On Saturday (January 22), the Madras High Court directed the police to investigate the circumstances that led to the suicide of 17-year-old girl M Lavanya in Thanjavur and stop harassing the man, who had recorded the victim’s dying declaration. The girl had committed suicide alleging that she was being harassed by her missionary school for not converting to Christianity.
As per reports, the matter came up before a Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan. During the hearing, the girl’s father S Muruganantham informed the court that the cops were trying to implicate the man, who had recorded the dying declaration of the class 12 student, for revealing the identity of the minor girl. He also demanded a CB-CID investigation into the death of his daughter.
S Muruganantham pointed out that the Thanjavur police was trying to protect the perpetrators who had tortured his daughter to convert to Christianity. In his petition, he highlighted how the minor girl was made to clean toilets, utensils and cook food by hostel warden Sagayamary for refusing to give in to their demands.
The Madras High Court passed an interim order restraining the police from harassing the man. The court directed the cops to ‘conduct themselves appropriately’ after the girl’s father approached had submitted before it. The Court had also asked the Thanjavur principal district judge to record the statement of the girl’s father and mother on Sunday (January 23) under Section 164 of the CRPC. It directed the judge to submit a sealed copy of their statement to the High Court in a sealed cover.
It must be mentioned that the court had directed officials on Friday (January 21) to conduct a post-mortem and videotape the medical procedure. The Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the autopsy was performed by 2 doctors at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Given that there was no indication of ‘foul play’, the Madras High Court directed that the victim’s body be handed over to the family for performing the last rights.
The Background of the Thanjavur suicide case
OpIndia had earlier reported how a student of standard 12th in Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School in Thirukattupali in Thanjavur in Tamilnadu was coerced into converting to Christianity. As she had refused to accept Christianity, the school authorities had prevented her from leaving the hostel during the Pongal holidays, and instead forced her to clean the entire premises including toilets. Due to the constant harassment, the 17-year-old took her life by consuming pesticides used in the school garden.
A video of the victim’s call for help was published on social media where she was seen in an unconscious situation talking about her torture. The video, originally in Tamil (translated by The Commune) said, “They (school) had asked my parents in my presence if they can convert me to Christianity and help her for further studies. Since I didn’t accept, they kept scolding me.” She had named one Rachael Mary, who allegedly tortured her.
While taking cognisance of the incident, Hindu organisations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Hindu Munnani and political outfit Indu Makkal Katchi had raised voices demanding justice for the girl and preventing predatory proselytization of Hindus.
On Sunday, Punjab police filed an FIR against Mohammad Mustafa, former DGP and advisor to Punjab Congress head Navjot Singh Sidhu, after a video surfaced online in which he can be heard threatening Hindus with severe consequences if they organize their events near his events. Mustafa had issued the threat to Hindus on January 20, Thursday.
Inspector Karamveer Singh, SHO city, Malerkotla, has filed a complaint in this instance. Mustafa has been charged for fostering community hostility under Section 153-A of the IPC and also under section 125 of the Representation of People Act. According to reports, the EC has taken note of the incident and has requested police to take action.
FIR lodged against Punjab Congress chief Navjot Singh Sidhu’s advisor Mohammad Mustafa.
“After getting information about viral video, our SHO has registered the FIR. We would ask Mohammad Mustafa also to submit his reply during our investigations” Malerkotla SSP Ravjot Grewal said.
Mustafa, on the other hand, denied targeting any particular group, claiming that the issue was with the AAP members who attempted to interrupt his event in Malerkotla town. Jamil Ur Rehman, the AAP candidate, denied the charges, saying Mustafa had a tendency of using the communal cards. He claimed the AAP public meeting was set for late Thursday evening at Baghwala Mohalla near Sirhindi gate in Malerkotla, and Mustafa intended to assemble a gathering nearby and tried to disrupt the AAP event.
Mustafa took to Twitter and wrote, “THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO HINDU-MUSLIM CONTEXT TO WHAT HAPPENED IN MALERKOTLA TO WHICH THE QUOTED VIDEO CLIP RELATES. IT WAS A VERBAL OUTBURST UNILATERALLY MISCHIEVOUSLY PROVOKED BY JHADUWALAS, ALL MUSLIMS.”
THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO HINDU-MUSLIM CONTEXT TO WHAT HAPPENED IN MALERKOTLA TO WHICH THE QUOTED VIDEO CLIP RELATES. IT WAS A VERBAL OUTBURST UNILATERALLY MISCHIEVOUSLY PROVOKED BY JHADUWALAS, ALL MUSLIMS. 2\N
Mohammad Mustafa, the former Punjab DG Police, delivered the hate speech in the aftermath of a verbal confrontation between supporters of Congress candidate Razia Sultana and AAP candidate Jamil-ur-Rehman. Tensions arose when AAP and Congress stages were put up in the same lane within 20-25 feet at Baghwala Mohalla, near Sirhindi Gate, and both programs were planned to take place at the same time on January 20 (Thursday) evening. Mustafa had threatened AAP workers and announced that he would not allow them to organize any meeting near his meetings.
Razia Sultana, the Congress candidate for the Malerkotla seat in the Punjab Legislative Assembly, is married to Mohammad Mustafa. Mustafa is also a former DGP of Punjab. Punjab Congress chairman Navjot Singh Sidhu had selected retired IPS officer Mohammad Mustafa as his primary strategic adviser in August of last year.
BJP national spokeswoman Shazia Ilmi, who shared the video, accused Sidhu’s aide of attempting to encourage violence and disrupt communal peace by making offensive statements before the Punjab assembly elections.
There has been another clash between TMC workers and BJP workers in Manikpur near Bhatpara of the North 24 Pragana district of West Bengal. TMC workers allegedly attacked BJP MP Arjun Singh’s vehicle and vandalized it when he was distributing masks and sanitisers among BJP workers.
Arjun Singh represents Barrackpore Lok Sabha constituency in the parliament. He had arrived there to pay tributes to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose on his 125th birth anniversary. He has alleged that when he arrived at the place, TMC workers started creating a ruckus, following which a clash emerged between BJP workers and TMC workers. During this heated fight, TMC workers have allegedly attacked the MP and vandalized his vehicle. Goons vandalizing the vehicles are seen in the videos that went viral. Reportedly, Arjun Singh is safe. This incident happened on 22nd January 2022 in the evening.
On 23rd January 2022 in the morning, a video of another similar incident has also appeared on social media in which a few political party workers are seen making a ruckus. The situation was so heated up that police and other security personnel present on the spot were seen pointing guns towards them. However, TMC has not yet come up with its take on any of both incidents.
— MANOGYA LOIWAL मनोज्ञा लोईवाल (@manogyaloiwal) January 23, 2022
Local supporters and cadre of both parties were involved in the fight. As soon as the clash escalated local police and officers from the local administration rushed to the spot. A rapid action force was employed from West Bengal police.
This is not the first time when the BJP MP Arjun Singh has been attacked by TMC workers. He has been the target ever since the BJP has increased its presence in West Bengal in the last few years. Before the 2019 general elections, amidst the campaigning for and even after the 2021 West Bengal assembly elections, Arjun Singh and BJPJ workers were attacked by the TMC workers. Incidences of pelting stones on the vehicles and vandalizing them have been a common thing. In one of the attacks on Arjun Singh, 3 bombs were hurled near his house.
The Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in Delhi, also known as the Taiwanese Embassy, has announced that the Taiwan govt has decided to open up its National archives to study and rediscover the legacy of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose. While speaking at the 125th Birthday Celebration of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose organised by FICCI on Saturday, deputy representative Mumin Chen urged Indian researchers and historians to study information about Netaji and also his legacy which has had a huge influence over Taiwan in the 1930s and 40s.
While speaking at the event, Chen elaborated on the link of the Indian Independence struggle and its attempts in Taiwan which was then under Japanese occupation. Speaking about the Indo-Taiwan historical connections, he mentioned, “With India and Netaji, we have historical connections” that Taiwanese did not know…In the 1940s, Chiang Kai-shek (Former President of the Republic of China) wrote about Netaji in his diary. He felt sympathy…decision to cooperate with Japanese fight for independence, is understandable.” Chiang Kai-shek who ruled Taiwan until 1975 is known for his strong resistance to Japanese forces during World War II. While it is also known that Netaji had asked Japanese help to overthrow British rule in India with the Indian National Army. Chen, while narrating incidences of Netaji on the Taiwanese soil said, “Taiwan before 1945 was a Japanese colony, that is why Netaji stepped on Taiwan in 1943, and then in 1945, he came to Taiwan for the second time.”
The Taiwanese diplomat in Delhi then urged that the National Archives and other databases of information are open for Indian scholars and historians to study. He asserted that a lot of young historians interested in studying South-East Asia and India are in Taiwan. “A lot of historical documents and evidence on Netaji, and the Indian Independence movement are in Taiwan. Right now, very few Indian scholars know about it,” he added. Mumin Chen also elaborated on the bilateral need for India and Taiwan to “re-examine and re-discover the common history of Indo-Pacific” through shared common connections.
The controversy over the suspense of Netaji’s death refuses to die down. It is known that Netaji, after the plane crash in August 1945 was taken to Army Hospital in Taipei where he breathed his last. The interesting development comes when the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi is all set to unveil the hologramic statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose at the India Gate on the occasion of his 125th Birth Anniversary.
The Delhi anti-Hindu riots that shook the capital city of India, Delhi, just as the then USA President Donald Trump was visiting, was a stark reminder of just how fragile India’s internal security is, with bloodthirsty mobs, protected by a deeply entrenched ecosystem, looking for a reason to unleash violence against Hindus. The first murder during the violence that erupted on the 23rd of February with Muslim mobs running rampage was that of Ratan Lal. Soon after him, Dilbar Negi, a young daily wager, was brutally murdered. His hands and legs were chopped off before he was burnt to death.
With the cases in the Delhi Riots being heard in several Delhi Courts, the riots have again come under the scanner. Recently, a Delhi Court convicted one Dinesh Yadav in one of the riot cases. On the other hand, on January 18th, the Delhi High Court granted bail to six persons named Mohd Tahir, Shahrukh, Mohd Faizal, Mohd Shoaib, Rashid and Parvez in the Gokulpuri murder case related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020. The bail was granted by Justice Subramonium Prasad. The six were accused of vandalism and setting Anil Sweet Corner on fire “resulting in the death of 22-year-old Dilbar Negi”.
The conviction of Dinesh Yadav, coupled with the bail granted to the murderers of Dilbar Negi, expectedly, created flutters. While the Muslim organisations and the sympathisers of the rioters were rejoicing the conviction of a Hindu man, those who truly wanted to talk about the truth of the riots rued the inconsistencies in the two judgements passed days apart.
Indian American Muslim Council, that often spreads hate against Hindus and whitewashes the crimes of Muslims, took to Twitter to almost drum up a tweet of vindication. The international campaign to paint the Delhi anti-Hindu riots as an anti-Muslim pogrom was almost complete, per them. A Hindu man had been convicted and that gave wind to their theory that it was actually the Hindus who had conspired to murder the Muslims of Delhi.
Prosecutors and witnesses on Thursday said Dinesh Yadav was part of a mob of up to 200 mostly Hindu rioters who vandalized and set fire to the house of a Muslim woman named Manori.https://t.co/ezuosBmMYv
The chargesheets filed in the Delhi Riots very clearly point towards a larger conspiracy that started to take shape as far back as 5th December 2019. The chronology of the violence makes it clear that the Muslim mobs, emboldened and well-funded, went on a rampage almost on a daily basis and per the conspiracy hatched, violence was unleashed on the 23rd of February against Hindus. However, that is now how the international propaganda played out and the conviction of Dinesh Yadav has widely been considered a vindication of that theory.
To understand why and how Dinesh Yadav was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison, the judgement by the court must be dissected.
The case in which Dinesh Yadav has been convicted pertains to a case of alleged violence from the 25th of February 2020 where a mob of Hindus had allegedly barged into the house of an old Muslim woman called Manori, stole and vandalised the house. According to the prosecutors, the woman had jumped to the adjacent building to save her life, along with a child, and was rescued by the police who had then escorted her to her relative’s house. An FIR in the case was registered on 3rd March 2020 and witnesses were examined.
The name of Dinesh Yadav had cropped up while the witnesses were being examined and he was named by not only the Muslim witnesses but also police officers who had given their eye witness testimony. On 03.08.2020, charges u/s 143/147/148/457/392/436/ 506 r/w section 149 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, a trial was held against him. 13 witnesses were examined. Dinesh Yadav had pleaded not guilty to all the charges and had said that he was being falsely implicated. It is pertinent to mention here that in a ground report by OpIndia after the sentencing of Dinesh, the family had claimed that Dinesh was being falsely implicated because they had refused to pay bribes to the Delhi police officials falsely implicating him.
In the judgement, it is specifically mentioned that Dinesh had not provided any evidence to defend himself in the court of law.
Here is the first interesting aspect of the judgement convicting Dinesh.
In the judgement, it is clearly mentioned that Manori and her family members were not present in the house when the house was vandalised and burnt.
Manori, along with her family members and witnesses based on whose testimony Dinesh has been convicted, Ashiq and Arif, all denied telling the police that their house was vandalised in their presence and asserted that since they were not present in the house, they cannot identify any of the rioters. In fact, they were declared hostile by the public prosecutor during cross-examination because the prosecutor needed to disprove the assertion that they were not present in the house when the vandalisation took place.
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
Just based on this, one can understand how the Muslim family has been changing their statement and making insinuations that don’t hold water. In an Indian Express report after the conviction of Dinesh Yadav, the statements of Manori, Ashiq and Asif almost sound as if they are saying they were present when the vandalisation took place but could not identify the rioters because they ran out in a hurry to save their lives. This is further evidenced by the fact that Manori tells Indian Express that she cannot identify the rioters because “they wore helmets”.
Indian Express report
However, in the court document, it is evident that none of the family members was there when the vandalisation took place. So how can Manori now claim that they were wearing helmets and how did Indian Express not cross-question her while speaking to her?
The court, in its wisdom, said that even though none of the witnesses had identified the rioters, it was established by their statements that their house had indeed been vandalised.
The court examined two other key witnesses – Vipin and Sanoj – both police officers. One would think that these two had at least seen Dinesh giving a threat, entering the house, vandalising, setting fire or doing something illegal at the time. If not, at least that he was in possession of some incrementing material, the buffalo or the calf that was stolen from Manori’s house or any of the articles stolen to establish his role in the crime. That, however, is not the case.
The testimony of Vipin is that he saw the mob gathered at about 11 PM on 25th February (keep in mind that Manori said that they had left their house at 4 PM itself) and identified Dinesh as a part of the mob because he knew him from before, given that he is a beat officer in the area. However, in his testimony, he admitted that there is no incriminating evidence against Dinesh. He says that he and Sanoj, the other witness, were in the area on riot control duty.
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
Let’s break this down.
Vipin and Sanoj, who were on riot control duty in the area, have deposed saying that they have zero evidence against Dinesh except for the fact that they simply saw him in the area. He did not issue threats, he did not vandalise, he was not in possession of any danda or the buffalo stolen from Manori’s house – nothing. He was just there.
The lawyer defending Dinesh Yadav argued that the testimony of Vipin and Sanoj prove the innocence of Dinesh.
The judgement says:
It was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that no active role has been attributed to the accused in the incident in question by these two witnesses which clearly indicates that the accused was only a bystander and did not share the object of the unlawful assembly. It is argued that the accused resides in the vicinity of the spot of incident and therefore, his presence on the road in the area during the riots was natural. According to the Ld. Counsel, the deposition of these two witnesses establishes the innocence of the accused and is liable to be acquitted.
The court, in its judgement convicting Dinesh Yadav admits that there is no evidence to suggest that Dinesh Yadav was involved in vandalising the house. The court says:
It is true that the perusal of the testimony of PW6 and PW7, the two eyewitnesses to the incident in question, reveals that the accused had not taken any active part in vandalizing, looting or putting on fire the house of the complainant.
However, they say that from the testimony of Vipin and Sanoj, it is “clear” that he was a part of the mob that looted, vandalised and were identifying Muslims to beat them up. Further, it says that from the testimony of the complainant, it is clear that there was indeed large scale violence and the mob was carrying lathis, therefore, the mob was an illegal one.
To break this down, the court has admitted that from all the testimonies in front of it in the case, there was no proof that Dinesh Yadav was actually involved in the violence directly but the two police officers have claimed that they saw him in the area where the mob was, and therefore, he should be held liable.
The court has therefore based its judgement on section 149 and certain other judgements of the past.
The court said:
Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had some common object, it is not necessary that a person constituting unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act. For the purpose of incurring vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC, liability of the other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact that whether the other members knew before hand that offence actually committed, was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. (see. Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 5 SCC 81).
It further stated section 149 of the IPC.
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
Essentially, the basis of the judgement convicting Dinesh Yadav was that he was seemingly a part of the mob and that he had prior knowledge that the common objective was to carry illegal activity and was a part of the mob nonetheless.
Interestingly, there is nothing in the judgement to prove that Dinesh had any knowledge of the crimes being committed or was a part of the mob per se. The police officers said they were carrying a danda but no such danda was recovered from Yadav. The lawyers had argued that he was simply in the vicinity because he lives in the same area and was a bystander.
The court has clearly “inferred” Dinesh Yadav’s motives and intentions without any direct evidence. It says that it is not impossible to collect information that proves what the motive of the individual was, but then goes on to say that the intention of the accused can be “inferred” from the circumstances.
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
The obvious question to be asked here is how the court “inferred” that Dinesh Yadav shared the common objective of the mob. In the judgement, the court makes it clear that he is being assumed guilty because he is a Hindu.
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
Court judgement that convicted Dinesh Yadav
According to this, what has the court based the conviction on?
The mob of rioters compromised of Hindus and Dinesh Yadav was also a Hindu, therefore, he must have shared the common objective of the mob.
He was a part of the mob with a wooden rod and therefore he shared the common objective, however, the wooden rod was never recovered as the police officers testified.
He did nothing to disassociate himself with the mob – nobody knows how the court reached this conclusion and how does one disassociate with a mob of 200 people. Further, who is supposed to testify that he did indeed try to disassociate or that he was a mere bystander.
The court made a conjecture saying that it does not “appear” that he was merely a bystander.
The court has convicted Dinesh Yadav because there is a testimony that he carried a wooden rod (which was never recovered) and because Muslims were singled out and their property was burnt by the crowd in the vicinity of which he was seen.
The court said:
Therefore, even though the evidence on record does not indicate that the accused had directly committed the offences involved in this case yet he is to be held guilty of all those offences which have been committed by the members of unlawful assembly for the reason that he shared the common object of other members of the assembly and knew that these offences are likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.
In the sentencing judgement, the court goes a step further and admits that the unlawful assembly was not a part of any conspiracy and that Dinesh has clean antecedents and was not involved in the violence at all.
Sentencing judgement for Dinesh Yadav
It is therefore evident that Dinesh Yadav has been convicted with paltry evidence against him, to serve a 5 year term for violence he did not commit. In fact, the most tragic part of the judgement is that guilt has been assumed on Dinesh’s part simply because he was a Hindu part of the mob that consisted of Hindu people, indulging in violence after the Muslim community had gone on a rampage unleashing violence against the Hindu community prior to this incident.
Interestingly, while giving bail to the accused in the Dilbar Negi murder case, the court had made very different observations with regards to 149 IPC based on which Dinesh Yadav has been convicted.
What the court said while granting bail to murderers of Dilbar Negi
Justice Subramonium Prasad, while granting bail to those accused in the Dilbar Negi murder case had said that the court needs to hesitate before arriving at the conclusion that every member of the unlawful assembly inhabits a common intention and that there cannot be umbrella assumption of guilty. This logic was extended to give bail to the accused in the Negi murder case, however, the same provisions were used, guilt assumed, to convict Dinesh Yadav.
It would not be a stretch of logic to say that the conviction of Dinesh Yadav appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice. In a ground report by OpIndia, the family of Yadav had said that he was being framed because they had refused to bribe officials of the Delhi Police.
Dinesh’s mother said, “The Muslim woman who made the allegation was already having a fight with the Muslim people. Those people had already taken the buffalo away. All of them have accused the Hindus, just to save themselves. News spread in our area that Muslim people are coming here to kill. Then all the people of this colony had gathered. Everyone went there to stop those Muslims so that they should not come here. Nobody even came. My son also went to see the same. My son was told that this is a fight for the community. The people of the colony called it a fight for the community. Some of them ran away and some others stood back. The names of those who stood back were taken into the case. 22 people from my colony were named in this case.”
Budha Devi further added, “We did not take help from any relative. This fight was for the society. The people of this society are not getting up. What can you do now? The behavior of the policemen was very bad. They have done all this by taking bribe from others. 4-5 lakh rupees were being demanded from our family. From where do we poor people give so much money? We could not give money.”
Coupled with the allegations mounted by the family and the loop-hole ridden judgement that convicted and sentenced Dinesh Yadav, it becomes evident that a further probe is needed in the case that has now taken away 5 years off a young Hindu man’s life.
On Saturday a video had gone viral on social media where it was alleged that Bajrang Dal activists had forcefully stopped offering of namaz in a ‘mosque’ in Mora village of Surat in Gujarat.
Soon after, former Surat city Congress councillor Aslam Cyclewala put up a post on his Facebook profile that the structure where the namaz was being offered in the Shiv Shakti society of Mora village, Surat, is a masjid/madarsa registered with the Gujarat Waqf Board.
Cyclewala, in his post said that the place where the namaz was being offered in Chauryasi Taluka’s Kantha area, near Hajira in Surat, one property in the Shiv Shakti society is registered with the Gujarat State Waqf Board as masjid/madarsa. Hence, for all Muslims, this place becomes a ‘holy place’. He said that at this ‘holy place’, the residents had gone to the Ichhapor Police Station and agreed that because of COVID protocol, only the Muslim residents of the society will be allowed to offer namaz at the location currently.
As per the post, in a meeting held on Saturday, PI, PSI and other police officials as well as other prominent residents of Mora village as well as Muslim leaders like Maulana Faiyaz Laturi, Aslam Cyclewala, Khurshid Syed, Maqdoor Rangooni and others had gathered. In one of the videos, a resident pointed out that after the COVID situation is over, the residents of the society will hold a meeting where further decision on allowing outsiders for namaz will be taken.
Earlier this month, Gandhinagar based trust, Ekta Ej Lakshya Committee wrote an application to collectors and heads of 33 districts and urged them to dissolve the state Waqf Board and said that the Board is illegally taking over private, government as well as semi-government properties by misusing the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995.
“If you were to see the amount of property owned after Indian Armed Forces and Indian Railways, Waqf Board owns the highest such properties. Till July 2020, Waqf Board owned 6,59,877 immovable properties spread over approximately 8 lakh hectares have been registered with the Board,” the letter said.
The Act does not have any provisions for Hindus to protect their property and only considers one community which is against the secular fabric of the nation, the application by the Trust said. “No law or individual is above the constitution but the Waqf Act does not consider the sentiments of non-Islamic community and discriminates against them, thereby violating the Constitution of India,” the letter further says.
The letter further states that the Board has seamless powers which has been often misused and creating problems for a common man. “This kind of illegal taking over of property is like ‘Land Jihad’ and a nationwide conspiracy and hence the partisan law should be removed and made way for a secular nation in true sense,” the letter further said.
According to sources in the know, there is a new modus operandi in rural part of Surat and surrounding areas where properties are transferred to Waqf Board.
“Waqf” means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable. This means that any property by a user can be registered with the Board and it becomes ‘waqf’ and it remains so even if the original owner of the property dies.
In the above case, as per the person in the know of things, there were some plots in the Shiv Shakti society in Mora village which were allotted to Muslim owners years ago. One of the plot had a structure constructed on it and the same was being used to offer namaz. In 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, the owner of the property registered his plot/house with the Wakq Board as madarsa/masjid.
Sources in the know of the things say that the laws of Waqf are one-sided and against the principle of natural justice. Here, anyone can declare any property as waqf property and get it registered. No one asks the neighbours or other parties if such transfer of property which could cause polarisation, communal discord is okay with them. In urban areas, people are alert and hence the Disturbed Areas Act is implemented and there is slight awareness. But in rural areas, the problem persists, the source says.
Even if there is illegal construction being carried out on the property that is registered with Waqf Board, they get the protection from the Board, said a lawyer while speaking to OpIndia.
He further said that as per provisions of the Waqf Board, one does not need anyone else’s permission to get property registered with Waqf Board. If someone writes an application, Waqf Board can take unilateral call. “Usually for transfer of immovable property, like a residential house, one would require permission of society chairperson or the committee and a due process is followed. This is usually done to make sure there are no illegal land dealings. But if your Muslim neighbour tomorrow decides his house is masjid because it is a ‘pious place’ of worship, he can get it registered to the Board and, well, you’ll be living next to a masjid,” he said.
On Thursday (January 20), Trinamool Congress leader Madan Mitra announced his decision to quit Facebook temporarily after being issued a stern warning by the party’s disciplinary committee. He was slammed by his party for his critical remarks against fellow party leaders including MP Kalyan Banerjee and Secretary General Partha Chatterjee and asked to refrain from using social media.
In a Facebook post, Mitra informed, “I have decided to leave Facebook live or Instagram posts and any kind of social media activities until June 30.”
“No, there has not been any complaint against me to Facebook authorities by anyone…No waning of my popularity. My TRP, instead, is on the rise. But I am quitting as I have been asked by the (party) higher-ups to leave Facebook for some time. I will obey the order,” said the Kamarhati MLA, who has a huge fan base on social media.”
The Background of the Case
The controversy began on January 8, 2022, when TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee suggested deferment of religious festivals and public political meetings in West Bengal by 4 weeks over rising cases of Wuhan Coronavirus. “In the coming two months everything should be stopped, be it a political programme or any festival,” he had remarked after an administrative meeting. His comments did not go down well TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee.
Kalyan Banerjee slammed Mamata Banerjee’s nephew Abhishek and pointed out that his ‘personal’ opinion ran counter to that of the party’s official stand. This prompted other TMC leaders including Madan Mitra, Kunal Ghosh and Aparupa Poddar to openly attack Kalyan Banerjee. The infighting within the party became public, thereby forcing TMC’s disciplinary committee to issue a stern warning to everyone.
TMC Secretary-General Partha Chatterjee asked party members to internally address their grievances and refrain from making public statements against fellow colleagues. “We are making it clear that if we find any leader speaking against their party colleagues in the public domain, then the disciplinary committee would be forced to take action against that particular leader,” Chatterjee had cautioned.
He further added, “It has come to our notice that party leaders are speaking out against leaders and workers both in media and social media, which is harming the party’s image among people. This is unacceptable. If anything must be said, it has to be said in party forums and not outside. I had cautioned everyone before on this. We make it clear once more: no statements are to be issued by party leaders in public domain. If anyone has to say anything, they can speak within the party any statement is made further, we will recommend the strongest possible action.”
Although the warning of the TMC’s disciplinary committee was aimed at putting an end to public bickering, Madan Mitra decided to question the working of the committee itself. While speaking to the media, the TMC leader remarked, “We are asked to share our grievances within the party. But I’ve two pertinent questions to ask- with whom and where?”
Mitra lamented, “We cannot always go to 30B Harish Chatterjee Street as it is chief minister’s residence and is under security cover. Abhishek is too busy with his various political activities, and our party office in Topsia- Trinamul Bhavan- is being demolished. None but the party president Subrata Bakshi is present in Trinamul Bhavan.”
He had earlier criticised the influx of ‘outsiders’ within the TMC fold. The Kamarhati MLA had said on January 15, “Maybe tomorrow (BJP leader) Arjun Singh will join the party and become a spokesperson.” Madan Mitra was quick to do damage control by drawing analogies between Mamata Banerjee and Mahatma Gandhi. He had also compared Abhishek Banerjee to ‘Kohinoor’ diamond.
However, after speaking out against Partha Chatterjee and the working of the TMC’s Disciplinary Committee, Madan Mitra has been directed to stay off social media.
Madan Mitra criticised for posing with influencer
The TMC leader was questioned by netizens for posting ‘inappropriate pictures’ with a social media influencer named Anwesha Ghosh. Madan Mitra had downplayed the pictures by claiming that he has a huge female fan base.
Influencer Anwesha Ghosh came live on Facebook and dismissed aspersions about her ‘relationship’ with the TMC MLA. She said that it was a common practice for people to click pictures with influential people. She also claimed to be a fan of Madan Mitra since childhood. Ghosh said that in retrospect, it was not a wise decision to post the pictures on social media.
On Saturday, January 22, a case was registered against some people in Korba district in Chhattisgarh after a video showing them taking a pledge for ‘Hindu Rashtra’ emerged. In the video, one person identified as Pramod Agrawal among others were seen taking a pledge to make India a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, which went viral on social media on Saturday. According to Police Superintendent Bhojram Patel, a case has been registered against the people owing the language used by them could disturb communal harmony.
In the video that emerged, a group of people were seen taking an oath to make India a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. They had said, “We as staunch Hindus, the residents of Bakimongra, from Korba, Chhattisgarh swear before the fire and resolve that we will develop India into a staunch Hindu nation.” It later added, “Being together, we will help our Hindu brothers on every economic, religious and social front. In our establishments, businesses and homes, we will employ only Hindu brethren. In this way, we will empower our Hindutva.” In the 1 minute 58 second video that emerged where the people were seen taking an oath to abide by the following. In the end, chants of “Jai ShreeRam“, “Jai (Hail) Hindu Suraksha Sena“, “Ram Raj ki Karo tayari, A rahehaiBhagwadhari” (The people in Saffron are coming to make way for ‘Ram Rajya’) can be seen given.
Another hate video surfaces from Chattisgarh. This time from Korba where bigots of Hindu Surksha Sena took oath to make India a Hindu Rashtra and boycott Muslims.@bhupeshbaghel Ji sakht karyawahi ki ummid hai. Ye nafrat to aapko chunav me bhi nuksan pahuchayegi.@CG_Policepic.twitter.com/BMqh747qnF
After the video emerged, several calls calling the incident a case of ‘hate speech’ were raised by Muslim social media users on Twitter. What appears predominantly according to the video, is a bunch of people as members of the ‘Hindu Suraksha Sena’ pledging to strive for ‘Hindu Rashtra’ without a direct threat to anyone. However, a case has been registered against the people by Kotwali police station under IPC section 153A for “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”. According to SHO Ramendra Singh, an FIR was registered on the complaint of local resident Sitamani Kunwar but no arrest has been made as of now.
Earlier this month, another video had emerged from Sarguja district in Chhattisgarh, where Hindu locals were seen pledging to boycott Muslims. In the video dated January 5, a man was seen leading almost 200 people in an oath banning Muslim sellers, boycotting any commercial transactions with members of the Muslim community and prohibiting the sale or lease of any land to a Muslim.
Well-known LGBTQ activist Gopi Shankar Madurai has recently survived the fourth attack in Mahabalipuram of Tamilnadu. Gopi Shankar Madurai was obstructed in the road by six goons when he was going for a post-dinner walk near his house at around 10 PM a few days ago. Gopi Shankar Madurai has claimed that these goons had some connection with the ruling party in the state – DMK and DMDK. He has said so because the vehicle in which the attackers reached there had stickers of DMK leader Y Gopalswami and other DMDK leaders.
Gopi Shankar was attacked three times before this incident. He has appealed for help to PM Modi, as he was not accompanied by the security persons despite being an endangered and active southern zone representative of the National Council for Transgender Persons which comes under the Union Ministry of Social Welfare and Justice.
Gopi Shankar Madurai has said in an interview that he was attacked while he was on his post-dinner walk near his house. The attackers in a car passing by approached him and obstructed his path. He said, “They asked me who you are and why are you walking on this road? I told him to ask his master who I am, as I saw the stickers of DMDK leader Y Gopalswami on their vehicle. In response to this, they started hurling abusive words.”
He further added, “Meanwhile I informed the protocol officer about the situation. The protocol officer alerted the patrolling vehicle nearby. The patrolling officers were also not so affirmative and they got me into the vehicle only after a heated argument.”
Gopi Shankar Madurai said “I request the government of India and especially our ministry to take serious note of this as this is the second attack in the last three weeks. Even before that, I have been attacked two times. I request PM Modi for help. He is an honest and hard-working man but unfortunately, the bureaucracy under him is not. It is us who are suffering because of this.”
Regarding security, Gopi Shankar Madurai emphasized, “Four attacks and not a single FIR has been lodged here in Mahabalipuram. You don’t provide me security the whole day, fine. Even I don’t ask for twenty-four by seven security for me. But when I am leaving my place of residence, especially when I go for fieldwork, there are unsafe conditions. Being an appointed representative of the government and the ministry looking after us, the government should think of this. Tamilnadu police respond very softly to the central home ministry when they inquire about my security status, but the reality is that I am not accompanied by any security personnel.”
Gopi Shankar Madurai is a well-known LGBTQ activist. He is also known to be a staunch supporter of Hindutva. He is credited for his contribution to making the transgender persons’ protection act 2019.
A day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that a grand statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose will be installed at India Gate on the occasion of his 125th birth anniversary, British author and journalist Tunku Varadarajan tried to tarnish the image of India’s iconic freedom fighter.
In a tweet on Saturday (January 22), he claimed, “The statue of a man who was pals with Hitler is going to sully India Gate in New Delhi.” Tunku Varadarajan insinuated that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was somehow ‘friends’ with Hitler and supposedly embodied his vicious ideology of Nazism. He suggested that the statue of such a man at India Gate would undermine the sanctity of the historical site.
Screengrab of the tweet by Tunku Varadarajan
Varadarajan then took potshots at the incumbent Modi government and also attempted to mock Subhas Chandra Bose, whose death remains a mystery to date. The British journalist further reiterated that Netaji somehow ‘consorted’ with former German dictator Adolf Hitler.
Screengrab of the tweet by Tunku Varadarajan
Vicious campaign to delegitimise Modi Government’s effort to immortalise the legacy of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
From being called a ‘flawed hero’ to a ‘Nazi sympathiser’, attempts at character assassination were made systematically after the incumbent Modi government sought to preserve the legacy of Netaji. Tunku Varadarajan is the latest entrant in the list of people who have been carrying out a sinister agenda since 2014 to malign the legacy of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. The Indian freedom fighter has earlier been dubbed as a ‘Japanese agent’ by former Supreme Court judge Marakandey Katju.
In his reply to the Motion of Thanks by President Ram Nath Kovind in Rajya Sabha last year, PM Narendra Modi referred to freedom fighter Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as the ‘First Prime Minister’ of India. Earlier, the Indian government announced that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s birth anniversary will be celebrated as ‘Parakram Diwas’ every year.
In January 2019, PM Modi had inaugurated a museum of Netaji at the Red fort. He had also renamed three islands of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands after the legendary freedom fighter. The Ross Island was renamed to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Island, Neil Island to Shahid Dweep and Havelock Island to Swaraj Dweep. A ₹75 commemorative coin was also released to mark the 75th anniversary of the first hoisting of the Tricolour by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose at Port Blair.
While speaking at the Victoria Memorial Hall last year, PM Modi had said, “I sometimes wonder how Netaji would have felt had he seen how a new and strong India is taking shape. From the LAC to LoC, the world is witnessing a strong India that was once envisioned by Netaji. India today is giving a befitting reply wherever attempts are made to challenge its sovereignty.”
What did Netaji think of the Nazi Regime?
Historical events of one era might appear contentious in another and hence they need to be analysed in their rightful context. The actions of the Indian freedom fighter therefore must be judged, keeping in mind the volatile political situation of that era. Netaji visited Germany in 1933 and was disillusioned at the discriminatory and racially biased policies of German dictator Adolf Hitler. This becomes evident from his letter to Dr Thierfelder of the Deutsche Academie in 1936.
Bose wrote, “When I first visited Germany in 1933, I had hopes that the new German nation which had risen to consciousness of its national strength & self-respect would instinctively feel deep sympathy for other nations struggling in the same direction. Today I regret that I have to return to India with the conviction that the new nationalism in Germany is not only narrow and selfish, but arrogant… The new racial philosophy which has a very weak scientific foundation stands for the glorification of the white races in general, and the German race in particular”.
The motivation behind meeting Adolf Hitler
On the 29th of January, 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose was appointed the president of Congress, having defeated Pattabhi Sitaramaiya by 1580-1377 votes. MK Gandhi, dropping all the pretence of neutrality, had then declared that Sitaramaiyya’s defeat was his defeat. The old guard and Gandhi loyalists got to work almost immediately blocking the newly-appointed President at every step.
Stifled and crippled as a notional president, Subhas Chandra Bose resigned later that year in September 1939. It became clear to him that his fight for Independence had no takers in the grand old party. Netaji thus travelled to Berlin in April 1941. “The prime idea which motivated Netaji was to explore all possible means for achieving the cherished goal of India’s independence. It seems that he had adopted the concept that the ‘enemy’s enemy is your friend’. He looked at Nazi Germany solely from that perspective,” wrote Sisir K Majumdar.
In a memorandum presented to the German government in April-May of that year, Netaji wanted recognition of ‘Free Indian government in Exile’ from the government. He wanted the Germans to sign a treaty stating that The Axis Powers would ensure Indian Independence after the victory in the war. Netaji also sought the constitution of the Indian Army comprising of 50,000 soldiers and handed over the responsibility of liberated India to him.
However, the German government was wary of Netaji and were reluctant to discuss military plans with him. “His movements were under constant surveillance, his telephone was tapped, his letters were opened and censored. He seemed to be locked in an iron cage, an unbearable condition for the Springing Tiger.” Netaji did not lose hope and wanted to meet Hitler to discuss plans to advance the cause of India’s Independence.
The encounter with the German dictator finally took place at the Reich Chancellery on May 29, 1942. The meeting was rather ‘unpleasant’ during which Hitler spewed his national chauvinism and claimed that it would take 100-200 years for India to put their house in order. Netaji asked Hitler to withdraw his anti-India comments from his autobiography, ‘Mein Kampf’ or else the enemies would use it for anti-german propaganda in India.
Hitler was unmoved. Sisir K Majumdar pointed out, “It was not a meeting of two national leaders, rather it was a frosty encounter between Hitler the demon-genius and Netaji, a nationalist giant. Netaji spoke very little to his colleagues in Berlin about his unpleasant meeting with Hitler, except that it was not possible to continue a logical dialogue with him. After this episode, Netaji seemed to awaken from his illusion about Hitler.”
Netaji then used his time in Germany and the financial grant of the Fuhrer to recruit the first unit of the Indian National Army (INA). It comprised Indian prisoners of war from North Africa. The legendary freedom fighter understood the significance of sovereignty and wanted to make the Indian legion self-sufficient to fight only against the British army and not for other countries including Germany. During the 2 year period he lived in Germany, Netaji’s focus remained on using the Indian Independence Movement and not carrying out Hitler’s nefarious designs.
“In March 1945, when (Father of modern Day Myanmar) Aung San and his AFPEL had started the anti-Japanese resistance struggle, the Japanese wrote to Subhas Chandra secretly that he with his INA should now suddenly attack Aung San and his forces. Subhas Chandra bluntly refused saying that he differed with Aung San but his INA would never take up arms against freedom fighters of another country. These evidences should be enough to show what really was the attitude of the various Axis Powers towards Subhas Chandra Bose and his heroic efforts to liberate India with the help of an Indian Liberation Army. They also showed the principled and courageous stand that Subhas Chandra Bose adopted vis a vis some of the policies of the Axis Powers and how that percolated into the ranks of his most dedicated followers who, as in the case of the ten brave officers of the Indian Legion, preferred death by a Nazi firing squad to dishonour,” wrote Gautam Chattopadhyay.
MK Gandhi was pen-pals with Adolf Hitler
Several well-known political figures of that era had contacted Adolf Hitler for reasons that were insignificant as compared to Bose’s objective of achieving Indian Independence through German aid. One such personality was the ‘Father of the Nation’ aka MK Gandhi. He wrote his first letter to Hitler on July 23, 1939. Gandhi informed Fuhrer that his friends had urged been urging him to write a letter to him for the sake of humanity but had resisted until then as Gandhi felt that any letter would be an ‘impertinence’.
In his book ‘Why I Killed The Mahatma’, Koenraad Elst pointed out that this circumspection on Gandhi’s part was not bourn out of abhorrence for Hitler, but modesty. The last line of his letter where he asked for forgiveness if he erred by writing to him was also considered modesty and scruples by Elst. He also said that while this approach of Gandhi was condemned by many, and several believed that it provided Hitler with a carte blanche option, had Gandhi’s method worked, it would have stopped the deportation and genocide of Jews.
MK Gandhi’s second letter to Hitler came on the eve of Christmas (December 24, 1940). At that time, Germany and Italy controlled most of Europe, the German-Soviet pact was still in place under Churchill and Great Britain was continuing its war against Germany for the invasion of Poland in 1939.
In this letter, Gandhi explained in detail his reasons for referring to Hitler as ‘my friend’ and signing both the letters off with ‘Your Sincere Friend’. Gandhi said that the fact that he addressed Hitler as a ‘dear friend’ was no formality because he owned no foes and that his business in 33 years had been to earn the friendship of entire humanity irrespective of caste, colour, creed, religion and race. Gandhi had gone on to call that approach the ‘doctrine of universal friendship’.
Gandhi vehemently reiterated that he had no doubts about Hitler’s bravery or his commitment to his motherland. He also shunned the popular public opinion that Hitler was a ‘monster’ as described by his opponents. However, Gandhi conceded that some of Hitler’sacts and writings were monstrous, especially, to someone like him who considers the principle of universal friendship a way of life.
Understanding the missing context
Despite being pen pals with the killer of millions of Jews, Mahatma Gandhi is hailed as the ‘Father of Nation’ in India. He prominently features in the Indian currency, irrespective of denomination, and his philosophy of ‘non-violence (Ahimsa)’ is revered across the globe. This is because Mahatma Gandhi is remembered in the context of his contribution to the Indian freedom movement.
He did not condone or endorse the actions of Hitler and thus remained immune from popular criticism. But, if someone was to apply the flawed rationale of Tunku Varadarajan, all currency notes and monuments of Gandhi would have to be defaced. When historical events are analysed without context for political vendetta, it indeed sullies one’s ability to use mental faculties to the fullest.
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was vocal against the notion of Hitler’s racial superiority and abhorred the Nazi regime. But when it came to freeing his motherland from foreign occupation, he had to seek help from the then German government (which was a part of the Axis powers and fought the British). Netaji’s commitment to his nation’s Independence was supreme, and the brief association with Hitler should not be inferred as his support to the Jewish pogrom. Due to his immense contribution to the Indian freedom movement, Netaji deserves a mammoth granite statue at the India Gate.
References:
CHATTOPADHYAY, G. (1996). HOW THE AXIS POWERS VIEWED SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE AND HIS ACTIVITIES (1941-45). Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 57, 846–849. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44133418.
