Archives for April 2018

To contest in 34 constituencies in the state elections

In Bihar, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (United) joined hands in July last year after Nitish’s return to the NDA fold to form an alliance government in the state, but in Karnataka Assembly elections, JD (U) has decided to fight it alone.

Speaking to Hindusthan Samachar, KC Tyagi, Secretary General of JD (U) said that his party will contest in 34 assembly constituencies of Karnataka without seeking any alliance with any other party.

Putting all the speculations to rest Tyagi said, “JD (U) that took birth in Karnataka has to gain its lost strength again.”

The parent party which was born in 1988 in Karnataka has given four Chief Ministers – Ramkrishna Hegde, HD Deve Gowda, SR Bommai and JH Patel – to the state.

Meanwhile, Janata Dal (United) has issued the list of star campaigners for Karnataka Assembly Election on Wednesday (April 25).

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had visited the state on April 12. He will soon set out for Karnataka for electioneering in favour of his party candidates.

Speaking on the issue of governance, Nitish had said, his government’s focus on higher education and health has paid dividends.

Speaking about the ban on liquor in Bihar, he noted that government has lost 5000 crore rupees Excise duty collection but the poor have gained from it by not wasting money on liquor.

List of star campaigners

Nitish Kumar, National President of JD(U) and Chief Minister of Bihar
Bashisth Narain Singh, State President, Bihar JD(U) and Rajya Sabha MP
KC Tyagi, Secretary General of JD(U)
RCP Singh, General Secretary of JD(U) and MP
Sanjay Kumar Jha, General Secretary of JD(U), Delhi Unit President
Sham Rajak, MLA and General Secretary of JD(U)
Smt. Kahkasha Parveen, MP
Maheshver Hazari, Minister, Govt. of Bihar
Jay Kumar Singh, Minister, Govt. of Bihar
Ashok Choudhary, MLC
Afaque Ahmad Khan, Secretary of JD(U)
Ajay Alok, Spokesperson of JD(U), Bihar
Sanjay Kumar, President of Yuva JD(U)
Tanveer Akhtar, MLC
Dillip Kumar Choudhary, MLC
Mahima J Patel, President, Karnataka State JD(U)
Lokpal Jain, Member National Executive
Subhash Kappate, Sr. Vice President Karnataka State JD(U)
KV Shivaram, President Karnataka State YJD(U)
Ramesh Gurdev, General Secretary, Karnataka State JD(U).

Hindusthan Samachar/Shri Ram Shaw

The Law Commission Report no. 267 of March 2017[1] on Hate Speech states that “Hate Speech” has not been defined in any law in India. However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech. The term “Hate Speech” has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one’s race, religion, place of birth, residence, region, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions.

By giving tickets to candidates who have been charged with cases related to “Hate Speech” especially promoting enmity between religious groups and for committing acts that are intended to outrage religious feelings, political parties have been in a way abetting circumstances that lead to events such as communal riots and violence between different groups of people. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) have analysed the self- sworn affidavits of all sitting MPs and MLAs. Analysis reveals that many of our current MPs and MLAs, who are designated lawmakers have actually declared cases related to “Hate Speech” against themselves. This analysis is based on the affidavits submitted by the candidates and MPs/MLAs prior to the last election they contested.

The following IPC and RPA sections deal with ‘Hate Speech’ as per the ‘Law Commission Report no. 267 on Hate Speech’:

Provisions under IPC

Ø  Section 153A IPC penalises ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’.

Ø  Section 153B IPC penalises ‘imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration’.

Ø  Section 295A IPC penalises ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’.

Ø  Section 298 IPC penalises ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person’.

Ø  Section 505(1) and (2) IPC penalises publication or circulation of any statement, rumour or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.

 

 

Provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

• Section 8 disqualifies a person from contesting election if he/she is convicted for indulging in acts amounting to illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 123(3A) and section 125 prohibits promotion of enmity on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language in connection with election as a corrupt electoral practice and prohibits it.

 

 

Recommendations

1. ADR supports the following recommendations of the  Law Commission Report:
2. The Model Code of Conduct given by the Election Commission of India for the guidance of political parties and candidates should be amended to the extent that effect is given to the sub section (3A) of section 123 of the RPA, 1951. The first part of the Code i.e. General Conduct should expressly provide a provision that prohibits any kind of speech that promotes, or attempts to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.
3. Hate speech poses complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression. Hence, new provisions in IPC are required to be incorporated to address this issue. Amendments to the IPC, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by adding new provisions on ‘Prohibiting incitement to hatred’ provocation of violence in certain cases’ following section 505 IPC, and accordingly amending the First Schedule of CrPC.
4. ADR believes that strict action must be taken against the candidates giving hate speech prior and during the elections, and against the elected legislators even after the elections, if found guilty of indulging in ‘Hate Speech’.
5. Internet is an important tool for disseminating information and opinions however, it also serves as a platform for disseminating unlawful speech. Political parties have been misusing the medium for unlawful statements. Hence, it is recommended that such unlawful statements on online platforms should be monitored and if the person found guilty, they should be penalised.
6. Political Parties must not give tickets to the candidates who have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.
7. Cases against MPs and MLAs should be fast tracked and decided upon in a time bound manner.

 

Summary and Highlights

 

Ø  A total of 58 Current MPs and MLAs have declared cases related to hate speech.

Ø  Sitting MPs with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: 15 Sitting Lok Sabha MPs have declared cases related to Hate Speech against themselves. None of the Rajya Sabha MPs have declared cases related to Hate Speech against themselves.

Ø  Party wise MPs with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: 10 Sitting Lok Sabha MPs with declared cases related to Hate Speech are from the BJP, and 1 each is from the AIUDF, TRS, PMK, AIMIM and SHS.

Ø  Sitting MLAs with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: 43 sitting MLAs have declared cases related to Hate Speech against themselves.

Ø  Party-wise distribution of MLAs with  Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: 17 Sitting MLAs with declared cases related to Hate Speech are from the BJP, 5 each are from the TRS and AIMIM, 3 are from TDP, 2  each from INC,  AITC, JD(U) and SHS, 1 each from DMK,  BSP, SP and 2  are Independent MLAs.

Ø  State wise MLAs with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: 11 sitting MLAs with declared cases related to Hate Speech are from Telangana. 4 MLAs are from Bihar, 9 MLAs are from Uttar Pradesh, 4 from Maharashtra, 3 each from Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, 2 each from Uttarakhand and West Bengal and 1 MLA each from Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Jharkhand have declared cases related to Hate Speech against themselves.

Ø  Political Party Leaders with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: Political party leaders such as Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) and Badruddin Ajmal (AIUDF) have declared cases related to Hate Speech against themselves.

Ø  Union Minister with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: Ms Uma Bharti, Union Cabinet Minister for Drinking Water and Sanitation has declared cases related to Hate Speech against herself.

Ø  State Ministers  with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech: There are 8 State ministers who have declared cases related to Hate Speech against themselves, their details are as follows:

Name	Party	State	District	Constituency
Patil Gulab Raghunath	SHS	Maharashtra	JALGAON	JALGAON RURAL
Jaibhan Singh Pavaia	BJP	Madhya Pradesh	GWALIOR	GWALIOR
Thanneeru Harish Rao	TRS	Telangana	MEDAK	SIDDIPET
K.Tarakarama Rao	TRS	Telangana	KARIMNAGAR	SIRCILLA
Swapan Debnath	AITC	West Bengal	BARDHAMAN	PURBASTHALI DAKSHIN
Arvind Pandey	BJP	Uttarakhand	UDHAM SINGH NAGAR	GADARPUR
Surya Pratap	BJP	Uttar Pradesh	DEORIA	PATHARDEVA
Suresh Kumar	BJP	Uttar Pradesh	SHAMLI	THANA BHAWAN

Table: State Ministers with Cases Related to Hate Speech

Ø  Recognized/ Unrecognized parties given tickets to candidates with declared cases related to Hate Speech:  In the last 5 years, 198 candidates with declared cases related to Hate Speech have contested elections for State Assemblies, Lok/Rajya Sabha. In last 5 years, 141 candidates from Recognized political parties and 29 candidates from Unrecognized political parties have given ticked to such type of candidates.

Ø  Independent candidates with cases related to Hate Speech:  In last 5 years, 28 independent candidates with declared cases related to Hate Speech have contested the elections for State Assemblies, Lok/Rajya Sabha.

 

State Wise MPs/MLAs with Declared Cases Related to Hate Speech

Figure: State Wise MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Hate Speech

 

Figure: State Wise MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Hate Speech

 

State	Number of MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Hate speech
Uttar Pradesh	15
Telangana	13
Karnataka	5
Maharashtra	5
Bihar	4
Andhra Pradesh	3
Gujarat	2
Tamil Nadu	2
Uttarakhand	2
West Bengal	2
Jharkhand	1
Madhya Pradesh	1
Rajasthan	1
Assam	1
Delhi	1
Grand Total	58

Table: State Wise MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Hate Speech

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Party Wise MPs/MLAs with Declared Cases Related to Hate Speech

Figure: Party wise MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Hate Speech

 

Party	Number of MPs/MLAs with Declared Cases related to Hate Speech
BJP	27
All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen	6
TRS	6
TDP	3
SHS	3
AITC	2
INC	2
IND	2
JD(U)	2
AIUDF	1
BSP	1
DMK	1
PMK	1
SP	1
Grand Total	58

Table: Party wise MPs/MLAs with declared cases related to Hate Speech

DM Hari Har Prasad today inspected Marhaura block office and expressed displeasure over ill maintenance of Cash Register.
He instructed the BDO, CO and CDPO to maintain the cash register properly. He also reviewed the progress work of Saat Nishay of chief minister and instructed to collect revenue in time and dispose of the pending works immediately.

Hindusthan Samachar/Rakesh/Shri Ram\

Thanks to the announcement of polls to the state Assembly much of the public diatribe against the rival Veerashiva and Lingayat groups has come to a grinding halt. But assuming that the animosity between these warring factions has cooled down would be an unrealistic situation to relish.A Congress party leader on conditions of anonymity claims: The priest community of Veerashivas has formed a team of around 5,000 volunteers who have been deputed to campaign against all those Congress leaders responsible for the recommendation of separate minority religion status.He confides thus: MB Patil, Major Irrigation Minister, Vinay Kulkarni, Mines and Geology Minister, BR Patil, Aland MLA are the targets of this team. Basavaraj Horatti, JDS leader is also part of the victims’ list but he’s not contesting the present elections as he has been getting elected to the Legislative Council from the Teachers constituency for the record eighth time.This controversy may not blow up into another major issue after the polls as has been projected now. However the adverse effect of it will be felt in the ongoing elections as Congressmen like Shyamanuru Shivashankarappa at the ripe age of 88 still manage to get the party ticket sitting at home says the Congress leader.Congress has failed to give enough representation to the Veerashiva-Lingayat community leaders and only 49 people have been given party tickets whereas the Bharatiya Janata Party has exceeded the Congress toll in comparison. No one belonging to these communities has been given ticket either in Bengaluru nor Old Mysuru region says another Congressman.According to another Congress leader: Siddaramaiah has been a Veerashiva-Lingayat baiter since the beginning of his political career. But for the previous time all his rivals since 1983 happened to be Lingayats in his constituencies.If the Veerashiva group leadership is clandestinely engrossed in waging a battle against all Congress leaders who happened to be in the forefront of the minority tag movement the pro Lingayat faction has gone one step forward.Mate Mahadevi acclaimed to be the first woman pontiff has openly declared her support to the Congress. In fact she’s even called upon her supporters to vote for the Congress which has led to a Pandora’s Box.The now strong propagandist for Lingayat religion was the centre of controversy for all the wrong reasons some time back. She went to the extent of publishing books changing the penname of none other than Basavanna, the 12th century saint philosopher and revolutionary social reformer.Not only that she had even led an agitation to ban Marga-1 and Marga-2, the research publications of Dr MM Kalaburgi, noted historian who was shot dead later. According to Mate Mahadevi and other conservative mindset people the two research works were against the Veerashiva-Lingayat philosophy.She also did what all possible to stall the enactment of ‘Mahachaitra’ play scripted by noted playwright HS Shivaprakash. The play was again alleged to be derogatory of the 12th century revolutionary poets.But now the piquant situation is such that the person who brought disgrace to Lord Basavanna is now heading the movement favoring Basava Dharma!

Hindusthan Samachar/Manohar Yadavatti

The Veerashiva-Lingayat controversy on the eve of polls appears to be paying off Siddaramaiah handsomely considering the feedback evinced in a handful of districts which will be going to polls on 12 May. At the same time the state government’s move to recommend to the centre for a separate minority religion status to Lingayats has been successful in dividing the Veerashiva-Lingayat community in a big way like never before.
There have been conflicting views about whether such proposal from the state will help the ruling Congress party in returning to power or damage the prospects of the Bharatiya Janata Party in doing so. Any way as of now the mood of the electorate in the state appears to be tilting towards a hung Assembly which’s being eagerly awaited by the Janata Dal Secular party dreaming of becoming the game changer once again.
Veerashivas are found to be in a big chunk in the old Mysuru regions are up in arms against the state government’s move whereas the Lingayats who outnumber the former in North Karnataka comprising Mumbai Karnataka and Hyderabad Karnataka areas are said to be favoring the Congress.
The community also looks to be divided following the ‘decisive politics’ strategy well orchestrated by the Congress party just before the announcement of general elections to the state Assembly.
The parent body of the Veerashiva Lingayats is named as Akhila Bharat Veerashiva Mahasabe while those agitating for a separate minority religion tag have formed a different organization stripping ties with the Mahasabe.
By and large both the rival groups keep claiming that Veerashivas and Lingayats are nothing but two faces of the same coin. But the ground reality is paradoxical in comparison with the tall claims being made.
Dr Murugha Sharanaru,pontiff of the Murugharajendra Mutt headquartered at Chitradurga having branches across the state asserts: Veerashiva swamijis representing the Pancha Peetas are averse to the formation of Lingayat religion as they are scared that they’ll lose all the benefits as a result thereupon. One’s not supposed to follow the Vedic rituals like puja,homa nor visit temples in search of philosophical solace. Even they will have to give up the inhuman practice of devotees bowing before them nor can visit the disciples’ houses under the pretext of paadpuja forget going in palanquin processions.
However Onkareshwar swamiji, pontiff of Avargol Mutt branch of Balehonnuru Rambapuri peetha at Davanagere contradicts these claims: The proposal for a separate minority religion status is nothing else but a ploy to divide the religion for ulterior purposes. Some pontiffs in order to reap monetary and similar such benefits in kind have grouped themselves under the guise of Basava Dharma. Are they not adhering to the same rituals of allowing the disciples to fall at their feet? Do they not visit the devotees under the pretext of paadpuja and claim that they keep doing so on the requests of the disciples?
He also admits that there could be a polarization of 10 percent of votes towards the ruling party and this proportion keeps changing from 2/3 percent to 50-60 percent depending to whom you keep talking to while some others straight away dismiss any such impact.
But one thing seems to be clear. The Veerashivas who claim to be having the roots of origin since more than 5,000 years are jittery as they see the danger of getting lost in the present tug of war which will eventually end up their hegemony over the community.
According to them: Veerashivas have a distinct identity and Renukacharya is the founder of the Veerashiva religion. Siddantha Shikamani is the religious book which happens to be in Sanskrit. They are not opposed to Lord Basaveshwara nor his preaching’s and it’s only a canard that they are against a separate minority religion status.
This controversy may not fetch the Congress party any significant gains claims Basavaraj, journalist based in Davanagere. At the most there could be a swing of around two percent of votes as it’s the individual candidates who matter more here rather than the political parties.
MT Subashchandra, President, Davanagere District Congress Campaign Committee acknowledges that the Veerashiva-Lingayat agitation has tilted the balance for better. In fact there’s no difference of any sort among the ordinary people but the pontiffs look to be divided for their own reasons.
As per the census report during the regime of Mysuru dynasty Veerashiva also happens to be one among the 99 sub sects of Lingayat religion. People residing in the urban areas call themselves as Veerashivas while those in the rural region only know that they are Lingayats. But the Congress may gain as a result of the Siddaramaiah government’s wise move feels MT Subashchandra.
Dr Murugha Sharanaru admits the fallout due to such situation: The devotees have been advised to cooperate (Sahakarakke Sahakara) with the party which has been responsible for recommending the separate minority religious tag. The reason for such a stance according to those in the forefront of the movement is otherwise it would be like letting down the party which helped in achieving the set goal.
Athani Veeranna, Chartered Accountant and advisor to Shyamanuru Shivashankarappa, President of All India Veerashiva Mahasabe has a counter argument to put forth: Government’s univocal decision of announcing a separate religion tag is condemnable. There’s an attempt during the second term of UPA regime in 2013 for separate minority religion tag to Veerashiva-Lingayats but the effort did not yield results as it’s the fag end of the term and by the time a decision could be made polls were announced.
In fact Sushilkumar Shinde, the then Home Minister had even agreed for considering the memorandum suitably. For record sake the request is kept under obeisance and not rejected as is trying to be made in some quarters says Athani Veeranna.
He also quickly adds: There are more than around 1,000 Veerashiva-Lingayat mutts spread all over the state apart from some being in several other states. So expecting unanimity over the issue would be a difficult proposition. It looks the interests of Veerashiva-Lingayats will be further bulldozed.
But the effect of this movement is bound to have an effect on the polls and whatever could be the outcome the Congress party is awaiting to be blamed. Whether its victory or defeat for the party the reasons will be the move of the party in recommending separate religious status, informs the CA.
Amith Shah, national BJP president may be out rightly rejecting the recommendation for separate minority religion status for political purposes as it’s been done so from a Congress government. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi is more convinced by the preaching’s of Lord Basavanna and there’s no doubt that he’ll definitely accord the minority religion tag says Mahantesh Agadi, bicycles businessman.
He adds further: Amith Shah has declared in his affidavit submitted to the Rajya Sabha that he belongs to the Jain religion but here in Karnataka he claims to be a Vaishnavite Hindu. We’ll definitely support Modi for 2019 but this time it’ll be for Siddaramaiah.
Prof Shivarudra Kallolkar of History Department at Karnatak University Dharwad has an interesting point to make: Thanks to the Veerashiva-Lingayat controversy it may not be a big surprise if 30 percent of people belonging to these communities may cast their votes in favor of Congress. Even assuming that the voting pattern may not be in this proportion however it cannot be ruled out that the Congress will be the beneficiary by winning in 5-6 seats.
At the same time he is candid enough to admit: The maximum number of schemes has been given by the Siddaramaiah government. Let there be no doubt on that. But the Congress party may eventually end up losing in 20 seats due to the arrogant attitude of the chief minister!
Prof Ashok Shettar of the same department asserts: This movement will not boomerang the Congress party as projected in a few pre poll survey reports. On the other hand it’s the Congress party which’s set to gain and the drift in such polarization may be to the extent of 50-60 percent.
There’s a divide in the community for good of the society as it’s in tune with what Basavanna stood for a casteless and classless system. In that way Basava Dharma is unique in its distinct identity says Prof Shivananda Shettar, Head of Gandhian Studies Department, Karnatak University at Dharwad.
However he feels: The move to accord separate minority status is a welcome step though it might have political considerations. But the so far held notion that BS Yeddyurappa is the undisputed mass leader of Lingayats may not work this time.

Hindusthan Samachar/Manohar Yadavatti