These ‘activists’ oppose death penalty for rape of minors

Mumbai, Jan 30: The Shiv Sena on Thursday endorsed Union home minister Amit Shah's view that alleged inflammatory statements made by Sharjeel Imam, an anti- Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) activist, were dangerous.

No politics should be done on the issue, and such "pest" afflicting the country should be finished off, it said.

Imam was arrested on Tuesday in connection with his speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi and in Aligarh during anti-CAA protests.

He has been booked for sedition, among other offences.

In an editorial published in its mouthpiece `Saamana', the Sena, a former ally of the BJP, said, "We agree with union home minister's comments that Sharjeel Imam's alleged words of separation are more dangerous than that of Kanhaiya Kumar."

Kumar, former student leader from Jawaharlal Nehru University, had been arrested over alleged separatist slogans shouted during a protest on varsity campus.

The Sena, which has formed alliance with the Congress and NCP to come to power in Maharashtra, is often seen walking a tightrope to preserve its credentials as a pro-Hindutva party.

"The union home ministry, while initiating action against Imam, should not indulge in politics and try to finish off this pest that is afflicting our country," the editorial said.

"One must find out why such language of breaking up this country into pieces is being used by the educated youth of this country more and more frequently. Who is spewing such venom into the mind of Sharjeel who did his graduation from IIT-B and now pursuing PhD from JNU?" the Sena asked.

"Even people involved in Elgar Parishad at Pune are facing sedition charges and these people have been known as intellectuals and are well-known personalities," said the party.

"A conspiracy to bring about a conflict between Hindus and Muslims and ensure continuance of anarchy and civil war as in Iraq and Afghanistan exists. The boost for such activities is coming from a 'political laboratory'," the editorial said.

New Delhi, Jan 7: The Delhi Police has filed an FIR against JNUSU president Aishe Ghosh and 19 others for allegedly attacking security guards and vandalising the server room of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on January 4.

The police registered the FIR on January 5.

In the complaint filed by the JNU administration, the University alleged that the accused were involved in physical violence and pushed the women guards, verbally abused them and threatened them of dire consequences if they opened the lock of university's communication and information (CIS) office.

"They illegally trespassed the University property with the criminal intention to damage the public property. They damaged servers and made it dysfunctional. They also damaged fiber optic power supplies and broke the biometric systems inside the room," the University officials alleged.

This incident allegedly occurred a day before Aishe Ghosh, other JNU students and teachers were attacked by a masked mob inside the campus.

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.