Missing the point: What the protesters against the Kathua rape-murder haven’t got it right?

Samvartha ‘Sahil’ | coastaldigest.com
April 16, 2018

The rape of a minor in Kathua in Jammu and Kashmir, followed by her brutal murder has gained the attention of India, even if it is after three months. In these three months the civil (?) societies, the lawyers, the politicians belonging to the right wing in Jammu have without any hesitation come out in public to shield the perpetrators. These facts when brought to light, the liberals of India rightly got enraged as much as they got outraged on hearing about the rape of the minor girl belonging to the Bakarwal community, a nomadic tribe.

While nothing better than supporting perpetrators could be expected from the right wing, my disappointment is with the liberals, though I believe that the protest being registered is a necessary gesture. Here I would just like to list my disappointments…

Firstly, the case of Kathua and Unnao, though barbaric and unacceptable, are being mentioned in one breath as if they are similar. No, they aren't, even when both of them are inhumane. The question how will be answered through my elaboration of the other disappointments.

The case of Kathua temple rape is not being communalized and politicized by the ones underlining the religious and political identity of the girl. The rape happened because of her religious and political identity. So if anyone brought religion and politics into this, it is not those who are highlighting the identity markers but those who perpetrated violence. The cry of some liberals requesting to not make the incident “about religion and politics,” marks their ignorance of the details in this case.

The issue of Kathua cannot be seen in isolation, distancing it from the history of rape used as a weapon by the Indian state in Kashmir and on Kahsmiri people. Had the girl been raped for being a girl alone, we could have spoken only about humanity and patriarchy. But since she was raped for being a Muslim and a Kahsmiri, let’s talk primarily about the state of minorities and the way Indian state has conducted itself in Kahsmir, especially with relation to women.

Amidst all this, I fail to understand the tweets of people like Javed Akhtar who wants to remind people of the ways in which Bakarwal people showed their loyalty to India and asking us to be in solidarity with the victim. The question to be asked is, what if Bakarwal people were anti-Army? In that case would Javed sahab be okay with the rape? Or does he want us to be okay with rape?

The issue of Kathua rape and murder, for many liberals, has become a scoring point against the Bharateeya Janatha Party. I have no doubts about the BJP being a disgrace to democracy, which one needs to get rid of. But I find it morally disturbing when the issue of Kathua rape is being used to churn anti-BJP public opinion alone. If at all the Kathua incident has troubled the Indian liberals then it should enable them to see the connection between the Kashmir dispute and the rape and murder of Kathua. To see it as a symbol of the maliciousness of BJP alone is to not understand the context of the Kathua rape and murder. Restricting the discussion to the role of BJP alone is parking the vehicle mid-way and aborting the truth before one has arrived at it completely. More importantly it will be dilution of the matter. The interconnectedness between occupation of Kashmir and the Kathua incident exists beneath the surface and one more round of scratching is enough to reach there. Very hesitantly I make this statement: If intelligence is a slave to convenience, then it is not just a moral corruption but also a sign of opportunism.

The liberal discourse around Kathua has been reeking of poverty of understanding, knowledge, sensitivity and imagination too. In extreme conditions of history, such as this, to be a liberal centrist is to let down the victims and let violence continue on the socially, politically vulnerables.

If the Indian liberals are actually horrified, as they claim to be, then the question is if the Indian liberals will at least now acknowledge Kunan Poshpora and innumerable such rapes in Kashmir (Handwara, Shopian, Islamabad, Trehgam, Doda etc) orchestrated and conducted by the Indian army? Will they stop seeing the Kathua incident out of context? If not then the liberals need to reimagine their politics.

 

[Samvartha ‘Sahil’ is a freelance writer based out of Manipal, Karnataka. An alumnus of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi and the Film and Television Institute of India, Pune he has earlier worked as an academician at Manipal University and as a journalist with The Hindu. He is a columnist with The State now and earlier with Karavali Karnataka and Kannada Prabha. His book on the travel experiences in Jammu and Kashmir during the 2016 uprising is about to be published by the Karnataka Sahitya Akademi.]

Comments

Danish
 - 
Monday, 16 Apr 2018

Still, the protests are not in organised form and failed to meet its goal. Diverts from the actual goal.. It became just to vandalise properties in many states

Unknown
 - 
Monday, 16 Apr 2018

Along with protests, there is some moves to defame entire india with some photoshoped images.. People already started to send those with some fake msgs like BBC carried etc. Because of Modi and almost all perveted minds of BJP shaming entire country.

justiceforasifa
 - 
Monday, 16 Apr 2018

ಆಶಿಫಾಳ್ ಸಾವಿನ ಸುತ್ತ ನೂರೆಂಟು ಸಂಶಯದ ಹುತ್ತ

 

ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರಕ್ಕೊಳಗಾದ ಹೆಣ್ಣಿನ ಹೆಸರು ಐಡೆಂಟಿಟಿ ಬಹಿರಂಗಗೊಳಿಸುವುದು ಕಾನೂನುಬಾಹಿರ. ಆದರೆ ಹೆಣ್ಣಿನ ಧರ್ಮ/ಜಾತಿ ಬಹಿರಂಗಗೊಳಿಸುವುದು ಕಡ್ಡಾಯ!! ಶಭಾಶ್. ಯಾಕಂದ್ರೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರಕ್ಕೊಳಗಾದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಮುಖ್ಯವೇ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಅವರ ಜಾತಿ ಧರ್ಮವೇ ಮುಖ್ಯ. ಅದೇ ತಾನೆ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಲಾಭ ನಷ್ಟಗಳಿಗೆ ಮೂಲ!?

ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಆರೋಪ ಎದುರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಪರ ಸಾವಿರಾರು ವಕೀಲರು ರಸ್ತೆಗಿಳಿದು ಹೋರಾಟ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದರೆ ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಗೊಂದಲಗಳಿವೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸುಳ್ಳಾರೋಪ ಕೋಡಾ ಇರ್ಬಹುದು.

ಮೊನ್ನೆಯಿಂದ ನಾನು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಕೆಲವು ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜಾಲತಾಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರದ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಲೇಪನ ಅಂಟಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಇದೆನ್ನು ಹೊಸದೇನಲ್ಲ

 

೧ ) ಆಶಿಫಾಳ್ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಯಾವ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಿತ್ತು ಆ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದ ಹೆಸ್ರಯಾಕೆ ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಪಡಿಸುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ

 

೨ ) ( ಆಶಿಫಾಳ್ ತಂದೆಯ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ) ಒಂದು ವಾದವರೆಗೆ ಆಶಿಫಾಳನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಡೆಗೇ ಹುಡುಕಿದೀವಿ ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಸಿಗಲಿಲ್ಲ ಕೊನೆಗೆ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೃತಪಟ್ಟು ಶವಯಾಗಿ ಸಿಕ್ಳು. ಹಾಗಾದ್ರೆ ಒಂದು ವಾರದವರೆಗೆ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾರು ಬರಬಾರದಂತ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ರಜೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟೀತ್ತಾ ?

 

೩ ) ಇನ್ನು ಕೆಲವರ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರಿ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಜೈ ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ ಅಂತ ಘೋಷಣೆ ಕೂಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಛೇ ಎಷ್ಟ ಮಸ್ಕಾರಿ ಮಾಡ್ತಾರಲ್ವಾ ನಾಯಿಗಳು

ಅವ್ನು ಜೈ ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ ಘೋಷಣೆ ಕೂಗಿ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಮಾಡುವುದನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಕೇಳಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಅವ್ನನ್ಯಾಕ್ಕೆ ಆ ಬಾಲಕಿಯನ್ನು ರಾಕ್ಷಸರ ಕೈಯಿಂದ ಕಾಪಾಡಲಿಲ್ಲ ?

ಅಥವಾ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ನಡೆಯುವ ದೃಶ್ಯವನ್ನು ಮೊಬೈಲ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸೆರೆ ಹಿಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ?

 

೪ ) ಜಮ್ಮು ಕಾಶ್ಮೀರದಲ್ಲಿ ಪರ್ಸೆಂಟಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರು ಇದ್ದಾರೆ ನೋಟ್ this point ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಂದೂಗಳಿಗೆ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಇಲ್ವೇ ಇಲ್ಲ ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಭಾರೀ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳು ದ್ವಂಸ ಗೊಂಡಿವೆ ಮತ್ತು ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಂಸ ಎಸೆದು ಹಿಂದೂಗಳ ಭಾವನೆಗೆ ಧಕ್ಕೆ ತರುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಕೋಡಾ ಆಗಿದೆ ಇದೇ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಅಪರಾಧಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿಯಲು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ  ಸಿ ಸಿ ಟಿ ವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಅಳವಡಿಸುವುದು ಕಡ್ಡಾಯಗೊಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ

 

೫ ) ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರಕ್ಕೇ ಒಳಗಾದ ಬಾಲಕಿಯ ಹೆಸ್ರು ಧರ್ಮ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಗೈದ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಹೆಸ್ರು ಧರ್ಮ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ನಡೆದ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಅಂದ್ಮೇಲೆ ಸಿ ಸಿ ಟೀ ವಿ ಪೋಟ್ಯಾಜ್ ಯಾಕೇ ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಪಡಿಸುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ

ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಅಲ್ಲೇ ನಡೆದಿದೆಯೋ ಅದೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಗೈದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಅನ್ನುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಿ ಸಿ ಟಿ ವಿ ಫೂಟ್ಯಾಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಇದನ್ನು ಕೋಡಾ ಬಹಿರಂಗ ಪಡಿಸಿ ನೋಡೋಣ ಸತ್ಯ ಸತ್ಯತೇ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗುತ್ತದೆ

 

ಹೇಳುವುದಕ್ಕೇ ಇನ್ನು ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ದೋಷಗಳಿವೆ ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡೋಣ

ಚಾರ್ಜಸಿಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಳ್ಳಾರೋಪ ಕೋಡಾ ಬರೆಯಬಹುದು

ಈ ಹಿಂದೆಯೂ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ

Anjana Sagar
 - 
Monday, 16 Apr 2018

Those who think that Kathua gang-rape and murder case is unnecessarily being communalized and blown out of the proportion for political reasons should understand following points:

 

1)When the mutilated dead body of the girl was found and the culprits were identified, the innocent parents of the victim did not give the case a communal tinge. Not a single Muslim organization in India tried to drag a community or religion into this case.

 

2)The preliminary investigation sent shockwaves across the world. The culprits reveled that they resorted to such a heinous crime just to threaten the community of the victim and drive them away from village. One of the rapists also revealed that he felt bad to rape a small girl but it was necessary for their “cause”!

 

3)After the arrest of the accused, Hindu Ekta Manch staged a protest demanding the release of the accused. They also demanded that the case should be handed over to the CBI which is fully under the control of union BJP government. Two of the prominent speakers at the protest said that the accused should be released because they are Hindus and victims is a nomadic Muslim. Two BJP ministers also took part in the protest and defended the accused.

 

4)When the two ministers who defended the rapists were forced to tender their resignation, the BJP said that they did not commit anything wrong!

 

5)When Deepika Singh Rajawat, a woman lawyer took up the case, she was threatened by the so called Hindutva groups. The president of the Jammu High Court Bar Association abused her and asked her to stay away from the case.

 

6)In spite of all these facts, the parents of the victim did see it as a communal case. In fact they don’t even know that communal hatred can instigate people to commit such heinous crime. When people started asking how can those Hindutva groups justify a rape saying that victim was a Muslim and culprits were Hindus, BJP leaders started accusing Opposition of communalizing the case! Who communalized the case: The self-proclaimed Hindutva groups or the family and supporters of the victim?

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 31,2020

New Delhi, Jan 31: Slamming the BJP over the Jamia firing incident, Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Friday said such incidents were possible with the ruling party's leaders inciting people to shoot, and asked Prime minister Narendra Modi to answer whether he stands with violence or non-violence.   

Her attack on the government comes a day after tensions in the Jamia area spiralled on Thursday after a man fired a pistol at a group of anti-CAA protesters, injuring a student, before walking away while waving the firearm above his head and shouting "Yeh lo aazadi" amid heavy police presence in the area.

"When the BJP government ministers and party leaders incite people to shoot, give provocative speeches, then all this becomes possible. The Prime Minister should answer what kind of a Delhi he wants to build?" Priyanka Gandhi said in a tweet in Hindi.

Does the PM stand with violence or non-violence, she asked.

"Does he stand with development or with anarchy?" the Congress general secretary said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldiget.com web desk
June 18,2020

Amidst heightened border tensions between Indian and China, senior BJP leader and Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan's two year old tweet comparing his party with Communist Party of China started going viral. 

The tweet, dated 26 June, 2016 reads: "Communist Party of China & BJP have done numerous works in social field. This way, there is tremendous similarities between the two parties." (sic)

Twitterati dug up this tweet after over 20 Indian Army personnel, including a colonel, were killed in a clash with Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh earlier this week.

Soon after Chouhan's tweet went viral, netizens took to the micro-blogging site and slammed BJP. One user said, "Interesting comment by Hindutva ITSELF to recognise how similar they are with China. No doubt. Both believe in Dragon Throne .... and brutal absolute control." Another user said, "No wonder the BJP & China both agree that PLA never crossed into Indian territory."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.