EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 17 September 2007

Ram Setu Bridge

FAITH vs NATIONAL INTEREST

By Syed Ali Mujtabha

The case of "Adams' Bridge" nee Ram Setu, a mythical bridge situated south-east of Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu connecting the Talaimanar coast of Sri Lanka, has snowballed into a major controversy of faith verses national interest. The matter is before the Supreme Court of India, which is hearing a public interest litigation petition on the multi-crore Sethusamudram canal project that involves dredging of a sea channel cutting across the Adams' Bridge across the Gulf of Mannar.

Many Hindu groups believe that the mythical barrier was constructed by Lord Rama for his attack on Lanka to rescue Sita, his wife, from the demon-king Ravana, who had kidnapped her. These groups have been opposing the construction of the Sethusamudram canal since it would destroy the mythical bridge they revere as "Ram Setu" and with which their faith is emotionally involved.

The Rs 2,427 crore Sethusamudram project is designed to establish and maintain a navigational canal from India’s west coast to the east coast without the ships having to go around Sri Lanka. Cleared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the project was inaugurated with much fanfare on July 2, 2005 by the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh.

Two years after the commencement of the project, the Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy filed a public interest litigation petition in the Supreme Court to stop the Centre from blowing up the "Adams' Bridge" for constructing the canal. He wanted the Apex court to intervene and stop tampering with the mythical Ram Setu with which the faith of millions of people across the country was attached.

On August 31, 2007, the Supreme Court put on hold the demolition of the "Adams' Bridge" and issued an interim order saying: "The alleged Ram Setu shall not be damaged in any way.” However, it “allowed the dredging activity to continue to the extent it did not cause any harm to the mythical barrier."

The Central Government submitted a 400-page document to the Apex court in its defense stating that the canal project was being constructed strictly in accordance with the law and that it had a high degree of strategic and financial importance to the country. It also stated that the Adams' Bridge formation could be classified "as a series of shoals or a series of barrier islands, both of which are natural formations caused due to several millennia of tidal action and sedimentation." Adding that in the light of the various scientific studies conducted on the formation, it could not be said to be “a man-made structure.”

Quoting an article in the journal published by the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, the Centre said nothing had been observed at Adams' Bridge except coral and sand formations which could not be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance. At best, the Bridge was a case of disputed mythology and not a matter of historical importance.

Significantly, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which filed the affidavit, added that: “It duly respected the deep religious import bestowed upon these texts by the Hindu community across the globe," but such claims could not be vouched by it without "tangible material evidence".

It further stated that the contents of Valmiki’s Ramayana, Tuslidas's Ramcharitmanas and other mythological texts could not be treated as historical record to prove the existence of the characters mentioned in the book. The ASI elaborated that there was no "historical record" to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrences of the events, depicted therein.

The existence of human remains, according to the ASI, whether in the nature of bones or in other forms of artifacts, was essential to prove archaeologically the existence and veracity of a historical fact. But no such human remains had been discovered at the site of the formation known as Adams' Bridge.

The ASI asserted that the Adams' Bridge could not, therefore, be treated as a "protected monument" under the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites & Remains Act, 1958 since it did not satisfy the requirements necessary for being qualified under the Act. It further said that till date the bridge had neither been declared as a "protected area" nor "protected monument" or for that matter as an "ancient monument."

The Centre told the Supreme Court that it was, in fact, the earlier NDA regime which had approved the project in 2002 after which it was subjected to the mandatory environmental impact assessment. Fourteen public hearings and other discussions were held before deciding to execute the project. It urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition as it was filed two years after the commencement of the project and termed the opposition to it as motivated by "extraneous considerations." It also urged the Apex court to "impose exemplary cost" on those opposing the project.

The affidavit filed by the ASI and the Centre’s stand on this issue has sparked a row in the country. The BJP, in its bid to embarrass the Government for its “anti-Hindu” stand, has taken up this issue in a big way. The Leader of Opposition, LK Advani, expressed his anguish to the Prime Minister at the latter’s dinner for the visiting Bulgarian Prime Minister and demanded immediate action --- and retraction.

The BJP President, Rajnath Singh, while rejecting the Government's explanation, demanded an “unqualified" apology from it for the affidavit stating: "Why is there a picture of Ram and Krishna in the Constitution of India, if Ram and Krishna did not exist? And why did Gandhiji, the Father of the Nation, repeatedly talk about 'Ram Rajya' as the ultimate in good, people-oriented governance. Were all these fictitious?”

The BJP President went on to add that the affidavit filed by the ASI “directly hurts the religious belief of the majority of the people and may trigger inter-religious conflict in the country." He demanded that unless the Centre apologised for the affidavit and withdrew it, the BJP would support the VHP-RSS demand for scrapping of the Sethusamudram canal project by mobilizing public support against it.

Fortunately, the Central Government has withdrawn the “offending” affidavit which had stirred a hornet’s nest by stating that “there is no scientific or historical evidence to prove the existence of Lord Ram.” Moreover, the Union Law Minister, H R Bharadwaj, on his part, promptly moved in for damage control and told the media: "Lord Ram is an integral part of Hindu faith and his existence can never be doubted." He also announced that the Government would file a fresh affidavit on the issue before the Supreme Court.

That apart, a new twist to the controversy has been given by the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa. She has moved the Supreme Court afresh stating that the Ram Setu issue not only involved public sentiment, but also impinged upon national security and welfare. The Adam’s Bridge is said to have softened the blow of the tsunami, which played havoc in South India.

Jayalalithaa’s move is also significant for one other reason coming as it does after breaking rank with the Third Front. It reflects an apparent bid for rapprochement with the BJP. Her petition avers that the Ram Setu is a symbol of might and power of human will. Calling the construction of the bridge by Lord Ram’s Vanar Sena (Monkey Army) as the victory of human endeavor in the face of adversity.

Tamil Nadu’s political heavyweight has additionally cautioned the Government that any destruction of the mythical barrier would expose the country to a grave security threat from the US. India and Sri Lanka, she has submitted, had always treated the Palk Bay, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Straits as historically part of their territorial rights. The US has, however, objected to such claims and considers the waters international.

That, however, is not all. Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister, Karunanidhi has jumped into the controversy as one who has been championing the cause of the Sethusamudram Project, which is viewed as a catalyst for the economic development of the State. He has supported the ASI’s stand on Ram Setu and cautioned the Manmohan Singh Government against falling a prey to the “fundamentalist forces.”

Clearly, the Supreme Court is faced with Hobson’s choice. Can a court arbitrate over issues of faith? The Apex court’s task has become much more complex since it involves the sentiment of the majority community, which comes in direct clash with India’s national interest. Its judgment is awaited eagerly as it may also have far-reaching repercussions on other cases relating to matters of faith. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Events And Issues

New Delhi, 10 September 2007

AP Police Ignores Warning

Hyderabad – Bangladesh NEXUS

By T.D. Jagadesan

In January 2005, there was considerable consternation in the old quarters of Hyderabad. A section of the people living there were agitated that the Saudi Arabia King who was coming to Delhi as the Chief Guest for the Republic Day parade, had not extending his trip to Hyderabad.

The agitation was covered extensively in the Urdu press (and also in the English press) and the aggrieved people were bitter that in the good old days when oil had not been struck it was the Nizam who used to be the benefactor of the Saudi Kings. “The Nizam sent the first doctor and car to Saudi Arabia. He was the first to build pilgrim houses in Mecca. So in the fitness of things, the King should have come to Hyderabad to repay his old debts,” was the common refrain of the people in the Old City.

“The rest of the city found this behaviour very strange. But as modernity and economic development had bypassed this section of the city, the residents searched for an identity. And harked back to the Nizam’s golden era when he was the biggest Muslim kingdom in the world,” said a political observer.

In these circumstances the agents of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Harkat-ul-Jehad-Al-Islami (HUJI) found Hyderabad’s Old City a fertile ground for the recruitment of jehadis. Especially post 9/11 which had given an impetus to the process of radicalization.

More so, in the context of the politics practiced in the Old City where the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) lords over one Lok Sabha and five Assembly constituencies. True, the scene is changing with many madrassas being modernized and women coming out to study and work even in call centres. But the pace of change is very slow.

In fact, the process of radicalization started in the mid-nineties with the ISI starting to hire recruits from Hyderabad. But as Indian intelligence agencies became smarter and saw the link of State-sponsored terrorism from across the Western borders, the ISI outfits started donning other identities.

“Pakistani operators realized that the Indo-Bangladesh border was more porous and infiltration was quite easy. So Pakistan’s intelligence outfits spawned outfits in Bangladesh,” said a senior Hyderabad police officer.

What helped them was the fact that for some strange reason there has been an economic connection between Hyderabad and Bangladesh. Over the last few years many technicians, fitters, tradesman and other artisans have found part-time employment in Bangladesh. Small companies have taken up contracts in Dhaka and have been sending men there for a period of six months. This made the process of infiltration and ideological indoctrination easier.

The process received a jolt only when there was a blast on Dusherra in the office of the task force at the Hyderabad Police Commissionerate a few years ago. The perpetrator of the blast died but the police identified him as a Bangladeshi. This was the first time that the Bangladesh angle came up prominently. Despite being there earlier, but had been ignored. One Bangladeshi militant who was arrested for killing an Additional Superintendent of Police was handed over a life sentence, but was strangely let off by the Government in an amnesty for prisoners on Independence Day.

Even as Hyderabad was honing on the Bangladeshi ultras, America radars too were whetting them but for entirely different reasons. The IT era in Hyderabad was heralded by the then US President Clinton visit to the city in 1999. In the years that followed Clinton’s trip, hi-tech US investments made it a software-cum-BPO boomtown.

Clinton’s successor George Bush did one better. On his visit to Hyderabad in March 2006 (a month after the Saudi King gave it a miss) he announced the opening of full-fledged American consulate. A significant decision, against the backdrop that there was a US Consulate already in Chennai.

With Hyderabad gaining in prominence and investments, the jehadis viewed the city as an attractive target. As hitting Hyderabad would have a massive spin-off effect thanks to inflow of US funds.

Besides, with the State and its police unprepared for a terror attack Hyderabad become an easy target. Traditionally, the State Administration was geared to deal with only the law and order problems created by the Naxalalites and largely ignored the terrorist threat. Notwithstanding, the warning by the CBI and intelligence agencies.

Shockingly, the State Intelligence Bureau has no expertise in dealing with terrorist groups and is clueless about the terrorists’ modus operandi. Worse, it just keeps itself abreast of the Maoist groups’ activities and their hideouts. Which had largely been annihilated in the last two years.

To cap it all, the top brass of the Andhra police force is more conscious of keeping on the right side of the political bosses than with effective policing. With the powers-that-be looking at everything from the prism of votes, the Police Chiefs are prevented from taking action to maintain law and order as their actions are perceived as unpopular decisions.

A case in point. The former Police Commissioner of Hyderabad, A.K. Mohanty, who was strict about implementing the rule of law in the Old City, was soon on a collision course with the MIM whose writ runs large there. The MIM’s Chief Asauddin Owaisi started complaining that about Mohanty’s office becoming the hub of Left parties’ activities and Mohanty was removed. No matter that the Left was chipping away at the MIM’s vote base.

Today with Mohanty’s successor reportedly the pendulum has swung in favour of the MIM, which is back to its activities. Evidence of this came to the fore during the recent attack on well known Bangladeshi writer and liberal Taslima Nasreen. Even as the police launched a case against the MIM MLAs who disrupted her function, they also booked Nasreen much to the chagrin of neutral observers.

In sum, there is no gainsaying that the enemies across the borders are least concerned about peace in India. They want to incite one community against another. ---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Events And Issues

New Delhi, 20 August 2007

Amend The Constitution

END discrimination against Hindus

By J.G. Arora

Former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

‘Secularism’ is a sublime concept. It is all-embracing and non-discriminatory. Yet it has been dragged to dismal depths in India. In a truly secular polity, there should be no majority and no minority. There would be only humans, only citizens; one law; one nation; justice to all; injustice to none. But in India, secularism has come to mean “anti-Hinduism”.

After fighting foreign invaders for centuries and losing Afghanistan and Pakistan over the years, truncated Bharat was expected to re-assert itself after 1947. Instead, a fake secularism implying ‘anti-Hinduism’ has seized Bharat. No other country has reduced its majority community to such a helpless entity as India.

One of the major issues tormenting Hindu society is the outrageous Government control of all prominent Hindu temples all over India.

Though India is a secular republic and though secularism commands separation of state and religion, many State governments have taken over all prominent Hindu temples, which is an anti-secular action. And, it is discriminatory since only Hindu places of worship have been targeted for government control whereas no Christian church or Muslim mosque has been touched.

This is not to suggest that churches and mosques should also be taken over by the Government. This is just to stress that since secularism implies separation of state and religion, Hindu temples should also enjoy the same freedom from Government control as enjoyed by churches and mosques.

It is also shocking that the State governments are not using temple income for the cause of Hindu religion. Rather, the Government takeover has resulted in diversion of temple funds for non-religious purposes and, as in Karnataka, even for madrassas and churches. Takeover by the State has also resulted in defalcation of temple funds, closure of many smaller temples, encroachment, sale and alienation of temple lands and dismantling of temple infrastructure, which is leading to gradual demolition of Hindu religion. Because of Government takeover, persons with little devotion to Hinduism, and even non-Hindus are governing Hindu temples.

The Government control of Hindu temples and their estates amounts to suppression of the Hindus’ fundamental right of religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

A truly secular state can neither penalise nor patronise any religion. But the state control of well-known temples in India is demolishing the self-supporting infrastructure of Hindu places of worship. In sharp contrast, the Government of India subsidizes “Haj” pilgrimage when not even one of 57 Muslim countries provides any such subsidy.

Apart from being the centre of Hindu religious, social and cultural life, the temple is supposed to be the focal point for learning the Vedas, Upnishads, Ramayan,  Mahabharat and Tirukkural etc. from religious scholars. Government control over important temples is thus effacing Vedic learning and Sanskrit.

That is not all. Another disability is heaped on the Hindu society by Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution. These confer special rights only on the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. During deliberations in the Constituent Assembly, it was presumed that the Hindus who constituted the majority would automatically be entitled to the rights given to the minorities by Articles 29 and 30. However, in actual practice, these rights are denied to the Hindus.

In no other country in the world, the majority community has been deprived of basic rights whereas special privileges are bestowed on the minorities.

Articles 29 and 30 giving special privileges to the minorities are, indeed fragmenting Hindu society since many Hindu sects proclaim that they are not Hindu to get the benefits of these Articles. Clearly, being Hindu is a disability. As per the Supreme Court judgment reported as Bramchari Sidheswar Shai versus State of West Bengal (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2089), even Ramakrishna Mission, a leading Hindu organization, claimed a minority (non-Hindu) status to secure the benefits under Article 30.

Ramakrishna Mission was facing some problems in its educational institutions and apprehended Government takeover. To save itself from the looming danger, the well-known institution claimed a non-Hindu (minority) religion status to secure the protection of Article 30. Though its pioneers like Swami Vivekananda were glorious Hindus, the disabilities attached to Hindu institutions in independent India made Ramakrishna Mission disown Hinduism and claim minority status. Though the High Court allowed its petition, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and held that Ramakrishna Mission was a Hindu institution, and could not get protection of Article 30.

Is there a way out? The answer lies in the decontrol and restoration of the Hindu temples to the Hindu community and amendment of Articles 29 and 30 to extend the rights stipulated therein to all the communities, including the Hindus. That is the only way to give justice to the Hindus, India’s majority community. 

Since it is the Hindu society that has built and maintained its temples, the same should be handed back to the Hindus. Like other religious communities, the Hindus too have a constitutional and fundamental right to manage their temples, shrines and institutions. And they should not be deprived of this basic right.

It is baffling that the Hindus continue to suffer this discrimination in silence. It betrays abject surrender by the Hindus before injustice; as also incompetence of Hindu leadership. It is puzzling that no political party has articulated these inequities, and demanded justice for the Hindus.  

Moreover, Articles 29 and 30 have to be amended to ensure equal rights to all Indian citizens. This is not to suggest that the minorities should be deprived of any right conferred by Articles 29 and 30. This is only to stress that the rights conferred by these Articles on the minorities must be extended also to the Hindus since their religious and educational institutions cannot surrive under Government.

India’s Constitution has been amended about 100 times. Surprisingly, however, no one has thought of amending Articles 29 and 30. It is imperative that a Constitution (Amendment) Bill to amend Articles 29 and 30 to extend the rights stipulated therein to all the communities, including Hindus, is introduced in Parliament at the earliest. Even staunch anti-Hindus would not be able to object to the said amendment since it would merely extend the said fundamental rights to the Hindus without depriving the minorities of the same. Any one opposing this amendment would only expose his anti-Hindu bias.

With the proposed Constitutional amendment, the State would be debarred from interfering with the social, religious and educational institutions set up by the Hindus as is the case of the minority institutions. Educational institutions run by the Hindus would the also be free to propagate and preach Hinduism with the same constitutional protection as given to the minorities. This amendment would end discrimination against the Hindus without inviting any opposition from any quarter.

As per Eleanor Roosevelt, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Tolerance is said to be the virtue of those without convictions. The Hindus have to demonstrate that they will not tolerate any discrimination. Then and then alone they will not face any discrimination.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Events & Issues

New Delhi, 6 August 2007

Right To Information Act

Counter Productive in Jammu & Kashmir?

By Balraj Puri

The Right to Information Act is the latest and glaring example of the misuse of Article 370, guaranteeing special status to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

The autonomy that J&K enjoys and the demand for its enlargement can be justified only if it is used for its peoples’ interest and not for strengthening repressive and arbitrary powers of the rulers. Exclusion of jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission, 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution of India to empower local self governments are some other cases of how Article 370 has been applied to deny democratic rights to the people of the State.

Without compromising its powers under this Article, the State could surely enact better laws than those at the national level, provided it does so only after studying their working. The RTI Act is thus being discussed here in the hope that some remedial measures might still be considered.

In its report on Good Governance in J&K State presented to the Third Roundtable Conference, the working group made a simple recommendation:  that "there should be sensitization of the Right to Information Act, to bring about transparency in the Government." It must have investigated the reasons for its conspicuous failure in the State. In fact, not a single case of a person having got redressal under the RTI Act has been reported or is known.

The reason for the indifference to the use of RTI Act in the State or to seek information about any case is not due to the lack of people’s interest in their problems or that they don’t need such information. It is the lack of a strong voluntary effort to make the people conscious of the right to information and to fully explain why they are not asserting this right. Worse, the main reason is that there are limitations inherent in the State Act and sheer lack of will of the State government to implement it.

The main difference in the State law with that of the Central RTI Act is unlike the latter, it does not provide for the institution of an Information Commission. The Information Commission, for the rest of the country, is appointed at the Centre by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The State Commissions too have similarly been assured of their autonomous character and are to be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Chief Minister, leader of the Opposition and a Cabinet minister.

The Commission headed by the Chief Information Commissioner is a vital link between the people and the Government. It has the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court. It can summon and enforce attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence and to produce the document. The Commission, during the inquiry of any complaint under the RTI Act, can examine any record which is under the control of the public authority and "no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds."

As J&K RTI Act does not provide for the appointment of an Information Commission, the complainant is not only deprived of any guidance about the procedure of filing a complaint, but there is no compulsion on the public authority to supply the information sought. Most of the people, including educated people, are unaware of the procedure for filing a complaint and the patience to follow it up.

Further, the list of subjects on which the State government can withhold information is as much as 15 items. It includes advice, including legal advice, opinion or recommendation made by any officer of a public authority during the decision-making process, information which would affect the enforcement of any law, information the disclosure of which would affect the government's ability to manage economy and in general "any record and information which under the Evidence Act is claimed to be privileged."

The in-charge of an office can also regret to supply information to an applicant if the information cannot be complied without considerable financial expenditure or without considerable extra work. Further, a public authority can deny information if it would adversely interfere with its functioning.

There is no Commission to which a person seeking information from the government can approach for guidance if his/her request is rejected. Nor any Court "shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called to question"; the Act states categorically and somewhat ominously. The corresponding provisions in the Central Act are far more liberal. In any case the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions have wide powers to force the public authorities to provide the necessary information sought by the applicant.

Apart from obvious weaknesses in the State RTI Act which handicap and discourage persons to seek requisite information, an additional factor is the general practice of ministers and legislators to hold durbars to listen to grievances and offer redressal. But this is no substitute for an institutional system for receiving grievances and then offering redressal. More so, because not everybody has access to such durbars. In sum, as far as Right to Information Act of the State is concerned, it is in every sense much worse and regressive than the Central Act.

The people of J&K State specially need good and less corrupt governance. This is possible through empowerment and ready information about the administrative working. And, if it happens, it will reduce the levels of alienation that clearly exist there. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)