CC March 1999

March 1999
Newscan

Back to Laloo in Bihar
On January 25, 23 Dalits were shot dead at Shankar Bigha in Jehanabad district, Bihar. About 100 Ranbir Sena men (a private army of the upper caste) simply shot indiscriminately at all in the village for about 25 minutes. The massacre was to avenge the killing of 11 of their members who had been gunned down by the Maoist Communist Centre earlier at Sanda and Chauram. But, that was not the end. On February 12, in Narayanpur village, also in Jehanabad district, 11 more Dalits were massacred in their sleep.

President’s rule was imposed in Bihar the very next day. The announcement was made by information and broadcast minister, Pramod Mahajan, who declared that President’s rule would end a nine–year–old regime under which 5,000 murders, 3,000 dacoities, 1,000 rapes and 2,500 kidnappings had been taking place on an average each year. However, President’s rule could not prevent the retaliatory attack that claimed 11 lives on the very second day of its imposition. Four more were killed subsequently.

The BJP revoked President’s rule on March 8, as soon as it became clear that the Rajya Sabha would not ratify the move, where the opposition is in the majority. The BJP had earlier staunchly stood by its decision to impose President’s rule in the state, with Vajpayee even threatening BJP’s allies with his resignation if they did not support the move. Though the BJP won the move in the Lok Sabha by a narrow margin of 29 votes, the decision to revoke President’s rule before putting it before the Rajya Sabha seems to indicate the move was simply a muscle flexing exercise for the BJP. Which explains why no similar moral considerations had troubled their conscience while refusing to even consider President’s rule in Gujarat despite protracted attacks on Christians.

No caste count in ‘Ambedkar Era’?
The Tumkur–based Ambedkar Yuga Samithi in Karnataka has given a call that the 21st century be declared as the ‘Ambedkar Era’. The Samithi, which aims to wipe out the caste system from society, has expressed the hope that the ‘Ambedkar Era’ will put an end "to the bondage of Dalits and other groups in bondage to all forms of atrocities, assault and discrimination". Meanwhile, the central government has decided to remove caste–wise enumeration in the next national census, which is to begin next year. Registrar general and Census Commissioner, Dr. M Vijayanunni, announced the decision on February 15. The home ministry had opposed caste–wise census this time as such a count, it felt, could create social tension in some areas. However, the ministry of social justice and empowerment had wanted the caste–wise count to stay. The move is not completely novel, as the 1941 census had also dropped the caste count. But it was reintroduced in 1951, only with respect to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in view of the reservation policy and the system of reserved constituencies. Though the dropping of caste count in the census may be construed as an egalitarian gesture, the implications are many. Why would a government drop caste count from a census while it recognises caste as a basis for educational and political privileges? It is not clear how the system of reservations will work without accurate census figures for a benchmark.

Fire: The show is on again
After three months of protest, litigation and debate, Fire finally made it back to cinema halls last month. However, it was only a partial victory for the film. Though the censor board had again passed the film without any cuts on February 13, the producer, Jhamu Sugandh, later made two ‘minor’ cuts at Thackeray’s behest, which included the deletion of the scene of a servant watching a blue film. But the more outrageous act of censorship was the deletion of the names of the two protagonists (Sita and Radha) from the entire film! Obviously the deletion of the names creates confusion for the viewers. Thackeray had stated in the second week of February that after discussing the issue with Union information and broadcasting minister, Pramod Mahajan, he had agreed that this was not the time to raise the issue of the film. But despite the go–ahead from Thackeray after the cuts, the Nasik unit of the Shiv Sena prevented the screening of the film that was to begin on February 26. Though the theatre owners had asked for protection, the police was unable to give them protection, as they were busy with the bandobast for a Shiv Sena convention taking place at the same time. Thackeray, while speaking at a public meeting at Nasik, asserted that a conspiracy was on to corrupt the minds of the younger generation through such films and called for a complete boycott of the film. Reportedly, the Sena in Nasik has now put up a large board banning the entry of women while the men are being allowed into the theatres!

North–east women’s convention
In mid–February, the first ever North–east women’s convention was organised by the All India Democratic Women’s Association. At the convention, women recounted their harrowing experiences in the region since the rise of militancy. Rama Das of the Tripura state committee of the All India Democratic Association, appealed for an end to the violence of which the worst victims had been women. Besides those women who had lost husbands or children to the militants, the tribal women of the area, she said, could no longer go to the markets, participate in meetings or functions, or pursue self–reliant activities such as cultivation of jhum and collection of firewood. Instead, they are told to have more children. This situation has greatly exacerbated the economic problems of tribal families. Further, the extremists land up at a tribal family’s doorstep at any hour of the night and demand food which has to be provided.

Freedom fighter and member of the Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army, Capt. Laxmi Sehgal, called for a strong national level women’s movement against discrimination, asserting that it was time for women to unite in order to find solutions, "as men have made a mess of things". Brinda Karat, general secretary of the organisation, attacked the Centre for having always considered the resources of the North–east as national resources yet never having taken up the problems of the region’s people as national issues. The convention has decided to ask the North–eastern Council to ensure women’s development. A delegation of women is also scheduled to meet President K.R. Narayanan in April to draw attention to the plight of women in the region and submit a memorandum of demands.

Police protection for Srikrishna–indicted
Those indicted by the Justice Srikrishna Commission report on the 1992–93 riots in Mumbai are now to get special protection from the police, the Maharashtra government has decided. The decision has made the already understaffed and overworked police force unhappy. Every time special protection for individuals is required, police personnel have to be pulled out from their routine jobs and placed on special duty. Said Retd. special inspector general of police, A.A. Khan, "Those indicted are responsible for committing riots. If they have the guts to instigate riots, they should take care of themselves." A.S. Samra, former DG, concurred, "Any person who has contributed something towards the public, should be given protection. But what have these persons who are indicted by the Srikrishna Commission done for the public? They have not contributed anything towards society. So they should arrange for their own security. Why should the government provide them security?"

Guardian status to mothers, at last
In a recent judgement by the Supreme Court, the mother was finally given equal status to that of the father in cases of guardianship. Both parents will now be treated as natural guardians of a minor child under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship (HMG) Act. Section 6 (a) of the HMG act states that, "In case of a boy or an unmarried girl (guardianship rests with) the father and after him, the mother, provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother."

Two petitions had raised the question of whether the mother could be regarded as the natural guardian of a child during the lifetime of the child’s father. The court interpreted the section to mean that the word ‘after’ did not necessarily mean after the death of the father. The mother’s right to guardianship, the court ruled, did not necessarily stand obliterated in the lifetime of the father. The court listed indifference to the matters of the minor, physical or mental inability to take care of the minor, or mutual agreement between the parents as grounds to treat the father as absent and give the mother recognition as natural guardian of the child.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice A.S. Anand, Justice M. Srinivasan and Justice U.C. Banerjee, in separate but concurrent verdicts said, "the father by reason of a dominant personality cannot be ascribed to have a preferential right over the mother in the matter of guardianship since both fall within the same category." Justice Banerjee said, "Gender equality is one of the basic principles of our constitution…and disqualification of a mother to act as a guardian during the lifetime of the father…would definitely run counter to the basic requirement of the constitutional mandate and would lead to a differentiation between male and female".