Dozens of Shia mourners detained, cops burst teargas shells to foil Muharram procession

Mumbai, Jul 20: The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the NIA and the Maharashtra government to inform it about the health condition of poet Varavara Rao, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoists links case, and if his family could be allowed to see him "from a reasonable distance".

The directions came after Rao's lawyer told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed".

Rao, 81, is currently admitted in the Nanavati Hospital here. He tested positive for coronavirus earlier this month and is also suffering from several other ailments.

A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and S P Tavade asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the state to inform the court about Rao's health condition and clarify by July 22 whether his family members could be permitted to see him.

Rao's lawyer Sudeep Pasbola told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed" and that if he were to die, it should be in the presence of his family.

"His condition is very serious. He hit his head against the hospital bed while he was at the J J hospital and sustained severe injuries. Besides COVID-19, he suffers from several ailments, he is hallucinating and is delirious," Pasbola said.

"His days are numbered and if he is to die, at least let him die in the presence of his family members," the lawyer said while seeking that Rao be granted bail. Pasbola said Rao was in no condition to cause any prejudice to the probe in the case and even the NIA could not dispute this fact.

The bench, however, asked if Rao was in such a critical condition, wouldn't it be counterproductive to move him out of the hospital, and take him to any other place? "Also, if he has COVID-19, then how can he meet his family?" the court asked.

To this, Pasbola said if permitted, Rao's family could take precautions, and see him from a distance. The state's counsel, Deepak Thakare, told the high court that it could arrange for video-conferencing facilities for Rao's family.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appeared for the NIA, said as far as he knew, "COVID-19 patients could not be permitted to meet anyone". He also said Rao had been admitted to "one of the best multi-speciality hospitals in the city," and that he was being taken care of in accordance with guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

"We are providing the best treatment to him, all his medical needs are being attended to and we are following ICMR guidelines in treating him for COVID-19," Singh said. The court, while seeking details from the NIA and the state, said, "Can his family members see him from a reasonable distance in the hospital?"

Rao earlier filed two pleas in HC through his lawyer. One was to direct the state to produce all his medical reports from the state-run J J Hospital, where he was admitted in May but discharged hurriedly on June 2 and sent back to Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

The other plea sought bail on health grounds.

The same bench also heard a petition filed by Rao's co-accused in the case, activists Vernon Gonsalves and Anand Teltumbde, seeking that they be tested for COVID-19 as they had been in close contact with Rao in the jail.

The court directed the prison authorities and the NIA to respond to the plea by July 23. "The prayer in the petition is limited. You (authorities) carry out the test for COVID-19 and see. If they are negative then good," the court said.

It noted that they (Gonsalves and Teltumbde) are lodged in the Taloja jail where there have been cases of inmates testing positive for coronavirus. Besides, the hearing on the plea of activist Sudha Bharadwaj, also an accused in the case, seeking bail on health grounds was adjourned after the court found the Byculla women prison superintendent's report on her health to be "illegible".

Her plea will also be heard on July 23.

Bharadwaj has been in jail since September 2018. She applied for bail on health grounds after an inmate at the Byculla prison tested positive for coronavirus last month.

Rao and nine other activists were arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, which was initially probed by the Pune Police and later transferred to the NIA.

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.