THE SOCIAL BLOG

For starters, I don’t intend to be prophetic in my evaluation of the recently concluded Gujjar Community-Rajasthan Government wrangle. However, I cannot help but observe, quite candidly, that the whole situation serves as a dark episode in the history of civil liberty movements in this country. The reasons for such analysis are not too far to seek.

For a moment, let us relive the influence of caste in shaping the political, cultural and even geographical history of India; caste as an index continues to affect our public policy, be it through coalition governments or affirmative action, and hence is a critical determinant of the upward/downward mobility that the Indian citizen attains in life. Central and State Governments, have throughout the course of post-Independent India, engaged in active programmes that seek to mitigate the wrongs of historical discrimination meted out to various castes. One may indeed argue that the whole gamut of events has only recently, acquired a political twang. Caste-based violence still continues to be a haunting reality in rural India, with incidents of isolated and systematic torture frequently surfacing in the news.

Taking such grim reality as the backdrop to this article, it is important that we understand the repercussions of granting ’special, backward community’ or ‘ST’ status to Gujjars. Not because the additive 5% would increase the ever-burgeoning basket of reservations in the quota system, but because the 5% so granted was the direct and immediate consequence of untoward and violent rebellion against the State. Of course, the million-dollar question is always going to be whether the Govt. was right in granting such privileged status to the community? Nonetheless, the finer aspect of the issue still remains: Was the Govt. right in acquiescing to the violent methods of the Gujjars in granting reservation? The next logical question would then be: Is not the Govt. setting a bad precedent, effectively indicating that ends can be achieved through such caste-based violence? The answer, unfortunately, is a loud and thumping Yes.

(To be continued.)

On June 5, the Supreme Court of India in a significant ruling, held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 would not hinder a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Prior to delving into the importance of this judgment, it is imperative that the gamut of events, triggered with the Shah Bano verdict, be explained. In 1985, the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, upheld the maintenance claim of Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman of 60 years, under S.125 of the CrPC; the Section provides for relieft to a wife (among others), “unable to maintain herself”. However, this judgment created a huge outcry from the Islamic orthodoxy in India. The Rajiv Gandhi-led Government in power, passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, to appease the outraged sentiments. The Act, quite ironically, curtailed the rights of Muslim women rather than protecting them. It limited the Muslim husband’s responsibility to maintain his divorced wife to the period of iddat. Over the past decade, the Act has challenged over various grounds of Constitutional validity. The apex Court’s decision in Daniel Latifi v. Union of India was instrumental in clearing the fog of confusion. The Court in that instance, gave a liberal interpretation of the Act,(specifically S. 3(1)) in so far as the “fair and reasonable” provisions to the divorced Muslim woman shall include maintenance for her future extending beyond the iddat period.

Earlier this month, the two judge-bench comprising Justic Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain in the case of Iqbal Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh overruled the Allahabd High Court’s order on the same matter; the H.C had held that the divorced wife is not entitled to maintenance under the CrPC in lieu of the existing Act of 1986. There were questions raised as to whether the divorce effected was proper; to which the Court answered in the negative. While the Act only deals with divorced women the CrPC, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Court, is of broader ambit.  A relevant passage from the judgment is quoted below:

Under the 1986 Act the husband has two separate and distinct obligations, viz. to a make a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife [for her residence, food, clothes and other articles], and to provide maintenance for her. Though it may look ironical that the enactment intended to reverse the decision in the Shah Bano case it actually codifies the very rationale contained therein.

 A judgment is certainly a step in the correct direction to secure the rights of divorced Muslim women unable to maintain themselves, and relieve them of their plight perpetrated by legal instruments such as the Act of 1986.

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP), formulated consequential to the NREG Act, 2005, has no doubt, been of benefit to a vast number of families from rural India. This social-welfare legislation has proved instrumental in creating employment, albeit temporary, to those lacking adequate means of livelihood. The present context upon which I wish to comment, is one that exemplifies the connection, or rather the absence thereof, in the spheres of law and society. The exclusion of single women and widows from the ambit and benefit of the NREGP is no small matter.

The background to this comment is based on P. Sainath’s article in the Hindu dated May 22, 2007 and can be read here:  http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/22/stories/2007052200840900.htm 

The article, in essence, deals with case-studies of single and widowed women in Andhra Pradesh who have been refused employment under this Programme on the ground that they lacked a male partner joining for work. Many of the widows’ farmer-husbands committed suicide in light of the extremely miserable conditions for agrarian production which have been long prevalent in A.P (and many other parts of the country) now. Such reports have even received confirmation from officials in the Government. Digressing slightly, it can be stated there is a complete lack of awareness as to the fact that the widowed women of farmers are all the more in need of employment as a result of the deficient means of livelihood.

If one observes the reasons for refusal to provide employment to these women, it can be noted that such employment is contingent on the presence/ absence of a male partner at work. The fundamental assumption, therefore, is that productivity and work will be compromised if single/widowed women are employed without male workers to “compensate” such depletion in productivity. In short, only male workers can be trusted, so to say, to maintain standards of efficiency at work. Inherently discriminatory in nature, such tendencies do well to perpetuate the myth of the “able-bodied worker”. It would be truistic to say that the very purpose of the NREG Act is destroyed if such notions are encouraged. If employment were to be provided on such fallacious grounds based on efficiency, rooted in gender bias, we would only be promoting discrimination; not to mention the fact that livelihood of families run by women (no meagre number, that) would be thrown into (further?) economic backwardness.

The law in its implementation has to be conscious of ground realities in society. A social welfare legislation is absolutely redundant if in practice, it encourages such myths and discriminates on the basis of norms clearly unconstitutional. An understanding of social and gender equality is critical to the benefit of its subjects in society.

USA: Letter from Amnesty International to President Bush on His Upcoming Visit to India

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Amnesty International welcomes your visit to India during the first week of March. Your visit represents a rare opportunity for you to directly communicate your concerns about human rights in India. While you discuss economic cooperation and civilian nuclear partnership with the Indian Prime Minister, it is vital that you also raise human rights concerns affecting large numbers of Indian citizens. Amnesty International strongly urges you to include Indian human rights concerns in your joint communiqué with the Indian Prime minister Manmohan Singh.

Even though India is the world’s largest democracy, there remain serious and disturbing human rights practices, including “disappearances”, rape, extrajudicial executions, deaths in police and military custody, torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrests, dowry deaths, and numerous other human rights abuses.

The Government of India not only fails to prevent these abuses, but also shelters members of security forces from facing justice. People living in several of the northeastern states of India, Kashmir, religious minorities, those belonging to the lowest social order called “dalits”, and indigenous communities called “adivasis” face the brunt of these abuses. Other socially and economically marginalized groups including women face discrimination at the hands of the police and criminal justice system. While some laws were passed to address some of the human rights abuses; serious concerns remain about the implementation of such laws.

There are numerous human rights violations taking place in India. Following are some of the abuses and concerns:

Massacre of Sikhs: Over three thousand Sikhs were massacred when the governing Congress Party incited mob violence targeting Sikh civilians in reaction to the 1984 assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Scores of women were gang raped and some were burnt alive. After two decades, a judicial commission concluded that members of the governing Congress party were involved. Several belonging to the same party were cleared of charges, which led to criticism from several civil society and Sikh organizations and opposition political parties. Twenty years have passed since the massacre, but only a few have been brought to justice for this mass killing.

Massacre of Muslims: In 2002, over 2,000 Muslims were massacred in Gujarat as a reaction to a train fire that killed 59 Hindus. This train fire was blamed on Muslims. Hindu mobs allegedly incited by state Bharatiya Janata Party members went on a killing spree targeting Muslims. Several hundred Muslim women and girls were gang raped and some were burnt alive. Pregnant women and children were also targeted. After three years, very few individuals have been brought to justice.

Bhopal tragedy: Several thousand people have died and many more continue to die from a 1984 gas leak at Union Carbide’s pesticide plant in Bhopal in 1984. Twenty years have passed since the leak occurred, but the plant site has not been cleaned up and toxic wastes continue to pollute the environment and ground water. Tens of thousands continue to live with debilitating illnesses. Despite numerous efforts, survivors continue to be denied adequate compensation, medical help, rehabilitation, and justice.

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 has remained in effect in “disturbed areas,” including Kashmir and large parts of the northeastern states of India for over forty years. This act is a major contributor to massive human rights abuses in these areas of India. This law protects Indian Security forces from prosecution by requiring permission to prosecute from India’s Central Government–permission which is rarely given. As a result, security forces often take the law into their own hands and commit massive human rights abuses against the civilians. This law has facilitated grave human rights abuses, including “disappearances,” rapes, extrajudicial executions, and deaths resulting from torture. This law also gives the security forces power to shoot to kill anyone even without any threat to the lives of security forces.

Northeastern States: One of the areas “hidden” from international attention is the region of northeast India. A reign of terror is prevailing in this area, which is largely facilitated by the above mentioned Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958. Security forces kill, rape, “disappear” and commit other gross human rights abuses with virtual impunity. Amnesty International has never been permitted to visit the northeastern states of India.

Kashmir: The Indian side of Kashmir is another area where Indian Security forces commit massive human rights abuses with impunity. This is once again facilitated by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 and other similar laws. Indian Security forces “disappear,” rape, extra-judicially execute, torture people to death, and commit other severe human rights abuses. Authorities arbitrarily detain people and use preventive detention to stifle political dissent. The civilian population of Kashmir has paid a high price for the conflict. Thousands have disappeared and the total casualties since 1989 are believed to be around 38,000.

One example of impunity in Kashmir is that of a human rights lawyer and activist Jalil Andrabi. Nine years after the “disappearance” and killing of Jalil Andrabi, an army major identified as responsible by a special investigation team had still not been brought to justice. Army representatives asserted that they have not been able to locate him. Amnesty International has never been permitted to visit Kashmir.

Abuses against “Dalits”: India’s caste system involves a social hierarchy and individuals are considered to be born into a particular caste and remain in the caste throughout their lives. Outside these caste categories are the “untouchables,” now commonly known as “dalits”, whose occupations – sweepers, tanners, sanitation workers, etc – were viewed as “polluting” the community. Nearly 200 million people in India belong to this category and this system has been called India’s “hidden apartheid.” Abuses against “dalits” are numerous and take many different forms including: parading of naked dalit women through the streets, socioeconomic discrimination, killings, arson-burning of dalit communities, gang rape, bonded labor, denial of land rights, and many more. The police and the criminal justice system also discriminate against dalits. Though important strides have been made, much remains to be done.

Abuses against Adivasis: The indigenous communities called adivasis face immense pressure from dam and mining development projects and settlements. Adivasis face socioeconomic discrimination as well as discrimination by the police and the criminal justice system. For example, recently police used excessive force during a protest against the construction of a steel plant on traditional adivasi land in the state of Orissa. At least twelve adivasis, including three women and a twelve year old boy, were reportedly killed in the police firing.

Abortion of female fetuses: Traditional preference for boys has led to thousands of female fetuses being aborted despite the prohibition of pre-natal sex discrimination for the purpose of the abortion of female fetuses. In May, the Health Minister stated that there had not been a single conviction for breaking the ban since it was introduced eight years earlier.

Mr. President, Amnesty International urges you to secure a meaningful commitment from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to improve India’s human rights situation. It is essential that human rights be treated as an important issue like trade and civilian nuclear partnership.

We urge you to include human rights as part of your overall discussion with the Prime Minister and that you demand the following:

1) Abolition of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 and other similar laws.
2) Immediate release of those held under such laws.
3) That those involved in the massacres of Sikhs and Muslims be brought to justice.
4) Immediate resolution to the Jalil Andrabi case.
5) Adequate compensation, medical help, rehabilitation, and justice to those who were affected by the Bhopal tragedy, including full cooperation to bring Dow Chemical in compliance with their responsibility.
6) An immediate investigation into the abuses happening in northeastern India.
7) That Amnesty International and other human rights organizations be allowed access to Kashmir and to all northeastern states.

Mr. President, we urge you not to miss this opportunity to speak for those whose rights have been violated in India. They need your help.

Sincerely,

William Schulz
Executive Director

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF THE DALITS IN INDIA

P6_TA-PROV(2007)0016

The European Parliament ,

– having regard to the hearing held by its Committee on Development on 18 December 2006,

– having regard to its resolution of 28 September 2006 on the EU’s economic and trade relations with India (1) and Parliament’s Human Rights Reports of 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2005,

– having regard to General Recommendation XXIX (descent-based discrimination) adopted by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 22 August 2002 and the 48 measures to be taken by the State Parties,

– having regard to the study being undertaken by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, in which draft Principles and Guidelines for the elimination of “discrimination based on work and descent” are being developed, and noting the preliminary report issued by the Special Rapporteurs on discrimination based on work and descent,

– having regard to the various provisions in the Constitution of India for the protection and promotion of the rights of Dalits, concerning at least 167 million people, including the provisions on the abolition of the practice of untouchability, the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of caste, equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and educational, employment and political affirmative action through reservations in State-run institutions and political representative bodies; having regard also to numerous legislative measures ordering the abolition of some of the worst practices of untouchability and caste discrimination, including bonded labour, manual scavenging and atrocities against Dalits,

– having regard to the National Human Rights Commission, the National and State Commissions for Scheduled Castes and the National Safai Karamchari Commission, dealing with the problem of manual scavenging,

– having regard to Rule 91 and Rule 90(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas India is the largest functioning democracy in the world where every citizen is equal before the ballot box, India’s immediate past President and Head of State was a Dalit and Dalits have served as ministers; whereas there are Hindu schools of thought which reject caste discrimination and exclusion as an aberration of their faith,

B. whereas Dalits and similar groups are also found in Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh,

C. whereas the National Human Rights Commission of India has reported that the implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act remains very unsatisfactory, and whereas it has published numerous recommendations to address this problem,

D. whereas, despite twenty-seven officially registered atrocities being committed against Dalits every day, police often prevent Dalits from entering police stations, refuse the registration of cases by Dalits and regularly resort to the practice of torture against Dalits with impunity,

E. whereas, despite the fact that many Dalits do not report crimes for fear of reprisals by the dominant castes, official police statistics averaged over the past 5 years show that 13 Dalits are murdered every week, 5 Dalits” homes or possessions are burnt every week, 6 Dalits are kidnapped or abducted every week, 3 Dalit women are raped every day, 11 Dalits are beaten every day and a crime is committed against a Dalit every 18 minutes (2) ,

F. whereas a recent study on untouchability in rural India (3) , covering 565 villages in 11 States, found that public health workers refused to visit Dalit homes in 33% of villages, Dalits were prevented from entering police stations in 27.6% of villages, Dalit children had to sit separately while eating in 37.8% of government schools, Dalits did not get mail delivered to their homes in 23.5% of villages, and Dalits were denied access to water sources in 48.4% of villages because of segregation and untouchability practices,

G. whereas half of India’s Dalit children are undernourished, 21% are “severely underweight”, and 12% die before their fifth birthday (4)

H. whereas untouchability in schools has contributed to far higher drop-out and Illiteracy levels for Dalit children than those of the general population, with the “literacy gap” between Dalits and non-Dalits hardly changing since India’s independence and literacy rates for Dalit women remaining as low as 37.8% in rural India (5) ,

I. whereas Dalit women, who alongside “Tribal” women are the poorest of the poor in India, face double discrimination on the basis of caste and gender in all spheres of life, are subjected to gross violations of their physical integrity, including sexual abuse by dominant castes with impunity and are socially excluded and economically exploited,

J. whereas the National Commission for Scheduled Castes has observed substantial under-allocation and under-expenditure of the allocation for Dalit welfare and development under the government’s Special Component Plan for Scheduled Castes,

K. whereas Dalits are subjected to bonded and forced labour and discriminated against in a range of markets, including in the labour, housing, consumer, capital and credit markets; are paid lower wages and subjected to longer working hours, delayed wages and verbal or physical abuse,

1. Welcomes the various provisions in the Constitution of India for the protection and promotion of the rights of Dalits; notes however that, in spite of these provisions, implementation of laws protecting the rights of Dalits remains grossly inadequate, and that atrocities, untouchability, illiteracy, inequality of opportunity, manual scavenging, inadequacy of wages, bonded labour, child labour and landlessness continue to blight the lives of India’s Dalits;

2. Expresses its concern at the low rate of conviction for the perpetrators of such crimes and calls on the Government of India to improve its criminal justice system in order to facilitate registration of charges against perpetrators of crimes against Dalits, to increase the conviction rate for such perpetrators, to significantly reduce the duration of court procedures; and to take special measures for the protection of Dalit women;

3. Welcomes the recent ban on the employment of children as domestic servants and workers in roadside eateries, restaurants, teashops etc. and urges the Indian Government to take further steps towards the complete banning of all forms of child labour;

4. Calls on the Government of India to take urgent steps to ensure equal access for Dalits to police stations and all other public institutions and facilities, including those related to its democratic structure such as panchayat buildings (the buildings housing local assemblies) and polling booths;

5. Applauds the fiscal policy followed by the Planning Commission of India and the various Ministries in the provision of the budgetary allocations towards the welfare and development of Dalits, and calls on the Government of India to ensure complete and time-bound implementation of all policy and budgetary measures towards the welfare and development of Dalits, including full implementation of the Special Component Plan for Scheduled Castes;

6. Urges the Government of India to engage further with relevant UN human rightsbodies on the effective elimination of caste-based discrimination, including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the UN Special Rapporteurs assigned to develop Principles and Guidelines for the Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent;

7. Calls on the Government of India to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to take preventive measures to reduce the risk of Dalits facing torture, to take legal measures to criminalize torture in India, to take punitive measures to prosecute police who commit torture, to consistently provide rehabilitation and compensation for torture victims and to put in place an independent complaints mechanism for victims of torture that is accessible to Dalits;

8. Notes with concern the lack of substantive EU engagement with the Indian Government, notably within the EU-India Summits, on the vast problem of caste-based discrimination;

9. Urges the Council and the Commission to raise the issue of caste-based discrimination during EU-India Summits and other meetings as part of all political, human rights, civil society, development and trade dialogues and to inform the committees concerned of the progress and outcome of such dialogues;

10. Urges the EU members of the Joint Action Committee to develop dialogue on the problem of caste-based discrimination in terms of its discussions on democracy and human rights, social and employment policy and development cooperation;

11. Reiterates its expectation that EU development programmes in India include specific measures to ensure that minorities such as Dalits and Adivasis and other marginalized communities, tribes and castes, are able to close the wide gap with the rest of the population regarding the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals;

12. Recalls its demand that the Council and the Commission give priority to promoting equal opportunities in employment in private EU-based companies and encouraging EU- based companies to implement the “Ambedkar Principles” (Employment and Additional Principles on Economic and Social Exclusion Formulated to assist All Foreign Investors in South Asia to Address Caste Discrimination);

13. Welcomes the EU’s commitment to the development of Principles and Guidelines for the Elimination of Discrimination on the basis of Work and Descent by the UN Sub- Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and urges the Commission and the Council to continue that support;

14. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the President, the Government and Parliament of India, the UN Secretary-General, and the heads of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization, the UNICEF, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

(1) Texts Adopted , P6_TA(2006)0388

(2) Derived from figures provided in Crime in India 2005 , http://ncrb.nic.in/crime2005/home.htm and

http://ncrb.nic.in/crime2005/cii-2005/CHAP7.pdf

(3) Cf. G. Shah, H. Mander, S. Thorat, S. Deshpande and A. Baviskar Untouchability in Rural India , ,

Sage Publications, India, 2006.

(4) National Family Health Survey, commissioned by the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

1998-99 (last survey available), Chapter 6, p. 187, http://www.nfhsindia.org/data/india/indch6.pdf

(5) 2001 Census of India.