bench of the Kerala High Court, during a hearing on a college student who was debarred from taking his second-year BA examination by the Principal on account of shortage of attendance, had ruled in 2004 that, “The Head of the institution should in law be presumed to possess an inherent right of such acts as are necessary in his opinion to maintain discipline in his institution.”&nbsp;

The HC upheld the decision of the Principal to disallow the student from taking the examination.

As his non-attendance from classes was primarily due to his participation in the union activities of the college because he was a member of the area committee of the Students Federation of India (SFI), the student accused that the action of the principal was politically motivated and in his appeal petition, raised the following points for consideration of the High Court: (i) whether an educational institution could legally prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid the students from organising or attending activities other than official ones within the college campus? (ii) Whether a student who is admitted to the college is bound by the code of conduct laid down by the educational institution? And (iii) Whether such restrictions laid down by the educational institutions would violate the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (A) and (C) of the Constitution of India?

After considering the matter at length, the Kerala High Court had ruled that “Article 19 of the Constitution of India is not a carte-blanche enabling any citizen to exercise a fundamental right so as to encroach upon similar rights guaranteed to other citizens.”

On the issues under consideration, the HC had ruled, “Guidelines banning political activities within the campus and forbidding the students from organising or attending meetings, other than the official ones, within the campus is not designed to prohibit any of the fundamental rights of the students guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(A) or 19(1)(C). The Right to Admission not being absolute (meaning, it's revocable if the conditions are breached), there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence in education.”&nbsp;

Therefore, the court had ruled that “It was open to the educational institutions to prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students from organising or attending meetings other than the official ones within the college campus and such a restriction would not violate Article 19(1)(A) or (C) of the Constitution of India.” (Kerala Students Union vs Sojan Francis, 20 February 2004)

Enforcing discipline in an academic environment is not only important rather it's mandatory in order to strengthen the prestige of the education system. The majority of the students want to focus on their studies so that they could find their feet in the highly competitive world outside, but a minuscule minority of them keeps spoiling the academic environment on issues hardly related with students' genuine interests. Therefore, the administrative authorities must be vested with sufficient powers so that those devoted to their studies and careers should not be disturbed by those handfuls of bad apples. &nbsp;

Beset with constant and increasing caste-based violence in the campuses, the state of Karnataka under Chief Minister Veerendra Patil had banned all student union elections during 1989-90. And, the ban is still in place enabling the state to provide conducive academic environments in colleges and universities within its jurisdiction. Although some colleges have student councils with class representatives, direct election of union office-bearers, as elsewhere in the country, stands totally banned in Karnataka. Many states have temporarily or for longer periods have imposed university-specific bans to contain growing trends of violence in campus life.

An old observation made by the UGC Committee in its report in 1983 on students politics is still relevant and is worth a mention here:

“Political activity in the universities is natural because the university is a community of thinking people, of those who are exploring the frontiers of knowledge and of those who criticize and evaluate every idea before accepting it... We, however, regret to say that much of "political" activity which we noticed and sensed on the campuses is of a degenerate nature...It is a "politics" of expediency, opportunism...that is most advantageous for the doer (but) a disruption of educational activities for all... It is also a politics of corruption where money or other attractions are used to achieve an end, be it victory in an election, or hiring of goondas to harass the functionaries or disrupt a meeting or examination.... In a situation when the leadership of a young group of a few hundred agitators can be grabbed on seemingly "democratic" or "'humane" grounds, the temptation to give a political backing becomes irresistible....” &nbsp;

On the matter of framing guidelines for student union elections in universities, the Government of India, Subsequent to an order of the Supreme Court in 2005, had constituted a six-member committee under the retired CEC, Mr J M Lyngdoh, with the mandate to make "recommendations on aspects that are required to be observed to maintain academic atmosphere in the educational institutions”.&nbsp;

The committee submitted a detailed guideline as part of its recommendation in 2006 that was accepted in toto by the SC, which directed all college and universities to adopt the Lyngdoh committee guidelines for conducting union elections. (University of Kerala Vs Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and others, 2006)

The Lyngdoh Committee report had suggested sweeping electoral reforms along with freeing the student bodies from the influence of political parties and their dirty money. The guidelines strongly recommended disassociation of student elections and student representation from political parties, as it mentioned, “During the period of the elections no person, who is not a student on the rolls of the college/university, shall be permitted to take part in the election process in any capacity.” Further, it also recommended that candidates contesting the union elections must possess certain minimum levels of discipline and academic abilities, such as - at least 80 per cent attendance in the previous year and she/he should have passed all the examinations of the course undergone.

However, the Lyngdoh committee has been denounced by the student bodies who consider it as restrictive and violative of the rights of students. But, there is no denying of the fact that involvement of political parties with student bodies have resulted into degeneration of the campus environment. The undue political interferences and patronizations have only promoted indiscipline and lumpen disregard of authorities among the students.

Furthermore, political parties regularly prevent independent candidates, who don’t conform to the prevalent political ideology, from contesting union elections and such contestants are forced out from the fray. Loss of an independent voice is a loss for the campus.&nbsp;

Moreover, the party-based student unions, sitting on the heap of cash and resources, violate the right of many other students to remain apolitical or to exercise their right to choice by not being any union member. However, the student bodies manage to suck in many unwilling students by patronising them or pressurising them or by luring them through various freebies and lavish ‘cultural events’.&nbsp;

Student unions are an important aspect of campus life, as such unions happen to be the legitimate mediums to voice the collective concerns of the student community and to protect their genuine interests. However, balancing the interests of campus democracy with the larger interest of maintaining academic atmosphere, discipline and public order within the universities and the college campuses is necessary. Any disruption in campus activities due to union violence plays with the futures of thousands who come to universities seeking academic excellence and not political indoctrination.&nbsp;

All human progress starts with critical thinking. Dissent is the key to the existence of human life, and debate, discussions and discourse is the way to go forward for students in the academic campuses. Debates make bridges to get over differences and discussions promote understanding to explore the other's viewpoints. However, when dissent is manufactured on political lines and debates are substituted with hooting and physical violence, promotion of democratic values takes the back seat. The biggest drawback of politicising the student unions is that the unions impose political agenda of their parties on campuses, the real issues of students are lost in the din.&nbsp;

Hence, though some kind of protection of unions is necessary for students in the campuses in order to safeguard their rightful interests, such union must always be an apolitical, independent body free from the clutches of political parties and their interference. 
 
Unless this is done, it would be difficult to end the eternal cycle of violence and confrontations of political nature on the campuses that is a must for transforming our academic institutions into centres of excellence. So, doesn't the JNU violence present us the perfect opportunity to completely ban the student unions from having any political affiliations or association in any form?" 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The physical violence that happened at the campus of the reputed Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi is horrifying, yet it’s not surprising. Going by the level of polarisation in campuses along ideological lines, and going by the resultant vitiation in the academic environment, a showdown of this nature is only logical.

The physical violence that happened at the campus of the reputed Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi is horrifying, yet it’s not surprising. Going by the level of polarisation in campuses along ideological lines, and going by the resultant vitiation in the academic environment, a showdown of this nature is only logical. In this context, isn't this the high time that student unions in college campuses are thoroughly depoliticised and any affiliation of student bodies with any political party is outlawed? Rampant politicisation of student bodies in universities is the biggest ailment that plagues our educational institutions and poisons our academic environment. Student politics in academic campuses have mostly resulted in the opposite of what was originally intended behind creation of student unions – creation of leaders in society who could bring about harmony among divergent thoughts and ideas through debates and discussions, and who could promote critical thinking among the young generations to take the legacies of democracy and pluralism forward; it further intended to promote a culture where right to question and dissent - the cornerstone of all human progress - could be respected. However, our experiences tell that over the past few decades, the student union's politics has done more harm to the cause of students than benefitting them. In reality, it has brought academia in bad repute by poisoning and criminalising the academic environment. In JNU, a group of masked men and women wielding lathis, sharp weapons and sledgehammers entered hostels on Sunday and allegedly carried out a targetted attack on students, faculty members and guards and damaged vehicles before vanishing from the scene. The cops arrived on the scene following written permission from the JNU administration. However, till the time, the script had been played out, leaving a ransacked campus and terror-struck souls that may take years to repair. But, is the incident just one-off clash to be brushed aside as a mere law and order problem that may be set right through proctorial interventions or is it symptomatic of a deeper malady afflicting the student politics across India? This incident in JNU is said to be preceded by a series of skirmishes that had broken out earlier on the New Year’s Day and also on Saturday, between the members of the left and ABVP, in which the president of the JNUSU is said to have played an active role. The Sunday attack is said to be the culmination of such skirmishes. As it emerges, a fight had broken out over non-functioning of the registration servers on which the new students were supposed to register for the new session. The pro-registration students alleged that the left-dominated student union, under the leadership of its president, Aishee Ghosh, had locked the server room and disrupted servers to prevent registration of students willing to join new classes. The Leftists, long on protest against fee hikes, have been boycotting classes and hence any registration by new students and resumption of academic activities would mean the defeat of their strategy. Hence they allegedly devised the conspiracy to disrupt new registrations. This just reflects the degree of politicisation prevalent in the university campuses across India leading to a culture of conspiracies and the mutual distrust among the inmates. As usual, the incident drew swift battle-lines and the civil society players took positions, firing salvos as per the ideological ground they stood across the divide. Even before the police had taken over the scene of crime, Congress had begun a frontal attack on the Prime Minister and the Home Minister of India, implicating them directly in the incident. Soon enough, tweets, laced with ideological insinuations, and innuendoes aimed at inflaming passions and inciting the youth, flew thick in the air. The barter of charges on political and ideological lines would go on for aeons but the larger picture is that the student politics in India has much degenerated in today’s times, turning the university campuses into full-blown political constituencies as far violent showdowns are concerned. The modern university campuses have become the microcosm of the wider political universe displaying all the quirkiness of the nationwide politics. Right to protests and to indulge in union politics, both are fundamental to the students’ campus life. Right to protest within the university campus is a right available to each student as a part of their fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. But, thanks to rampant politicisation of campus lives, protests are becoming horrible and, most of the times, they cross all limits of decency. As part of the mainstream protest practices in campuses, faculty members are heckled inside and outside the classrooms, are subjected to consistent slogan-raisings and are catcalls on their way to work; faculty and administrative officials are gheraoed, subjected to physical violence or threats of it, and locked from outside or prevented from using washrooms etc till demands are met. Such innovative ideas of protest don’t stop here as the students even go to storm the homes of the officials, scaring their family members who, while terrified and tormented, have no solace available than to keep praying for their safety. On March 26, 2019, Vice-Chancellor of the JNU, Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, had shot a panicky tweet, “Yesterday when students broke into my residence terrorising my wife who was alone at home, it was the wives of JNU faculty members who rescued my wife with the help of security guards and took her to hospital. Grateful to them for their kindness.” When the Vice-Chancellor of a prestigious university like the JNU is not safe what can be said about smaller universities and their staffs? Are such things just and fair in the names of protests? Protest is a fundamental right, but protesting with the intention of insulting and terrorizing innocent officials isn’t. It’s a violation of someone else’s fundamental right and hence criminal. However, the students dare to breach the lines of discipline and indulge in such criminal modes of protests only because they enjoy complete protection of the political class, who frustrate all attempts of the administrators within the campus to enforce discipline. Last month, the Governor of Bengal, who also happens to be the Chancellor of all Universities in Bengal, was prevented by angry students from entering the campus of the Jadavpur University. Similarly, on another occasion, Babul Supriyo, a central government minister, was manhandled and pulled by his hairs inside the same university campus by students belonging to the left-wing and the TMC camps. Protesting with the aim of intimidation and of jeopardising the national interest can never be the objective behind the creation of Unions and their activities within campuses. In January 2017, activists of the Student's Federation of India (SFI) had snatched principal's chair from her office inside the 144-year-old prestigious Maharaja College in Kochi - boasting of alumni like politicians AK Antony and Vayalar Ravi, the former Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, and figures like, Swami Chinmayananda and actor Mammootty - and burnt it at the main entrance of the campus, as a 'warning' during their 'symbolic protest' against her 'moral policing', because the Principal, NL Beena, tried to introduce a dress code on the campus. Do such protests go to train and create a breed of the responsible citizenry for running a civilized democracy or do they create a bunch of bullies learning the knack of having their way by threats and jeers? Democracy is not always about protests; it’s mostly about the art of striking consensus and harmony through collaboration and dissent management. In the Constitution of the Delhi University Student’s Union (DUSU), promotion of mutual contact, democratic outlook and a spirit of oneness among the students of the University of Delhi is mentioned as one of the aims and objects of the Union. However, the kind of democracy that the student unions promote inside the university campuses is all about coercion and bullying that can only lead to tyranny and disorder, not democracy. Student unions are mostly populated with students having criminal mindsets who use money and muscle power to win elections that are fought with the active support of major political parties. The lure of money, power, recognition and of perceived respectability sucks in ambitious youths into campus politics who look into it an opportunity to launch themselves in the real political world. Student politics and their success give the young generation an instant feel of power. But this power is like riding a tiger; the moment the delicate balance is upset, one is certain to become a victim of this power, instead of being the master. University campuses are live theatres for training the youths and preparing them for the future so that they could take the socio-political legacies forward. Thus, a certain amount of authority must be vested in the administrative functionaries to enable them to inculcate a sense of discipline among the future citizens of the nation. The Principals, the Vice Chancellors, etc must have certain inherent authority - of course, the bare minimum and accountable - under their command so that necessary discipline in institutions could be maintained. The matter of strengthening the administrative powers of the principals and vesting punitive authorities in them has been examined by the High Courts and the Supreme Court at different occasions and they've made decisions in its favour. Referring to various such decisions, a division bench of the Kerala High Court, during a hearing on a college student who was debarred from taking his second-year BA examination by the Principal on account of shortage of attendance, had ruled in 2004 that, “The Head of the institution should in law be presumed to possess an inherent right of such acts as are necessary in his opinion to maintain discipline in his institution.” The HC upheld the decision of the Principal to disallow the student from taking the examination. As his non-attendance from classes was primarily due to his participation in the union activities of the college because he was a member of the area committee of the Students Federation of India (SFI), the student accused that the action of the principal was politically motivated and in his appeal petition, raised the following points for consideration of the High Court: (i) whether an educational institution could legally prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid the students from organising or attending activities other than official ones within the college campus? (ii) Whether a student who is admitted to the college is bound by the code of conduct laid down by the educational institution? And (iii) Whether such restrictions laid down by the educational institutions would violate the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (A) and (C) of the Constitution of India? After considering the matter at length, the Kerala High Court had ruled that “Article 19 of the Constitution of India is not a carte-blanche enabling any citizen to exercise a fundamental right so as to encroach upon similar rights guaranteed to other citizens.” On the issues under consideration, the HC had ruled, “Guidelines banning political activities within the campus and forbidding the students from organising or attending meetings, other than the official ones, within the campus is not designed to prohibit any of the fundamental rights of the students guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(A) or 19(1)(C). The Right to Admission not being absolute (meaning, it's revocable if the conditions are breached), there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence in education.” Therefore, the court had ruled that “It was open to the educational institutions to prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students from organising or attending meetings other than the official ones within the college campus and such a restriction would not violate Article 19(1)(A) or (C) of the Constitution of India.” (Kerala Students Union vs Sojan Francis, 20 February 2004) Enforcing discipline in an academic environment is not only important rather it's mandatory in order to strengthen the prestige of the education system. The majority of the students want to focus on their studies so that they could find their feet in the highly competitive world outside, but a minuscule minority of them keeps spoiling the academic environment on issues hardly related with students' genuine interests. Therefore, the administrative authorities must be vested with sufficient powers so that those devoted to their studies and careers should not be disturbed by those handfuls of bad apples. Beset with constant and increasing caste-based violence in the campuses, the state of Karnataka under Chief Minister Veerendra Patil had banned all student union elections during 1989-90. And, the ban is still in place enabling the state to provide conducive academic environments in colleges and universities within its jurisdiction. Although some colleges have student councils with class representatives, direct election of union office-bearers, as elsewhere in the country, stands totally banned in Karnataka. Many states have temporarily or for longer periods have imposed university-specific bans to contain growing trends of violence in campus life. An old observation made by the UGC Committee in its report in 1983 on students politics is still relevant and is worth a mention here: “Political activity in the universities is natural because the university is a community of thinking people, of those who are exploring the frontiers of knowledge and of those who criticize and evaluate every idea before accepting it... We, however, regret to say that much of "political" activity which we noticed and sensed on the campuses is of a degenerate nature...It is a "politics" of expediency, opportunism...that is most advantageous for the doer (but) a disruption of educational activities for all... It is also a politics of corruption where money or other attractions are used to achieve an end, be it victory in an election, or hiring of goondas to harass the functionaries or disrupt a meeting or examination.... In a situation when the leadership of a young group of a few hundred agitators can be grabbed on seemingly "democratic" or "'humane" grounds, the temptation to give a political backing becomes irresistible....” On the matter of framing guidelines for student union elections in universities, the Government of India, Subsequent to an order of the Supreme Court in 2005, had constituted a six-member committee under the retired CEC, Mr J M Lyngdoh, with the mandate to make "recommendations on aspects that are required to be observed to maintain academic atmosphere in the educational institutions”. The committee submitted a detailed guideline as part of its recommendation in 2006 that was accepted in toto by the SC, which directed all college and universities to adopt the Lyngdoh committee guidelines for conducting union elections. (University of Kerala Vs Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and others, 2006) The Lyngdoh Committee report had suggested sweeping electoral reforms along with freeing the student bodies from the influence of political parties and their dirty money. The guidelines strongly recommended disassociation of student elections and student representation from political parties, as it mentioned, “During the period of the elections no person, who is not a student on the rolls of the college/university, shall be permitted to take part in the election process in any capacity.” Further, it also recommended that candidates contesting the union elections must possess certain minimum levels of discipline and academic abilities, such as - at least 80 per cent attendance in the previous year and she/he should have passed all the examinations of the course undergone. However, the Lyngdoh committee has been denounced by the student bodies who consider it as restrictive and violative of the rights of students. But, there is no denying of the fact that involvement of political parties with student bodies have resulted into degeneration of the campus environment. The undue political interferences and patronizations have only promoted indiscipline and lumpen disregard of authorities among the students. Furthermore, political parties regularly prevent independent candidates, who don’t conform to the prevalent political ideology, from contesting union elections and such contestants are forced out from the fray. Loss of an independent voice is a loss for the campus. Moreover, the party-based student unions, sitting on the heap of cash and resources, violate the right of many other students to remain apolitical or to exercise their right to choice by not being any union member. However, the student bodies manage to suck in many unwilling students by patronising them or pressurising them or by luring them through various freebies and lavish ‘cultural events’. Student unions are an important aspect of campus life, as such unions happen to be the legitimate mediums to voice the collective concerns of the student community and to protect their genuine interests. However, balancing the interests of campus democracy with the larger interest of maintaining academic atmosphere, discipline and public order within the universities and the college campuses is necessary. Any disruption in campus activities due to union violence plays with the futures of thousands who come to universities seeking academic excellence and not political indoctrination. All human progress starts with critical thinking. Dissent is the key to the existence of human life, and debate, discussions and discourse is the way to go forward for students in the academic campuses. Debates make bridges to get over differences and discussions promote understanding to explore the other's viewpoints. However, when dissent is manufactured on political lines and debates are substituted with hooting and physical violence, promotion of democratic values takes the back seat. The biggest drawback of politicising the student unions is that the unions impose political agenda of their parties on campuses, the real issues of students are lost in the din. Hence, though some kind of protection of unions is necessary for students in the campuses in order to safeguard their rightful interests, such union must always be an apolitical, independent body free from the clutches of political parties and their interference. Unless this is done, it would be difficult to end the eternal cycle of violence and confrontations of political nature on the campuses that is a must for transforming our academic institutions into centres of excellence. So, doesn't the JNU violence present us the perfect opportunity to completely ban the student unions from having any political affiliations or association in any form?" (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

JNU violence: Politics must be outlawed at universities

Do you suddenly get the feel that our policemen are being projected as deadly brutes straight from the Chengiz Khan army out on a savage act to torment the law-abiding citizens, and that the rampaging rioters and the stone-pelting arsonists, knocking down public utilities and setting vehicles on fire, are nothing but peaceful angels exercising their democratic rights? If yes, blame it on a systematic and consistent anti-police rhetoric coming from those intellectuals, artists and media houses who find immense opportunities in it. They’re the think-tankers behind the violent rioting and they want the arsons and the deaths to continue for longer. No wonder they have raised the bogey of barbarism against the police action and have been crying it out as “shameful” and “deeply distressing”.

Various actors including Parineeti Chopra, Huma Qureshi, Sidharth&nbsp;Malhotra, Konkana Sen Sharma, Manoj Vajpayee, Ayushman Khurana, Riteish Deshmukh, Vickey Kaushal expressed their anger, anguish and protest against the police action at the Jamia University and also at many other places in UP, giving scant respect to facts on record.&nbsp;

However, the heaviest salvo on the image of police was fired by actor Swara Bhaskar, who during an interview to a TV channel, branded the police to be killers and communally spirited as she said, “They (police) are killing people. Like they are attacking the unarmed on the streets. They are working as rioters with communal spirit. Firing is being done inside the universities (sic).”&nbsp;

In the leftist echo-chamber, as ever, the sentiment was echoed by others, as the self-styled historian Ramchandra Guha took to the Twitter to condemn, what he called, “The police brutalities and arbitrary detentions in the Uttar Pradesh”. He drew parallels between the police actions in Delhi and UP with that of the London riots of 2011 where, according to him, despite a week of violent protests across the city of London injuring 180 policemen, not a single protester was killed by the police. The obvious slant is that the police in Delhi and UP are an unprofessional bunch of brutes indulged in unwarranted barbarism.

However, what Guha was obviously ignorant of, or hid intentionally in his comparison, is the fact that by the end of the week-long riots (August 4-11, 2011), the London police had unleashed a crackdown against the riots, also known as Tottenham riots, arresting 3000 people out of whom more than 1000 were served with serious criminal charges for 3433 recorded crimes across the city of London. But in India, the police have been very circumspect in resorting to indiscriminate arrests; only those miscreants against whom strong visual and other corroborative evidence are available on record, have been arrested. Second, what he deliberately hides is the fact that the London police was heavily under fire, both from the media and the civil society, for doing nothing and letting the rioters ransack and loot north London for nearly 12 hours, and demanded that police must deploy strong anti-riot methods, like water cannons, baton charges and tear gases. Do such think tankers want a repetition of the Tottenham riots in India with police looking to the other side?

The zeal, spontaneity and outrage shown by such anti-CAA forces, based mostly on a heavily-biased and one-sided description of the protest movements, betray not only a prejudiced approach of their own but also a concerted attempt to tarnish the image of police force&nbsp;with the obvious aim of scoring political goals. None of such critiques have taken the pains to condemn the ugly violence unleashed by the protesters on the streets, despite the awareness that their opinions carry traction with the rioters. As most of the rioters were just copycat vandals who just imitated their peers out of fun without knowing much about the cause of their protests, a strong message against the violence by such thought leaders would have diffused their fun motive.

Instead of dousing the fire by condemning the violence in unequivocal terms, politicians, led by the Congress and the TMC, and the left activists are actively inflaming the situation by branding the police force as 'barbarians' out on 'revenge against citizens'.&nbsp;

It’s a disturbing phenomenon because such anti-police rhetorics not only go to break the morale of the police forces but also go to boost the morale of those miscreants who take to streets with a criminal intent to unleash a reign of terror on the majority of the citizenry showing scant respect for the rule of law. A state would collapse if it failed to ensure the societal order under threat of violence by mobs.

However, attacking the police and casting aspersions on the security organisations are among the chosen modus operandi of the left and the anti-establishment activists all around the world. In the US, the Democrats and the leftist are constantly targeting the Trump administration over its immigration policy by using rhetorical blasts, such as, 'concentration camps', 'children in cages' and 'Gestapo tactics'. Invoking the spectre of Nazis to attack the nationalist governments in order to put them on the back foot is one of the tested methods of the left.

President Trump had come to power on the popular slogan of 'Giving the power back to police' and that’s what he’s doing; he has made a law that makes assaulting a police officer – even threatening for the same or attempting to do so - a federal crime, as opposed to a state crime. On the other hand, England believes in the concept of 'policing by consent' that means, power of the police comes from the common consent of the people, as opposed to the power of the state, therefore, the legitimate power of policing emanates from adherence to functional transparency by the police force and its singular accountability to the people. India strikes a balance between the two extremes and, despite complex challenges from multiple fronts to law and order India hasn’t given police draconian powers.

However, under the Police Act, 1861, maintaining public order at public places is one of the primary duties of the police force in India. As per section 31 of this Act, it is incumbent upon the police to ensure that at public places people behave in a respectful and rational manner toward others and toward their surroundings. The police are required to maintain the public peace and prevent the commission of nuisance and, in case, such an incidence happens, Section 34 makes it an offence for any person to cause obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to public property. It mandates the police to ensure that actions of a group of individuals should not impinge on the rights and convenience of any other group.&nbsp;

Further, in the event of an offence under Section 34 above, an Executive Magistrate or a police officer is empowered under Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to cause the assembly to disperse from such place to restore public order and peace taking the help of civil or the armed force if so required. In order to prevent the disturbance of public order, the police may arrest an accused under Section 151 of the CrPC. which is a cognizable, non-bailable offence. 
&nbsp; 
No legitimate government can deny the right to protest, which is a fundamental right available to the citizens. Article 19 (1) of the Constitution gives freedom to the Indian citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms as well as the right to come out in procession or hold meetings. However, such a freedom is subject to various limiting provisions under the IPC, the CrPC and the Police Act, 1861 that, in line with the Article 19 (3) of the constitution, impose reasonable restrictions on these freedoms available under Article 19 (1), with the stated aim to ensure public order and peace.&nbsp;

Thus, the police actions against the violent anti-CAA protesters across the country are legally sound, constitutionally just and ethically valid.&nbsp;

Indian law enforcement agencies largely conform to the international standards of crowd control principles that emanate from various stipulations, like, The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Standard of Minimum Rules and the UN Body of Principles, that collectively set out several important principles and prerequisites for the just performance of law enforcement functions by the police.&nbsp;

The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) has compiled its code - called 'Basic Principles - on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials' that is based on the basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). According to it, government and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of non-lethal weapons and ammunition that should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering the lives of people in the crowd.

The Amnesty International has come out with its own guidelines, under the heading ‘10 Basic Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement Officials’. The Basic Standard No 4 of these standards authorises the use of force by police officers for dispersing violent assemblies, with the stipulation that police may use force “When less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives” and that “no more force should be used than what is absolutely necessary.”

Thus, in objective analysis, police have done what it was supposed to do, and they’ve done it displaying sufficient patience, forbearance and accountability. The December violence and rioting across cities were unprecedented in their reach, intensity and spontaneity, and yet the same was contained promptly just because the police intervened, applying globally prescribed enforcement measures in a timely and proportionate manner. Had the police been any less responsive, it would have led to grave repercussions for the larger citizenry.

None of the police-baiters from the politics, intelligentsia or the Bollywood had a suggestion to offer as to how the riots could have been controlled better and through what alternative means? They had none, because they didn’t want the rioting to ebb out; they wanted more violence, more arson for obvious reasons.&nbsp;

But, the question remains why the think-tankers are targeting the police and demonising them in such a relentless way?

&nbsp;The answer is simple. Their real target isn’t the police, rather it’s the government. All such politicians and people who are castigating the police for their actions, have in reality an axe to grind with the present political dispensation and for the same reason, they keep aligning themselves with every single cause that goes to cast a poor light on PM Modi and his government. The police force has become a target for such people because it happens to be the most visible representation of the sovereignty of the state and the most effective arm to enforce a sovereign’s authority. Undermining the police means undermining the authority of the political dispensation wielding that sovereign authority. A direct assault on police accusing them as violators of citizen’s constitutional rights and painting them as agents carrying political ideology of the rulers, help such think-tankers in positioning themselves as champions of democracy and constitutional rights against authoritarian rulers. Undermining the defence forces from time to time or from different platforms is a part of that same larger plan. Such strategy would help these people in undermining the moral authority of the Modi government to govern a deliberative, liberal democracy like India.&nbsp;

Moreover, pushing the police on the back foot by showing them as usurpers of liberal space of the citizens is immensely beneficial to such people. As such leftist thought leaders remain mostly at daggers drawn with the government and keep violating the laws of the land in the process, they would always like a thoroughly declawed and defanged police force. Toothless police wouldn’t play spoilsport with them and wouldn’t pose a threat to their ideological agenda, many of which are considered 'anti-national' by the present government. The anti-police rhetoric would internationalise the matter that would, in turn, put pressures on the government to reign in the police so that they may go soft on those activists in future. Thus, the present brouhaha around police excesses must be seen as a part of that important strategy. &nbsp;

The state is the expression of the collective will of the people organised to work for the collective good. Peace and order at public places is one such necessary corollary of the collective good that runs in serious conflict with the actions of few motivated groups that indulge in arsons and riots for meeting their narrow interests. Hence, the collective will of the people must prevail to restore orderliness in society by thoroughly defeating such unruly groups that express themselves through violent means. The think-tankers of the anti-CAA protests demonising the police need to respect this collective will of the people.

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

Do you suddenly get the feel that our policemen are being projected as deadly brutes straight from the Chengiz Khan army out on a savage act to torment the law-abiding citizens, and that the rampaging rioters and the stone-pelting arsonists, knocking down public utilities and setting vehicles on fire, are nothing but peaceful angels exercising their democratic rights?

Do you suddenly get the feel that our policemen are being projected as deadly brutes straight from the Chengiz Khan army out on a savage act to torment the law-abiding citizens, and that the rampaging rioters and the stone-pelting arsonists, knocking down public utilities and setting vehicles on fire, are nothing but peaceful angels exercising their democratic rights? If yes, blame it on a systematic and consistent anti-police rhetoric coming from those intellectuals, artists and media houses who find immense opportunities in it. They’re the think-tankers behind the violent rioting and they want the arsons and the deaths to continue for longer. No wonder they have raised the bogey of barbarism against the police action and have been crying it out as “shameful” and “deeply distressing”. Various actors including Parineeti Chopra, Huma Qureshi, Sidharth Malhotra, Konkana Sen Sharma, Manoj Vajpayee, Ayushman Khurana, Riteish Deshmukh, Vickey Kaushal expressed their anger, anguish and protest against the police action at the Jamia University and also at many other places in UP, giving scant respect to facts on record. However, the heaviest salvo on the image of police was fired by actor Swara Bhaskar, who during an interview to a TV channel, branded the police to be killers and communally spirited as she said, “They (police) are killing people. Like they are attacking the unarmed on the streets. They are working as rioters with communal spirit. Firing is being done inside the universities (sic).” In the leftist echo-chamber, as ever, the sentiment was echoed by others, as the self-styled historian Ramchandra Guha took to the Twitter to condemn, what he called, “The police brutalities and arbitrary detentions in the Uttar Pradesh”. He drew parallels between the police actions in Delhi and UP with that of the London riots of 2011 where, according to him, despite a week of violent protests across the city of London injuring 180 policemen, not a single protester was killed by the police. The obvious slant is that the police in Delhi and UP are an unprofessional bunch of brutes indulged in unwarranted barbarism. However, what Guha was obviously ignorant of, or hid intentionally in his comparison, is the fact that by the end of the week-long riots (August 4-11, 2011), the London police had unleashed a crackdown against the riots, also known as Tottenham riots, arresting 3000 people out of whom more than 1000 were served with serious criminal charges for 3433 recorded crimes across the city of London. But in India, the police have been very circumspect in resorting to indiscriminate arrests; only those miscreants against whom strong visual and other corroborative evidence are available on record, have been arrested. Second, what he deliberately hides is the fact that the London police was heavily under fire, both from the media and the civil society, for doing nothing and letting the rioters ransack and loot north London for nearly 12 hours, and demanded that police must deploy strong anti-riot methods, like water cannons, baton charges and tear gases. Do such think tankers want a repetition of the Tottenham riots in India with police looking to the other side? The zeal, spontaneity and outrage shown by such anti-CAA forces, based mostly on a heavily-biased and one-sided description of the protest movements, betray not only a prejudiced approach of their own but also a concerted attempt to tarnish the image of police force with the obvious aim of scoring political goals. None of such critiques have taken the pains to condemn the ugly violence unleashed by the protesters on the streets, despite the awareness that their opinions carry traction with the rioters. As most of the rioters were just copycat vandals who just imitated their peers out of fun without knowing much about the cause of their protests, a strong message against the violence by such thought leaders would have diffused their fun motive. Instead of dousing the fire by condemning the violence in unequivocal terms, politicians, led by the Congress and the TMC, and the left activists are actively inflaming the situation by branding the police force as 'barbarians' out on 'revenge against citizens'. It’s a disturbing phenomenon because such anti-police rhetorics not only go to break the morale of the police forces but also go to boost the morale of those miscreants who take to streets with a criminal intent to unleash a reign of terror on the majority of the citizenry showing scant respect for the rule of law. A state would collapse if it failed to ensure the societal order under threat of violence by mobs. However, attacking the police and casting aspersions on the security organisations are among the chosen modus operandi of the left and the anti-establishment activists all around the world. In the US, the Democrats and the leftist are constantly targeting the Trump administration over its immigration policy by using rhetorical blasts, such as, 'concentration camps', 'children in cages' and 'Gestapo tactics'. Invoking the spectre of Nazis to attack the nationalist governments in order to put them on the back foot is one of the tested methods of the left. President Trump had come to power on the popular slogan of 'Giving the power back to police' and that’s what he’s doing; he has made a law that makes assaulting a police officer – even threatening for the same or attempting to do so - a federal crime, as opposed to a state crime. On the other hand, England believes in the concept of 'policing by consent' that means, power of the police comes from the common consent of the people, as opposed to the power of the state, therefore, the legitimate power of policing emanates from adherence to functional transparency by the police force and its singular accountability to the people. India strikes a balance between the two extremes and, despite complex challenges from multiple fronts to law and order India hasn’t given police draconian powers. However, under the Police Act, 1861, maintaining public order at public places is one of the primary duties of the police force in India. As per section 31 of this Act, it is incumbent upon the police to ensure that at public places people behave in a respectful and rational manner toward others and toward their surroundings. The police are required to maintain the public peace and prevent the commission of nuisance and, in case, such an incidence happens, Section 34 makes it an offence for any person to cause obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to public property. It mandates the police to ensure that actions of a group of individuals should not impinge on the rights and convenience of any other group. Further, in the event of an offence under Section 34 above, an Executive Magistrate or a police officer is empowered under Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to cause the assembly to disperse from such place to restore public order and peace taking the help of civil or the armed force if so required. In order to prevent the disturbance of public order, the police may arrest an accused under Section 151 of the CrPC. which is a cognizable, non-bailable offence. No legitimate government can deny the right to protest, which is a fundamental right available to the citizens. Article 19 (1) of the Constitution gives freedom to the Indian citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms as well as the right to come out in procession or hold meetings. However, such a freedom is subject to various limiting provisions under the IPC, the CrPC and the Police Act, 1861 that, in line with the Article 19 (3) of the constitution, impose reasonable restrictions on these freedoms available under Article 19 (1), with the stated aim to ensure public order and peace. Thus, the police actions against the violent anti-CAA protesters across the country are legally sound, constitutionally just and ethically valid. Indian law enforcement agencies largely conform to the international standards of crowd control principles that emanate from various stipulations, like, The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Standard of Minimum Rules and the UN Body of Principles, that collectively set out several important principles and prerequisites for the just performance of law enforcement functions by the police. The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) has compiled its code - called 'Basic Principles - on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials' that is based on the basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). According to it, government and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of non-lethal weapons and ammunition that should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering the lives of people in the crowd. The Amnesty International has come out with its own guidelines, under the heading ‘10 Basic Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement Officials’. The Basic Standard No 4 of these standards authorises the use of force by police officers for dispersing violent assemblies, with the stipulation that police may use force “When less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives” and that “no more force should be used than what is absolutely necessary.” Thus, in objective analysis, police have done what it was supposed to do, and they’ve done it displaying sufficient patience, forbearance and accountability. The December violence and rioting across cities were unprecedented in their reach, intensity and spontaneity, and yet the same was contained promptly just because the police intervened, applying globally prescribed enforcement measures in a timely and proportionate manner. Had the police been any less responsive, it would have led to grave repercussions for the larger citizenry. None of the police-baiters from the politics, intelligentsia or the Bollywood had a suggestion to offer as to how the riots could have been controlled better and through what alternative means? They had none, because they didn’t want the rioting to ebb out; they wanted more violence, more arson for obvious reasons. But, the question remains why the think-tankers are targeting the police and demonising them in such a relentless way? The answer is simple. Their real target isn’t the police, rather it’s the government. All such politicians and people who are castigating the police for their actions, have in reality an axe to grind with the present political dispensation and for the same reason, they keep aligning themselves with every single cause that goes to cast a poor light on PM Modi and his government. The police force has become a target for such people because it happens to be the most visible representation of the sovereignty of the state and the most effective arm to enforce a sovereign’s authority. Undermining the police means undermining the authority of the political dispensation wielding that sovereign authority. A direct assault on police accusing them as violators of citizen’s constitutional rights and painting them as agents carrying political ideology of the rulers, help such think-tankers in positioning themselves as champions of democracy and constitutional rights against authoritarian rulers. Undermining the defence forces from time to time or from different platforms is a part of that same larger plan. Such strategy would help these people in undermining the moral authority of the Modi government to govern a deliberative, liberal democracy like India. Moreover, pushing the police on the back foot by showing them as usurpers of liberal space of the citizens is immensely beneficial to such people. As such leftist thought leaders remain mostly at daggers drawn with the government and keep violating the laws of the land in the process, they would always like a thoroughly declawed and defanged police force. Toothless police wouldn’t play spoilsport with them and wouldn’t pose a threat to their ideological agenda, many of which are considered 'anti-national' by the present government. The anti-police rhetoric would internationalise the matter that would, in turn, put pressures on the government to reign in the police so that they may go soft on those activists in future. Thus, the present brouhaha around police excesses must be seen as a part of that important strategy. The state is the expression of the collective will of the people organised to work for the collective good. Peace and order at public places is one such necessary corollary of the collective good that runs in serious conflict with the actions of few motivated groups that indulge in arsons and riots for meeting their narrow interests. Hence, the collective will of the people must prevail to restore orderliness in society by thoroughly defeating such unruly groups that express themselves through violent means. The think-tankers of the anti-CAA protests demonising the police need to respect this collective will of the people. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Anti-CAA protests: Here's why the police force is being targetted and demonised

As the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) becomes a law in India, opposition to it is growing far and wide across the nation. The December 19th protest against the law across India, accompanied with violence, arson and destruction of public properties in many cities came up as a surprise for the security establishments because violence, arson and stone-pelting had been used in an organized and methodical way everywhere.

Anti-CAA protests: A ticking ignorance bomb and a sheer vandalism with truth

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill.

Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant?

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance.

The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again.

India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities.

While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home.

The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant.&nbsp;

In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. &nbsp;

The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns.

Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India.

While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value.

With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how.

The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion.&nbsp;

Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so.&nbsp;

Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit.

Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'.

However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application

The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally.

However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others.

The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'.

In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney &amp; Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government.

However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. 
 
The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. 
 
In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” 
 
Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. 
 
Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. 
 
Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. 
 
In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention.

Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts.

The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries.

As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition.

Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines.

Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'.

Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. 
&nbsp;

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law.

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill. Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance. The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again. India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities. While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home. The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant. In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns. Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India. While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value. With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how. The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion. Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so. Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit. Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'. However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally. However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others. The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'. In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government. However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention. Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts. The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries. As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition. Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines. Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'. Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Here's why Supreme Court is not likely to quash Citizenship Amendment Act

Each portrait tells a story. A portrait, behind its contours, contains a persona that inspires, stimulates and motivates the beholders to emulate the ideals and ideologies that the former represents. The portrait of Muhammad Ali Jinnah hanging on the walls of the Students Union office in the Aligarh Muslim University, similarly, hides many stories behind the dust of time gathered around it that contains different message to different people. 
&nbsp; 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah is not just another figure lying in the debris of the history, but one who caused the dismemberment of India in order to create a separate nation on religious line. He gave political expression to a dangerous and dysfunctional "two-nation theory", which was long being propagated in-principle by the likes of Md Iqbal and Sir Syyid Ahmad Khan. Finally, through his unfathomable obstinacy and persistence he became successful in creating the theocratic state of Pakistan but not before programming a madness in which nearly 2 millions were killed and 14 millions were displaced permanently for no fault of their own. Those who lived behind, untouched with the ravages of death or displacement, got a permanent scar on their psyche and a pathological divide in their hearts.

While to the Hindus, Jinnah is a villain who divided India, to the Muslims he comes across as the greatest leader, the undisputed Quaid-i-azam who pulled off a valiant coup on the belligerent Hindus led by an 'obstructionist' Gandhi to create Pakistan for the ummah, an act of valiance comparable to none other than the Rashidun caliphs, who expanded the reach of Islam immediately after the Prophet's death.

But Jinnah was not like that, and at least till 1936 he wasn't a Muslim bigot. Jinnah was a free spirit caged within a Muslim body. Born an Ismaili Shia, Jinnah was as much a Muslim as Jawaharlal Nehru was a Hindu. With cigar, wine, western clothes and British mannerism he wasn't someone who fits the bill of a jihadi fighter struggling in the way of Allah for establishing an Islamic state for his followers. He never entertained the obscurantism of Islam or its fanatic traditions.

So, how suddenly Jinnah becomes fanatic? What makes him fall to the notion of partition of a country, in which he lived all through his life, on religious line? The answer lies in two factors.

The first factor that drew him to a separate Muslim state was the fear that the western democracy, as being adopted gradually in India, would be detrimental for the Muslims because of their small population. Constituting less than one third of the total population, Jinnah believed the Muslims would ever remain outnumbered by Hindus in all policy decisions.

Though the idea of a separate Islamic state within India was incubating slowly since the days of ideologues like Sir Saiyyad Ahmad Khan, this idea didn't resonate well with Jinnah, who at best looked for extracting concessions for Muslims from the Congress leaders as well as the British for a bigger pie in the governance within a united India. However, the Government of India Act, 1935, providing 'separate electorates' for Muslims and the subsequent elections of the 1937 proved disastrous for the political ambitions of Jinnah. Whereas the Congress was successful in making governments in eight provinces across India, the Jinnah-led All India Muslim League (AIML) couldn't form government anywhere including Punjab and Bengal, which were Muslim majority states. This exposed him to the realisation that the provision of 'separate electorate' was not working to the benefit of Muslims.

Thus, the developments convinced him that electoral democracy would result into the permanent subjugation of Muslims by the Hindus - a hypothesis that has since been thoroughly and comprehensively defeated in India, which has largely remained successful in ensuring rights and dignity for the minorities over its 70 years of post-Independence existence. The conclusion convinced him on the need and necessity of pitching a political demand for Pakistan.

The second factor was his close association with Muhammad Iqbal, the poet, politician and ideologue who is considered as the "spiritual father of Pakistan" in the 1930s till the latter's death. Through his series of speeches and writings, Iqbal established that Islam had a "legal concept" which was anachronistic with the principles of nationalism or democracy as neither of the two can operate without dividing the community (ummah). 
&nbsp; 
During the period of political vacuum in the IUML, mainly due to the self-imposed exile of Jinnah from India in the first half of 1930s, Iqbal theorised and successfully articulated, what was to be known later as the "Two-Nation Theory" - a political principle of religious exclusivism that holds Muslims as a distinct nation unable to co-exist with any other religious group or community, hence deserving political independence from the Hindus.

Having theorised such a blatant communalist principle, Iqbal set himself on the task of convincing Jinnah to come back to India and take up the leadership of the IUML, as he believed that the latter was the only Muslim in India who possessed the ability to lead the community and to make them join the League. With a series of intense and fruitful correspondences with Jinnah, Iqbal was successful in bringing the former back from London in 1936 to lead the IUML. Thus, appears Jinnah 2.0, thoroughly transformed and wholly steeped into the ideologies of Iqbal, whom he declared as his political mentor.

From the 1937 through the World War II, Jinnah still looked hesitant to ask for partition and wanted to have some kind of rapprochement with the Indian National Congress. However, the subsequent political developments dashed all hopes of Jinnah and he got more and more drawn to the visions of Iqbal. Finally, convinced of the need of Pakistan, Jinnah formally brought up "Pakistan Resolution" for creation of a Muslim state of Pakistan in its Lahore session of 1940 and the IUML adopted the same as its political goal henceforth.

The AMU had become the hotspot of Pakistan movement during this period as Jinnah made multiple visits to the institution all through this period. He was was given a lifetime membership of its student union in 1938.

Thus, the vagaries of electoral democracy and the machinations of Muhammad Iqbal were the two factors that completed the transformation of a secular-liberal Jinnah 1.0 to his 2.0 avatar, which saw a communal and obstinate politician spewing venom against Gandhi and Congress leaders while talking of Pakistan in an uncompromising manner. That's why the Indians, including a majority of Muslims who stayed behind rejecting his flawed theory, loathe him and find his portrait on an Indian university campus shocking.

However, from the Muslim perspective, Jinnah was a savior of Muslims from the 'oppressive' democracy that would have put them under the permanent subjugation of Hindus in an undivided India. He fought the British authorities as well as with the Hindu majority tooth and nail to carve out Pakistan. That's why he is still the hero of a section of Indian Muslims who treat him as an Islamic victor conquering over the Hindu majoritarianism. The portrait hanging in the Students Union office of the AMU is the portrait of Jinnah 2.0 which still finds space in the current Indian political environment.

Thus, Jinnah is a moral leader of those Indian Muslims who look for a dominant political space for themselves in the 21st century India. The Jinnah portrait gives them the inspiration and assures them that it's possible. The chant, 'lad ke lenge azadi' (we'll achieve independence by force) reverberating from the walls of the AMU, has its source in that portrait.

Just because the Berlin wall was there since the 1960s didn't mean it couldn't be demolished. Many such mistakes of the history have been rectified in course of time hence the argument that the portrait is there since 1938 is not the raison d'etre for its existence in the university. The portrait of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the AMU's Students Union office is nothing but the moral elixir of the aspirational Muslim youths looking for an Islamic icon in India through the leadership vacuum of modern times.

Thus, don't expect the portrait to be taken down from AMU. No wonder, if you find it creeping up many other university walls in India in days to come.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Jinnah was a free spirit caged within a Muslim body.

Each portrait tells a story. A portrait, behind its contours, contains a persona that inspires, stimulates and motivates the beholders to emulate the ideals and ideologies that the former represents. The portrait of Muhammad Ali Jinnah hanging on the walls of the Students Union office in the Aligarh Muslim University, similarly, hides many stories behind the dust of time gathered around it that contains different message to different people. Muhammad Ali Jinnah is not just another figure lying in the debris of the history, but one who caused the dismemberment of India in order to create a separate nation on religious line. He gave political expression to a dangerous and dysfunctional "two-nation theory", which was long being propagated in-principle by the likes of Md Iqbal and Sir Syyid Ahmad Khan. Finally, through his unfathomable obstinacy and persistence he became successful in creating the theocratic state of Pakistan but not before programming a madness in which nearly 2 millions were killed and 14 millions were displaced permanently for no fault of their own. Those who lived behind, untouched with the ravages of death or displacement, got a permanent scar on their psyche and a pathological divide in their hearts. While to the Hindus, Jinnah is a villain who divided India, to the Muslims he comes across as the greatest leader, the undisputed Quaid-i-azam who pulled off a valiant coup on the belligerent Hindus led by an 'obstructionist' Gandhi to create Pakistan for the ummah, an act of valiance comparable to none other than the Rashidun caliphs, who expanded the reach of Islam immediately after the Prophet's death. But Jinnah was not like that, and at least till 1936 he wasn't a Muslim bigot. Jinnah was a free spirit caged within a Muslim body. Born an Ismaili Shia, Jinnah was as much a Muslim as Jawaharlal Nehru was a Hindu. With cigar, wine, western clothes and British mannerism he wasn't someone who fits the bill of a jihadi fighter struggling in the way of Allah for establishing an Islamic state for his followers. He never entertained the obscurantism of Islam or its fanatic traditions. So, how suddenly Jinnah becomes fanatic? What makes him fall to the notion of partition of a country, in which he lived all through his life, on religious line? The answer lies in two factors. The first factor that drew him to a separate Muslim state was the fear that the western democracy, as being adopted gradually in India, would be detrimental for the Muslims because of their small population. Constituting less than one third of the total population, Jinnah believed the Muslims would ever remain outnumbered by Hindus in all policy decisions. Though the idea of a separate Islamic state within India was incubating slowly since the days of ideologues like Sir Saiyyad Ahmad Khan, this idea didn't resonate well with Jinnah, who at best looked for extracting concessions for Muslims from the Congress leaders as well as the British for a bigger pie in the governance within a united India. However, the Government of India Act, 1935, providing 'separate electorates' for Muslims and the subsequent elections of the 1937 proved disastrous for the political ambitions of Jinnah. Whereas the Congress was successful in making governments in eight provinces across India, the Jinnah-led All India Muslim League (AIML) couldn't form government anywhere including Punjab and Bengal, which were Muslim majority states. This exposed him to the realisation that the provision of 'separate electorate' was not working to the benefit of Muslims. Thus, the developments convinced him that electoral democracy would result into the permanent subjugation of Muslims by the Hindus - a hypothesis that has since been thoroughly and comprehensively defeated in India, which has largely remained successful in ensuring rights and dignity for the minorities over its 70 years of post-Independence existence. The conclusion convinced him on the need and necessity of pitching a political demand for Pakistan. The second factor was his close association with Muhammad Iqbal, the poet, politician and ideologue who is considered as the "spiritual father of Pakistan" in the 1930s till the latter's death. Through his series of speeches and writings, Iqbal established that Islam had a "legal concept" which was anachronistic with the principles of nationalism or democracy as neither of the two can operate without dividing the community (ummah). During the period of political vacuum in the IUML, mainly due to the self-imposed exile of Jinnah from India in the first half of 1930s, Iqbal theorised and successfully articulated, what was to be known later as the "Two-Nation Theory" - a political principle of religious exclusivism that holds Muslims as a distinct nation unable to co-exist with any other religious group or community, hence deserving political independence from the Hindus. Having theorised such a blatant communalist principle, Iqbal set himself on the task of convincing Jinnah to come back to India and take up the leadership of the IUML, as he believed that the latter was the only Muslim in India who possessed the ability to lead the community and to make them join the League. With a series of intense and fruitful correspondences with Jinnah, Iqbal was successful in bringing the former back from London in 1936 to lead the IUML. Thus, appears Jinnah 2.0, thoroughly transformed and wholly steeped into the ideologies of Iqbal, whom he declared as his political mentor. From the 1937 through the World War II, Jinnah still looked hesitant to ask for partition and wanted to have some kind of rapprochement with the Indian National Congress. However, the subsequent political developments dashed all hopes of Jinnah and he got more and more drawn to the visions of Iqbal. Finally, convinced of the need of Pakistan, Jinnah formally brought up "Pakistan Resolution" for creation of a Muslim state of Pakistan in its Lahore session of 1940 and the IUML adopted the same as its political goal henceforth. The AMU had become the hotspot of Pakistan movement during this period as Jinnah made multiple visits to the institution all through this period. He was was given a lifetime membership of its student union in 1938. Thus, the vagaries of electoral democracy and the machinations of Muhammad Iqbal were the two factors that completed the transformation of a secular-liberal Jinnah 1.0 to his 2.0 avatar, which saw a communal and obstinate politician spewing venom against Gandhi and Congress leaders while talking of Pakistan in an uncompromising manner. That's why the Indians, including a majority of Muslims who stayed behind rejecting his flawed theory, loathe him and find his portrait on an Indian university campus shocking. However, from the Muslim perspective, Jinnah was a savior of Muslims from the 'oppressive' democracy that would have put them under the permanent subjugation of Hindus in an undivided India. He fought the British authorities as well as with the Hindu majority tooth and nail to carve out Pakistan. That's why he is still the hero of a section of Indian Muslims who treat him as an Islamic victor conquering over the Hindu majoritarianism. The portrait hanging in the Students Union office of the AMU is the portrait of Jinnah 2.0 which still finds space in the current Indian political environment. Thus, Jinnah is a moral leader of those Indian Muslims who look for a dominant political space for themselves in the 21st century India. The Jinnah portrait gives them the inspiration and assures them that it's possible. The chant, 'lad ke lenge azadi' (we'll achieve independence by force) reverberating from the walls of the AMU, has its source in that portrait. Just because the Berlin wall was there since the 1960s didn't mean it couldn't be demolished. Many such mistakes of the history have been rectified in course of time hence the argument that the portrait is there since 1938 is not the raison d'etre for its existence in the university. The portrait of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the AMU's Students Union office is nothing but the moral elixir of the aspirational Muslim youths looking for an Islamic icon in India through the leadership vacuum of modern times. Thus, don't expect the portrait to be taken down from AMU. No wonder, if you find it creeping up many other university walls in India in days to come. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why you shouldn't expect the portrait of Jinnah to be taken down from AMU

"In the middle of difficulties, lies opportunity", said Albert Einstein.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Each tragedy leaves the hint of a comedy yet to be unfolded, each misfortune comes seeded in felicity yet to be born. In the same way, the latest action of the opposition parties to impeach the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the subsequent developments, no matter how "unfortunate and mischievous" they may be, have the potential to open up and settle many academic debates that would eventually go to strengthen the constitutional jurisprudence in India once the ominous dust kicked up around the matter is settled. The issue, although denting the image of the judiciary in an unfathomable way, is nothing less than a seed falling on the fertile ground. 
&nbsp; 
In the evolutionary process of society, each event has its significance. In the ontological argument, the question whether the opposition should have initiated a motion of impeachment against the CJI, and whether the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha should have shot it down on his own, both carry equal significance.

To the students of constitutional law, the development leads to a rich mine of potentialities where the outcome is likely to put forth a windfall of lessons that would help in setting definite regulations and precedents in areas that hitherto suffer from constitutional uncertainties.

Let’s talk on the motion of removal of the CJI, which is popularly known as 'impeachment motion' in media, though the word 'impeachment' comes with specific reference to President of India under Article 61 of the Constitution for judges of the Supreme Court, Article 124(4) of the Constitution mentions the word 'removal' instead of impeachment.

The motion of removal of the CJI, as submitted to Rajya Sabha by Ghulam Nabi Azad last Friday containing signatures of 71 Members of Parliament of Rajya Sabha (7 have retired now) from the Congress and 6 other parties, contained 5 'grounds of misbehaviour', hence the opposition pitched the case to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha for removal of the CJI. 
&nbsp; 
However, on Monday, Venkaiah Naidu, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, drew the curtain on the motion by rejecting it altogether. While doing so he had observed - "Members of Parliament who have presented the petition are unsure of their own case... the phrases used by the Hon'ble MPs themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption. The same certainly does not constitute 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', which is required to make out a case of 'proved misbehaviour' under Article 124 (4)… I am also aware it is imperative that we should have extraordinary, important and substantial grounds for the removal of a judge.” (Italics added) 
&nbsp; 
Though the Congress found the decision "ill-conceived and hasty", the decision of the Chairman stands in complete conformity with the existing law. In a series of cases, the courts have taken this position that the Speaker/Chairman is the final authority to decide whether the accusation against a judge of the Supreme Court requires investigation before consideration of his removal proposal by the Parliament. Section 3(1) of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 provides for the admission of such motion by the Speaker or the Chairman and subsequent action on it.

In Sarojini Ramaswami Vs Union of India (1992), the SC had set the guidelines in unambiguous terms: "Every Judge of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on his appointment is irremovable from office during his tenure except in the manner provided in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India.

The law made by the Parliament under Article 124(5), namely, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 framed thereunder provides that… the Speaker/Chairman is to decide whether the accusation requires investigation. If he chooses not to act on the accusation made in the form of the motion by the specified minimum number of Members of Parliament, the matter ends there." This position has been reiterated in a series of judgments, the most recent being Justice PD Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee (July 2011).

Incidentally, Justice S. Ramaswami was the first judge against whom a motion of removal was initiated in the Parliament and during the investigation on the corruption charges against him, 10 out of 14 charges were found to be true by the inquiry committee.

However, despite concrete evidences of corruption and misuse of power against justice Ramaswami, Kapil Sibal, assisted by JS Khehar, who was then an advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and who later became the 44th CJI of India, put up a 5-hour long spirited defence of Ramaswami as his counsel in the Parliament on May 10, 1993 and ensured that the impeachment motion failed in the House.

Whereas the Kapil Sibal of 1993 hated the idea of impeaching a judge with proven misbehavior, the Kapil Sibal of 2018 is hell-bent on impeaching a judge by inventing and imputing misbehavior to him. Chief Justice Dinakaran of Sikkim High Court, on the other hand, saved himself from the ignominy by resigning from his post in 2011.

The present episode leaves open many questions.

The opposition says that the CJI is guilty of misbehavior while the Vice-President says there is no proof prima facie. In such a scenario, the first and foremost question is, what constitutes "standard of proof"?

In common law jurisdictions, the standard of proof is nothing but clear and convincing evidence that happen to be beyond reasonable doubt and carry a level of certainty around them. However, the 'preponderance of probabilities' may also constitute a standard of proof.&nbsp;

In various decisions of the Supreme Court, such as in Dr. NG Dastane v. Mrs. S Dastane (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1534), it was held that the Court can "act on the preponderance of probabilities and arrive at a conclusion, and need not expect that all the conditions prescribed are to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt."

So, while Naidu believes 'suspicion, conjecture and assumption'&nbsp;have no role to play in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt, will preponderance of probabilities, if any, play a role in framing a jigsaw fit of charges from the 5 grounds of misbehavior listed against the CJI, once the matter reaches the court? 
&nbsp; 
Secondly, can the Chief Justice of India be considered as an institution of trust himself? 
&nbsp; 
The question was settled by a Supreme Court bench led by the CJI Deepak Mishra himself when it rejected a petition on April 11th this year filed by a Lucknow-based lawyer Ashok Pandey who sought a writ of Mandamus to "evolve a procedure for constituting benches and allotment of jurisdiction to different benches".

Quoting an earlier judgment of the State of Rajasthan Vs Prakash Chand (1998) and also a recent judgment of a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India (2018), the CJI-led bench affirmed that the Chief Justice of India is the undisputed master of roasters. Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud had opined, "as a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution of trust in himself."

The judgment implies there should be no occasion to deny the trust reposed in the CJI and hence he should be constitutionally trusted. However, with the opposition attacking on this very ‘repository of constitutional trust’, the question remains whether the repository of constitutional trust vested in the Chief Justice is absolute or is still open to judicial scrutiny?

The third question is whether this legislative decision of Venkaiah Naidu to reject the motion of removal of the CJI is subject to judicial review?

The settled position of law is that conducting businesses of the House, such as admitting or rejecting a motion, including a removal motion under Art 124(4), which is no different from any other motion under rules and procedures of Rajya Sabha under Art 118, is an exclusive right of the Chairman, and hence the courts can’t interfere in his legislative right. However, after the historic Keshvanand Bharti Vs State of Kerala case (1973) decision, where it was famously settled that Parliament can’t interfere with the 'basic structures' of the Constitution, the Congress can cling on to the thin argument that 'independence of judiciary', which certainly is a basic structure of the constitution, stands today in peril hence the Supreme Court must step in and review the decision of the Chairman. 
&nbsp; 
The three important questions raised above can finally and comprehensively be answered once the matter reaches to the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. To the Congress, the battle is electoral, guided by its political insinuations, hence the party is certain to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

However, from a value-neutral perspective, the episode presents an excellent opportunity to the constitutional institutions to fix the matter by plugging those nagging gaps in procedures and set definite precedents to avoid recurrence of similar situations in future. That's why the episode is nothing less than an opportunity in disguise.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The opposition says that the CJI is guilty of misbehavior while the Vice-President says there is no proof prima facie

"In the middle of difficulties, lies opportunity", said Albert Einstein. Each tragedy leaves the hint of a comedy yet to be unfolded, each misfortune comes seeded in felicity yet to be born. In the same way, the latest action of the opposition parties to impeach the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the subsequent developments, no matter how "unfortunate and mischievous" they may be, have the potential to open up and settle many academic debates that would eventually go to strengthen the constitutional jurisprudence in India once the ominous dust kicked up around the matter is settled. The issue, although denting the image of the judiciary in an unfathomable way, is nothing less than a seed falling on the fertile ground. In the evolutionary process of society, each event has its significance. In the ontological argument, the question whether the opposition should have initiated a motion of impeachment against the CJI, and whether the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha should have shot it down on his own, both carry equal significance. To the students of constitutional law, the development leads to a rich mine of potentialities where the outcome is likely to put forth a windfall of lessons that would help in setting definite regulations and precedents in areas that hitherto suffer from constitutional uncertainties. Let’s talk on the motion of removal of the CJI, which is popularly known as 'impeachment motion' in media, though the word 'impeachment' comes with specific reference to President of India under Article 61 of the Constitution for judges of the Supreme Court, Article 124(4) of the Constitution mentions the word 'removal' instead of impeachment. The motion of removal of the CJI, as submitted to Rajya Sabha by Ghulam Nabi Azad last Friday containing signatures of 71 Members of Parliament of Rajya Sabha (7 have retired now) from the Congress and 6 other parties, contained 5 'grounds of misbehaviour', hence the opposition pitched the case to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha for removal of the CJI. However, on Monday, Venkaiah Naidu, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, drew the curtain on the motion by rejecting it altogether. While doing so he had observed - "Members of Parliament who have presented the petition are unsure of their own case... the phrases used by the Hon'ble MPs themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption. The same certainly does not constitute 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', which is required to make out a case of 'proved misbehaviour' under Article 124 (4)… I am also aware it is imperative that we should have extraordinary, important and substantial grounds for the removal of a judge.” (Italics added) Though the Congress found the decision "ill-conceived and hasty", the decision of the Chairman stands in complete conformity with the existing law. In a series of cases, the courts have taken this position that the Speaker/Chairman is the final authority to decide whether the accusation against a judge of the Supreme Court requires investigation before consideration of his removal proposal by the Parliament. Section 3(1) of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 provides for the admission of such motion by the Speaker or the Chairman and subsequent action on it. In Sarojini Ramaswami Vs Union of India (1992), the SC had set the guidelines in unambiguous terms: "Every Judge of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on his appointment is irremovable from office during his tenure except in the manner provided in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India. The law made by the Parliament under Article 124(5), namely, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 framed thereunder provides that… the Speaker/Chairman is to decide whether the accusation requires investigation. If he chooses not to act on the accusation made in the form of the motion by the specified minimum number of Members of Parliament, the matter ends there." This position has been reiterated in a series of judgments, the most recent being Justice PD Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee (July 2011). Incidentally, Justice S. Ramaswami was the first judge against whom a motion of removal was initiated in the Parliament and during the investigation on the corruption charges against him, 10 out of 14 charges were found to be true by the inquiry committee. However, despite concrete evidences of corruption and misuse of power against justice Ramaswami, Kapil Sibal, assisted by JS Khehar, who was then an advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and who later became the 44th CJI of India, put up a 5-hour long spirited defence of Ramaswami as his counsel in the Parliament on May 10, 1993 and ensured that the impeachment motion failed in the House. Whereas the Kapil Sibal of 1993 hated the idea of impeaching a judge with proven misbehavior, the Kapil Sibal of 2018 is hell-bent on impeaching a judge by inventing and imputing misbehavior to him. Chief Justice Dinakaran of Sikkim High Court, on the other hand, saved himself from the ignominy by resigning from his post in 2011. The present episode leaves open many questions. The opposition says that the CJI is guilty of misbehavior while the Vice-President says there is no proof prima facie. In such a scenario, the first and foremost question is, what constitutes "standard of proof"? In common law jurisdictions, the standard of proof is nothing but clear and convincing evidence that happen to be beyond reasonable doubt and carry a level of certainty around them. However, the 'preponderance of probabilities' may also constitute a standard of proof. In various decisions of the Supreme Court, such as in Dr. NG Dastane v. Mrs. S Dastane (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1534), it was held that the Court can "act on the preponderance of probabilities and arrive at a conclusion, and need not expect that all the conditions prescribed are to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt." So, while Naidu believes 'suspicion, conjecture and assumption' have no role to play in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt, will preponderance of probabilities, if any, play a role in framing a jigsaw fit of charges from the 5 grounds of misbehavior listed against the CJI, once the matter reaches the court? Secondly, can the Chief Justice of India be considered as an institution of trust himself? The question was settled by a Supreme Court bench led by the CJI Deepak Mishra himself when it rejected a petition on April 11th this year filed by a Lucknow-based lawyer Ashok Pandey who sought a writ of Mandamus to "evolve a procedure for constituting benches and allotment of jurisdiction to different benches". Quoting an earlier judgment of the State of Rajasthan Vs Prakash Chand (1998) and also a recent judgment of a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India (2018), the CJI-led bench affirmed that the Chief Justice of India is the undisputed master of roasters. Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud had opined, "as a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution of trust in himself." The judgment implies there should be no occasion to deny the trust reposed in the CJI and hence he should be constitutionally trusted. However, with the opposition attacking on this very ‘repository of constitutional trust’, the question remains whether the repository of constitutional trust vested in the Chief Justice is absolute or is still open to judicial scrutiny? The third question is whether this legislative decision of Venkaiah Naidu to reject the motion of removal of the CJI is subject to judicial review? The settled position of law is that conducting businesses of the House, such as admitting or rejecting a motion, including a removal motion under Art 124(4), which is no different from any other motion under rules and procedures of Rajya Sabha under Art 118, is an exclusive right of the Chairman, and hence the courts can’t interfere in his legislative right. However, after the historic Keshvanand Bharti Vs State of Kerala case (1973) decision, where it was famously settled that Parliament can’t interfere with the 'basic structures' of the Constitution, the Congress can cling on to the thin argument that 'independence of judiciary', which certainly is a basic structure of the constitution, stands today in peril hence the Supreme Court must step in and review the decision of the Chairman. The three important questions raised above can finally and comprehensively be answered once the matter reaches to the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. To the Congress, the battle is electoral, guided by its political insinuations, hence the party is certain to take the issue to the Supreme Court. However, from a value-neutral perspective, the episode presents an excellent opportunity to the constitutional institutions to fix the matter by plugging those nagging gaps in procedures and set definite precedents to avoid recurrence of similar situations in future. That's why the episode is nothing less than an opportunity in disguise. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why is the impeachment saga an opportunity in disguise?

It's a season of kitschy symbolism in Bollywood with celebrities after celebrities posting pictures with placards that say "I am ashamed", and demanding justice for an eight-year-old girl who was gangraped and murdered in Kathua. The wordings, style, tonality and content of the placards being the same through all the celebrities.

The trend is not limited to the Bollywood alone most of the celebrities from different walks of life have been pronouncing the arrested people as 'rapists' and the temple as the 'scene of crime'. Adding the prefix "alleged" or using the word "suspect" has gone out of fashion in the new secular consciousness.

The purpose of the above act of the Bollywood celebrities is noble and the symbolism isn't lost on anyone. Yet, the choice of words and the absence of sensibilities are appalling. It betrays not only a lack of research on the subject but also a fanatic avidity to pass judgement on blinkered notions. This is bigotry of another kind where a hearsay verdict is to be hurriedly delivered on the basis of one-sided accounts. No counter view is to be honoured even for the sake of balance, let alone for the sake of justice.

It's important to find out who's behind this orchestrated campaign that passes judgement on a place of worship even without a trial, and defames it without any consideration of the basic principles of natural justice.

Let's try to understand the complex social-demographic reality of Kathua, which goes to explain the contextuality of the episode and its fallout.

Kathua - or for that matter, whole of Jammu, Udhampur, Samba etc - has become an unfortunate battleground of a desperate social and demographic strife where constant grabbing (and also, purchasing) of forest lands by the Gujjar-Bakherwal settlers and the state government's alleged support to it, has created a deep suspicion in the minds of the locals who believe that the government is trying to change the demographic character of the region.

This, together with illegal presence of thousands of Rohingyas in Jammu region, is a thorn in the flesh of the psyche of the local people. And the fact that these Rohingyas have Aadhaar and ration cards raises questions on the role of local government.

Further, the Rohingyas are believed to have close ties with ISI. But no one knows how many of these settlers are having direct linkages with the ISI. It's a well-known fact that ISI is constantly evolving ideas to create disturbances in the Jammu region. Investigating agencies probing the recent attack on an Army camp in Sunjuwan are looking at the local support angle and the presence of Rohingya camps nearby might come under the scanner.

In the given scenario, the apprehension that ISI may be playing on this communal tension in the region by hatching a plot to get the girl killed and planting it on a temple, needs to be ruled out. It is apprehended by many local residents that the Rohingya may come as a handy tool to be used for such acts. Various reports have appeared in the media that have confirmed the presence of Rohingyas in the village where the girl was killed. Hence, it's important to allay the fears of the local people by getting to the bottom of the controversy through a fair inquiry.

Further, the circumstantial evidences of the murder create suspicion in the J&K government's chargesheet, which has been prepared by a SIT drawing police officials with dubious records. Using a temple for such a heinous act, and that too by an old man in mid-sixties, and that again for seven days - all create ample suspicions. The locals say that the 'Devisthaan' is a prayer hall with no locking facility and hence it is pretty impossible to keep somebody locked and sedated for seven days in the temple, which was regularly being visited by the devotees all throughout the period due to the festival of Makar Sankranti at the time of the alleged incident.

None of us, including the Bollywood celebrities, know what's the reality. Then what's the hurry to jump the gun and to declare somebody a culprit and drag a temple in the act even without a trial? Hasn't the Bollywood erred in pronouncing the Devisthaan to be a scene of crime even without an investigation? Wouldn't it be a good idea to be patient in passing a verdict until the matter was investigated in a free, fair and impartial manner?

Even more atrocious is the attempt to portray the local Kathua demonstrators as rape apologists. They're not. They're equally horrified by the crime. They're saying the same thing that the celebrities are saying - hold a fair investigation, a fair trial and give harshest possible punishment to the culprits, and for that, a CBI enquiry is needed to find out who the culprits really are. This is indeed required because the J&K Police, like the state police elsewhere, is known for its pliability, inefficiency and corruption.

Chances maybe that the persons arrested are the real culprits. But isn't it wise to give them a fair chance before hanging?

We know how state police conducts investigations and invent 'criminals' - remember Ryan International case of Gurgaon, how the bus driver was declared accused and how people were baying for his blood. However, a CBI inquiry proved him innocent. Thus, baying for the blood of the accused ones on the basis of the local police chargesheet, is nothing but a blunder in view of various counter evidences being floated.

The SIT made indiscriminate arrests of locals and subjected them to various forms of torture. People of the village in Kathua have never had such a harrowing experience ever in the past and are terrified. Many have left their village fearing even more trouble. These people are peaceful communities that hold their temples very precious. But, already their sense of pride is under attack.

Thus, asking for a CBI investigation by the Kathua demonstrators is nowhere an atrocious demand. It's rather the most appropriate act in the given circumstance. Maybe, for the first time ever, I have seen anyone asking for a CBI inquiry and being castigated for it. If Unnao rape case can be handed over to the CBI, why can't the Kathua case go to the same agency, especially when so many doubts have been raised on the composition and intention of the SIT?

Hence, for the Bollywood celebrities, the symbolism wouldn't have lost if they hadn't passed judgment on the 'Devisthaan' that demeaned it and, instead, had asked for a CBI inquiry to clear the air once for all.

I'm an Indian and I want justice for the girl through a CBI enquiry. What about you?

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Kathua - or for that matter, whole of Jammu, Udhampur, Samba etc - has become an unfortunate battleground of a desperate social and demographic strife.

It's a season of kitschy symbolism in Bollywood with celebrities after celebrities posting pictures with placards that say "I am ashamed", and demanding justice for an eight-year-old girl who was gangraped and murdered in Kathua. The wordings, style, tonality and content of the placards being the same through all the celebrities. The trend is not limited to the Bollywood alone most of the celebrities from different walks of life have been pronouncing the arrested people as 'rapists' and the temple as the 'scene of crime'. Adding the prefix "alleged" or using the word "suspect" has gone out of fashion in the new secular consciousness. The purpose of the above act of the Bollywood celebrities is noble and the symbolism isn't lost on anyone. Yet, the choice of words and the absence of sensibilities are appalling. It betrays not only a lack of research on the subject but also a fanatic avidity to pass judgement on blinkered notions. This is bigotry of another kind where a hearsay verdict is to be hurriedly delivered on the basis of one-sided accounts. No counter view is to be honoured even for the sake of balance, let alone for the sake of justice. It's important to find out who's behind this orchestrated campaign that passes judgement on a place of worship even without a trial, and defames it without any consideration of the basic principles of natural justice. Let's try to understand the complex social-demographic reality of Kathua, which goes to explain the contextuality of the episode and its fallout. Kathua - or for that matter, whole of Jammu, Udhampur, Samba etc - has become an unfortunate battleground of a desperate social and demographic strife where constant grabbing (and also, purchasing) of forest lands by the Gujjar-Bakherwal settlers and the state government's alleged support to it, has created a deep suspicion in the minds of the locals who believe that the government is trying to change the demographic character of the region. This, together with illegal presence of thousands of Rohingyas in Jammu region, is a thorn in the flesh of the psyche of the local people. And the fact that these Rohingyas have Aadhaar and ration cards raises questions on the role of local government. Further, the Rohingyas are believed to have close ties with ISI. But no one knows how many of these settlers are having direct linkages with the ISI. It's a well-known fact that ISI is constantly evolving ideas to create disturbances in the Jammu region. Investigating agencies probing the recent attack on an Army camp in Sunjuwan are looking at the local support angle and the presence of Rohingya camps nearby might come under the scanner. In the given scenario, the apprehension that ISI may be playing on this communal tension in the region by hatching a plot to get the girl killed and planting it on a temple, needs to be ruled out. It is apprehended by many local residents that the Rohingya may come as a handy tool to be used for such acts. Various reports have appeared in the media that have confirmed the presence of Rohingyas in the village where the girl was killed. Hence, it's important to allay the fears of the local people by getting to the bottom of the controversy through a fair inquiry. Further, the circumstantial evidences of the murder create suspicion in the J&K government's chargesheet, which has been prepared by a SIT drawing police officials with dubious records. Using a temple for such a heinous act, and that too by an old man in mid-sixties, and that again for seven days - all create ample suspicions. The locals say that the 'Devisthaan' is a prayer hall with no locking facility and hence it is pretty impossible to keep somebody locked and sedated for seven days in the temple, which was regularly being visited by the devotees all throughout the period due to the festival of Makar Sankranti at the time of the alleged incident. None of us, including the Bollywood celebrities, know what's the reality. Then what's the hurry to jump the gun and to declare somebody a culprit and drag a temple in the act even without a trial? Hasn't the Bollywood erred in pronouncing the Devisthaan to be a scene of crime even without an investigation? Wouldn't it be a good idea to be patient in passing a verdict until the matter was investigated in a free, fair and impartial manner? Even more atrocious is the attempt to portray the local Kathua demonstrators as rape apologists. They're not. They're equally horrified by the crime. They're saying the same thing that the celebrities are saying - hold a fair investigation, a fair trial and give harshest possible punishment to the culprits, and for that, a CBI enquiry is needed to find out who the culprits really are. This is indeed required because the J&K Police, like the state police elsewhere, is known for its pliability, inefficiency and corruption. Chances maybe that the persons arrested are the real culprits. But isn't it wise to give them a fair chance before hanging? We know how state police conducts investigations and invent 'criminals' - remember Ryan International case of Gurgaon, how the bus driver was declared accused and how people were baying for his blood. However, a CBI inquiry proved him innocent. Thus, baying for the blood of the accused ones on the basis of the local police chargesheet, is nothing but a blunder in view of various counter evidences being floated. The SIT made indiscriminate arrests of locals and subjected them to various forms of torture. People of the village in Kathua have never had such a harrowing experience ever in the past and are terrified. Many have left their village fearing even more trouble. These people are peaceful communities that hold their temples very precious. But, already their sense of pride is under attack. Thus, asking for a CBI investigation by the Kathua demonstrators is nowhere an atrocious demand. It's rather the most appropriate act in the given circumstance. Maybe, for the first time ever, I have seen anyone asking for a CBI inquiry and being castigated for it. If Unnao rape case can be handed over to the CBI, why can't the Kathua case go to the same agency, especially when so many doubts have been raised on the composition and intention of the SIT? Hence, for the Bollywood celebrities, the symbolism wouldn't have lost if they hadn't passed judgment on the 'Devisthaan' that demeaned it and, instead, had asked for a CBI inquiry to clear the air once for all. I'm an Indian and I want justice for the girl through a CBI enquiry. What about you? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: The Kathua case and Bollywood's pernicious symbolism

It&#39;s a season of revisions in the Supreme Court. Just on the heels of its revisionist decision on Art 377, the Supreme Court today has reversed its order of November, 2016 where it had made mandatory for all cinema owners to play the national anthem and for all viewers to sing it before commencement of a movie all across the country. The court came out with this modification following the changed stance of the Centre, which suggested the court to make the singing of national anthem optional at the place of mandatory.&nbsp;A detailed guideline may come up on the matter once a 12-member inter-ministerial group constituted by the government formulates its recommendation on the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, which may suggest how better we can respect our national symbols.

However, before you rejoice on the end of the so-called &lsquo;patriotic vigilantism&rsquo;, let me mention that the court made it clear that although playing the national anthem is optional for cinema halls if the same is chosen to be played then standing and singing the same shall remain mandatory.

To begin with, let&rsquo;s be straight. If patriotism brews within your heart, it will gush out. It will show up in your looks, body language, gestures and mannerism; no matter whether it&rsquo;s a school or a cinema, a place doesn&rsquo;t change the equation. However, if you haven&rsquo;t got what it takes, you&rsquo;ll look out for curious excuses. It&rsquo;s oxymoronic to have patriotism in your heart and not to rise for the national anthem.

At present, the intellectual landscape in India is rife with many such excuses over why one shouldn&rsquo;t rise and sing the national anthem.&nbsp;While listening to a petition of Cinema Association against the 2016 order, Justice Chandrachud had wondered in 2017 &ndash; &ldquo;Why do people have to wear their patriotism on their sleeves&hellip;People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment&hellip;Society needs that entertainment?&rdquo; He took the matter a bit farther &ndash; &ldquo;In a movie theatre, people may be in shorts etc. So someone may say people are wearing shorts and showing disrespect to the national anthem. Where do we then draw the line on moral policing?&rdquo;

Of course, India is not a totalitarian state where all the activities of individual&rsquo;s life would be directed towards the glorification of the state, yet one must appreciate that in a land of staggering diversity like India, certain threads are required to keep us bonded. It&rsquo;s important to protect, preserve and promote such threads.

The question of singing the national anthem is enveloped in the larger debate of freedom of individual versus the intrusive nature of the state. Let me phrase the debate precisely &ndash; can a modern, progressive state intrude upon an individual&rsquo;s right to choice through coercive powers? Or more precisely, can the state force a particular notion of patriotism on its subjects and direct them to respect the national symbols as per its whims?

Actually, too many of them, the argument is existential. It&rsquo;s a part of the larger debate that runs in the society through the broader divide of liberalism versus conservatism. Whether India would promote the progressive values of liberty, freedom and choice or would she eventually drift to totalitarianism? A decisive resolution of this question would settle many subsequent debates.

No nation can survive if it couldn&rsquo;t enforce certain basic minimum obligations on its citizens. We call it &lsquo;Fundamental Duties&rsquo; in our constitution. Respect for one&rsquo;s national symbols and expecting all citizens to commit to it is one such fundamental duty, which no citizen can escape. It&rsquo;s necessary for instilling in the psyche of the society a sense of unity, camaraderie and belongingness.

Now, let&rsquo;s come to those curious excuses. &lsquo;Is standing up and singing the national anthem is the only way to prove one&rsquo;s patriotism?&rsquo; &ndash; many growls on social media.

Well, not the only way, but it&rsquo;s the most emphatic way. To show your patriotism, you need to commit yourself to many other cherished values of the nation such as, cleaning and ensuring cleanliness of the surroundings, integrity and honesty in public life, respecting public properties, following traffic rules, standing for weaker and disadvantaged sections, respecting and protecting the honour of women in society, desisting from sectarian feelings of cast, sect, regions and many more. Now, count within, how many of these do you carry with you to compensate for seeking exemption from singing the national anthem. Hmmm&hellip;maybe, hardly any! You see, singing the national anthem is easiest among the above list to learn patriotism. Proceeding to other values becomes easier.

Being a patriot is not easy. You&rsquo;ve to commit a lot, sacrifice a lot. It&rsquo;s not like being a consumerist-hedonist-metrosexual egoist whom nobody cares. But, the society cares for the patriot in the same way the patriot cares for society. Moreover, respecting the national symbols is a constitutional act. The fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizens of India to abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, national flag and the National Anthem.

The next man asks&nbsp; &ndash; &lsquo;WTF this unity? Aren&rsquo;t we already united?&rsquo; No sir. You aren&rsquo;t. Your unity is shaky and hollow and stands tattered over years of cumulative suspicion and distrust fostered by competing ideologies of identities. But, these national symbols cut through the identities and bring us closer.

Some others lament that forcing something down somebody&rsquo;s throat even if he or she didn&rsquo;t like it is unjust. They believe one must act as per one&rsquo;s feelings and if someone doesn&rsquo;t feel to sing the anthem from within, the state shouldn&rsquo;t force.

Why! The state must force it! Patriotism is not born with us. It&rsquo;s learnt. If you failed to cultivate respect for national symbols in your formative days doesn&rsquo;t mean you&rsquo;ll go around disrespecting it. You need to learn it now.

Now, let&#39;s come to the argument - &ldquo;People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment. Society needs that entertainment.&rdquo;

Of course, Society needs it. Go and have your undiluted entertainment. But, before that, spare a fleeting 52 seconds to foster a sense of unity with those who are slogging it out in the glaciers, ravines and deserts away from their homes and families to keep India together and to give you the moments of your &lsquo;undiluted entertainment&rsquo;.&nbsp;Just 52 seconds, even before that entertainment actually begins.&nbsp;After you pass the test of this 52 seconds torture, your entertainment will begin and remain undiluted till the end. Shake your buttocks or roll over the floor laughing without dilution. After all, you&rsquo;re blessed with 2 legs and a shoulder to carry the burden of uniting with the pride of India. What is missing is a little spirit. Kindle it.

As far wearing the patriotism on our sleeves is concerned, I wonder where people take pride in wearing its arrogance, prejudices, bigotry, egoism and hubris on their sleeves, what harm is there in wearing the lesser evil, patriotism?

Moreover, We shouldn&rsquo;t miss the larger symbolism of the act. Standing up and singing the song inspires, motivates and teaches others to respect it. Those who detest the idea of standing up for singing the national anthem must have been in the company of someone doing the same, in their childhood days. Orientations are shaped; negatives orientations are shaped more easily. That&rsquo;s why we must watch our behavior because we&rsquo;re influencing someone watching us, especially those credulous children. Set a positive example for them. Don&rsquo;t play a spoiler in their lives.

Yes, when it comes to playing the anthem in cinema halls, it&rsquo;s prone to misuse. At times, zealots jump to do moral policing by harassing those who carry reservations on it.&nbsp;In a horrible show of &lsquo;patriotism&rsquo; in Goa this year, a couple assaulted a writer and an award-winning disability rights activist, Salil Chaturvedi, from behind who didn&rsquo;t stand up for the national anthem. The couple didn&rsquo;t realize that he was disabled. There have been few other cases of such violence in cinema halls.

Now, it&rsquo;s up to the state how to take proper safeguards against misuse of such provisions. Education and sensitization play the key role in making people behave as citizens. There is no point in respecting the national symbols when you&rsquo;re jumping to take law in your hands. A rowdy can&rsquo;t be a patriot because he&rsquo;s dangerous for the society. Such instances lend credence to the fact that the nation is heading towards fascism. Hence, the government must criminalise any act of intimidation or physical violence or any form of vigilantism to enforce patriotic behaviour or else we&rsquo;ll be losing credibility of being a liberal democracy and society.

In the balance sheet of arguments, it&rsquo;s good that the Supreme Court has made the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls an optional act. However, whosoever chooses to play the same, there&rsquo;s no harm in getting up, tucking away your drink under the seat and holding those half-munched popcorns in your mouth, for 52 seconds and singing aloud &ndash; &ldquo;Jan Gana Mana&hellip;&rdquo;&nbsp;before a ruffling tricolor on the screen. Mind, the child beside you is watching!

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

The question of singing the national anthem is enveloped in the larger debate of freedom of individual versus the intrusive nature of state.

It's a season of revisions in the Supreme Court. Just on the heels of its revisionist decision on Art 377, the Supreme Court today has reversed its order of November, 2016 where it had made mandatory for all cinema owners to play the national anthem and for all viewers to sing it before commencement of a movie all across the country. The court came out with this modification following the changed stance of the Centre, which suggested the court to make the singing of national anthem optional at the place of mandatory. A detailed guideline may come up on the matter once a 12-member inter-ministerial group constituted by the government formulates its recommendation on the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, which may suggest how better we can respect our national symbols. However, before you rejoice on the end of the so-called ‘patriotic vigilantism’, let me mention that the court made it clear that although playing the national anthem is optional for cinema halls if the same is chosen to be played then standing and singing the same shall remain mandatory. To begin with, let’s be straight. If patriotism brews within your heart, it will gush out. It will show up in your looks, body language, gestures and mannerism; no matter whether it’s a school or a cinema, a place doesn’t change the equation. However, if you haven’t got what it takes, you’ll look out for curious excuses. It’s oxymoronic to have patriotism in your heart and not to rise for the national anthem. At present, the intellectual landscape in India is rife with many such excuses over why one shouldn’t rise and sing the national anthem. While listening to a petition of Cinema Association against the 2016 order, Justice Chandrachud had wondered in 2017 – “Why do people have to wear their patriotism on their sleeves…People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment…Society needs that entertainment?” He took the matter a bit farther – “In a movie theatre, people may be in shorts etc. So someone may say people are wearing shorts and showing disrespect to the national anthem. Where do we then draw the line on moral policing?” Of course, India is not a totalitarian state where all the activities of individual’s life would be directed towards the glorification of the state, yet one must appreciate that in a land of staggering diversity like India, certain threads are required to keep us bonded. It’s important to protect, preserve and promote such threads. The question of singing the national anthem is enveloped in the larger debate of freedom of individual versus the intrusive nature of the state. Let me phrase the debate precisely – can a modern, progressive state intrude upon an individual’s right to choice through coercive powers? Or more precisely, can the state force a particular notion of patriotism on its subjects and direct them to respect the national symbols as per its whims? Actually, too many of them, the argument is existential. It’s a part of the larger debate that runs in the society through the broader divide of liberalism versus conservatism. Whether India would promote the progressive values of liberty, freedom and choice or would she eventually drift to totalitarianism? A decisive resolution of this question would settle many subsequent debates. No nation can survive if it couldn’t enforce certain basic minimum obligations on its citizens. We call it ‘Fundamental Duties’ in our constitution. Respect for one’s national symbols and expecting all citizens to commit to it is one such fundamental duty, which no citizen can escape. It’s necessary for instilling in the psyche of the society a sense of unity, camaraderie and belongingness. Now, let’s come to those curious excuses. ‘Is standing up and singing the national anthem is the only way to prove one’s patriotism?’ – many growls on social media. Well, not the only way, but it’s the most emphatic way. To show your patriotism, you need to commit yourself to many other cherished values of the nation such as, cleaning and ensuring cleanliness of the surroundings, integrity and honesty in public life, respecting public properties, following traffic rules, standing for weaker and disadvantaged sections, respecting and protecting the honour of women in society, desisting from sectarian feelings of cast, sect, regions and many more. Now, count within, how many of these do you carry with you to compensate for seeking exemption from singing the national anthem. Hmmm…maybe, hardly any! You see, singing the national anthem is easiest among the above list to learn patriotism. Proceeding to other values becomes easier. Being a patriot is not easy. You’ve to commit a lot, sacrifice a lot. It’s not like being a consumerist-hedonist-metrosexual egoist whom nobody cares. But, the society cares for the patriot in the same way the patriot cares for society. Moreover, respecting the national symbols is a constitutional act. The fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizens of India to abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, national flag and the National Anthem. The next man asks – ‘WTF this unity? Aren’t we already united?’ No sir. You aren’t. Your unity is shaky and hollow and stands tattered over years of cumulative suspicion and distrust fostered by competing ideologies of identities. But, these national symbols cut through the identities and bring us closer. Some others lament that forcing something down somebody’s throat even if he or she didn’t like it is unjust. They believe one must act as per one’s feelings and if someone doesn’t feel to sing the anthem from within, the state shouldn’t force. Why! The state must force it! Patriotism is not born with us. It’s learnt. If you failed to cultivate respect for national symbols in your formative days doesn’t mean you’ll go around disrespecting it. You need to learn it now. Now, let's come to the argument - “People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment. Society needs that entertainment.” Of course, Society needs it. Go and have your undiluted entertainment. But, before that, spare a fleeting 52 seconds to foster a sense of unity with those who are slogging it out in the glaciers, ravines and deserts away from their homes and families to keep India together and to give you the moments of your ‘undiluted entertainment’. Just 52 seconds, even before that entertainment actually begins. After you pass the test of this 52 seconds torture, your entertainment will begin and remain undiluted till the end. Shake your buttocks or roll over the floor laughing without dilution. After all, you’re blessed with 2 legs and a shoulder to carry the burden of uniting with the pride of India. What is missing is a little spirit. Kindle it. As far wearing the patriotism on our sleeves is concerned, I wonder where people take pride in wearing its arrogance, prejudices, bigotry, egoism and hubris on their sleeves, what harm is there in wearing the lesser evil, patriotism? Moreover, We shouldn’t miss the larger symbolism of the act. Standing up and singing the song inspires, motivates and teaches others to respect it. Those who detest the idea of standing up for singing the national anthem must have been in the company of someone doing the same, in their childhood days. Orientations are shaped; negatives orientations are shaped more easily. That’s why we must watch our behavior because we’re influencing someone watching us, especially those credulous children. Set a positive example for them. Don’t play a spoiler in their lives. Yes, when it comes to playing the anthem in cinema halls, it’s prone to misuse. At times, zealots jump to do moral policing by harassing those who carry reservations on it. In a horrible show of ‘patriotism’ in Goa this year, a couple assaulted a writer and an award-winning disability rights activist, Salil Chaturvedi, from behind who didn’t stand up for the national anthem. The couple didn’t realize that he was disabled. There have been few other cases of such violence in cinema halls. Now, it’s up to the state how to take proper safeguards against misuse of such provisions. Education and sensitization play the key role in making people behave as citizens. There is no point in respecting the national symbols when you’re jumping to take law in your hands. A rowdy can’t be a patriot because he’s dangerous for the society. Such instances lend credence to the fact that the nation is heading towards fascism. Hence, the government must criminalise any act of intimidation or physical violence or any form of vigilantism to enforce patriotic behaviour or else we’ll be losing credibility of being a liberal democracy and society. In the balance sheet of arguments, it’s good that the Supreme Court has made the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls an optional act. However, whosoever chooses to play the same, there’s no harm in getting up, tucking away your drink under the seat and holding those half-munched popcorns in your mouth, for 52 seconds and singing aloud – “Jan Gana Mana…” before a ruffling tricolor on the screen. Mind, the child beside you is watching! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Does singing the national anthem mean wearing patriotism on your sleeves?

The New Year couldn&rsquo;t have begun on a worse note than what we came across on the very first day of 2018. As the rest of the nation was indulging in a food and dance binge wishing even strangers with the cheers of &ldquo;Happy New Year&rdquo;, villagers from Koregaon Bhima, Pabal, and Shikrapur in Pune district of Maharashtra were pelting stones to hit the skulls of those with whom they might be living in harmony since generations. As the maelstrom subsided, one person had died and 25 vehicles were torched in clashes that broke out between villagers on 1st January over a celebration of a 200-yrs old &ldquo;victory&rdquo; of Mahars over Peshwa Bajirao II&#39;s Army on January 1, 1818.

The ripples of the incident travelled far and wide across Maharashtra with many incidences of violence in Nagpur, Aurangabad and Mumbai on 3rd January in a day-long state-wide shutdown called by various Dalit parties on Wednesday.&nbsp;

The question is what led to the violence?

It all started with Koregaon-Bhima, a small village in Pune district, where many members of Dalit communities gathered on January 1st on the dawn of the new year to commemorate the 200th-anniversary celebrations of a small Anglo-Maratha War fought on January 1, 1818, which some traditions claim that the British won. However, the war, otherwise fit for the footnotes of history, is important because it is flaunted as the victory of the &lsquo;Mahars&rsquo; over the upper caste Marathas. Hence, the incident fits perfectly in the jigsaw of &lsquo;Dalits vs Upper Castes&rsquo; narrative and finds instant takers by some opinion leaders.

A careful digging of history on this war may take you to the Poona District Gazetteer, which was compiled by an ICS officer James Campbell as part of the Bombay Presidency Gazetteers. The Gazetteer, mentions that as a part of the Third Anglo-Maratha War, a battle had taken place at the village of Koregaon, 16 miles northeast of Pune, where 834 British troops faced 28,000 Marathas on January 1, 1818. It would be interesting to delve a little deeper into it in order to debunk the various insinuations originating around it.

As per the official record, the British troop comprised of the second battalion of the first regiment Bombay Native Infantry of 500 soldiers led by Captain Francis Staunton who was assisted by 300 auxiliary horsemen and two six-pounder guns manned by 24 European and 4 Native Madras artillerymen. The troops marched from Sirur to Poona at 8 pm on December 31, 1817 and reached the Bhima River next morning to face the Peshwa&rsquo;s army of 25,000 Maratha horses.&nbsp;

However, Peshwa Bajirav-II sent only three small infantry units comprising 300-600 men each from the Arabs, Gosavis and native fighters, which under the support of the cannon and rocket fires, crossed the river from three sides and besieged the British troops in Koregaon village cutting off their food and water supplies.&rdquo; Devastated by hunger and thirst, the British thought of surrendering but held on to their position.

However, &ldquo;as night fell&rdquo;, the Gazette mentions, &ldquo;the attack lightened and they (the British) got water.&rdquo; By 9 PM the firing ceased and the Marathas left, fearing the rumor of arrival of a larger troop of General Smith, while Capt Staunton marched back to Sirur the next morning with his army carrying his near-death experience. The British record mentions that out of 834 British soldiers, 275 were killed, while the Maratha casualty was around 500 to 600. The above account is also mentioned by James Grant Duff in his book, &lsquo;History of Marathas.&rsquo;

&nbsp;

The East India Company, however, strongly praised the bravery of its soldiers and erected an obelisk in 1822 at Koregaon to serve as a &lsquo;victory tower&rsquo; for one of the &ldquo;proudest triumphs of the British Army&rdquo; in India.

&nbsp;

The Gazetteer doesn&rsquo;t mention a Maratha defeat, nor does it mention a British Victory. Secondly, the Gazetteer doesn&rsquo;t mention the caste composition of the British army. Some later descriptions mention that the British army consisted mainly of Mahars, although historical accounts revealed by Vasant Moon (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writing and Speeches Ed. 2003) that the British army under Capt Staunton consisted of native Parwaris, Marathas, Rajputs, Muslims and Jews, apart from Mahars. The inscription on the Koregaon obliske mentions the names of the 49 dead Indian soldiers of the British army and as per V. Longer in his History of the Mahar Regiment (1981), 22 were Mahars or Parwaris, 16 were Marathas, 8 were Rajputs, two were Muslims, and one or two were probably Indian Jews.

&nbsp;

So, let&rsquo;s summarise our lessons. First, no matter what the tradition says, it&rsquo;s a historical fact that neither side achieved a decisive victory in the battle. Second, it was not a battle between the Mahars at one side and the Marathas at the other, as both armies were a strategic potpourri of castes, races, religions and nationalities. Whereas the Marathas formed a part of the British army, some Mahars also fought from the Maratha side, as the Mahars had historically been a part of the Maratha armies.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

To quote R.K. Kshirsagar (Dalit Movement of India and Its Leaders: 1857-1956), Mahar warriors and leaders always played prominent roles during Shivaji, Rajaram and various Peshwa rulers. He mentions that Nagnak Mahar was prominent in the reign of Rajaram so was Shivnak Mahar, who was gifted the village of Kalambi by Rajaram, Rainak Mahar fought Raigarh and Shidnak Mahar saved the life of Peshwa general Parshuram Patwardhan during the Battle of Kharda in 1795. Third, the memorial at Koregaon has nothing to do with the glorification of the Mahars or has got least to do with the claimed &ldquo;victory&rdquo; of Mahars over the Marathas.

&nbsp;

Hence, the &ldquo;Them Vs Us&rdquo; narrative at Bhima-Koregaon is nothing but a mischievous spin-off of the Dalit identity movements of the first half of the 20th century, when Dalit leaders, especially Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, started visiting the Victory Tower of Koregaon from 1927 and propounded the theory in 1941 that the Mahars defeated the Marathas in the battle of Bhima-Koregaon. Thus, he appropriated a pure British legacy as a Mahar symbol and used the Victory Tower to give muscle and credence to his brand of identity politics.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The same brand of identity politics, i.e. demonisation of the Brahmins and the Upper Castes and presenting themselves as a victim of Brahmin atrocities, has been sequestrated by the contemporary Dalit leaders and leftist academicians who succeeded in marketing it well on the global forum.

&nbsp;

The narrative of atrocities has never been put to a rigorous academic scrutiny, which would reveal that caste atrocity is coterminous with caste hierarchy where any caste higher in the hierarchy than the others tends to oppress and exploit the latter. Even Mahars considered fellow Dalits, like Mang and Bhangis as inferior and polluted and didn&rsquo;t accept food from them till late. Further, as far the exploitation goes, they didn&rsquo;t allow a Mang caste groom to ride a horse during the Peshwa period and forced them to ride oxen during marriages.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Several studies point that many Dalit castes are rivals and communal tensions among them are frequent. A study by Prem K. Shinde found more than 900 Dalit sub-castes throughout India, with internal divisions, who compete among themselves for higher status and, claiming relative higher gotra status, refuse to dine and intermarry with lower gotras.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Although the Khateek (butchers) are generally viewed as a higher caste than Bhangis, the latter refuses to offer cleaning services to Khateeks, believing that their profession renders them unclean. They also consider the Balai, Dhobi, Dholi and Mogya as unclean and do not associate with them. A Dalit Sikh claims a superior status over the Hindu Raigars, Chamars and Ravidasis and refuses to intermarry with them.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Sociologists like M.N. Srinivas have showed that atrocities on Dalits are often more committed by the intermediate castes, like Vanniyar in the South and the land-owning Yadavas in the north. However, a &ldquo;Brahman Vs Dalit&rdquo; narrative sells well in the west that ensures flow of huge money from western Churches, donors and Foundations.

&nbsp;

Jignesh Mewani, Prakash Ambedkar, Kanhaiya Kumar and Chandrashekhar (Bheem Army), apart from many others, are some of the few claimants of that coveted narrative and its resultant benefits. Thus, with competing enthusiasm, such Dalit leaders have blamed the RSS for the violence against Dalits in Bhima-Koregaon. Rahul Gandhi has also remarked that RSS&rsquo;s vision is to keep Dalits on the bottom of society.

&nbsp;

The &ldquo;Brahman Vs Dalit&rdquo; narrative is not complete unless the fountainhead of Hindu unity and consciousness - the RSS - is dragged into the debate and run down as an anti-Dalit and pro-poor outfit. That&rsquo;s why there has been a conscious, deliberate and persistent attempt by the leftist and Dalit ideologues to denigrate the RSS and, through selective research and sponsored publications, besmirch its pro-Dalit credentials.

&nbsp;

Although this write-up is not about RSS or its activities, it&rsquo;s pertinent to mention that no organisation has done as much for the upliftment of the Dalits and eradication of the caste-system in rural India as the RSS has done. There are volumes of research and publication available to support how the top leadership from Golwarkar to Deoras to Mohan Bhagavat, have not only maintained it as an official policy but ensured that it translates into ground action.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Incidentally, defragmentation of Hindus and ending all forms of caste discrimination in the hinterlands of India has been fundamental to the RSS ideological core, i.e. Hindu unity. However, partially due to inability of the RSS to effectively dispel the canard by positive campaigning about its actions on the ground level and partly also because of the historical suppression of Pro-RSS research and publications in the left-dominated academia, the &ldquo;anti-Dalit RSS&rdquo; narrative has become the mainstream intellectual discourse, which is as mindlessly consumed by the masses as a fast-food delicacy.

&nbsp;

This doesn&rsquo;t, however, absolve &lsquo;Shivjagar Pratisthan&rsquo; President Sambhaji Bhide Guruji and &lsquo;Hindu Janjagruti Samiti&rsquo; President Milind Ekbote from their culpability in inciting the villagers around Bhima-Koregaon to attack the people participating in the January 1st commemoration.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The state government must deal the Hindu Ekta Manch goons with iron hands and RSS must intervene to reign in the two leaders, who are undoing many things that the RSS has been doing. Although much detail is not available on the exact sequence of action in Koregaon violence, but the acts of the followers of Sambhaji Bhide and Govind Ekbote are surprising as none of the two leaders have displayed any anti-Dalit approach in the past. Rather, many Dalits form the core of their respective outfits. Yet, the onus is on the state government to unravel the plot and punish the wrongdoers.

&nbsp;

However, various media reports point to the dubious role of Jignesh and Umar Khalid who made provocative speeches suggesting an open rebellion against the democratic process with a call to hit the streets. Such anti-democratic provocations appear to be the part of a larger conspiracy to defame and destabilise the elected governments. &nbsp; They create division among Hindus so that those surviving on identity politics could take advantage of it in 2019. The seeds of this divide-India conspiracy are being sprinkled since long, but the same sprouted during the Gujarat election and, with active incubation provided by the Congress, is fast taking roots all across India.

&nbsp;

There appears to be a well-orchestrated attempt to spread disharmony and create disaffection in society using few local freelancers of chaos like Jignesh Mewani, Hardik Patel, Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khaled, who have already showed their intent with slogans like &ldquo;Bharat ki Barbaadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi&rdquo;.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The jung has begun and the Gujarat model is spreading its reach. Now, the onus is on the government to unravel the conspiracy and defeat these merchants of disintegration.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

There appears to be a well-orchestrated attempt to spread disharmony and create disaffection in society using few local freelancers of chaos like Jignesh Mewani, Hardik Patel, Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khaled.

The New Year couldn’t have begun on a worse note than what we came across on the very first day of 2018. As the rest of the nation was indulging in a food and dance binge wishing even strangers with the cheers of “Happy New Year”, villagers from Koregaon Bhima, Pabal, and Shikrapur in Pune district of Maharashtra were pelting stones to hit the skulls of those with whom they might be living in harmony since generations. As the maelstrom subsided, one person had died and 25 vehicles were torched in clashes that broke out between villagers on 1st January over a celebration of a 200-yrs old “victory” of Mahars over Peshwa Bajirao II's Army on January 1, 1818. The ripples of the incident travelled far and wide across Maharashtra with many incidences of violence in Nagpur, Aurangabad and Mumbai on 3rd January in a day-long state-wide shutdown called by various Dalit parties on Wednesday. The question is what led to the violence? It all started with Koregaon-Bhima, a small village in Pune district, where many members of Dalit communities gathered on January 1st on the dawn of the new year to commemorate the 200th-anniversary celebrations of a small Anglo-Maratha War fought on January 1, 1818, which some traditions claim that the British won. However, the war, otherwise fit for the footnotes of history, is important because it is flaunted as the victory of the ‘Mahars’ over the upper caste Marathas. Hence, the incident fits perfectly in the jigsaw of ‘Dalits vs Upper Castes’ narrative and finds instant takers by some opinion leaders. A careful digging of history on this war may take you to the Poona District Gazetteer, which was compiled by an ICS officer James Campbell as part of the Bombay Presidency Gazetteers. The Gazetteer, mentions that as a part of the Third Anglo-Maratha War, a battle had taken place at the village of Koregaon, 16 miles northeast of Pune, where 834 British troops faced 28,000 Marathas on January 1, 1818. It would be interesting to delve a little deeper into it in order to debunk the various insinuations originating around it. As per the official record, the British troop comprised of the second battalion of the first regiment Bombay Native Infantry of 500 soldiers led by Captain Francis Staunton who was assisted by 300 auxiliary horsemen and two six-pounder guns manned by 24 European and 4 Native Madras artillerymen. The troops marched from Sirur to Poona at 8 pm on December 31, 1817 and reached the Bhima River next morning to face the Peshwa’s army of 25,000 Maratha horses. However, Peshwa Bajirav-II sent only three small infantry units comprising 300-600 men each from the Arabs, Gosavis and native fighters, which under the support of the cannon and rocket fires, crossed the river from three sides and besieged the British troops in Koregaon village cutting off their food and water supplies.” Devastated by hunger and thirst, the British thought of surrendering but held on to their position. However, “as night fell”, the Gazette mentions, “the attack lightened and they (the British) got water.” By 9 PM the firing ceased and the Marathas left, fearing the rumor of arrival of a larger troop of General Smith, while Capt Staunton marched back to Sirur the next morning with his army carrying his near-death experience. The British record mentions that out of 834 British soldiers, 275 were killed, while the Maratha casualty was around 500 to 600. The above account is also mentioned by James Grant Duff in his book, ‘History of Marathas.’ The East India Company, however, strongly praised the bravery of its soldiers and erected an obelisk in 1822 at Koregaon to serve as a ‘victory tower’ for one of the “proudest triumphs of the British Army” in India. The Gazetteer doesn’t mention a Maratha defeat, nor does it mention a British Victory. Secondly, the Gazetteer doesn’t mention the caste composition of the British army. Some later descriptions mention that the British army consisted mainly of Mahars, although historical accounts revealed by Vasant Moon (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writing and Speeches Ed. 2003) that the British army under Capt Staunton consisted of native Parwaris, Marathas, Rajputs, Muslims and Jews, apart from Mahars. The inscription on the Koregaon obliske mentions the names of the 49 dead Indian soldiers of the British army and as per V. Longer in his History of the Mahar Regiment (1981), 22 were Mahars or Parwaris, 16 were Marathas, 8 were Rajputs, two were Muslims, and one or two were probably Indian Jews. So, let’s summarise our lessons. First, no matter what the tradition says, it’s a historical fact that neither side achieved a decisive victory in the battle. Second, it was not a battle between the Mahars at one side and the Marathas at the other, as both armies were a strategic potpourri of castes, races, religions and nationalities. Whereas the Marathas formed a part of the British army, some Mahars also fought from the Maratha side, as the Mahars had historically been a part of the Maratha armies. To quote R.K. Kshirsagar (Dalit Movement of India and Its Leaders: 1857-1956), Mahar warriors and leaders always played prominent roles during Shivaji, Rajaram and various Peshwa rulers. He mentions that Nagnak Mahar was prominent in the reign of Rajaram so was Shivnak Mahar, who was gifted the village of Kalambi by Rajaram, Rainak Mahar fought Raigarh and Shidnak Mahar saved the life of Peshwa general Parshuram Patwardhan during the Battle of Kharda in 1795. Third, the memorial at Koregaon has nothing to do with the glorification of the Mahars or has got least to do with the claimed “victory” of Mahars over the Marathas. Hence, the “Them Vs Us” narrative at Bhima-Koregaon is nothing but a mischievous spin-off of the Dalit identity movements of the first half of the 20th century, when Dalit leaders, especially Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, started visiting the Victory Tower of Koregaon from 1927 and propounded the theory in 1941 that the Mahars defeated the Marathas in the battle of Bhima-Koregaon. Thus, he appropriated a pure British legacy as a Mahar symbol and used the Victory Tower to give muscle and credence to his brand of identity politics. The same brand of identity politics, i.e. demonisation of the Brahmins and the Upper Castes and presenting themselves as a victim of Brahmin atrocities, has been sequestrated by the contemporary Dalit leaders and leftist academicians who succeeded in marketing it well on the global forum. The narrative of atrocities has never been put to a rigorous academic scrutiny, which would reveal that caste atrocity is coterminous with caste hierarchy where any caste higher in the hierarchy than the others tends to oppress and exploit the latter. Even Mahars considered fellow Dalits, like Mang and Bhangis as inferior and polluted and didn’t accept food from them till late. Further, as far the exploitation goes, they didn’t allow a Mang caste groom to ride a horse during the Peshwa period and forced them to ride oxen during marriages. Several studies point that many Dalit castes are rivals and communal tensions among them are frequent. A study by Prem K. Shinde found more than 900 Dalit sub-castes throughout India, with internal divisions, who compete among themselves for higher status and, claiming relative higher gotra status, refuse to dine and intermarry with lower gotras. Although the Khateek (butchers) are generally viewed as a higher caste than Bhangis, the latter refuses to offer cleaning services to Khateeks, believing that their profession renders them unclean. They also consider the Balai, Dhobi, Dholi and Mogya as unclean and do not associate with them. A Dalit Sikh claims a superior status over the Hindu Raigars, Chamars and Ravidasis and refuses to intermarry with them. Sociologists like M.N. Srinivas have showed that atrocities on Dalits are often more committed by the intermediate castes, like Vanniyar in the South and the land-owning Yadavas in the north. However, a “Brahman Vs Dalit” narrative sells well in the west that ensures flow of huge money from western Churches, donors and Foundations. Jignesh Mewani, Prakash Ambedkar, Kanhaiya Kumar and Chandrashekhar (Bheem Army), apart from many others, are some of the few claimants of that coveted narrative and its resultant benefits. Thus, with competing enthusiasm, such Dalit leaders have blamed the RSS for the violence against Dalits in Bhima-Koregaon. Rahul Gandhi has also remarked that RSS’s vision is to keep Dalits on the bottom of society. The “Brahman Vs Dalit” narrative is not complete unless the fountainhead of Hindu unity and consciousness - the RSS - is dragged into the debate and run down as an anti-Dalit and pro-poor outfit. That’s why there has been a conscious, deliberate and persistent attempt by the leftist and Dalit ideologues to denigrate the RSS and, through selective research and sponsored publications, besmirch its pro-Dalit credentials. Although this write-up is not about RSS or its activities, it’s pertinent to mention that no organisation has done as much for the upliftment of the Dalits and eradication of the caste-system in rural India as the RSS has done. There are volumes of research and publication available to support how the top leadership from Golwarkar to Deoras to Mohan Bhagavat, have not only maintained it as an official policy but ensured that it translates into ground action. Incidentally, defragmentation of Hindus and ending all forms of caste discrimination in the hinterlands of India has been fundamental to the RSS ideological core, i.e. Hindu unity. However, partially due to inability of the RSS to effectively dispel the canard by positive campaigning about its actions on the ground level and partly also because of the historical suppression of Pro-RSS research and publications in the left-dominated academia, the “anti-Dalit RSS” narrative has become the mainstream intellectual discourse, which is as mindlessly consumed by the masses as a fast-food delicacy. This doesn’t, however, absolve ‘Shivjagar Pratisthan’ President Sambhaji Bhide Guruji and ‘Hindu Janjagruti Samiti’ President Milind Ekbote from their culpability in inciting the villagers around Bhima-Koregaon to attack the people participating in the January 1st commemoration. The state government must deal the Hindu Ekta Manch goons with iron hands and RSS must intervene to reign in the two leaders, who are undoing many things that the RSS has been doing. Although much detail is not available on the exact sequence of action in Koregaon violence, but the acts of the followers of Sambhaji Bhide and Govind Ekbote are surprising as none of the two leaders have displayed any anti-Dalit approach in the past. Rather, many Dalits form the core of their respective outfits. Yet, the onus is on the state government to unravel the plot and punish the wrongdoers. However, various media reports point to the dubious role of Jignesh and Umar Khalid who made provocative speeches suggesting an open rebellion against the democratic process with a call to hit the streets. Such anti-democratic provocations appear to be the part of a larger conspiracy to defame and destabilise the elected governments. They create division among Hindus so that those surviving on identity politics could take advantage of it in 2019. The seeds of this divide-India conspiracy are being sprinkled since long, but the same sprouted during the Gujarat election and, with active incubation provided by the Congress, is fast taking roots all across India. There appears to be a well-orchestrated attempt to spread disharmony and create disaffection in society using few local freelancers of chaos like Jignesh Mewani, Hardik Patel, Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khaled, who have already showed their intent with slogans like “Bharat ki Barbaadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi”. The jung has begun and the Gujarat model is spreading its reach. Now, the onus is on the government to unravel the conspiracy and defeat these merchants of disintegration. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: 'Brahman Vs Dalit' narrative sells well in the West

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, popularly known as the Triple Talaq Bill, which has been tabled today in the Rajya Sabha for its consideration and clearance, has generated a lot of heat in the political and the media space over the past few days.&nbsp; The bill, which is being touted as the most progressive legislation for the emancipation of Muslim Women in India, is also one of the most polarising one within the community where it divides the population in nearly two halves broadly along the line of the sex of the members. While most of the women, including the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB), are supporting the bill, the men including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) are pitted against it.

The AIMPLB came up with a resolution opposing the Bill where it termed the legislation to be &ldquo;against the welfare of Muslim women at large&rdquo; and believed that &ldquo;it shall harm the interest of Muslim Women and the family&rdquo; because in its opinion, the Bill fails to take into consideration the &ldquo;adverse consequences of the proposed law and welfare of the women and children pursuant to a &lsquo;non effective&rsquo; Talaq.&rdquo;&nbsp;

It is pertinent to mention that the Bill has been conceived in the aftermath of a decision by the Supreme Court in August this year in the famous case of Shaiara Bano vs Union of India &amp; Others, wherein the Court had set aside the practice of Instant Triple Talaq among the Muslims as unconstitutional. While putting forth the Bill, a statement of &lsquo;Objects and Reasons of the Bill&rsquo; was also brought up by the Ministry of Law that explained, &ldquo;There is a need for State action to give effect to the order of the Supreme Court and to redress the grievances of victims of illegal divorce. In order to prevent the continued harassment being meted out to the hapless married Muslim women due to Talaq-e-Biddat, urgent suitable legislation is necessary to give some relief to them&hellip;The legislation would help in ensuring the larger Constitutional goals of gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women and would help subserve their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and empowerment.&rdquo;

However, the legislation is a must and its enactment urgent. The government revealed that even after the Supreme Court set aside instant triple talaq in August this year, the practice didn&rsquo;t stop and more than 60 cases of instant triple talaq were reported in the country since then. Hence, its clear that such a practice isn&rsquo;t going to stop unless a strong law is put into place.

Shaista Amber, the President of the AIMWPLB had led a Muslim Women delegation to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to press for a bill on August 8 this year. After the meeting, she had told the media, &ldquo;We proposed punishment and penalty for those who do not give equal right to women. I am thankful to the government for acting on the issue. AIMPLB is opposing the bill and abusing the rights of women.&rdquo; While launching a broadside against the AIMPLB, she had fulminated - &ldquo;Why don&rsquo;t they (The AIMPLB members) consider Muslim women as equal partners? Why do they want to create a communal feeling among the Muslims when the society is going for reforms? Why are they saying the bill would promote interference in religious matters? Why do they want to protect such men who use women and abandon them at their will?&rdquo;

The stand of the AIMPLB is terribly flawed on the matter and they no longer carry a locus standi on the proposed Bill from moral as well as a legal perspective.

First, the AIMPLB was an opposing party in the Shaira Bano case in the Supreme Court, which had demolished its arguments on Triple Talaq issue. The AIMPLB had constantly opposed the government&#39;s stand in the Triple Talaq case and hence, they&#39;re now a defeated party. Thus, they carry no legal and moral standing to dictate the government on the provisions of the proposed law anymore.

Second, their opposition to criminalising the offenders of Triple Talaq or suggestion to reduce the punishment terms is not logical. The whole idea to put forth this legislation is to stop instant triple talaq and the same can&#39;t happen unless a strong deterrence is put into place. The said deterrence can happen only through a cognizable and non-bailable provision. Anything below that would defeat the purpose. The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 not only criminalized Sati system but had also provided for life imprisonment or death penalty for the abettors of the crime which served the required deterrence in Sati cases. Hence, any diluted punishment wouldn&#39;t solve the purpose.&nbsp;

Thirdly, by opposing the inclusion of &quot;or any similar forms of talaq&quot; in the definition of the Bill, the AIMPLB is trying nothing but attempting a back door legitimacy plan for other similar provisions of Talaq, like Talaq-e-bain, which is even more dangerous.

Talaq-e-bain occurs when a husband speaks to his wife about his intention to no longer live with her, though not clearly speaking the word &lsquo;Talaq&rsquo;; the husband may express his intention with or without the motive of Talaq. If the intention to live separate was made without the motive of Talaq, the same will not happen. However, if the intention was said with the motive of Talaq, the same will be considered done and the wife will become haram to her husband from that point onward. Talaq-e-bain is instant and it doesn&rsquo;t require a man to speak the word &lsquo;talaq&rsquo; thrice.

Talaq-e-bain is also not supported by Quran or any major Hadith and if the same is left unstopped, it would give a leeway to Muslims to divorce their women instantly without explicitly saying &#39;talaq&#39; three times, and thus escaping the noose of the proposed law. It&#39;s important to see through the AIMPLB game plan.

Thus, if the government wants to achieve the goal of ensuring gender justice and emancipating the Muslim women from the oppression of their men then it&rsquo;s imperative that all non-Quranic forms of Talaq practices must be outlawed and strong punitive measures must be legislated to act as an effective deterrence against such misogynistic practices.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

The AIMPLB carry no legal and moral standing to dictate the government on the provisions of the proposed law anymore

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, popularly known as the Triple Talaq Bill, which has been tabled today in the Rajya Sabha for its consideration and clearance, has generated a lot of heat in the political and the media space over the past few days. The bill, which is being touted as the most progressive legislation for the emancipation of Muslim Women in India, is also one of the most polarising one within the community where it divides the population in nearly two halves broadly along the line of the sex of the members. While most of the women, including the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB), are supporting the bill, the men including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) are pitted against it. The AIMPLB came up with a resolution opposing the Bill where it termed the legislation to be “against the welfare of Muslim women at large” and believed that “it shall harm the interest of Muslim Women and the family” because in its opinion, the Bill fails to take into consideration the “adverse consequences of the proposed law and welfare of the women and children pursuant to a ‘non effective’ Talaq.” It is pertinent to mention that the Bill has been conceived in the aftermath of a decision by the Supreme Court in August this year in the famous case of Shaiara Bano vs Union of India & Others, wherein the Court had set aside the practice of Instant Triple Talaq among the Muslims as unconstitutional. While putting forth the Bill, a statement of ‘Objects and Reasons of the Bill’ was also brought up by the Ministry of Law that explained, “There is a need for State action to give effect to the order of the Supreme Court and to redress the grievances of victims of illegal divorce. In order to prevent the continued harassment being meted out to the hapless married Muslim women due to Talaq-e-Biddat, urgent suitable legislation is necessary to give some relief to them…The legislation would help in ensuring the larger Constitutional goals of gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women and would help subserve their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and empowerment.” However, the legislation is a must and its enactment urgent. The government revealed that even after the Supreme Court set aside instant triple talaq in August this year, the practice didn’t stop and more than 60 cases of instant triple talaq were reported in the country since then. Hence, its clear that such a practice isn’t going to stop unless a strong law is put into place. Shaista Amber, the President of the AIMWPLB had led a Muslim Women delegation to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to press for a bill on August 8 this year. After the meeting, she had told the media, “We proposed punishment and penalty for those who do not give equal right to women. I am thankful to the government for acting on the issue. AIMPLB is opposing the bill and abusing the rights of women.” While launching a broadside against the AIMPLB, she had fulminated - “Why don’t they (The AIMPLB members) consider Muslim women as equal partners? Why do they want to create a communal feeling among the Muslims when the society is going for reforms? Why are they saying the bill would promote interference in religious matters? Why do they want to protect such men who use women and abandon them at their will?” The stand of the AIMPLB is terribly flawed on the matter and they no longer carry a locus standi on the proposed Bill from moral as well as a legal perspective. First, the AIMPLB was an opposing party in the Shaira Bano case in the Supreme Court, which had demolished its arguments on Triple Talaq issue. The AIMPLB had constantly opposed the government's stand in the Triple Talaq case and hence, they're now a defeated party. Thus, they carry no legal and moral standing to dictate the government on the provisions of the proposed law anymore. Second, their opposition to criminalising the offenders of Triple Talaq or suggestion to reduce the punishment terms is not logical. The whole idea to put forth this legislation is to stop instant triple talaq and the same can't happen unless a strong deterrence is put into place. The said deterrence can happen only through a cognizable and non-bailable provision. Anything below that would defeat the purpose. The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 not only criminalized Sati system but had also provided for life imprisonment or death penalty for the abettors of the crime which served the required deterrence in Sati cases. Hence, any diluted punishment wouldn't solve the purpose. Thirdly, by opposing the inclusion of "or any similar forms of talaq" in the definition of the Bill, the AIMPLB is trying nothing but attempting a back door legitimacy plan for other similar provisions of Talaq, like Talaq-e-bain, which is even more dangerous. Talaq-e-bain occurs when a husband speaks to his wife about his intention to no longer live with her, though not clearly speaking the word ‘Talaq’; the husband may express his intention with or without the motive of Talaq. If the intention to live separate was made without the motive of Talaq, the same will not happen. However, if the intention was said with the motive of Talaq, the same will be considered done and the wife will become haram to her husband from that point onward. Talaq-e-bain is instant and it doesn’t require a man to speak the word ‘talaq’ thrice. Talaq-e-bain is also not supported by Quran or any major Hadith and if the same is left unstopped, it would give a leeway to Muslims to divorce their women instantly without explicitly saying 'talaq' three times, and thus escaping the noose of the proposed law. It's important to see through the AIMPLB game plan. Thus, if the government wants to achieve the goal of ensuring gender justice and emancipating the Muslim women from the oppression of their men then it’s imperative that all non-Quranic forms of Talaq practices must be outlawed and strong punitive measures must be legislated to act as an effective deterrence against such misogynistic practices. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Why objections of AIMPLB on Triple Talaq is not valid

After a fiercely contested election campaign for over two months now, the cat is finally out of the bag and both the states, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, have emphatically gone the saffron way in the election results that has poured in. The result puts a lid over all speculations of an impending negative verdict on PM Modi&#39;s big-ticket economic reforms.

This election was important, as the BJP was not only fighting for retaining its sway in Gujarat by winning its sixth term into office but was also defending a hugely-challenged narrative of Gujarat model, which seemed to have suffered a major dent under a resurgent Congress led by an aggressive and super combative Rahul Gandhi.

No doubt, this election has seen a resurgent Rahul Gandhi, who not only led the moribund Congress organization from the front but also managed to put up a rainbow of coalition that thrived on the years of anti-incumbency and put up a semblance of strong fight. However, the fact is that his attempt to divide the country along the various caste fault-lines and to exploit the parochial interests haven&#39;t paid. 
&nbsp; 
Following are the five important takeaways from Monday&#39;s Gujarat election results:

<ol>
	<li>First, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is still the king of electoral politics and the numero uno vote magnet of the party. Gujarat has voted BJP sixth time in power in the name of Modi only. It was a fact that after the exit of Modi from the state politics, the governance had become far too slower in delivering results and many of its policies were not reaching to the ground. Vijay Rupani looked far less a charmer and wasn&#39;t exactly the man needed to tame the anti-incumbency sentiments. On top of it, the heat generated around demonetisation and GST was rubbing off badly on the BJP. For the Congress, it was a now or never moment as with a firm coalition under its belt, it looked eager and full of appetite. Still, BJP walked away with the victory trophy, wholly and solely because of Modi and his reigning magic. The case is much like a football match where the Congress was given to hit a penalty kick, yet it failed to score a goal.</li>
	<li>Second, now all opposition charges around the negative effects of demonetisation and GST must be put to rest. Elections after elections, the electorate have given their mandate in favour of the BJP, the last being the landslide victory in UP early this year. Now, with the resounding victories of the party in the Gujarat and Himachal elections, all such negative narratives must be put to the rest. This becomes more pronounced especially when all the 12 seats of Surat areas, which is the hub of the traders&#39; class and is dominated by the disgruntled Patidar communities, have been retained by the BJP. It proves that the narrative of mass resentment built by the Congress against the BJP&#39;s economic policies were not valid.</li>
	<li>Third, despite all things said to the contrary, &#39;vikas&#39; (development) still resonates with the people which is apparent in the results where the voters have rejected a highly divisive identity politics initiated by Rahul Gandhi, who had cobbled up a regressive casteist coalition and riding the wave of Patidar dissidence, hoped to take on the development plank of the BJP. However, the voters gave the message that, to them, development is far more a lucrative path than divisive agenda of the Congress.</li>
	<li>Fourth, the election results give the Congress an opportunity to pause and reflect over their future election strategies. The Congress began its election campaign in Gujarat on a narrative of lies. It hit the campaign with the slogan &#39;vikas gando thayo che&#39; (development has gone mad) and tried to fool the masses with things that were obviously the opposite. Yes, of course, there have been pockets of resentments in the state where the development has failed to make a connect with the ones who needed it. Yet, dismissing the developments of one of the highly developed states altogether and creating a narrative of negativities seems to have backfired on the Congress, which needs to do a rethink before creating an agenda of negativities for future electoral campaigns. Lies have weaker legs that can&#39;t take one farther and convert in votes.</li>
	<li>Lastly, these election results must put to rest all controversies around the EVMs and impartiality of the electionECommission as the course of the counting since morning has seen huge swinging of fortunes in favour of both BJP and Congress at different points of time giving a perfect rollercoaster effect. It hasn&#39;t been a lopsided win, and with the Congress getting its own moments of celebrations at times, the results have never been a smooth sail for the BJP since the counting began. Also, the huge leads taken by the Congress over the BJP in the areas of Saurashtra, where the former was expected to do better, reflects the reality. Hence, it&#39;s hoped that the EVM controversy has walked to its full length and shall be given a decent burial.</li>
</ol>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

This election was important, as the BJP was not only fighting for retaining its sway in Gujarat by winning its sixth term into office but was also defending a hugely-challenged narrative of Gujarat model.

After a fiercely contested election campaign for over two months now, the cat is finally out of the bag and both the states, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, have emphatically gone the saffron way in the election results that has poured in. The result puts a lid over all speculations of an impending negative verdict on PM Modi's big-ticket economic reforms. This election was important, as the BJP was not only fighting for retaining its sway in Gujarat by winning its sixth term into office but was also defending a hugely-challenged narrative of Gujarat model, which seemed to have suffered a major dent under a resurgent Congress led by an aggressive and super combative Rahul Gandhi. No doubt, this election has seen a resurgent Rahul Gandhi, who not only led the moribund Congress organization from the front but also managed to put up a rainbow of coalition that thrived on the years of anti-incumbency and put up a semblance of strong fight. However, the fact is that his attempt to divide the country along the various caste fault-lines and to exploit the parochial interests haven't paid. Following are the five important takeaways from Monday's Gujarat election results: First, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is still the king of electoral politics and the numero uno vote magnet of the party. Gujarat has voted BJP sixth time in power in the name of Modi only. It was a fact that after the exit of Modi from the state politics, the governance had become far too slower in delivering results and many of its policies were not reaching to the ground. Vijay Rupani looked far less a charmer and wasn't exactly the man needed to tame the anti-incumbency sentiments. On top of it, the heat generated around demonetisation and GST was rubbing off badly on the BJP. For the Congress, it was a now or never moment as with a firm coalition under its belt, it looked eager and full of appetite. Still, BJP walked away with the victory trophy, wholly and solely because of Modi and his reigning magic. The case is much like a football match where the Congress was given to hit a penalty kick, yet it failed to score a goal. Second, now all opposition charges around the negative effects of demonetisation and GST must be put to rest. Elections after elections, the electorate have given their mandate in favour of the BJP, the last being the landslide victory in UP early this year. Now, with the resounding victories of the party in the Gujarat and Himachal elections, all such negative narratives must be put to the rest. This becomes more pronounced especially when all the 12 seats of Surat areas, which is the hub of the traders' class and is dominated by the disgruntled Patidar communities, have been retained by the BJP. It proves that the narrative of mass resentment built by the Congress against the BJP's economic policies were not valid. Third, despite all things said to the contrary, 'vikas' (development) still resonates with the people which is apparent in the results where the voters have rejected a highly divisive identity politics initiated by Rahul Gandhi, who had cobbled up a regressive casteist coalition and riding the wave of Patidar dissidence, hoped to take on the development plank of the BJP. However, the voters gave the message that, to them, development is far more a lucrative path than divisive agenda of the Congress. Fourth, the election results give the Congress an opportunity to pause and reflect over their future election strategies. The Congress began its election campaign in Gujarat on a narrative of lies. It hit the campaign with the slogan 'vikas gando thayo che' (development has gone mad) and tried to fool the masses with things that were obviously the opposite. Yes, of course, there have been pockets of resentments in the state where the development has failed to make a connect with the ones who needed it. Yet, dismissing the developments of one of the highly developed states altogether and creating a narrative of negativities seems to have backfired on the Congress, which needs to do a rethink before creating an agenda of negativities for future electoral campaigns. Lies have weaker legs that can't take one farther and convert in votes. Lastly, these election results must put to rest all controversies around the EVMs and impartiality of the electionECommission as the course of the counting since morning has seen huge swinging of fortunes in favour of both BJP and Congress at different points of time giving a perfect rollercoaster effect. It hasn't been a lopsided win, and with the Congress getting its own moments of celebrations at times, the results have never been a smooth sail for the BJP since the counting began. Also, the huge leads taken by the Congress over the BJP in the areas of Saurashtra, where the former was expected to do better, reflects the reality. Hence, it's hoped that the EVM controversy has walked to its full length and shall be given a decent burial. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What BJP and Congress learned from Gujarat elections

Each time you watched Rahul Gandhi take to the stage during his Gujarat election campaigns and explain before a waiting crowd that the GST is nothing but &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39;, you must have wondered what&#39;s wrong with the man. You must have got curious to know which school Rahul Gandhi got his economics lessons from.

However, let me tell you he is perfectly all right and that he is got his lessons from the best school of a politician - the dusty by-lanes of Indian politics.

Politics is all about reaching out to the masses and making an everlasting connect with them; it&#39;s a bonding made stronger with deft communication, apt vocabulary and noisy rhetoric. The greater your ability to connect with the rank and file of the profanum vulgus, the better is your chances in politics. Add a bit of theatrics and voila! You&#39;ve got what it takes.

After 17 or so defeats in successive elections, Rahul Gandhi now seems to have learnt the ropes. Many political observers and analysts believe that Rahul has found his tongue. He&#39;s discovered the art of communication, at least to the best of his limitations. &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39; serves the best example.

GST brought with it two &#39;miseries&#39; to the common people; the first, disruption in normal economic activities of the small traders and second, complexities. Close on the heels of demonetisation, GST brought another commotion in the life of the common man, especially small traders and businessmen. They&#39;ve their experiences to believe GST is bad but the government has its data to prove it&#39;s good. In the scenario, a clever politician knows that theoretically speaking, GST can&#39;t be opposed. It can be defeated only through canards and polemics.

A polemic of lies and derision is the best anecdote to constructive ideas.

&#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39; invented that polemic of lies which the disgruntled aam aadmi was looking for and Rahul Gandhi made the most of it. The masses were exhilarated at the description. Each time Gandhi twisted the microphone and uttered the phrase &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39;, the crowd went berserk in jubilation. He knew he had given expression to the anger of the millions. He didn&#39;t know himself what it exactly meant. He need not, either. His job was done.

No amount of pedantic discourse or academic description can destroy the effects of a &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39; narrative. Today, no one remembers what Arun Jaitley said to counter the Gabbar Singh jibe, though he said all those academically correct things. Yet, people only remember what Rahul said. And that&#39;s the art of making a connect.

A good many people are disenchanted in some way or other and a section of media has worked overtime to prove that the government policies are anti-people. Mainstreaming the cash economy and forcing people to live in transparent glasshouses has its own challenges.

The political wisdom says a politician must use the situation to the best of his abilities. Hence, the Congress has exploited the disenchantment of the masses to the best of its ability and fed on the ignorance of the people. Gandhi knows that the aam aadmi, like him, has no appetite for facts or analysis nor it believes in lengthy explanations. The common man needs off-the-shelf concepts, and few catchphrases, to describe his pent up emotions. The &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39;, fits the bill precisely. In this political campaign, the government hit the hustings with facts, figures and analysis and it lost audience. The Congress hit the campaign with polemic and lies and it struck an instant chord with the masses. The media, always hungry for the catchphrases, multiplied the effect.

In the post-truth politics, what matters more is perception and catchphrases do wonderful jobs in shaping perception. It may be a lie or bullshit is another matter. Politics, anyway, is never about teaching the truth. Nor it&#39;s about accountability. Misleading the masses is intelligent so long it fetches votes. And, Gandhi needs votes.

So, you thought &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39; is a sheer bullshit. But then you thought of university economics. For politics, &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39; is an intelligent theorem. It fetches votes. As I said earlier, economics is the best means to harness politics. Hence, no wonder if the &#39;Gabbar Singh Tax&#39; catchphrase enables the Congress and its new chief recover some of the lost grounds in Gujarat.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Each time you watched Rahul Gandhi take to the stage during his Gujarat election campaigns and explain before a waiting crowd that the GST is nothing but 'Gabbar Singh Tax', you must have wondered what's wrong with the man.

Each time you watched Rahul Gandhi take to the stage during his Gujarat election campaigns and explain before a waiting crowd that the GST is nothing but 'Gabbar Singh Tax', you must have wondered what's wrong with the man. You must have got curious to know which school Rahul Gandhi got his economics lessons from. However, let me tell you he is perfectly all right and that he is got his lessons from the best school of a politician - the dusty by-lanes of Indian politics. Politics is all about reaching out to the masses and making an everlasting connect with them; it's a bonding made stronger with deft communication, apt vocabulary and noisy rhetoric. The greater your ability to connect with the rank and file of the profanum vulgus, the better is your chances in politics. Add a bit of theatrics and voila! You've got what it takes. After 17 or so defeats in successive elections, Rahul Gandhi now seems to have learnt the ropes. Many political observers and analysts believe that Rahul has found his tongue. He's discovered the art of communication, at least to the best of his limitations. 'Gabbar Singh Tax' serves the best example. GST brought with it two 'miseries' to the common people; the first, disruption in normal economic activities of the small traders and second, complexities. Close on the heels of demonetisation, GST brought another commotion in the life of the common man, especially small traders and businessmen. They've their experiences to believe GST is bad but the government has its data to prove it's good. In the scenario, a clever politician knows that theoretically speaking, GST can't be opposed. It can be defeated only through canards and polemics. A polemic of lies and derision is the best anecdote to constructive ideas. 'Gabbar Singh Tax' invented that polemic of lies which the disgruntled aam aadmi was looking for and Rahul Gandhi made the most of it. The masses were exhilarated at the description. Each time Gandhi twisted the microphone and uttered the phrase 'Gabbar Singh Tax', the crowd went berserk in jubilation. He knew he had given expression to the anger of the millions. He didn't know himself what it exactly meant. He need not, either. His job was done. No amount of pedantic discourse or academic description can destroy the effects of a 'Gabbar Singh Tax' narrative. Today, no one remembers what Arun Jaitley said to counter the Gabbar Singh jibe, though he said all those academically correct things. Yet, people only remember what Rahul said. And that's the art of making a connect. A good many people are disenchanted in some way or other and a section of media has worked overtime to prove that the government policies are anti-people. Mainstreaming the cash economy and forcing people to live in transparent glasshouses has its own challenges. The political wisdom says a politician must use the situation to the best of his abilities. Hence, the Congress has exploited the disenchantment of the masses to the best of its ability and fed on the ignorance of the people. Gandhi knows that the aam aadmi, like him, has no appetite for facts or analysis nor it believes in lengthy explanations. The common man needs off-the-shelf concepts, and few catchphrases, to describe his pent up emotions. The 'Gabbar Singh Tax', fits the bill precisely. In this political campaign, the government hit the hustings with facts, figures and analysis and it lost audience. The Congress hit the campaign with polemic and lies and it struck an instant chord with the masses. The media, always hungry for the catchphrases, multiplied the effect. In the post-truth politics, what matters more is perception and catchphrases do wonderful jobs in shaping perception. It may be a lie or bullshit is another matter. Politics, anyway, is never about teaching the truth. Nor it's about accountability. Misleading the masses is intelligent so long it fetches votes. And, Gandhi needs votes. So, you thought 'Gabbar Singh Tax' is a sheer bullshit. But then you thought of university economics. For politics, 'Gabbar Singh Tax' is an intelligent theorem. It fetches votes. As I said earlier, economics is the best means to harness politics. Hence, no wonder if the 'Gabbar Singh Tax' catchphrase enables the Congress and its new chief recover some of the lost grounds in Gujarat. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Anatomy of the 'Gabbar Singh Tax'

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Krishna Kumar

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.