Response to Jug Suraiya’s Article: Behenji and Bane-ji
Jug Suraiya is way off the mark. He perhaps aims to be the new poster boy of the downtrodden, underprivileged classes a la VP Singh by writing such drivel which not only does an injustice to Ms Mayawati and the Indian electorate but is especially offensive to the Indian middle class.
The thought of Mayawati as prime minister is not repugnant because she is a Dalit. Nor has it anything to do with her being a woman, classy or otherwise. I think the Indian voter finds the thought of any of the pretenders in the numerous regional parties we have equally repugnant as prime ministerial material. That goes for the likes of Sharad Pawar, Sharad Yadav, Paswan, Lalu Prasad, Jayalalita, Deve Gowda, Karat and wife Brinda, Naidu and a whole lot of other pretenders and wannabes.
The reason has nothing to do with caste, class, race, colour, creed or any personal animosity with the above persons. It is simply that these leaders have no base outside their own state. A Dalit from Andhra or Assam or Gujarat may not have even heard of Mayawati. Outside of UP, her party has restricted appeal and that is what irks the thinking voter. That we may actually get a Prime Minister from a hotchpotch conglomeration of small parties, each having differing and in many cases opposing ideologies, each aiming to make good while the going lasts is not a pleasant thought. And the Prime Minister's party may have no more than forty to fifty seats in Parliament. Imagine the compromises, the deals and the pounds of flesh each constituent will extract. That is what we find repugnant Mr. Suraiya. India wants and needs a stable polity.
Let Mayawati’s BSP win at least 150 seats. I don’t think anyone will have a problem of accepting the lady as PM. And that goes for the others too.
Let us also stop this comparison with Obama. It is odious. The American President asked for votes on the basis of performance and not on the colour of his skin. We need to replicate that model and cease asking for votes based on our religious and caste affiliations. That day is still unfortunately a long way off.
As an aside, a scribe with literary pretensions once asked George Bernard Shaw for advice. Shaw’s response was classic. "Your story is a trifle that may have been written by any amateur. Don't make a confounded nuisance of yourself ... don't bother me with this rubbish." Unfortunately, we don’t have a GBS to advise the likes of JS. And the gentleman won’t certainly read my column.
Behenji and Bane-ji
1 Apr 2009, 0010 hrs IST, Jug Suraiya
Why does urban middle-class India hate Mayawati so much? In a recent poll, over 70 per cent of the respondents said that they would be horrified if she were to become India's next prime minister, which not a few political observers feel could be a distinct possibility in the post-poll scenario of forming what almost certainly will have to be another coalition government
. Why does the urban elite find the thought of Prime Minister Mayawati so repugnant? The fact that she is a Dalit should, if anything, be in her favour instead of against her. Post-Obama, among those who like to consider themselves to be India's liberalgentsia casteism is as out of fashion as racism is in the US: it's not just politically incorrect but also socially uncool openly to discriminate against an individual because of her caste, particularly if the caste in question is that of a Dalit. In any case, many years ago didn't we have a respected Dalit defence minister (who almost became prime minister) in Jagjivan Ram?
No, it's not caste that accounts for the urban liberal's aversion to Mayawati. So if it's not caste, is it class? As her nickname suggests, is Mayawati the archetypal 'Behenji', crass and vulgar in her manner of dress and general social deportment? With her 350-kg birthday cakes and diamond jewellery, Mayawati is obviously not a believer in the efficacy of social and sartorial understatement. But then neither is Jayalalithaa, another would-be PM, who is renowned for her larger-than-life cut-outs and a fanatical following which includes supporters who have had her image tattooed on the insides of their eyelids so that they may be able to gaze upon their revered Puratchi Thalaivi even when their eyes are shut. Yet Amma does not invite the same scorn and loathing that Behenji does.
The most common accusation made against Mayawati is that she is corrupt, the so-called 'Taj corridor' case being cited as the most visible example of her venality. But to say that an Indian politician particularly a politician such as Mayawati who has to sustain a large support base is corrupt is to state the obvious. It is like saying that an egg has shell, or a banana a peel. Like the shell of an egg, or the skin of a banana, for an Indian politician with a mass base which has to be sustained through patronage, corruption is a necessary condition for existence. Barring a few exceptions such as Manmohan Singh who has no grassroots base which supports him and which he in turn is obliged to look after corruption seems to be an occupational moral hazard for Indian politicians. What with the Nagarwal case in Indira Gandhi's time, and Bofors during Rajiv's regime, even what is often called the first political family of the land has not escaped the taint of corruption.
So why single out Mayawati for being corrupt? Why such singular animosity towards her? Perhaps the reason is that, more than any other politician today, she represents a full frontal assault on our ingrained social and political hypocrisy, the odour of sanctity with which we seek to surround ourselves. We like to showcase in our public figures the virtues of conspicuous austerity (see how Gandhiji travelled third-class on trains) and holier-than-thou renunciation (see how Soniaji renounced prime ministership).
With her over-the-top style and her unabashed ambition to become prime minister indeed, her party manifesto has that as its single-point agenda Mayawati offends our sense of sanctimoniousness. Instead of mouthing platitudes about aam aadmi and the downtrodden, she has the honesty to be upfront about what she is: a Dalit, and a doubly disadvantaged woman at that, who is hungry for power to reverse the tide of thousands of years of oppression. Mayawati represents a revenge against our righteousness, our hypocritical belief in our moral superiority. Maybe that's why Behenji is our real Bane-ji.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
ENCOUNTER KILLINGS : PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF
On July 13, 2007, a three-judge bench of the High Court in Andhra Pradesh ruled, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions that it is not mandatory for the police to register a case of murder when there is an encounter killing. Human rights groups were understandably up in arms as Naxal activities and encounter deaths are rampant in the state. On February 6, 2009, a five-judge bench of the same court ruled it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place. The HC judgment — whose operative part does not use the term ‘police encounter’, fake or genuine —mandated compulsory registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for a murder case wherever a police officer causes death, acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties or in self-defence. It directs that such a case be investigated like any other offence. Even if the investigating officer’s final report under Section 173, CrPC, concludes that no case is made out, the magistrate is to critically examine the evidence and take cognizance if necessary.
This was hailed as a landmark judgment by human rights organisations claiming it would end the practice of the police closing encounter cases on the plea of self-defence. Law enforcement authorities, however, found the judgment disturbing and through an appeal by the Andhra Pradesh Police Officers’ Association, obtained on March 4, 2009, a stay on the High Court Order from the Supreme Court of India.
Mr. Maxwell Pereira, a former joint commissioner of police, Delhi, in his article, ‘In the Line of Fire’ strongly supported the cause of law enforcement agencies and suggested that ‘police cannot combat violence with their hands tied down’. The reasons put forward by the former joint commissioner are reproduced below:
(a) The law of private defence stands abrogated, and all Indian Penal Code provisions concerning right of self-defence become obsolete and nullified.
(b) Registration of FIRs against police officers is mandatory for death caused even during discharge of official duties, including encounters.
(c) Police officers involved in thwarting the 2001 attack on Parliament and all National Security Guard (NSG) commandos who killed terrorists involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks could now face murder trials — as also other police officers and army and navy personnel including the NSG chief, Mumbai police commissioner and army area commander who extended protection or guided them during the operation. Perhaps the entire home ministry, state and central, and all police chiefs can also figure as accessories to a large criminal conspiracy and face the same murder trial as conspirators.
(d) This ruling could apply to other parts of India via other court judgments.
(e) There could be confusion among field formations handling tough situations.
(f) It would be prudent for state police forces to disarm personnel, withdrawing all arms and ammunition considered a must in their operations.
(g) It could lead central forces like the CRPF to request the Centre against deployment for internal security duties in states faced with violence, riots and insurgency, and/or anti- terrorist duties or situations warranting use of firearms.
(h) Because this judgment is to be implemented retrospectively, murder cases could even be registered for past police actions resulting in death. That means the prospect of cases being slapped on some of us retired policemen who supervised officers in encounter cases at some stage or the other. Further, the next time a terrorist fires at a police officer, it would be advisable for the latter to either get killed or run from the scene and face charges of cowardice and dereliction of duty. Else, he would face a murder case for killing the terrorist.
(j) The police now feel stifled to effectively perform their statutory duties and assigned tasks, as forces in armed combat cannot function with the prospect of a murder charge hovering over them thanks to impractical or unrealistic judicial pronouncements. The morale for those facing bullets is hit. Courtroom logic does not cut ice for the underpaid, overworked jawan risking life and livelihood for lofty ideals. He cannot perform if he is not guaranteed security from prosecution for genuine exchanges of fire.
When faced with the task of combating violence, be it from the terrorists, Naxals or criminal gangs, the job of the security forces is an unenviable one. It is but natural that no soldier or policeman would like to take on a hostile target if the subsequent legal process would treat him as a criminal. The five judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would certainly have considered this aspect. That they still chose to pass an order making it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place thus needs more careful deliberation and introspection.
In the years soon following independence, the Army was called to quell insurgencies that had broken out in Nagaland and in some other parts of the North East. The conduct of army personnel in the initial phases paid scant regard to human rights and in many cases the local junior commanders became a law unto themselves. The situation was however quickly rectified through strict action against defaulters and by instituting proper training for conduct of counter insurgency operations. In one case, when it came to light that a certain group of soldiers escorting a women prisoner had raped her repeatedly through the night, the entire lot was dismissed from service and given sentences of rigorous imprisonment. This happened more than forty years ago but the principle followed then has not been diluted till date. Stray allegations of abuse still surface against the army deployed in low intensity conflict operations in J&K and in the North East, most of which are biased and unfounded. But in all cases, the matter is investigated and if there is truth in the allegations, strict action is taken against the defaulters.
We do not find such things happening in the police forces. There is no in house enquiry that takes place; neither do we hear of any action being taken against guilty police officials. Action is only taken if the case cannot be covered up due to media pressure as in the case of the killing of two Haryana businessman on Barakhamba Road by the then ACP Mr. SS Rathi and his team in a fake encounter case.
The term encounter specialist is one which should be avoided but is unfortunately used with great pride by the police themselves. Statistically, whenever an encounter takes place, the probability of casualties to the security forces is high. When encounters take place by the score and not a single policeman is injured in the shootouts doubts are certainly going to be raised about their genuineness.
We must also ask ourselves why the police is compelled to act both as the prosecutor and the judge? Is it something to do with the lack of investigative skills which results in evidence being thrown out by the courts? Or does it have something to do with the lethargic manner in which courts themselves function? In either case, law enforcement agencies have a lot to answer for.
References given by Maxwell Pereira with respect to the possibility of action being taken against the security forces for taking on the terrorists in the attack on India’s Parliament and in the Mumbai carnage of 26 Nov 2008 is farfetched and seeks to deflect attention from the real issue which is that “All cases need to be properly investigated and brought before a court of law for proper disposal”. The courts too, need to get their act in order for speedy disposal of cases. Both the police and the courts thus have a vital role to play in our legal system and our thrust should be to ensure that our justice system delivers and delivers in time. Fake encounters are NOT the solution.
The Supreme Court of India has imposed a stay on the ruling of the five bench court of Andhra Pradesh. While the matter will be debated upon by our legal luminaries, the time has come for our police forces to act proactively against their own people who break the law and to institute measures to see that the criminal justice system is made effective.
This was hailed as a landmark judgment by human rights organisations claiming it would end the practice of the police closing encounter cases on the plea of self-defence. Law enforcement authorities, however, found the judgment disturbing and through an appeal by the Andhra Pradesh Police Officers’ Association, obtained on March 4, 2009, a stay on the High Court Order from the Supreme Court of India.
Mr. Maxwell Pereira, a former joint commissioner of police, Delhi, in his article, ‘In the Line of Fire’ strongly supported the cause of law enforcement agencies and suggested that ‘police cannot combat violence with their hands tied down’. The reasons put forward by the former joint commissioner are reproduced below:
(a) The law of private defence stands abrogated, and all Indian Penal Code provisions concerning right of self-defence become obsolete and nullified.
(b) Registration of FIRs against police officers is mandatory for death caused even during discharge of official duties, including encounters.
(c) Police officers involved in thwarting the 2001 attack on Parliament and all National Security Guard (NSG) commandos who killed terrorists involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks could now face murder trials — as also other police officers and army and navy personnel including the NSG chief, Mumbai police commissioner and army area commander who extended protection or guided them during the operation. Perhaps the entire home ministry, state and central, and all police chiefs can also figure as accessories to a large criminal conspiracy and face the same murder trial as conspirators.
(d) This ruling could apply to other parts of India via other court judgments.
(e) There could be confusion among field formations handling tough situations.
(f) It would be prudent for state police forces to disarm personnel, withdrawing all arms and ammunition considered a must in their operations.
(g) It could lead central forces like the CRPF to request the Centre against deployment for internal security duties in states faced with violence, riots and insurgency, and/or anti- terrorist duties or situations warranting use of firearms.
(h) Because this judgment is to be implemented retrospectively, murder cases could even be registered for past police actions resulting in death. That means the prospect of cases being slapped on some of us retired policemen who supervised officers in encounter cases at some stage or the other. Further, the next time a terrorist fires at a police officer, it would be advisable for the latter to either get killed or run from the scene and face charges of cowardice and dereliction of duty. Else, he would face a murder case for killing the terrorist.
(j) The police now feel stifled to effectively perform their statutory duties and assigned tasks, as forces in armed combat cannot function with the prospect of a murder charge hovering over them thanks to impractical or unrealistic judicial pronouncements. The morale for those facing bullets is hit. Courtroom logic does not cut ice for the underpaid, overworked jawan risking life and livelihood for lofty ideals. He cannot perform if he is not guaranteed security from prosecution for genuine exchanges of fire.
When faced with the task of combating violence, be it from the terrorists, Naxals or criminal gangs, the job of the security forces is an unenviable one. It is but natural that no soldier or policeman would like to take on a hostile target if the subsequent legal process would treat him as a criminal. The five judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would certainly have considered this aspect. That they still chose to pass an order making it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place thus needs more careful deliberation and introspection.
In the years soon following independence, the Army was called to quell insurgencies that had broken out in Nagaland and in some other parts of the North East. The conduct of army personnel in the initial phases paid scant regard to human rights and in many cases the local junior commanders became a law unto themselves. The situation was however quickly rectified through strict action against defaulters and by instituting proper training for conduct of counter insurgency operations. In one case, when it came to light that a certain group of soldiers escorting a women prisoner had raped her repeatedly through the night, the entire lot was dismissed from service and given sentences of rigorous imprisonment. This happened more than forty years ago but the principle followed then has not been diluted till date. Stray allegations of abuse still surface against the army deployed in low intensity conflict operations in J&K and in the North East, most of which are biased and unfounded. But in all cases, the matter is investigated and if there is truth in the allegations, strict action is taken against the defaulters.
We do not find such things happening in the police forces. There is no in house enquiry that takes place; neither do we hear of any action being taken against guilty police officials. Action is only taken if the case cannot be covered up due to media pressure as in the case of the killing of two Haryana businessman on Barakhamba Road by the then ACP Mr. SS Rathi and his team in a fake encounter case.
The term encounter specialist is one which should be avoided but is unfortunately used with great pride by the police themselves. Statistically, whenever an encounter takes place, the probability of casualties to the security forces is high. When encounters take place by the score and not a single policeman is injured in the shootouts doubts are certainly going to be raised about their genuineness.
We must also ask ourselves why the police is compelled to act both as the prosecutor and the judge? Is it something to do with the lack of investigative skills which results in evidence being thrown out by the courts? Or does it have something to do with the lethargic manner in which courts themselves function? In either case, law enforcement agencies have a lot to answer for.
References given by Maxwell Pereira with respect to the possibility of action being taken against the security forces for taking on the terrorists in the attack on India’s Parliament and in the Mumbai carnage of 26 Nov 2008 is farfetched and seeks to deflect attention from the real issue which is that “All cases need to be properly investigated and brought before a court of law for proper disposal”. The courts too, need to get their act in order for speedy disposal of cases. Both the police and the courts thus have a vital role to play in our legal system and our thrust should be to ensure that our justice system delivers and delivers in time. Fake encounters are NOT the solution.
The Supreme Court of India has imposed a stay on the ruling of the five bench court of Andhra Pradesh. While the matter will be debated upon by our legal luminaries, the time has come for our police forces to act proactively against their own people who break the law and to institute measures to see that the criminal justice system is made effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)