Comments (6)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 9, 2010 6:17 pm

A few days back, thugs belonging to a radical Islamist outfit called Popular Front chopped off the right hand of Prof. T.J. Joseph, a private college lecturer in Muvattapuzha in Kerala as “punishment” for the  ”offence” of hurting religious sentiments. The Hindu has covered this story in some detail.

Dilip D’Souza has raised some pertinent questions in this regard:

* Why the college management “apologised”.

* Why the Kerala government saw fit to issue “instructions” that the professor should be suspended.

* Why the college followed the government’s instruction and suspended him.

* Why the police lodged a case against the professor.

The following is worth noting as well:

T. Vikram, Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, who was camping in the area, said: “We have talked to church leaders to convince them that an all-out effort is being made to nab the culprits.” (as reported in The Hindu)

I don’t understand why the police needed to specifically assure church leaders that the perpetrators of this ghastly attack will be brought to justice? Surely these “church leaders” should have been incensed regardless of the religious affiliation of the victim?

Of course, this episode would not have even become a news story had the attackers not committed the tactical error of chopping off Joseph’s hand. As it is, they had him on the run. A little bit of shouting from the rooftops had ensured that:

1. Joseph was suspended from his job. In what capacity did the state Government instruct a PRIVATE institute to suspend an employee is not clear.

2. He was picked up and harassed by the police.

3. After getting out on bail, he went into hiding to escape frequent death threats. In response, the police put out a wanted poster for his arrest

Why exactly were the government and the police so keen to prosecute Prof. Joseph? Why were the charges of “hurting religious sentiments” believed at face value and not investigated properly? What constrained the government to apply the serious charge of “fomenting communal hatred” on the Professor? What about the concept of an educational institution being an open space? Why did the state not defend Prof. Joseph’s fundamental right to expression?

Maybe the secular, progressive and people friendly Left Democratic Front government of Kerala can provide some answers.

Comments (0)

By Ritwik Agrawal | August 5, 2009 4:05 am

Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe

Wonder how Indian leftists [in politics, media and academia] will go about defending this.

Hugo Chavez - revolutionary leader of the third world in the fight against American imperialism and messiah of the people, has not had much to say since the end of the Bush Presidency.

After all, George W Bush was everything a demagogue like Chavez could ever hope for.

Over the last decade or so, Chavez cleverly mixed socialist rhetoric & populist economic policies with shrill anti-Bush vitriol to win a cult following all over the world. In India too, Chavez has a committed band of sympathizers, including the entire spectrum of communist parties in the country. For example, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) proclaims:

Under President Chavez’s leadership, a radical transformation is taking place in Venezuela.
-People’s Democracy, December 12, 2004  (link)

All over the world, those inimical to Bush were more than ready to welcome Chavez with open arms, inspite of the fact that his authoritarian streak has become increasingly evident over the years. Even while he spewed venom on Bush, Chavez had no qualms about glorifying fascist Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

Chavez has been relatively quiet for the past few months. As Denis Macshane notes in the Guardian, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States robbed Chavez of his main anti-American plank.

But his enthusiastic supporters needn’t worry any longer, for their maverick leader has found a new enemy: the free press.

Hugo Chavez’s government has introduced a new draft law against “media offences”. Some provisions of this law:

Journalism hostile to the social peace, the security and independence of the nation can be punished by prison sentences of between six months and four years.

Journalists will also break the proposed new law if their writings are seen as an attack on public order or Venezuelans’ “mental or moral health”. Article 5 threatens imprisonment for “false information” that is prejudicial to the interests of the state.

On careful reading, it immediately becomes clear that such provisions can be used to muzzle the media to an almost unlimited extent.

Put simply, it means that once the proposed law is passed, journalists in Venezuela who do the kind of investigative stories that Tehelka excels in would find themselves behind bars.

Distressingly, the wording of the law runs counter to the very nature of journalism, which, in its true sense, is MEANT to highlight systemic lapses, instead of brushing them under the carpet.

One can imagine the [justifiable] protests that would ensue if such a law were ever to be conceived of in India or Western Europe or America.

I hope that our “opinion makers” [especially of the leftist/socialist/communist variety] do not shy away from condemning Chavez’s attempts at taming the media in the strongest possible terms.

After all, if Chavez’s “21st century Socialism” is such a panacea, then the people must not be deprived of an opportunity to hear about it from the press!

Comments (4)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 28, 2009 3:44 am

Last week there was much drama following the unexpected courtroom confession of Mohammad Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’.  By owning up to his crimes, the terrorist managed to take the court and the public prosecutor by surprise. Kasab, who had pleaded not guilty on an earlier occasion, wished that he given the death penalty, ostensibly to ease his feeling of ‘guilt’.

Maharashtra chief minister  Ashok Chavan too expressed a desire for the quick completion of the trial, resulting in the hanging of the accused.

The rationale for awarding the death penalty to Kasab is strong. His crime unquestionably falls into the “rarest of rare” category, which is the Supreme Court mandated requirement for a criminal to be hanged unto death.

According to our legal system, Kasab should be hanged for the sheer barbarity, audacity and scale of his crime. For the fact that he and his accomplices crossed into foreign territory, fired indiscriminately at innocent civilians, killed persons in uniform and tried to destroy heritage structures and take hostages.

Hanging Kasab would presumably provide closure to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the Mumbai attacks.

Ujjwal Nikam, the public prosecutor in the case, has argued that Kasab confessed to win sympathy and somehow avoid the death penalty.

I think he misses the point entirely, or more probably, chooses to gloss over Kasab’s true intentions.

It is an inconvenient truth that young boys like Kasab are systematically brainwashed using a potent mixture of religious and national ‘pride’. Such recruits and their families are assured of the “glory” of the mission and their place in history. It is repeatedly drilled into impressionable young minds that their “sacrifice” would not be in vain and would in fact corner the highest rewards. They would be honoured forever as heroes and martyrs.

Few things match the appeal of the idea of sacrificing one’s life while fighting for a cause.

Thus in many ways, the people and the ideology which converted Kasab into a cold blooded killer would actually want him dead. Used once, he is not of any utility to them; his death though would presumably give them another “martyr” whose “memory” would serve to inspire countless others.

In light of this, though I can see the legal and sentimental reasons which demand that Kasab be hanged, I sometimes wonder, whether Kasab should be given life imprisonment [for the extent of his natural lifetime, without an option of parole]? This would send out a message that we are ready to fight terrorism ideologically, not just legally. This would be one example which would hopefully force terrorist masterminds to ponder and maybe recalibrate their strategies.

At least, we would, for once, be taking the initiative in the so called “war” against terrorism.

Comments (5)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 22, 2009 2:30 am

The following is a riveting drama possible only in the contradiction that is India.

*a nod to history: all characters & situations in the following work are imaginary. Any resemblence to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

The players:

The Long Arm of The Law: it is omniscient. It extends everywhere, in every domain, in every direction.

JM Lyngdoh and minions - tasked by The Long Arm of The Law to rewrite the rules of student union elections.

“Student”  ”Leaders” – who are neither one nor the other.

Universities – the canvases on which above artists show-off their wizardry.

Jawaharlal Nehru University – it happens to be an actual university [gasp!] with a functioning and vibrant students union [big gasp!] comprised of people who are students as well as leaders [gasp leading to asphyxiation]

Narrator: at times, a direct victim of aforementioned wizardry; at other times,  a scarcely believing observer of this theatrical production.

AND ….

The Report: it is the final word, to be applied in unaltered form all over the country. Logic, common sense, practicality all be damned.

Synposis:

Act 1

It is felt that student union elections are infested with corruption, overt political interference and unaccountability. The Long Arm of The Law tasks JM Lyngdoh and minions to rewrite the rules of student union elections.

Act 2

JM Lyngdoh and minions tour the country. Write what is already known: student union politics is dirty. Then they visit JNU, and document the election process in that university and immortalize it in the form of The Report. They effect certain cosmetic changes [no printed posters, for example] but otherwise are so impressed by the JNU election process that they essentially plagiarize it. They mention that elections in JNU are vibrant, participative, issue-oriented, non-violent and non-coercive.

Act 3

The theatre shifts to Delhi University. The Report mandates that “Student” “Leaders” must have a certain minimum attendance, otherwise they’d be barred from the election process. This results in established party candidates magically acquiring 90% attendance overnight. A clean independent candidate like the Narrator is conveniently dispensed with through this filter.

Other points of The Report – like campaign expenditure limits, non-use of vehicles, even non-use of printed posters all lie in tatters. Voter turnout plummets to 25%, from 45% an year ago.  Thus, voter participation also lies in tatters.

The Result: DU elections proceed as before, with no qualitative change whatsoever. However, on paper The Report has been implemented. This is to the satisfaction of The Long Arm Of The Law.

Act 4

JNU elections are held. Lyngdoh recommendations are not implemented because they are already in place [Lyngdoh copied from JNU, remember?]. Printed posters and pamphletes are still allowed. Unlike DU, these pamphletes stress on issues and ideology. They are not modelling portfolios of candidates like in DU.

A new students union is chosen. It does good work, like raising the issue of labourers on campus not being paid minimum wages. [contrast this with illustrious "Student" "Leaders" in other universities].

But The Long Arm Of the Law is unamused. Criticizes JNU for not implementing The Report. Suspends the union.

Result: Union is still suspended. The country’s most vibrant and effective students union movement has suffered a massive setback. Nobody knows what is going to happen next.

Act 5 – Conclusion:

The Report set out to duplicate the JNU model in other universites. Other universities function as before; the report is implemented only on paper.The JNU election process is on life-support, desperately seeking blood transfusion.

The Law is satisfied in its glory.