[sacw] SACW Dispatch #2 | 5-6 Nov. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Communalism Watch #2
5-6 November 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

____________________________

#1. India: Foreign Scholars and the Government
#2. India: Brutal Murder of Irshad by Police in Seelampur-Jffarabad
#3. India: Human rights activists term capital's police communal

____________________________

#1.

Economic and Political Weekly, 23-29 September 2000

FOREIGN SCHOLARS AND THE GOVERNMENT

by A.G Noorani

With every passing day Murli Manohar Joshi, the minister supposedly 
in charge of human resources development, has been demonstrating that 
he is in fact, minister for saffronisation of India. Very 
appropriately the Gurudakshina ceremony for RSS devotees was held at 
his residence when prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and home 
minister L K Advani paid their dues.

Whether it is the suppression of volumes in the series Toward Freedom 
or appointment to sensitive posts of old party hacks (like M L 
Sondhi, a Jan Sangh mentor in the 1960s to chairmanship of ICSSR) 
Joshi's moves fall into a pattern. A report in The Hindustan Times by 
Anuhan Bhaumik in the issue of August 4 should open the eyes of those 
who imagine that the BJP is no threat to academic freedom. Joshi's 
ministry has undertaken a nationwide exercise to enlist those 
institutions and organisations "that are of strategic importance". A 
circular has been sent to central universities and other institutions 
from the University Grants Commission to identify sensitive areas in 
different disciplines so that foreign scholars can be prevented from 
opting for them. The circular said "The Ministry of Human Resource 
Development is preparing a list of sensitive or strategic 
organisations, departments and courses for regulating the 
participation of foreign nationals from the security point of view. 
The university is requested to indicate such fields and research 
areas which could be sensitive and may require screening from the 
Ministry of Home Affairs or Ministry of External Affairs."

The ministry's guidelines clearly state that an affiliation 
certificate should not be granted to a foreign national if the topic 
of his or her research seems to be sensitive in nature. To measure 
the sensitivity of the topics, the HRD ministry broadly listed 
studies on defence or other subjects of strategic importance, 
politically sensitive themes and studies that require visit to 
bordering areas or restricted\protected places. The ministry has also 
asked the varsities not to issue affiliation certificates to those 
foreign nationals who want to research on themes that are likely to 
arouse ill-feeling or tension between different groups of citizens or 
offend the susceptibilities of any group of citizens. They should not 
be allowed to research on backward tribes and inter-communal or 
socially sensitive themes as well, the ministry's guideline stated.

To be sure, there is a certain background to this stretching to three 
decades when our. ambassador to the US, T N Kaul, made it a point of 
discouraging American scholars from coming here. Deusagar Singh 
reported in Indian Express of June 7,1985 that "even for inviting a 
foreign scholar as visiting professor universities will now be 
required to obtain prior permission of the government". He added, 
"The government of India has put new restrictions on the appointment 
of foreign nationals in Indian universities, their research programme 
and movement into sensitive areas. All the universities have been 
asked to keep a strict vigil on their activities and implement the 
guidelines of the government strictly." Further, "Appointments of 
foreign nationals could be made only in very exceptional 
circumstances after obtaining prior clearance of the government Even 
for inviting a foreign scholar as visiting professor, universities 
will now be required to obtain prior permission of the government."

Nor was this all. "In case a university proposes to organise an 
international seminar or symposium, it will have to furnish to the 
government a detailed note on the theme of the conference, level of 
participation, name of the countries and their scholars as also the 
source of funding. The government will have the right to refuse 
permission." Subjects like defence, "themes which are politically 
sensitive" and the like are barred as subjects for research. If 
foreigners come on a tourist visa they must not conduct research. 
Lastly, "foreign scholars have also been debarred from delivering any 
lecture or talk on topics of controversial nature". By these rules an 
American jurist may not speak on the Bakke case (affirmative action) 
because it would bear on the 'politically sensitive' issue of 
reservations nor on federalism for the same reasons so also on 
political financing.

The Hindu of June 24, 1999 reported more restrictions imposed by the 
BJP regime (see Banning Scholars, EPW, July 24, 1999). For facility 
of reference some extracts are reproduced here:

In a surprise move, the government has made it 'mandatory'
for all foreign nationals intending to participate in workshops
and seminars organised by voluntary organisations in the
country to take clearance from the union home ministry.
Though there is no written rule or guideline, the government
has started following this system recently setting up a new
precedent. This pertains to seminars
and workshops organised by voluntary organisations.

Also, the voluntary organisations would have to take
permission from the ministry of external affairs to organise
such a conference where there are foreign participants.
Recently, three of the international participants to the 11th
Annual Johns Hopkins International Philanthropy Fellows
Conference on Building Civil Society being organised by the
Development Support Initiative, Bangalore, from July 3-9 got
a fax that they will not be given visas."

It is a dwindling tribe, the dedicated India hands Norman D Palmer, 
Ainslie T Embree, Lloyd I and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, and Paul Brass. 
They have enriched scholarship and the lives of their students and 
friends.

Let me share with readers what Paul Brass has to say on the subject. 
I quote in extenso from his documented essay entitled "Problems of 
Research Access in India", published in a collection edited by Glen L 
Shive et al. (North-South Scholarly Exchange: Access, Equity and 
Collaboration; Mansell Publishing, London, 1988, pp 31-55). Most of 
the information Paul Brass presents in his report was derived from 
letters he had received from American scholars of India, 
predominantly social scientists and historians. Procedures for 
clearance of applications by American scholars to do field research 
in India have been in place since the 1950s. They were not unduly 
restrictive or we would not have had the solid works of scholarship 
published in the US on Indian affairs. Access was restricted after 
the Bangladesh war, Brass records. The reasons were clearly 
political. The situation improved, but the freedom of old was not 
restored.

Paul Brass was chairman of an Ad hoc Committee on Research Access of 
the American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS). His report is 
meticulously documented with a wealth of detail. These extracts 
provide a flavour of the whole report.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among respondents
that there is a problem of research access for Americans
wishing to do research in India on certain topics. The only
qualifications concern whether respondents perceive the
problem as serious, general, and widespread or not,
whether or not they consider it surmountable despite the
acknowledged difficulties, whether or not they consider the
problem more or less serious in south Asia than in other
parts of the world and whether or not we have any right to
complain about it.

The range of opinion on the matter of seriousness is
broad. Some scholars feel that we are faced now with a
more or less general pattern of obstruction of most social
science research on India such that "only the most
innocuous of themes and topics can be studied". Another
scholar remarked that "political topics have always been
touchy, but now even social and historical topics have
become sensitive, beyond all reason." Others feel that,
while there may be difficulties they can be negotiated for
virtually any project provided the proposal is phrased
"sensibly and delicately". In this view, while there are some
projects that everyone knows would be unacceptable, India
remains "quite hospitable to foreign scholars", who need
only "use a littleproved and carry them out successfully . In
between, some have remarked that while many topics are
generally known to be sensitive, "there is an element of
unpredictability" concerning whether or not individual
proposals on such topics are likely to be accepted or not.

There is a general feeling that research on the following
topics either will not be approved or is unlikely to be
approved (listed in rough order of likelihood of disapproval):
border areas; tribals, particularly in the north-east and in the
central tribal belt; religious minorities, communalism,
Hindu-Muslim relations, caste conflict, and cultural tensions
generally; 'disturbed areas', especially Punjab and Assam,
but other areas from time to time; untouchables and other
underprivileged sections; family planning and population
control; evaluation of government programmes in general;
corruption; social violence; India's military capabilities and
the Indian military in general. Although the impression is
general, it is partly false. Those of us who have been in the
field for the past two or three decades can cite exceptions,
including recent ones, for nearly all the topics mentioned.
Sometimes the exceptional cases include proposals that
explicitly focus on one of the supposedly taboo topics.
Sometimes the topics are specifically discussed within a
written proposal that has a more general theme. For
example, several scholars have done research and writing,
with the approval of the GOI, on several of the above topics
as part of research projects on local and state politics and
elections.

On the other hand, the GOI has found unacceptable many
projects that bear no relationship to any of these sensitive
topics.

Note the conspicuous effort to be fair on the part of Paul Brass. The 
situation has not improved in the decade and more since those lines 
were written. It has deteriorated and there is no knowing, what with 
M M Joshi in the HRD ministry, to what depths it will plunge. 
Involved here as argued in previous columns in this journal is the 
issue of freedom of speech and expression. That right vests in the 
Indian citizen the right to receive information and knowledge.

______

#2.

A REPORT ON THE BRUTAL MURDER OF IRSHAD BY THE POLICE IN SEELAMPUR-JFFARABAD AREA, AT DELHI ON OCTOBER 12, 2000 

BY THE JOINT STUDY TEAM 
OCTOBER 2000 NEW DELHI. 

Contact Address: 
Justice and Peace Commission 
Archdiocese of Delhi 9-10, 
Bhai Vir Singh Marg, Delhi-110001. [India]
Phone: 3734308, 3347506. 
Fax: 3747293 

"Protectors Turn Killers" 
Police torture on common man: the Irshad Murder case. 

A united people defeat police conspiracy to trigger a communal riot A five-member human rights team consisting of educators, social activists and advocates visited the Seelampur-Jaffarabad area of East Delhi on 17th October 2000 and met a cross-section of people after 26-year old owner of a shoe manufacturing unit, Mohammed Irshad by name, resident of Chauhan-Bangar, East Delhi, was brutally beaten to death by policemen in front of his four-year old son Danish, in broad daylight, which was witnessed by hundreds of local residents. This sparked off spontaneous and massive protests against the police, even stone-throwing by the local residents. 

The following is the reconstruction of the incident on the basis of eyewitness accounts and participatory statements by various individuals belonging to different communities. The incident occurred on Thursday, October 12, 2000, at about 12.45 to 1.05 p.m. It took place on one of the narrow congested lanes of Gautampuri, which is located in the trans-Yamuna area in Shahdara, Delhi. The spot of the incident is covered by Police Station Seelampur on the one side and Jaffarabad, a thickly populated residential area, on the other side. The lane where the incident occurred is so narrow that only light vehicles like rickshaw, bye-cycle, two wheeler and small cars can pass with some difficulty. Irshad was fetching his four year old son, Danish, from Walia Public School, Gautampuri , East Delhi and was on his way home. He was driving a two-wheeler. There was a collision between his scooter and a cycle rickshaw, and Danish fell from the Scooter. Irshad scolded the ricksha!
w puller and in the ensuing altercation even mutual physical assault took place. 

At this juncture four policemen appeared on the scene, three in uniform and one in civil dress. Two of the policemen, namely SI Vijay Kumar, and Constable Swatantra Kumar, belonged to Police Station Seelampur. The other two policemen who were apparently from Uttar Pradesh Police, had come in a bid for extracting money from an innocent purchaser of a disputed property, just a few yards away from the spot of incident. As the police intervened the rickshaw puller ran away. The policeman started questioning and asked for his (Irshad's) name. The moment he said Irshad, all four policemen pounced on him and started beating him mercilessly. Fahim Akhtar, the complainant in the FIR and an eye witness to the whole incident, narrates thus the whole incident of beating: "I was going to the market to buy vegetables. Realizing some fight was going on I approached the scene. I saw a policeman in uniform and another in plain clothes kicking and boxing a young man. I did not kn!
ow whether he was a Hindu or a Muslim. The person was lying on the ground. There was a little boy standing next to the young man who was crying again and again, "Papa ko mat maro". But the policemen continued to kick the young man mercilessly. Suddenly the young man got up with his bag and took his child in his lap and kissed him; but the policemen did not stop beating. They again mercilessly beat him. The young man fell down. Froth was coming from his mouth. At this moment I intervened and shouted at the policemen to leave him. When Irshard was lying down on the ground one of the policemen put his boots on his nose as if to make him smell it. Then I picked Irshad up to give him some water; hut he was already dead." 

Fahim Akhtar told the team that it is he who gave "ghosul" (bath) to Irshad and at that time he noticed the blue marks on the left and right side of the chest and at the back. Another eye-witness, Pawan Jain, a retired shop keeper, whose shop is only 10 yards from the spot of incidentand who is held in high respect in the Gautampuri locality narrated the incident thus to the team: "I was coming from my home to my shop. I saw four policemen beating a young man, who I learnt later was Irshad. Irshad fell on the ground unconscious. I rushed in and chided the police. By that time I realized that Irshad was already dead. 

Two of the policemen ran away. I shouted that the policemen are trying to run away with the dead body. A large crowd had gathered by this time. The other two policemen from the police station Seelampur were caught by the crowd. At this moment a Police Control Room Van with siren appeared on the scene and started beating the crowd. They rescued the policemen and took away the body of Irshad." Pawan Jain further informed the team that the police tried to give a Hindu-Muslim colour to the whole incident and create a riot, probably to save themselves. The people of the locality are mature enough not to fall prey into the trap of the police. The locality is strong in living in amity. Immediately after taking the dead body and the two 'killer' policemen away in the PCR Van, the local police circulated a rumour that Irshad was killed by the residents of Gautampuri, an area with majority Hindu and Jain population. 

As the rumour spread in the Muslim majority areas of Seelampur, Chauhan-Bangar and Jaffarabad, the tempers ran high and an agitated mob came to Gautampuri. There was every chance of a communal riot but it was averted by the timely intervention and untiring efforts of Master Salauddin Pehalwan and Pawan Jain and their likes from the different communities, who made the public aware that it was the police who killed Irshad not the residents of Gautampuri. According to Pawan Jain, the police of Police Station Seelampur caught hold of two boys, one a Hindu and the other a Muslim and detained them in order to implicate them in the murder of Irshad and give the entire incident a communal colour. 

But when local people of various communities intervened and protested, they had to leave the boys after noting their names and addresses. This particular action of the local police to detain the two innocent boys belonging to the two communities and give the incident a communal colour, was also corroborated by the general public and a resident of Chauhan-Bangar, Israr Hussain. Pawan Jain who knew Irshad was all praise for Irshad as a person of character and good behaviour and said everyone, irrespective of caste or creed were angry at his killing and protested and mourned his death in different ways. 

All the neighbouring markets and shops were closed for three days as was the school where Irshad's son, Danish, studies. Thousands protested at the Police Stations. Almost hundred persons from different communities gave a dharna at the Mortuary. At this juncture, Pawan Jain's analysis is worth mentioning. Police failed in their attempt to manufacture or even to instigate a communal riot. "All riots are the handiwork of the Police not the public", said Pawan Jain and also said that, "20-25 Policemen are having jungle Raj and holding the area to ransom." When the lady member of the investigating team was able to meet the female members of the bereaved family, she found the widow of Irshad (being in a family way) absolutely inconsolable and constantly weeping. The widow appeared to be very concerned about the expected child and the future of her son Danish. 

Conclusions: 
The team has reached the following conclusions: 

1. A brutalised and totally insensate police force, having a communally prejudiced mind-set, was responsible for killing Irshad in broad-daylight in front of hundreds of local residents. 

2. The family members of the deceased as well as the general public were very concerned that the police started beating him mercilessly only after knowing that his name was Irshad. This only shows how much communally prejudiced the police force has become. 

3. In order to cover up their crime, the area police made every attempt to manipulate the situation in order to trigger a communal riot. 

4. A mature, sensitive and assertive civil society was not only able to put the police in its place by their protests after the incident but also it thwarted every attempt of the police to convert the murder into a communal riot. 

5. The civil society consisting of mostly members of the minorities, downtrodden and working sections of people showed exemplary courage, unity and communal harmony in the face of every provocation. 

6. Even students and teachers of the Walia Public School of which Irshad's son Danish, is a student visibly demonstrated their empathy and solidarity cutting across barriers of caste and creed to twice hold marches having slogans like "Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai", "Delhi Police Hai Hai" and "Delhi Police Murdabad". 

7. Confronted with the list of measures taken by Delhi Police Chief Ajay Raj Sharma like removal of the local ACP of the area and SHOs of P.S. Seelampuri and P.S. Seelampur from their posts, transfer of the case to the Crime Branch and arrest and suspension of two accused cops, the local residents viewed them as face-saving and image-improvement exercises of the Delhi Police and also tacit admission of their involvement and guilt. Announcements of compensation by NHRC and promise of Rs 1 lakh relief from the Police Welfare Society left the family and friends cold, who reacted by saying that this is for the Press because they are yet to be communicated. 

The statement of the inconsolable father of the deceased, Mohd. Acchan shows their attitude: "I don't want monetary compensation. I want justice." Local residents held Irshad in high esteem and were praiseful of his conduct and behaviour. Pawan Jain's statement is symptomatic of the attitude of the local residents: "20-25 Policemen are having jungle raj and holding the area to ransom." Shopkeepers are looted by police in the name of "hafta" (extortion amount collected by the police every week.) 

All riots in the area have been the handiwork of the Police not the public, and this time a mature and united people, cutting across communal barriers, defeated the police in their nefarious designs. The curious aspect of this incident of Irshad's murder is the unexplained presence, role and escape of the two policemen from Uttar Pradesh. What were they doing in Delhi? What were they doing with the Delhi Police? East Delhi having a very porous border with Uttar Pradesh and the deteriorating law and order situation in U.P., the growing nexus between the police and the criminals on both sides of the border, needs deeper investigation. 

Demands : 
a. The main demand as articulated by the family members is "Saza-e-maut", capital punishment for the killer cops. 
b. The arrest of the other two identified policemen from U. P. Police. 
c. Job for the widow of Irshad and financial support for continuing education of his son. 
d. In a larger framework making the police accountable to the people. 
e. A total overhaul of the structure, selection, training and motivation of the Indian Police.

Team Members: Devdhas (Justice and Peace Commission) T.K John (Prof. Vidya Jyoti College) Dr. A.Ghose (Peoples rights Organisation) Mir Akhtar Hussain ( National heritage Protection Council) Mary Scaria (Justice & Peace Commission) 

November 3, 2000

______

#3.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS TERM CAPITAL'S POLICE COMMUNAL
by Kavita Bajeli-Datt, India Abroad News Service

New Delhi, Nov 3 - Five activists from separate human rights groups Friday
accused the Indian capital's police of harboring "communal prejudiced
mindsets" that had led to them thrashing a Muslim to death after a minor
squabble a fortnight ago.

"A brutalized and totally insensitive police force, having a communally
prejudiced mind-set, was responsible for killing Mohammed Irshad (the youth)
in broad daylight in front of hundreds of local residents," Mir Akhtar
Hussain, president of National Heritage Protection Council and one of the
five who formed an independent fact-finding team, told reporters.

Hussain said a total overhaul of the structure, selection, training and
motivation of the Indian police is needed.

The team was formed to probe the death of 27-year-old Irshad in the
Seelampur area of northeast Delhi on October 12. Irshad was returning home
after picking up his son from school when his scooter collided with a
three-wheeler auto rickshaw, leading to an argument between the
three-wheeler driver and Irshad.

The squabble attracted four policemen also joined in and soundly beat
Irshad, even as his son watched in horror. Irshad was later declared dead at
a nearby hospital.

"The policemen questioned Irshad and asked for his name. The moment he said
Irshad, all four policemen pounced on him and started beating him
mercilessly," the report said. "This only shows how much communally
prejudiced the police force has become," Hussain analyzed.

"The family demands that the policemen should be given the death penalty,"
Aurobindo Ghose, general secretary of Peoples' Rights Organization and
another team member, said.

"A mature, sensitive and assertive civil society was not only able to put
the police in its place by their protests after the incident but it also
thwarted every attempt of the police to convert the murder into a communal
riot," Ghosh said.

"In order to cover up their crime, the area police made every attempt to
manipulate the situation in order to trigger a communal riot," he said.

Ghosh described Delhi Police Commissioner Ajai Raj Sharma's decision to
remove two of the four erring policemen - the others are absconding - from
duty as only a "reflective measure".

"Even students and teachers of the Walia Public School, of which Irshad's
son is a student, had visibly demonstrated their empathy and solidarity by
cutting across barriers of caste and creed. They held marches raising
slogans saying Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai (Long live Hindu Muslim unity) and
Delhi Police Hai Hai (Down with the Delhi Police)," said T.K. John, team
member and school teacher.

Mary Scaria, a convener of the Justice and Peace Commission, a part of
Archdiocese of Delhi said, "I met Irshad's wife. She was inconsolable. She
was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and just wanted justice", he said.

"We are interested in justice and equality," said Dominic Emmanuel,
spokesman of Catholic Bishops' Conference of India.

______________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA COMMUNALISM WATCH (SACW) is an
informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service
run by South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex)
since 1996. Dispatch archive from 1998 can be accessed
at http://www.egroups.com/messages/act/
////////////////////////////////////