Yogi Deserves Praise for Restoring Rule of Law

 

One often wonders and marvels at the will and commitment of UP Chief Minister Yogi Aditynath to maintaining a peaceful atmosphere in the state. Some forces at the instance of their masters sitting inside and outside the country were hell-bent on creating disturbances and communal tensions in Uttar Pradesh at the time of Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti but thanks to the alacrity and firmness of the Yogi government not even one untoward incident was reported from any part of the state. These forces got frustrated and they gave vent to their designs in other states by staging communal riots.

When the Varanasi court this month itself directed for the preservation of Shivling in the Gyanvapi and for making alternative arrangements for the Waju (ablutions) of the permitted number of Namajis, it was feared that the state would be engulfed in extreme turbulence, but nothing happened in any part of the state despite extreme provocations by the likes of Owaisi and others. A few days earlier, the Advocate Commissioners were prevented from surveying the Gyanvapi premises by the troublemakers but when Yogi made it clear that no nuisance would be brooked and they would be dealt with an iron fist, nothing happened. The message reached in time to those who were planning to stoke communal tensions in different districts of the state.

Was it possible in any other dispensation? The obvious answer is an emphatic NO. During the regime of different governments, Uttar Pradesh had seen the worst communal riots. Mayawati was certainly a shade better than others, but the Yogi government is incomparable, and it is head and shoulder above any government of the state at any point in time. Although former Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav wanted to deride the Yogi government by nicknaming as the government of the Bulldozer Baba, that name proved to be a blessing in disguise for the people of the state.

The state has suffered a lot, as it has been fed up with the goondaism and casteism of some political parties. Government contracts used to be awarded only to those who belonged to a particular party or persons. Officers used to bend backwards to please their political masters. The Police Sub-Inspectors had become more powerful than Superintendents of Police because they were in the good books of their political bosses. It is an open secret that corruption was at its peak during the time of Mulayam Singh Yadav (Akhilesh Yadav included) and Mayawati. Mulayam Singh and his son had patronised some journalists, who shamelessly sang their paeans. These journalists were openly indulging in brokering. It must be stated, in all fairness, that the Yogi government has restored the people’s faith in the rule of law.

Working Journalist Act must be Amended to Instil Trust in the Profession

 Some people, who have neither any understanding of media nor its constitutional position, have been making thoughtless and stupid demands for the Journalist Protection Act. Some bluff masters have even been circulating the rough draft of the Act, which they are proposing in their delusion to be introduced in Parliament. These self-styled leaders or champions of media freedom have never stood by journalists in their thick and thin, weal or woe. It must be reiterated here that there is no mention of freedom of the press or media in the constitution of India. It is the freedom of speech and expression that was hotly debated in the constituent assembly, and it finds a pride place in Article 19 (1) as a fundamental right. Part III and Part IV of the Indian Constitution deal with Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy., While Fundamental Rights are enforceable and justiciable, the Directive Principles of State Policy, are neither enforceable nor justiciable but the state will always strive to achieve them.
The freedom of media or the press is, therefore, derived from the Constitution that speaks of the protection of certain rights of all citizens like; freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peaceably and without arms, to form associations or unions, to move freely throughout the territory of India, to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Hence, the freedom of a journalist is neither more nor less than the freedom of any citizen. However, the very next sub-clause 2 empowers the State from making any law for imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, or morality or about contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
Thus, it needs no emphasis that the State is duty-bound to provide protection to every citizen of the country, not only journalists. There is no gainsaying that the work of a journalist is different from other professionals. S/he is more susceptible to attacks and allegations by works that s/he performs but the real guarantee can come to a journalist from society, not by law. The life of a journalist is as hazardous or safe as those of a lawyer or a doctor, social worker, writer or any professional but that does not mean that there should be a separate law for the protection of every profession.
What, in fact, is needed is that the law meant for all persons should be effectively and will provide safety and security to all professionals. There is no need for a separate law, which could create a false sense of security

among journalists. Objectivity and boldness will ensure the respect and safety of a journalist, which has been considerably eroded by indulging in false and fake news.
Who is a journalist? This question has been raging from the time the country achieved independence. Some twenty-five years ago, this question came up before the Press Council of India, which had no relevance either then, or now but it was important from the point of view that it was and is an Appellate Authority against the orders of the RNI in matters relating to the cancellation of the registration or denial of the titles of the newspapers/ periodicals. The late Phoolan Devi, who was then a Member of Parliament, had applied for the title of a newspaper, which was not allotted to her on the ground that she was illiterate, so how could she be a journalist? The then Chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice P B Sawant asked a question to the authorities where was it written that to be an owner of a newspaper or a journalist should be necessarily educated? When other newspapers have employed journalists to bring out their publications, similarly she can also do the same thing. Before 1955, when the Working Journalist Act was enacted, there was only print media. Akashwani (Radio) was the only electronic medium that was in government control and its employees were governed by government rules. There is no qualm or compunction in accepting the fact that despite the Working Journalist Act, the journalists belonging to the print medium have hardly got any protection about their wages and security of jobs. This is because of the shoddy implementation by the corrupt officials of the labour department and the tardy judiciary.
Now with the unprecedented expansion of electronic and web media, it is more important that the ken or the ambit of the Working Journalist Act is expanded, and its implementation is made more effective. Apart from it, the definition of a working journalist should be made clear, so that those who fall within the meaning of the journalist could claim some benefits to which the Act entitles them. Anyway, to save the prestige of the journalistic profession, some sort of registration rolls for the journalists must also be prepared a la Advocates, Doctors or the Chartered Accountants.
Parmanand Pandey
Secy. Gen.: IFWJ

Phoney Allegiance to the Constitution is like Devil Quoting Scripture

 I have heard ad nauseam that Asaduddin Owaisi is a Barrister by profession as he studied at the prestigious Lincoln’s Inn of London. However, I must confess that I have neither seen him arguing any case nor read any reported judgments argued by Shri Owaisi, yet he is praised for his very sharp forensic knowledge. I have sometimes heard his envenomed speeches in Parliament and other public meetings, but they have never been able to appeal to the reason or logic of any person of average prudence. Therefore, those who often eulogise him for his in-depth learning are not objective observers but the blind followers of his noxious politics.

  Although the number of lawyers in politics is certainly higher than other professionals yet most of them have neither shone in politics nor in the legal profession. Politics is an altogether different ballgame, and the brilliance of lawyering or advocacy does not play a very significant role. Many lawyers have certainly made a mark in the legal profession regardless of their political hues or colours, but one is not dependent on the other. Nobody expects consistency in politics but, at least, in the legal profession consistency cannot be shed or shunned for political expediency. A good politician is expected to be a beacon of light for those who follow their leader, but Owaisi shows more of his tantrums than exuding logic of light.

  His recent statements avowing loyalty to the constitution with regard to the Places of Worship Act, introduced by Parliament in 1991 depict his duplicity and insincerity. It is like the famous Shakespearian quote in Merchant of Venice that ‘the devil can cite Scriptures for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek’. Look at his specious loyalty. He had shown his contempt for the abrogation of Article 370 and 35 A from the constitution or CAA or NRC but in the case of Gyanvapi, he has become an unflinching votary of the amendments to the constitution.

  Article 368 of the Indian constitution provides flexibility that allows for the required changes, which can be brought about as per the wishes and aspirations of the people. In fact, even the basic structure theory as enunciated in the Keshvanand Bharti also cannot remain as rigid as to be written in stone like the Ten Biblical Commandments.  The Constitution has to be an organic one, it can be changed/amended or altered as and when the need arises. Shri Owaisi is a lawmaker by virtue of being a Member of Parliament, but he should not try to browbeat the public by showing his phoney allegiance to the constitution of India and claiming to have a better understanding than others because he happened to be a Barrister, at least by holding the degree if not by practice. 

  The Government must, therefore, try to convince the Muslim leadership to transfer at least Kashi, Mathura and some other places of worship to Hindus which scream by their structure to be theirs. 

 

Resolve Kashi, Mathura Mandir-Masjid Tangle Through Conciliation, not Courts

    Looking at the photographs and videos of Shivling found in the Gyan Vapi of Varanasi, anybody can say without any doubt, that it could not be a fountain as it is being made out by some Muslim leaders. I have seen this place scores of times during my student days at BHU and always felt that Muslims should themselves come forward to hand it over to Hindus to amicably take out the thorn of contention. The frescoes of deities on the walls of Masjid and the continuous looking of Nandi Bull leave no one in doubt about the location of Shivling.  

 The claim of some Muslim leaders about the Shivling as a fountain is farfetched. Firstly, there was no concept of any fountain in any Houj meant for waju (ablution) at the entrance. Secondly, it could not have been possible to have a modern fountain more than three hundred years ago when the part of the temple was demolished to convert it into a mosque. Such fountains can be operated only through electricity, which was unheard of. Hence, by seeing the Kashi Vishwanath temple or the Krishna Janmbhumi through naked eyes, one will have no doubt that they have been the temples, not the Mosques. Therefore, sane Muslims must come forward to resolve the tangle by sidelining the politico-religious bigots.

  Interestingly, the idea of presenting the Shivling as the fountain has not come from the local Muslims but from those rabid and vile communal leaders, who possibly have never visited Gyan Vapi yet want to make capital out of it. Hence, their claim is patently false and should be rejected and dismissed by the Muslims of Varanasi with vehemence. There is hardly any doubt that innumerable historical wrongs have been done by the Muslim tyrants. They had no respect or sympathy for the peace-loving public. They indulged in pillaging, looting, raping and killing indiscriminately men and women. In the name of Islam, they committed such horrific crimes as to scar humanity with shame permanently.

  Go to any place in the country and the barbarity of Muslim rulers is all visible there. What is most surprising is that those whose ancestors were converted to Islam by force, fraud and inducements are not even ready to retribute and condemn them. Any problem with a temple or mosque cannot be resolved through litigations in the courts. but by reconciliation and negotiations. Solutions obtained through courts will not last long but that will widen the gulf of mistrust between the two communities.

  The governments(s) should also promote helping different communities solve their religious problems with mutual understanding, logic and in a realistic manner.  It will be helpful in isolating those leaders who are spewing venom day and night. Verily speaking, the religious problems of some places like Kashi, Mathura, Ayodhya and Dhar (Madhya Pradesh) should have been given to Hindus long back and that would have set a sterling example of peace, tranquillity and harmony in society leading the country on the highway of progress.  

 

 

 

 

Not Sedition Law but its Misuse be Stopped

      

  It is an oft-repeated statement that the Supreme Court of India is Supreme, not because it is infallible but because it is final.  While hearing the constitutionality of section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to the offence of sedition, the Supreme Court has put its operation in abeyance till it is reconsidered by the government of India to which it has agreed. With all humility and respect, I feel that this interim order of the Supreme Court is unjustified. There are no two opinions that civil liberties are to be balanced with the security of the state. The Union Home Secretary has already stated on oath that no FIR involving sedition would be registered until an officer of at least SP rank records in writing his/her satisfaction.

    After all, how are you going to deal with such people who openly shout slogans and provoke the public to rise in revolt against India till its Barbadi (ruination)? Or 'Bharat tere tukde honge hazar' (India will splinter into thousand pieces) or ‘we must cut the chicken neck of India so that the supplies to the north-east are stopped and it can be separated from the rest of the country?  Can these be allowed in the name of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19? What justification can be given to those who say that the Bombay blast was the handiwork of Indian forces, that too without even an iota of proof or evidence? Is there any doubt about the malafide intentions of these persons who make such irresponsible statements?

  Sedition law is more than 150 years old as this section was included in the IPC in 1890 and like any other law, it must also be changed to keep pace with times but not without visualising the challenges that may arise. Obliterating any law from the statute on the ground of it being of the colonial era is no plausible reason. By that logic, the bulk of IPC, CrPC and CPC is of the colonial era, can they also be done away with? When the offence of the sedition was introduced, the punishment prescribed was transportation for life which was amended to life imprisonment in 1955. In the pre-Independence era, this law was used to stifle political dissent with cases lodged against Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Maulana Azad, Mahatma Gandhi and many others. The legacy of this law in India comes from England. But citing its chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, it was repealed by the United Kingdom in 2009. The Constituent Assembly debated this issue in great detail. Some considered it a restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech, but the majority did not subscribe to this view

    After Independence, a five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of 124 A in Kedar Nath Singh’s case, but it left some ambiguity between the State and the Government. In fact, it is very cogent reasoning that criticism of the government cannot be labelled sedition. There is a big difference between sedition and treason, while treason is justified, sedition is indefensible.  There is no doubt that sedition law is draconian but removing it lock, stock and barrel from the statute book will help only those who have anathema for the unity and integrity of the country. 

In the Kedar Nath Singh judgment, the Supreme Court had issued certain guidelines underlining when critical speech cannot be qualified as sedition. Therefore, the need is to stop the misuse of law, which is found in the case of many other laws. To top it all, the judicial system must keep a smart vigil on false cases by way of early relief and punishment to those who misuse the law.

 

              Remove Encroachments to Make a Place Liveable

    There is nothing to be surprised at in the way anti-encroachment drives at Jahangirpuri and Shaheen Bagh of Delhi were stiffly opposed and ultimately stopped.  Encroachments of public lands have been a very common and profitable business for politicians, police, and other civic authorities. It is done with the complicity of all.  At the outset, illegal colonies are allowed to come up by taking a certain amount of money from the settlers. Some mafia dons even take contracts for such illegal settlements, they share the money with politicians, police, and the minions of the corporation. Most of the settlers know it very well that even if they are uprooted, a piece of the free plot of 12 to 18 metres in any authorised area is assured for them. Thus, scores of resettlement colonies came up in Delhi some thirty years ago. These illegal settlers were helped by some NGOs, mostly foreign-funded.

  Soon thereafter, private players having political patronage emerged. They started purchasing agricultural lands in the outskirts of Delhi to be sold to individual purchasers in different shapes and sizes resulting in the haphazard growth of unauthorised colonies. The land use was changed. Once the area was inhabited, the pressure gets built up by all parties to legalise them for the sake of votes. This vicious circle helps all crooked players to the disadvantage and inconvenience of peace-loving people.

   This is the reason that even today basic facilities are not available in unauthorised colonies. Every inch of land is sold out by the land sharks leaving no space for the hospitals, police stations, post offices, schools, markets, or parking spaces. So much so, that in such unauthorised colonies, streets for public use are left so narrow that no ambulances or fire hydrants can move at the time of any emergency. Parks and walking tracks are unthinkable.

  What to say of the unauthorised colonies even in planned colonies roads and streets are illegally occupied with gay abandon causing huge discomforts and difficulties to the people. Once, the late Jagmohan, who was the Urban Development Minister in the Vajpayee government started the anti-encroachment drive in Delhi, but he was fiercely opposed by all corrupt politicians. He was unceremoniously dropped from the cabinet, which was celebrated by the devotees of corruption, regardless of party affiliations. But what can be done when it is as clear as daylight that these encroachments are done with the complicity and connivance of the corrupt politicians, police and MCD personnel? It is, therefore, no wonder that all corrupt persons have got united against any encroachment drive in places like Jahangir Puri, Shaheen Bagh, or Sangam Vihar.

   One can find thousands of Rohingyas and Bangladeshis, who have built their houses in various public places in the city. They are being given all facilities, almost free, at the cost of the public exchequer. Some of them shamelessly boast to be sons-in-law of India. The modus operandi is the same old one. At first, the demands are made to give them shelter on humanitarian grounds, then they get ration cards, and thereafter they are wooed for votes. Then communal politics comes into full play. If some steps are taken against them, then those who are experts in sophistry will ask why they were allowed to encroach in the first place? Their questions appear to be genuine but that is meant more to confuse and entangle the problems rather than provide the solution.

  Therefore, while removing the encroachments, it must also be ensured that those who were responsible for them and in whose time and tenure, they took place, should be imposed exemplary punishments so that it is not repeated in future. After all, it was a crime by them, therefore, they can be tried anytime as the 'crime is never barred by the limitation act'.