AHRC-STM-018-2012

January 27, 2012

A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission

INDIA: Censorship is a myopic world vision

The authorities in India have to wake up to the reality that censorship is not a norm, acceptable in the world today. In what could be considered as one of the most controversial proceedings in the country’s legal history, 21 companies including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and YouTube are to appear in a trial court in New Delhi on 13 March to show cause as to why their worldwide web content should not be banned in the country, for the companies not being able to prevent users from posting ‘objectionable’ contents. The irony of it, beyond the fact that what is being prayed as a relief in the complaint is in essence worldwide censorship of information, and the curtailment of freedom of expression and opinion, Mr Vinay Rai, the complainant in the private petition is reported to be a journalist!

The petitioner had sought and obtained Government of India’s consent to prosecute as required under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In fact the sanction, issued by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology was filed directly in the metropolitan magistrate’s court by the government. The companies panicked and approached the Delhi High Court seeking a stay of the proceedings, which has been unsuccessful so far, but has also provided the Court to indicate its view on the subject that does not look promising. The presiding judge has reportedly said during the hearing that “ou must have a stringent check. Otherwise, like in China, we may pass orders banning all such websites”. Companies should “develop a mechanism to keep a check and remove offensive and objectionable material from their web pages” the Court said further.

The case gains prominence in the background of an opinion publically expressed by the Union Minister for Communications, Mr. Kapil Sibal in December last year. On a question concerning censorship of contents on the worldwide web, the minister said that the government would soon ‘crackdown’ on ‘unacceptable’ contents. The Minister however did not bother to elaborate, as to what contents would be acceptable, since no one in the world probably could provide an answer to this question. Acceptability of opinions and its forms of expression is subjective. In essence what is acceptable to one person may be objectionable to  another. In many ways what the court is now expected to decide is also pretty much the same, ‘what is acceptable in the India’.

At the core of the issue is the right to free speech and expression, covered by Article 19 of the Indian constitution and its appendage, self-censorship. Indeed the constitutional right comes with riders, which the country’s courts thus far has held reasonable.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 prescribes a legal framework for internet content and use in India. The government has used the law whenever it felt convenient to blind internet contents from users. Many of these instances challenge common sense. The government has used the law, for instance to remove contents that allegedly criticised Mr. Bal Keshav Thackeray, a controversial figure in the country, infamous for his racial, religious and otherwise extremist views, from the social networking site, Orkut. The fact that Thackery’s opinions and many of his public calls impeccably executed by his fanatic followers, for which no restraint has been imposed so far, are incompatible with the constitutional guarantees, and further, could be interpreted, as crimes against national security, integrity and public harmony did not however deter the government. The government chose to demand Orkut to withdraw the comments posted against Thackery, on the grounds that such comments will harm national security, integrity and public harmony.

The government’s double standard is visible further for instance in the Union Minister’s opinion that content in the internet depicting obscenity and violence must be removed. If this logic is applied then many of the country’s temple sculptures and paintings must also be removed from public view. What more damage could violence in the internet pose to the country than what millions of Indians witness daily in the country’s streets at the hands of their own law enforcement agencies?

The triviality of such restrictions are further visible, when prohibitions are used for private profit, as it happened in July and December 2011 when Internet Service Providers (ISP) blocked file-sharing sites to prevent copyright violations of movies, of which one was produced by an ISP, Reliance. Yet again another controversy erupted in a limited way in India when the Google in December 2011 revealed that out of an estimated 358 items that the government wanted Google to be removed from its worldwide web, 255 were, according to the Google’s transparency report, those that criticise the government. Asia has umpteen examples that should warn Indians where restrictive laws on freedom of expression and opinion could be always used against the critiques of the government. Indians have no reason to expect a different experience.

It is in the midst of all these the court case has come up. This however will not be an easy proposition for any court to decide. It would be equally an unacceptable proposition to let the ISPs or the government to decide what could be published and what not, since the freedom of expression and opinion, a fundamental right that has an arguably higher place among other basic rights should not be let to be restricted at the mercy of a company or any government.

The maturity of a democratic state is pegged at the level in which it can, as a society, accommodate criticism, accept as an individual’s opinion as that individual’s right to form and express. Instead of allowing all opinions to be formed and expressed as warranted in a maturing democracy, if censorship is imposed, it will not only reduce the space for free speech in the country, but will also hinder its development. It is this free space that places India apart from most of the countries in Asia where censorship that suits the government is
thus far the norm.

The Asian Human Rights Commission expects that the vibrant civil society in the country and the country’s media would not reduce themselves to be observers in a fight which has the potential to change the country’s destiny. On the contrary, to expect that this great nation’s security, integrity and above all the dignity of its people is based on who says what in the worldwide web is as retarded as looking down upon its luminous history.

For information and comments contact:

Bijo Francis

Telephone: +852 – 26986339

The suspended Gujarat cadre IPS officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, has strongly urged the head of the Special Investigation Team, R.K. Raghavan, to proceed with the prosecution of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as there was “substantial direct evidence as well as overwhelming circumstantial evidence” to establish his alleged complicity in the anti-Muslim pogrom of 2002.

Mr. Bhatt, who shot off yet another letter to Mr. Raghavan on Tuesday (his fourth this month), said he was writing in response to reports that the SIT had sought legal opinion on whether or not to prosecute Mr. Modi for the post-Godhra violence. Drawing on his depositions before the SIT, Mr. Bhatt said he had personally met and alerted Mr. Modi to the deteriorating law and order situation on February 28, 2002, focusing especially on “the imminent carnage at Gulberg Society.”

He said he met Mr. Modi twice that day and “by the time of the second meeting… the carnage at Gulberg Society had begun in full view of the police personnel who were deployed there… The Chief Minister was accordingly briefed about the complete police inaction and complicity. The Chief Minister was also explicitly informed about the imminent threat to the lives of ex-MP Ehsan Jafri and his family members.”

Mr. Bhatt also drew the SIT’s attention to the “numerous Situation Reports and Alert Messages” sent “contemporaneously to the Office of the Chief Minister,” especially concerning the “developing violent situation and imminent carnage at Gulberg Society.”

He said Mr. Modi was also kept informed on telephone about the developments. A fax alert dated February 28, 2002 attached to the letter to Mr. Raghavan said: “As informed telephonically to the Hon’ble CM, ex-MP Ehsan Jafri and his family members residing at Gulmarg Society [Mr. Bhatt told *The Hindu* the alert had erroneously referred to Gulberg as Gulmarg because that is the first time he had heard of the housing society],Chamanpura, Meghaninagar have been summoned and are being attacked by a Hindu mob in the presence of police *bundobust* [deployment]. The lives of Ehsan Jafri and other family members are in imminent danger…” The alert was addressed to the Personal Secretary to the Chief Minister and the Personal Secretary to the Minister of State (Home) with copies to the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.

Mr. Bhatt said that instead of reacting to the alerts, Mr. Modi instructed him (Mr. Bhatt) to dig out details of “past instances wherein Mr. Jafri had supposedly opened fire on Hindus during earlier communal riots in Ahmedabad.” Mr. Bhatt said that as he emerged from the meeting, he got the information that Mr. Modi was “independently getting real-time information updates on the developments that were taking place at Gulberg Society.”

Mr. Bhatt said the Chief Minister’s conduct made it “unambiguously and absolutely clear” that he was not interested in discharging his “constitutionally mandated legal obligation of directing the police force to act with all firmness in order to protect the life and property of helpless citizens.” Instead, he wanted to collect information that could be used to build a case that the Gulberg carnage was triggered by Mr. Jafri himself.

The police officer argued further that these “acts of commission and omission” by the Chief Minister amounted to “facilitation and abetment of the gruesome carnage at Gulberg Society” and he was liable to be charged for abetment under Sections 109, 112, 115, and 117 of the Indian Penal Code and for concealing design to commit an offence under Sections 118 and 119.

Later, Mr. Bhatt told *The Hindu* that he had repeatedly made two requests to the SIT: to allow his statement to be recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. and to examine control room inspectors and other officers who were in a position to testify on the developments of February 27 and 28, 2002, and who could, by their statements, support or negate Mr. Bhatt’s claim that he attended a late night meeting held at Mr. Modi’s residence.

The police officer said: “My depositions to the SIT have been under Section 161 of the Cr.PC which does not even require my signature. However, a statement under 164 of the Cr.PC cuts both ways. It is legally binding, but if I have lied, it also allows my prosecution for perjury. Is that too much to ask?”

Peace Is Doable

source: mailed by Suresh Bhat

contact-Qamar,9990505438,Inamul,9911292235,Fateh Nadvi9250512070,Mohd Faizan,9555999150

      Pushkar Raj

      The month of January has been a nose dive for the civil liberties in the country.   First, some social sites have got court notice for hosting content that the government and some petty groups deem objectionable. The fault of these websites is that they have provided platform to some people’s ideas which a few others have not liked. The government neither can identify nor catch those who have posted such contents. So it has chosen an easy way out of making these `intermediaries’ (websites) liable for prosecution under a new law that it had passed some times back.    Secondly Author of book Satanic Verses , Salman Rushdie was  told informally by the government  that as some people are objecting to his visit to his home country, therefore he should cancel his visit to the Jaipur Literary Festival.  The government has not cared to bother that under the constitution it is duty bound to extend protection and facilitate his arrival. In the first case free flow of ideas is limited while in the second right of movement was curtailed.  In both the cases the soul of the Indian constitution has suffered erosion. Like always it will have stifling implications on our society in the long run.

      Internet is a reality of the contemporary world. It is a virtual but a parallel world, unseen though somewhat real. It is different than the earlier when transmission of ideas from one person to another required a medium controlled by some one else, be it in the form of books, newspapers, radio or television.  Internet has eliminated this `control’ element; now a person’s ideas – good bad ugly- (if he chooses to make them public) are before millions of people with absolutely no control of anyone and virtually no cost. You may publish your own newspaper, articles, transmit your voice or film. Another important difference is that earlier, one could pin point the origin of the idea, meaning the person who said or wrote something could easily be identified. But this might be difficult now.

      The governments all over the world have not liked this new development. They cannot curb the flow of thought without getting hold of the person who is source of it and that person might be beyond their state boundaries or might exist in only `virtual world’ . Therefore now they try to devise ways to reassert the control over transmission of ideas through various means. Totalitarian or semi totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, china, North Korea, Burma and Iran would resort to blatant ways to exercise the said control. The states like India would do the same in a more subtle manner by enacting laws like Information Technology (Amendment)Act 2008.

      Apparently these moves are initiated in the name of cultural sensitivities but if one digs a little deeper one finds that these are inspired by political objectives.  Political criticism, dissent and opposition are under hammer. Given the role that the virtual media played in recent anti-corruption movement, government has decided to exercise control over it even though that might run counter to the conception of liberty (of thought and expression) of majority of the Indian population in twenty first century.

      On face of it Salman Rushdie case is more bizarre. It seems that the political leadership has not learnt anything from Shah Bano case of mid-eighties.  To Capitulate to fringe elements at the cost of common sense and rule of law never does good to any society.  It is very well known that for narrow political gains the then political leadership caused an irrevocable damage to our social and political life. It may safely be argued that If the then government respecting the Supreme Court judgment had stood its ground firm  , Salman Rushdie as the writer of Satanic Verses would not suffer a ban, Hindu communalism would not gain notorious heights ,  Babri mosque might still be standing where it was, Bombay riots might not be a reality, M F Hussain would not die in exile, young people would celebrate Valentine day without fear and the terrorism would not become a competitive phenomenon between India’s two major communities.

      Democracy is about personal and civil liberties. Any government or the group that limits them scars and shrinks the landscape of the democratic space of that society. The Indian civil society is well aware of it. However it must put together its collective energy to resist government moves curtailing our personal and civil liberties. Not doing so would force us to relive the unpleasant history.

Source : Coastal Digest

Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:14

Mangalore, January 22: Tense atmosphere prevailed in Uppinangady following a provocative speech by Rashtriya Swayamsevak sangh leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat, who threatened to attack and shoot down the Muslim youths. Mr Bhat was addressing hundreds of people who took part in Hindu Samajotsava at Chatrapati Shivaji Maidan. When the police allowed Mr Bhat to continue his speech, dozens of Muslim youth gathered at a junction near Uppinangady bus stand urged the police to stop the “fanatic terrorists”.

At this situation a verbal clash broke out between police and youths and the former resorted to mild baton charge. However, timely intervention of few Muslim leaders, who managed to send back the youths to their homes, brought the situation under control.However, the situation turned worse, when the youths returning from Samajotsava began to shout provocative slogans near bus stand. The police, once again had to resort to baton charge to disperse the mob.A few minutes later the youths from majority and minority communities confronted near Central Jum’a Masjid. However, police managed to disperse the mob.

Meanwhile, miscreants pelted stones at Juma Masjid situated behind the Government Hospital. The miscreants also threw stones at police, who rushed to the spot to disperse the mob. Subrahmanya police sub inspector Sunil Patil and two other constables got injured in the incident.There were reports of damages from various places in and around the town. Stone were pelted at a cloth shop, a mobile centre and a fancy shop in Uppinangady.

A group of provoked youths, on their way back from Samajotsava, threw stones at Masjid building at Konthur near Kadaba. Another group was stopped by police while trying to attack an elderly Muslim man near Periyadka.As per the latest reports, at least seven people have been injured in the aftermath of Samajotsava. A few among the injured have been admitted to a private hospital in Puttur.

Provocation

Mr Bhat, who was apparently trying to provoke the gathering throughout his speech, lashed out at Muslims and Christians, portraying them as traitors and enemies of Hindus.“All the Muslims here are devils. Under the pretext of peace and friendship they wage ‘love jehad’ and convert Hindu girls into Islam and sell them to foreign countries”, he said. “We should not hesitate to teach them an unforgettable lesson to these devils”, he added.He went on to claim that Muslim youths who convert Hindu girls through ‘love jehad’ would receive cash rewards. “Those Muslim youths who convert a Kashmiri girl will receive Rs 9 lakh. The reward for converting a Panjabi girl is Rs 7 lakh. Those who convert other Hindu girls will be paid Rs 5 lakh”, he said adding some vulgar jokes.

Mr Bhat also urged the Hindu youths to attack and torture their Muslim counterparts if the latter were seen talking with Hindu girls.“If we hand them over to police, the latter will allow them to go home after receiving Rs 15,000 from them. Hence, we have decided to teach an unforgettable lesson to them without handing over to the police. We know how to punish them”, he said.

“We will shoot down such Muslim youths”, he shouted.

Mr Bhat also warned the Hindu parents against sending their children to the educational institutions run by Christians. “Christians have built schools and hospitals here only with the intention of conversion and not for any noble cause”, he said. “Why do you send your children to such Christian schools instead of Hindu schools? Why should Hindu children call the Christian priests as Fathers?”, he questioned. Mr Bhat’s speech was audible across the town by fixing loud speakers in various places, in an apparent violation of a recent harmony-meet resolution to confine loud speakers only to the convention venue.

President, PUCL Comments: 

It is a pity that a rat from Kalladka is allowed to screech and scream on public platforms who has suddenly become courageous, whereas he was hiding in rat hole somewhere in an unknown place after the murder of Kalladka Ismail. Just because BJP Government which is the God child of RSS is in power. He has been provoking the feelings of minority communities and encouraging majority youth to attack the minority community.

Several cases should have been filed against this rat by the police under Section 153A, 153B and Section 295 for not only promoting enmities between communities but even causing national disintegration and serious damage to the unity of this beautiful country with so many religions, languages, cultures, colors, and seasons. by speaking about the Hindu Rashtra he is abusing the constitution of India which a secular country.

Police should have by now filed thousands of cases against this rat for his traitorous activities, adn ‘Suo-Moto’. But our IAS and IPS officers who are unfit to be even peons in their own offices regularly go to him and prostrate before him and take instructions from him. He decides the promotions and transfers of IAS and IPS officers, it is indeed a shame to the founders of this country who wanted the IAS,IPS and IFS to be a steel frame of India so that the corrupt politicians are kept within the constitution and various acts of the government.

If they are unable to face this rat which has now become a bandicoot on their honor they should resign from their services as they have taken an oath to protect the constitution at any cost.

But are they honorable men?

Source: Coastal Digest

Saturday, 21 January 2012 14:08

Mangalore, January 22: “Jesus Christ will not forgive the sin of the Mangalore Diocese, which is fooling poor Christians without any sense of shame” —  This was the reaction of a poor Christian couple, which was projected as the first beneficiary of the ‘Mangalore Diocese’s ‘philanthropic project’ of donating 160 houses to poor as part of its post-centenary silver jubilee celebrations.

“We are deeply hurt after coming to know that media projected us as the first beneficiaries of the Mangalore Diocese’s so called ‘shelter-for-poor’ project. In fact we were the first victims of the unpardonable lie and deceit of the Diocese”, said Irene Rita D’Souza, whose husband John D’Souza had received the key from Mangalore Bishop Dr Aloysius Paul D’Souza on January 16, at a formal ‘house donation function’ in the presence of media at Maroli near here.

“Neither me, nor my husband were aware that Mangalore Diocese was going to project our newly constructed house as donation, when they forcefully organized a ‘house-warming’ celebration”, said D’Souza at a press conference convened by the local unit of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties here on Saturday.

“How can the Church people call it a donation, when I had pledged my gold ornaments to construct this 400 square feet house on our own land?,” questioned Irene D’Souza, who claims herself to be an illiterate.

Irene and her husband who resided in a rented house in Kulashekara for many years, had dreamt of constructing a house of their own.

She said that she came to know about the real picture only after people began to point fingers at her.

“I felt humiliated when I was told that the house was a donation of the church. Feeling robbed of my self-respect, I immediately returned Rs 50,000 to Fr Valerian Pinto in Kulashekara church,” she said.

She also said that she wanted to return the loan of Rs 1 lakh too at a public function in front of the media. “Let Mangalore Diocese organize a function to take back their loan and remove the plaque with the engraving that the house is a donation of Mangalore diocese,” she said.

She also criticised the double standard of the priests. “They preach in the Church that when you do alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does. But the same priests projected the house constructed with my own money and with the help of loans, as their donation”, she lamented.

PUCL State President PB D’sa said the family’s plight was just a tip of the iceberg when it comes to the blunders of the Mangalore Diocese. He predicted that there would be a repeat of such incidents as diocese completes 160 houses.

President, PUCL Comments:

This is a huge Fraud played by the “Cassock wearing Wolves in Sheep’s Garb”. When 50% of Mangalore belongs to Mangalore Diocese occupied by their Mulgeni tenants of the diocese, which Bishop is administrating as the trustee for the benefit of the laity or the final beneficiaries. Is there any need to collect further money from the laity and build small dungeons unfit for even pigs to live?

The entire Christian communities specially the Mulgeni holders who are numbering around 4 Lakhs (Subject to corrections) will benefit immensely and become the most prosperous community in South India, forget about only in Mangalore. I have personally and on behalf of several organizations demanded from the Bishop this for the last 15 years and he has arrogantly told me that it is his property and I have no right to demand this. Simply because he is a Bishop he does not become the owner of the diocesan properties. The entire laity’s numbering 98% of Christian Population are the co-owners of this land. But unfortunately the Bishop Who calls himself the most religious and charitable man is trading with the land belonging to somebody else and committing a serious offence of breach of trust and cheating a huge fraud on the public. Bishop requires to be put “Behind the Bars” for this offence for collecting 33.33% of the amount on the land and swallowing the same without showing any account of this.160 houses for poor is a mere drama under the pretext of this scheme Walter D’Mello and Denis Moras two collaborators with the Bishop have gone to the Middle east and collected about 18 crores. What has happened to this amount? The so called first house is handed over by the Bishop was another public fraud. About this there was a press conference addressed by me and the office bearers of united Christian Association on 22 January. I would request Daijiworld and Mangalorean.com and other media to give proper publicity to our Press Conference.

 I have fought for press freedom and the let the press be true to their profession.

Comment 2:

I congratulate coastal digest management for upholding press freedom and projecting the problems of the least and the last who have been pushed to the wall. As against this we have one or two websites belonging to Christians who have repeatedly blacked out the genuine news released to them by PUCL and Christian Reforms Foundation. Just because the rich and powerful can affect their business they behave like Rats in Front of These rich and powerful people who have actually become rich by dubious activities and criminal methods.

“Birds of the same feather flock together”

As a social activists i have released a true fact finding report about the mischief and fraud played by the Bishop and his followers in two cases, But these websites have given credence to the false news of the Bishop and their Gang and the true revealed by us does not find any place anywhere in their pages. 

“Rats will remain Rats”, you cannot turn them into Lions.