13 booked for firing air shots at Mahatma Gandhi's effigy

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.

New Delhi, Feb 3: Union minister Prakash Javadekar on Monday said Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had called himself an "anarchist" and there is not much of a "difference between an anarchist and a terrorist".

His remarks come a few days after the Election Commission issued a show cause notice to BJP MP Parvesh Verma for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

Addressing a press conference here, Javadekar raked up the issue of Kejriwal "staying a night at the Moga residence of Khalistan Commando Force chief Gurinder Singh during the Punjab Assembly polls".

"You knew it was a militant's house. Still, you stayed there. How much more evidence do you need?" he said.

"Kejriwal is now asking with a sad face, 'am I a terrorist?' You are a terrorist and there is a lot of evidence to prove that. You yourself had said you are an anarchist. There is not much of a difference between an anarchist and a terrorist," the senior BJP leader said.

Flanked by Delhi BJP chief Manoj Tiwari and Union minister Anurag Thakur, Javadekar said the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was supporting Shaheen Bagh, where slogans of "Assam ko azadi", "Jinnah wali azadi" were being raised. "Supporting such slogans is also terrorism".

He alleged that Kejriwal stood with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where "anti-India slogans were raised, and did not grant sanction to prosecute (those who raised the slogans)".

"On January 26, you threatened that you would stop their prosecution. How much more proof do you need? The people of Delhi now know that you are the chief of liars, you are an anarchist and sympathise with terrorists.

"You are supporting Shaheen Bagh, JNU, the slogans being raised there and all such anarchists...then you are definitely a terrorist. This is your identity, no matter how innocent face you make," he said.

On Thursday, the Election Commission had issued a show cause notice to Verma, the BJP MP from West Delhi, for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

He was earlier barred from campaigning for 96 hours (four days) for making controversial remarks at a poll meet recently.

An emotional Kejriwal had later said it was for the people of Delhi to decide whether they consider him their son, brother, or a terrorist.

"How have I become a terrorist? I've arranged for medicines...did so much for the needy. I've never thought of myself or my family... am ready to give my life for the nation," he had said at a press conference.

New Delhi, Jun 2: Manu Sharma, a convict in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case, was released from Tihar Jail yesterday on the grounds of good behaviour after serving more than 16 years in prison, jail officials said on Tuesday.

Sharma had received the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi for his release after a recommendation of the Sentence Review Board for the same.

Advocate Amit Sahni, while speaking to ANI, had said that Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had approved the name of Siddharth Vashishth also known as Manu Sharma for release from Tihar Jail.

He said that Sharma's name was approved in a sentence review board meeting held on May 11. Earlier, Delhi High Court had also asked the SRB to consider his name for release.

Sharma, the son of former Congress leader Venod Sharma, was convicted for shooting and murdering Jessica Lal, when she refused to serve him liquor at Tamarind Court restaurant at Qutub Colonnade in south Delhi's Mehrauli on April 29, 1999.

Vashishth, 45-years-old, was serving a life term in connection with a case registered under Section 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of the offense or giving false information to screen offender) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to officials, the convict has undergone imprisonment for 16 years, 11 months and 24 days in actual, and 23 years 4 months and 22 days with remission. He has availed parole 12 times and furlough 24 times.

Earlier, Manu's wife -- Preity Sharma -- had approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) claiming that her husband had been illegally detained for more than the prescribed period of incarceration (20 years with remission) as per the prevalent policy of the state.