Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

You are here: Home / Archives for PUDR

People’s Union for Democratic Rights condemns bans on cow slaughter

by

by People’s Union for Democratic Rights

REUTERS/Shailesh Andrade

REUTERS/Shailesh Andrade

On March 16th 2015, the Haryana Government unanimously passed Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Bill with main opposition parties INLD and Congress supporting the Bill. The new bill passed by the Haryana Government bans cow slaughter and sale of beef and imposes a punishment of rigorous imprisonment of not less than three years extending up to 10 years and fines ranging from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. one lakh. The Haryana Government’s move comes just days after the President’s assent to Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill 1995 early this month. Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill 1995 not only banned beef but also extended the prohibition to slaughter of bulls and oxen. There was already a ban on slaughter of cows in Maharashtra since 1976. The new amended act imposes a fine of Rs. 10,000 and a maximum prison term of five years for selling or even possessing beef.

What needs to be underlined here is that these bans on cow slaughter are not new; they were in existence in many of the states for many-many years. For example in Delhi, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, slaughter of cows and calves is totally prohibited. In Goa and Andhra Pradesh, ‘cow’ is defined to include heifer, or a male or female calf of a cow under the Goa, Daman and Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1978 and Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act 1977, respectively. In some states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Goa and Madhya Pradesh slaughter of bulls, bullocks and adult buffalos is permitted on ‘fit for slaughter’ certificate if the cattle is over 12 or 15 years of age, is not likely to become economical for draught, breeding or milk. Assam and West Bengal provides for slaughter of all cattle which includes bull, bullocks, calves, cows and buffalo on ‘fit for slaughter’ certificate. Meghalaya and Nagaland have no legislation to this effect.
What, however, is new is the increase in quantum of punishment and fines being imposed in the recent legislations passed against slaughter of cows and other animals. Haryana was covered under the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 and had a rigorous imprisonment upto five years and a fine upto Rs. 5000 or both. The new Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act increases punishment to rigorous imprisonment of three years to ten years and fines of Rs. 30,000 – Rs. 100,000. In many states like Gujarat, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka the punishment for cow slaughter is a maximum imprisonment of six months or fine upto Rs.1000 or both. The 1976 Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act also provided for similar punishment and fines. What also needs to be underlined is that in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Rajasthan the burden of proof is on the accused. It shows how much importance has been attached to prevention of cow slaughter so as to have this extraordinary provision in the law. It is so ironical that the women’s movement had to struggle so hard to make this change in law in cases of rape to shift the burden of proof on the accused whereas it finds a place in these state’s laws on cow slaughter without anyone even noticing them.

That prohibition of slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught animals finds a place in the Directive Principles of State Policy in our Constitution and that many states in India have a law banning cow slaughter and beef is indicative of a deep seated majoritarian understanding of Indian culture. It shows that the nature of state in India is heavily tilted in a selective understanding of Indian and even Hindu tradition. This questions the whole edifice of secularism and equal respect for all religions in India. The understanding that Hindus stand against cow slaughter or that Hinduism has always shunned and continues to shun beef is a proposition which is deeply contested. It might well be that some castes or groups amongst Hindus revere the cow and find cow slaughter abominable, but this view is not true of all Hindus across India, either today or in the past.

Quite apart from the absurdity of imposing dietary preference of one privileged and powerful group over the rest, there are other compelling reasons to question the ban. The entire meat production industry, from the traditional to the modern, employs and meets livelihood needs of millions of Indians. India’s meat production ranks fifth at 6.3 million tonnes in which share of bovine meat (cow, buffalo, bull) constitutes 62%. Of this, less than a million tones is exported. Thus the rest of it goes to meet the dietary needs of millions of Indians. Thus in banning cow slaughter to appease a minority of Hindus, livelihood needs and therefore right to life of millions of Indians has been put at risk. And in the bargain, it also simultaneously removes cheap high protein diet for hundreds of millions of Indians of every denomination.

These bans which are being extended to cover other cattle as well under an expansive definition of ‘beef’ pose many kinds of problems like for poor farmers who cannot take care of an old cow and because of these bans can no longer sell it to an abattoir. It has serious livelihood ramifications for a large number of families directly and indirectly dependent on cattle trade and related industries like leather, gelatin, animal fat soap industry, pharmaceuticals and meat exports.

It is worth noticing that more than fifty percent of people engaged in meat production and related trade of skin, hides, bones etc are Hindus. And they are beef consumers. To PUDR this ban therefore, is an assault on the right to life which involves livelihood and a diet of their choice, of Hindus, in whose name it has been brought in, as much as the religious minorities. In other words, it limits the dietary preferences of a substantial section of Indian people.

With Haryana and Maharashtra Governments’ pushing cow slaughter ban, not withstanding Goa’s BJP Chief Minister ruling out a cow slaughter ban in Goa, a majoritarian agenda is being promoted. Although, most of the state laws banning cow slaughter were passed by Congress governments, RSS affiliated Hindu right-wing groups are clamoring now for an all India ban on cow slaughter and for the strictest punishment for anyone indulging in it. This opens the door for fanatics to carry out raids, effect arrests and resort to organized violence against Muslims in particular. These laws provide a social and legal sanction to such groups to harass people who transport the cattle for selling, export and other purposes. The Haryana law includes police action against drivers of vehicles transporting beef and the impounding of such vehicles. PUDR’s 2003 report on Dalit Lynching at Dulina (in Jhajjhar district of Haryana) traces the underlying tensions on the issue of cow protection and its threat to some castes traditionally associated with cow slaughter and trading.

In light of all this, PUDR condemns the recent bans on ‘cow’ slaughter, which like many bans/proscriptions on books, literature, scholarship, films can only be understood in the context of right-wing Hindu upsurge in recent times. The ban is an infringement of personal dietary choices with the state having assumed the power to criminalize some of these. It is indeed a cruel irony that the exercise of this basic freedom invites a greater prison term as punishment than a grave criminal offence like rape for which the term is 7 years; or for deaths due to criminal negligence where the prison term is two years.

While it cannot be stressed enough that a democratic strategy is required to contest the upper caste Hindu bias which is reflected in the Constitution with regard to cow slaughter, we acknowledge that issues of cruelty to animals, animal shelters, maintenance of hygienic conditions in abattoirs, effective waste disposal do need attention. The ban is a reminder that we are being served a fait accompli leaving no room for debate/s or reasoned discussion. PUDR therefore denounces the narrow sectarian construction that conceals a much more diverse and complex reality.

Megha Bahl, Sharmila Purkayastha
Secretaries

Demand action against special cell personnel in Liaquat Shah case: PUDR

by

Liaqat Shah

by People’s Union For Democratic Rights

The recent chargesheet filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) absolving former Hizbul Mujahideen militant, Syed Liaquat Shah, of all charges, has yet again exposed the Special Cell of the Delhi Police for planting false evidence and for framing Shah. Shah had been arrested by the Delhi Police on March 20, 2013 on grounds that he intended to launch a fidayeen or suicide attack in Delhi. A ‘recovery’ of a cache of arms, ammunition and explosives from a guest house near Jama Masjid (where allegedly Shah was planning to visit) was presented as evidence. He had been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) and sections of the IPC including waging war against the State. The Centre ordered for an impartial probe by the NIA in the matter as there were conflicting positions emerging from the Delhi Police and the J&K Police. It was stated by J&K Police that Liaquat Shah was returning to Kashmir in order to surrender under J&K’s rehabilitation policy. The NIA has now found that these arms were in fact placed there by Sabir Khan Pathan, an informer of the Special Cell working under the express orders of the Special Cell officials.

While the chargesheet names several officers and personnel of the Special Cell such as DCP Sanjeev Yadav, Inspectors Sanjay Dutt and Rahul Kumar, and Head Constables Manish, Mohd. Iqbal Dar and Gulvir Singh as being involved, the NIA in its report to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in January 2015 demanded departmental inquiry against all but the name of the DCP has been dropped. Moreover, though names of police officers involved have been mentioned in the chargesheet for being in touch with the informer Sabir Khan Pathan on 20-21 March 2013, only the informer has been named as the main accused. The NIA has also failed to indict the senior officials including the police commissioner who had all insisted that they had ‘evidence’ against Shah. It is vital that command responsibility be established in such cases rather than letting the higher officials escape punishment. Additionally, the NIA has also not explained where from did the cache of arms and explosives recovered from the guest house actually emerge. In response, the MHA had said that it would take ‘tough action’ against the officials if required. Reacting to this, the Delhi Police has now called upon the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the MHA arguing that any action would have a ‘demoralising’ impact on the officers involved in counter-terror operations. A senior police official has also reportedly said that it is a ‘bonafide case of mistaken identity’ and not of any wrong or malafide intent and whatever they did was done in the best interest of ‘national security’.

It should be noted that this is not the first time that the Special Cell is being indicted by another investigative agency. In 2008, in the case of State v. Maurif Qamar and Md. Irshad Ali, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had submitted a closure report in the court of the Additional Session Judge in which it was clearly mentioned that the two accused (who were special cell informers earlier) were innocent and falsely implicated as dreaded terrorists in the case by the Special Cell which had fabricated and planted evidence. The CBI had also recommended that legal action be taken against the officials involved. Again, it need not be reminded that it was the Special Cell which was involved in the Batla House encounter case which has been widely criticized as a staged one.

PUDR’s findings in the past also show that the Special Cell has been a ‘habitual offender’ when it comes to faking encounters or in acts of planting evidence or falsely implicating people and routinely subverting justice in a number of important investigations it has undertaken. However, in the absence of any independent investigation, these crimes by Special Cell personnel have not been not brought to light, unlike as in the Liaquat Shah’s case has been.

A few instances would show this long lineage of crimes by the Special Cell. The case against Mohd. Arif, accused in the Red Fort attack case in the year 2000, for instance, rests mainly on the supposed ‘recovery’ by Special Cell official M.C. Sharma and his team, of a slip of paper bearing a mobile number which belonged to the accused. Despite contradictory statements in court by different Special Cell officers about the timing of their so called ‘recovery’, this ‘evidence’ was used to charge Arif with the crime and award him the death sentence. He is presently awaiting execution in this case.

Even in the 2001 Parliament Attack case, the case hinged on the Special Cell’s investigation on these kinds of alleged ‘recovery’ of slips of paper with phone numbers, mobile phones and sim cards from the dead (terrorists). These were then used to implicate a number of people who were arrested, tried and, in one case, later executed. Doubts about the authenticity of sim cards and allegations that they had been cloned and call records altered were raised at the time. The fact that the investigation methods of the Special Cell were a combination of extracting ‘confessions’ and ‘recovery’ of evidence was criticized and suspicion that this evidence was planted and doctored were raised at the time.

Another case in point was the picking up and killing of Rafiq, a resident of Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh in August 2003 as a ‘dreaded terrorist’ in the so called ‘Millenium Park encounter’. In this case also, which was investigated in detail in 2004 by PUCL and PUDR (See: http://www.pudr.org/?q=content/close-encounter-report-police-shoot-outs-delhi), there were no independent eye witnesses and ‘recovery’ of detonators and money was shown on the basis of which Rafiq’s brothers were also charged under serious offences. In October 2003, the Special Cell came under cloud for its role in the Ansal Plaza ‘encounter’ when an eyewitness came forward to expose the cold blooded killing.

The Special Cell of the Delhi Police has enjoyed impunity despite its consistent violation of rights and subversion of justice because of the protection given to it by draconian anti-terror laws like the erstwhile POTA and, especially, the present UAPA. While S. 58 had been added to POTA, allowing punishment for ‘malicious action’ by the police under this law after large scale institution of false cases by the police under anti-terror laws, the UAPA has excluded this clause cementing the impunity of police and protecting the ‘Special’ status of the police even when they commit heinous crimes.

Finally, as is indicated in the above mentioned cases, violations have been fearlessly committed by State personnel in the name of ‘national security’ and ‘fighting terrorism’. These labels help absolve officials from any kind of accountability even while the crimes committed are serious in nature, involving fabrication of evidence and false implication of persons—sometimes also leading the accused onto the death row.

PUDR demands that the guilty personnel of the Special Cell, including commanding officials, be immediately charged, prosecuted and punished in the Liaquat Shah’s false arrest case, and not be shielded by laws like the UAPA despite committing grave crimes. PUDR also demands that action be taken against higher officials of the Delhi Police who defended the Special Cell and supported the ‘evidence’ against Shah.

Megha Bahl and Sharmila Purkayastha

(Secretaries)

Nithari killings: Surender Koli's death sentence commuted by Allahabad HC

by

Surinder Koli

Allahabad: The death sentence of Surender Koli, convicted in 2006 Nithari serial killings case, was on Wednesday commuted to life imprisonment by the Allahabad High Court on the ground of “inordinate delay” in deciding his mercy petition.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PKS Baghel held that execution of Koli’s death sentence would be “unconstitutional in view of the inordinate delay” in deciding his mercy petition.

The order came on a Public Interest Litigation filed by NGO People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) which contended that the period elapsed in disposal of Koli’s mercy petition was “3 years and 3 months” and, as such, execution of death sentence would be in violation of the Right to Life granted in Article 21 of the Constitution.

A petition filed later by Koli himself, challenging the death sentence on the same ground as the one stated in the PIL, has also been clubbed with it.

The death sentence was awarded to him by a special CBI court at Ghaziabad on February 13, 2009.

The PIL was filed on October 31 last year, three days after the Supreme Court rejected Koli’s recall application.

The death warrant issued by the trial court on September 2 had fixed September 12 as the date of hanging, though its execution was stayed in view of the apex court’s decision to hear the recall application.

Rejection of the recall application had cleared the decks for execution of the death sentence, but it was stayed by the High Court on October 31 when it decided to hear the PIL.

After his appeal against the trial court order was turned down by High Court on September 11, 2009 while co-accused and his employer Moninder Singh Pandher was acquitted, Koli filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging his conviction which was dismissed on February 15, 2011.

Koli, thereafter filed his mercy petition before the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on May 7, 2011, which was rejected 23 months later, on April 2, 2013.

The mercy petition was thereafter forwarded to the Union Home Ministry on July 19, 2013 and it was turned down by the President on July 20, 2014.

The court had agreed to hear the PIL disagreeing with the Centre’s preliminary objection that “the convict (Koli) had not filed a petition (at the time of filing of the PIL) challenging the rejection of his mercy petition”.

“The proceeding which has been instituted before this court is not in the nature of an appeal on merits against the order of conviction.”

“The petition seeks to question the constitutionality of the execution of the sentence of death in the present case, on the ground of a delay on the part of constitutional authorities in disposing of the mercy petitions,” the court had said.

Pandher and his domestic help Koli were arrested on December 29, 2006, after the police recovered skeletons and other belongings of missing girls from the drain outside his house in Noida on the outskirts of the national capital.

Koli had allegedly killed several girls, chopping their bodies to pieces before throwing them in the backyard and in the drain.

In December 2014, Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) while releasing its report, “Death Reserved for the Poor” had stated Koli must not be executed before conclusion of the trial in 11 other cases of the Nithari murders.

ACHR had called for the case to be reviewed again in the light of the judgements in all the pending Nithari cases.

(Agencies)

Human Rights groups condemn the "arbitrary & illegal prevention of Greenpeace campaigner’s visit to London"

by

Priya Pillai, Campaigner Greenpeace India.

Priya Pillai, Campaigner Greenpeace India.

New Delhi: The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has criticised the immigration officials for refusing to allow Greenpeace campaigner Priya Pillai to fly to London. It described their action as “arbitrary, highhanded and illegal.”

In a statement on January 13, PUCL said she had a valid business visa and all her travel papers were in order. There was thus no acceptable reason for preventing her from travelling to London as she was neither a convicted person nor was there any judicial restraint order prohibiting her travel abroad.

“PUCL strongly condemns the arbitrary, highhanded and illegal action of the immigration officials of the Government of India at the New Delhi airport refusing to permit Ms. Priya Pillai, senior Campaigner of Greenpeace, to board her flight to London on 11th January, 2015. Worse still was the vindictive act of the immigration officials stamping Ms. Priya Pillai’s passport as `OFFLOADED’ thereby effectively ensuring that she cannot leave India until and unless the Government of India revokes the unannounced ban on her travel.

Ms. Priya had valid business visa and all her travel papers were in order. There is thus no acceptable reason for preventing Ms. Priya from travelling to London as she is neither a convicted person nor is there any judicial restraint order prohibiting her travel abroad.

The Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) stated, “what is ominous is that the Home Ministry has purportedly stated that there is “no rule which allows restraining a citizen from travelling abroad….(because) he/she would express views in conflict with government’s policies.” (TOI, 13/01/2015)]. So if this is the case who ordered the ‘lookout circular’, and at whose behest? These are questions which remain unanswered. If, as the news reports suggest, that the ‘lookout circular’ was issued by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) which has no executive authority to issue them, or by the Foreigners division of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) without the knowledge of the Home Secretary then, this action against Ms. Pillai who had a valid visa shows how arbitrariness has come to define the working of agencies and divisions of MHA, tasked with ‘internal security’.”

Both the organisations demanded that the Government of India immediately revoke its decision to ban foreign travel by Ms. Priya Pillai, strike out the stamp in her passport of being “Off loaded” thereby enabling her to travel abroad if all her travel papers are in order.

They also called upon the Government of India to stop “hounding and targeting rights activists for coercive or police action and instead create a conducive, non-adversarial, intimidation-free environment enabling people to share, discuss and debate in a democratic spirit crucial issues of development projects and programmes.”

The Ministry of Home Affairs has reportedly stated that they had no information about any travel restrictions on Ms. Pillai, while the immigration officials said they were acting on orders from the Government of India. PUCL said it was unlikely that such a drastic decision would be taken without instructions from the highest level.

One sparrow does not herald a spring: PUDR

by

Victims: Aasha Begam, mother of Shezad Ahmad with picture of her son. Next her Jabeena, wife of Shezad and his five year old son Shahid. Shezad was killed in the Machil Fake Encounter. Photo: Javed Dar

Victims: Aasha Begam, mother of Shezad Ahmad with picture of her son. Next her Jabeena, wife of Shezad and his five year old son Shahid. Shezad was killed in the Machil Fake Encounter. Photo: Javed Dar

by D. Manjit and Asish Gupta

A rare instance of army convicting its own personnel for war crimes does not mean end of legal immunity enjoyed by the armed forces in what officialdom calls the “disturbed area”. That the government denies presence of armed conflict is of course in marked contrast to the reality on the ground where armed forces enjoy war-time legal immunity. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights has been arguing that the issue of justice in armed conflict areas in India is whether criminal court will exercise jurisdiction or security forces own court, over armed forces personnel for alleged crimes against civilians. Civilians have, in any case, no locus standi in armed forces court. Since the Supreme Court through its judgment on Pathribal case (2012) overturned every single tenet of the Constitution meant to protect the citizen against the abuse of power: it decided against the right to life; against fairness; against the right to equality before law; against the right to Constitutional remedies. It was therefore only another step in that direction that it overturned the foremost principle of law by empowering the accused agency to investigate, prosecute and judge its own crimes.

So given that the aggrieved find doors of criminal court closed to them and having no locus standi before armed forces court, thousands of cases of massacres, rapes, fake encounters, enforced disappearances, torture etc evade justice, perpetrators roam free and aggrieved nurse their wounds. To then project a single case of conviction by GCM as heralding whittling down of impunity is to rub salt in people’s wounds.

Seen in this light the conviction by the General Court Martial headed by Brigadier Deepak Mehra of five army personnel, including two officers, for April 29-30, 2010 fake encounter by luring and then killing three civilians to secure unit citation and cash reward, is a rarity not the rule. Machil killings acted as a catalyst for the 2010 agitation in Kashmir valley in which 126 persons were killed by the Indian security forces. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has publicly credited former Home Minister P Chidambaram and Lt General KT Parnaik who then headed the Northern Command for ensuring that in the Machil case justice was done.

The announcement of the conviction in Machil case is an exception which was used to mute criticism which arose because of the Budgam incident where trigger happy army personnel fired 126 rounds of bullets on five youths, killing two and injuring three others. There were 45 bullets wounds on the two who died. Demand for repeal of AFSPA and ending legal immunity for forces rose as assembly elections were announced and campaigning began. It was politically embarrassing. Now the GCM had convicted the five army personnel implicated in Machil killing two months back. But the process was not complete. Neither army’s confirming authority, in this case GOC-in-C of Northern Command, had confirmed the sentence, nor closure report filed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate as required.

Our apprehension that this was a PR exercise gain ground because in January army’s GCM had summarily acquitted a retired Major General, two Colonels, a Lt Colonel and a Subedar, belonging to 7 Rashtriya Rifles in the Pathribal case (2000), where CBI had investigated, gathered evidence and filed the charge-sheet. Recently, when Kunan Poshpora (1991) matter came up before the J&K High Court’s Srinagar bench the army, state and the Union government were one in opposing the re-opening of investigation into the notorious gangrape case carried out by personnel from army’s Rajputana Rifles. Thus 23 years after the commission of the mass rape and torture, and 18 months after the Kupwara court order for further investigations, the Indian State continues to deny criminality, and instead defames the victims.

PUDR is convinced that what victims of armed forces violence need are not empty gestures and platitudes but substantive and comprehensive change which brings to an end legal immunity enjoyed by armed forces personnel in “disturbed” areas.

D. Manjit and Asish Gupta are Secretaries of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR).

Ensure justice not compensation for 1984 riot victims: PUDR

by

 

Trilokpuri 1984

New Delhi: The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) Tuesday criticized the Modi government for not ensuring justice for the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and instead increasing the monetary compensation.

“Both the UPA and the NDA governments have remained mute on the punitive actions against the perpetrators of the crime who conspired and participated in the massacre of the Sikhs,” PUDR said in a statement.

“We appeal to the victims to be aware that successive governments have suppressed the real issue of justice which can only be met through bringing perpetrators of the crime to justice, and not by doling higher blood money to the victims,” it added.

“We condemn the government for reducing the quest for justice of the victims of anti-Sikh carnage into a cruel joke by engaging in competition for paying higher blood money to them.”

On the 30th anniversary of the 1984 carnage, Home Minister Rajnath Singh announced that compensation to the victims killed in the riots would be enhanced from the existing Rs. 3 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh.

This cash enhancement has been announced under the union government scheme for assistance to civilian victims of terrorist, communal and Naxal violence launched by the UPA government in 2008, the PUDR said.

(IANS)

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives