Over 2,500 refugees from Myanmar have landed right in front of the 13th century tomb of Sultan Garhi — an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) protected monument — at Rangpuri area near Vasant Kunj. ..Registered as ‘asylum-seekers’ by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), these families from Northern Rakhine state of Myanmar landed in Delhi a month ago and had camped in Vasant Vihar.”Following complaints from people in Vasant Vihar, they voluntarily shifted to another location,” said Nayana Bose, associate external relations officer, UNHCR. They started reaching the tomb from Sunday evening and trickled in till Monday too. Zia-ur-Rehman, from the group, said, “We demand a valid ‘refugee’ status. There is a meeting on May 15 (and) we plan to stay here till then.“

I decided to dig deeper and found that the JNU Students Union has got involved and is demanding that “The issue of refugees languishing on the streets of Delhi for more than a month in the summer heat has to be addressed immediately. As of now, the refugees only have an asylum status. The government and the UNHCR must grant official a refugee status to them so that they can avail their basic rights with a sense of dignity”

I also learnt that:

Over 600 Rohingya Muslim families had fled from Western Myanmar to India about two years ago… They arrived in Delhi on April 9

Just how did these 600 families turn up one fine day in the heart of New Delhi after “travelling” for over 2 years in India? No one seems to know. I then discovered (via an email from Sh Mohan Sethi) that the shift to the site at Vasant Kunj (from the UNHCR office in Vasant Vihar) happened sometime on 7th May. Subsequently an all-party meeting of the local panchayats and RWAs was called, which was also attended by the local MLA and leaders from Congress, BJP and others. It appears that the refugees had been in Vasant Vihar for at least a week before the move to Vasant Kunj (how did no one notice?). They moved to Vasant Kunj on someone’s “invitation” (Were they promised some shelter/arrangement if they moved here?). It was not clear who was providing these refugees with food, water etc.  After a lot of deliberations, the meeting concluded with a decision to wait until 15th May and see what happens after that.

The local RWAs subsequently invited a few TV channels to cover this “news” and yesterday also met CM Sheila Dikshit who assured them that the refugees will bemoved by 16th May. A few questions still remain..

• Who is ensuring, taking care of basic hygiene and sanitation needs of these 2500-odd men, women and children?
• What about their basic needs (water, food, shelter)?
• Who is making sure that the conditions do not lead to an outbreak of disease or an epidemic?
• What about security concerns?
• Is a watch being maintained at the site?
• What about the risk of vigilante action?
• What about the security risk posed by the “camp” being just a few kms away from the airport?
• What about the risk to safety and security of local residents?

Now, a little bit more about who exactly are these refugees and why did they move out of Myanmar / Burma? To most of us who are blissfully unaware of India’s geography and the strategic vulnerability along the entire north-eastern region of India, the presence of Burmese refugees in New Delhi might look like an oddity. Elsewhere in India, it is anything but..

…According to local media reports, about 50,000 displaced Burmese have been living in different parts of neighbouring Mizoram, bordering Myanmar and Bangladesh, and working at various shops and factories after obtaining work permits.

While the Rohingya Muslims are being pushed out from Myanmar, their increasing numbers in the sparsely populated and heavily forested north-eastern Indian states are a cause of concern. Many of the local people have turned hostile to the steadily increasing numbers. The fear is that these people will slip into the general Indian population. [source]

The situation is not confined to Mizoram..In neighbouring Tripura, the situation might soon become equally grim..

Infiltration of Myanmarese nationals to Tripura through Bangladesh has emerged as a new problem in the frontier state that is surrounded by Bangladesh on three sides. Since July 2011, 95 Myanmarese, comprising Rohingya Muslims and Buddhist tribals, have been detained in Tripura after they sneaked into the state through Bangladesh. Myanmarese nationals illegally crossing over into India has also become a major problem in Mizoram, with unofficial estimates putting the number of such infiltrators at around 40,000.

The Indian Passport Act permits Myanmarese nationals, particularly Chins and Burmese Mizos, to travel up to 16 km inside Mizoram as they have relatives on both sides. But most people travel beyond the 16-km limit and stay back causing both population and law and order problems for Mizoram.

It is not clear why Rohingya Muslims do not cross over to Bangladesh but the reasons may be economic. However, India is not alone in terms of their destination. And here is an account of some of the “discriminations” they suffer in Myanmar.

Coming back to Delhi, who might be providing these “refugees” food, shelter and such other basic necessities? This report has a clue (“Refugees claiming to be ‘Burmese’ at Delhi; Source: The Sangai Express / Ninglun Hanghal):

..The refugees numbering more than five hundred lives in small tent camps, thought(sic) the lad claimed that the number would be even more than that. They came all the way by road , train, most of them have scattered in different parts of the country Sajjid said.

He further explained that Muslim communities in Delhi support and help them and provide their basic food and water. Speaking in fluent Hindi, the lad further explained that they are applying for refugee status from UNHCR..

On asked what they would do after that , the lad explained that they would demand for basic rights and facilities to be provided under the refugees status.

But the fundamental questions remain: How and why did these “refugees” trek across thousands of kilometres to camp in New Delhi? Who was leading them? Who guided them? Who is providing for them? And what exactly does the government plan to do about it? Is it really hoping that they will simply go back if asked politely?

And how many are they? No one appears to know for sure (in keeping with the great tradition in Indian media). The HT report mentions “over 2500“; Indian Express (re. JNU students) mentions “600 families“; the E-pao report above mentions “500″ or more and this report mentions “..700 people“. Questions and more questions…

Finally, guess what – according to “The Hindu” – is the most important dimension to this situation?

The controversy over the camping of Myanmar refugees in a protected area in Delhi has several dimensions, the most important being that the land is home to a 13th Century mausoleum for Altamash’s son, the second to be built in the Indian subcontinent [source]

Truly “MerA BhArat MahAn” मेरा भारत महान !

P.S. The Rohingya (Rohingiya) Muslims are not the only refugees from Myanmar in India..There are Christian refugees too (- not that you would notice this if you simply read the news-reports; Most simply mention “refugees”).

Recommended Readings: 1 un-named leader, 1000 illegal settlers and vote-bank politics…Notes from North-East: Indigenous Cultures, Demographic Invasion and A story about British vote-banks..

Also read: Some startling stats from the eastern front…, North-East  “burning” and “India Breaking” – Read this and Weep

Update: Just came across this odd-statement from CM Sheila Dikshit:

..DDA, chief minister Sheila Dikshit on Saturday said that a way would soon be found to relocate them. “Earlier it was thought that the land belonged to Waqf Board, but it is not so. The land belongs to Delhi Development Authority (DDA),” Dikshit said.

So it is OK to encroach on Waqf land? or is it OK to encroach on Waqf land by Muslims from the Ummah? Just wondering.

* Title inspired by John Le Carre; Image courtesy: E-Pao.net

*** The Business of Filing False Civil and Criminal Cases in India by Haresh Raichura ***

The tile of this blog is somewhat unbelievable. Do I mean to say that some people in India are actually earning their income by filing false civil and criminal cases on innocent people ? My is answer is Yes.

The next question will come to your mind, If some one files a false civil or criminal case, can you not go to Higher Courts and Supreme Court to set aside such false case? My answer is “It will not help”.

Then, can you not go to Government authorities and ask them take action against person who has filed false cases against you? The answer is again No. They cannot interfere with a sub-judice matter.

Then what are your options? As I see it, the only option you have is to go to a nearby friendly lawyer and engage him, and contest the suit or complaint on merit. And it will take many many year. You are stuck up in a system even if you may have done nothing wrong.

Unbelievable, isn’t it?

But at the end of this article, if you agree with me, I think is your duty also to see if there is anything which you can do to  improve this system.

Four Incidents which indicate that something is wrong

One.
In 1982, when I had just joined District Court Bar at Junagadh, in Gujarat, I saw a litigant who was daily coming to court. We met. Over a cup of tea, I asked him what he was doing for his living?
He said, every year he files one or two false cases on someone’s property and he will obtain stay preventing him to do construction.
He said,  ”I will file some false deeds to claim my ownership. Other side will file appeal to higher courts. Higher Courts will dismiss his appeal on two grounds. First, Higher Courts normally cannot interfere in interim orders. Second, whether documents produced by me are false or not can only be seen after evidence and trial has gone. It will take years.”
One day, the innocent person will offer him money for withdrawing case.He will take money, will withdraw case and the stay will be vacated and the innocent man will become free.
This is how he used to earn his living.
Two.
In 1989, when I have just shifted to Supreme Court, some one called me from Gujarat.
He said that he has heard that a False Rape cases can be filed in Delhi and Jammu against any person living anywhere in India. He said that he has heard that “Hired Complainant” and “Hired Witnesses” are also available at these places.
He said that he wanted to file a Rape Case against a person in Gujarat who is not paying him his due money. He said that he also wanted a non-bailable warrant against this person in Gujarat.
I replied that I do not do this type of cases and disconnected his phone. Thereafter he never called.
Three.
Two persons were living in Canada. They had some money dispute. Though they both lived in Canada,a criminal case was filed in Delhi Court purported to have been signed by one of them and summonses were served to other person in Canada.
The other person who was innocent, contacted me and engaged me.
I said this is a serious matter. Even if the complaint is false, we may not get much relief from court at this stage. I asked him to write 700 letters to all members of Parliament of India and Prime Minister and Law Minister about how false cases in India are filed against Indian living aboard.
He followed my advice and posted all the letters by Registered Post from Canada. Consider the postal expanses he may have incurred. No one replied. After some time a letter came from Law Ministry which was nothing more than a mere acknowledgement of his letter. It was understandable. Our Judiciary is independent. Neither Prime Minister, Nor Law Minister, Nor any Member of Parliament can interfere in a pending case, even if it may be pending in the Magistrate Court.
Then I moved High Court and Supreme Court to quash the complaint and to stay the trial. I failed at both places.
Because present law says that, “A criminal complaint containing serious allegation cannot be quashed at threshold without trial. The remedy for accused (Even if he may be innocent) is to first appear before Trial Court Judge, furnish bail bonds, and then move any application for dismissal of case. Then if there is no material  allegation, innocent accused may be freed, but if allegations are such that trial must proceed, then trial will go on.
My Client in Canada felt that the laws in India are horrible and Government offices are deaf. He did not want to come even once to India to appear before Magistrate and to obtain bail and to face trial.
We were at dead end. If he doesn’t appear, Non-bailable warrant, Declaration of Absconder and Attachment of his property in India were bound to happen.
And just then, there was an happy end.
My client parted with some ransom- money, and other side advocate withdrew case.The innocent man was freed from a false criminal case.
As an advocate, I failed in this case, but my client said that I have done my best. Even today he calls me every New Year Day
Four
This is final point. This must convince you without any doubt that something is wrong with the our Laws.Some years ago, two journalists in Dahod, Gujarat, decided to draw attention of Country towards false criminal cases being filed in criminal courts.
To prove their ponit, they filed a false Criminal Case in Dahod Court.
Soon, Non Bailable Warrants were issued against the Then Chief Justice of India, One other Sitting Judge of Supreme Court, and against one Sitting Judge of Bombay High Court.
As the news of warrants against judges poured in  TV and Print Media, the Supreme Court swung into action. The warrants were stayed, Trial Court Judge suspended, inquiry ordered against Journalists who filed false complaint, the complaint was quashed, some guidelines were issued for identification of complainant,and then everything was forgotten.
The system goes on as usual. The night moves on.
Now, here comes the End of this Article.
I do not claim to be a well informed lawyer or a jurist. But as per my little knowledge, neither the Government nor Higher Judiciary have specifically addressed the issue of “How to Prevent Business of Filing False Civil and Criminal Cases against innocent citizens”. I also don’t know how can they address this issue. I accept the life as it is.

I dedicate this article to two unknown Journalists of Dohod Village, who first made this point clear by obtaining Non-Bailable Warrants against the then Chief Justice of India. Their method was unacceptable, but they did make a point.

*** End ***

Shocked, aren’t you? I was too…Once again, please spread the word about this extraordinary distortion in our justice system. While on this, you may also want to read: Forget Right to Justice; Just Do What is Right and 466 years of backlog, junk food and over reach..

In 1888, a high court in Allahabad ruled that cows are not “sacred” animals as defined in section 295 of the Indian Penal Code and Muslims could not be held accountable for slaughtering them. (1).

There are accounts from colonial times of Muslims slaughtering cows during Bakr-Id festival although there is no religious decree to support cow slaughter (In fact, the Supreme Court in Mohammad Hanif Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar in 1958 had held that the Muslims had no religious right to kill cows on Bakr-Id).  Although some argue that the cow was merely used as a symbol for mobilizing Hindu opinion by Arya Samaj and other leaders of the movement, the fact that it spread rapidly over large parts of India in a day and age where communication and travel was very difficult is indicative of the underlying strength of emotions towards this animal.

In the 1870s, cow protection movements spread rapidly in the Punjab, the North-West provinces, Awadh and Rohilkhand. Arya Samaj had a tremendous role in skillfully converting this sentiment into a national movement. The first Gaurakshini sabha (cow protection society) was established in the Punjab in 1882.(2) The movement spread rapidly all over North India and to Bengal,Bombay, Madras and other central provinces.

It has been mentioned that

Signatures, up to 350,000 in some places, were collected to demand a ban on cow sacrifice.(3)

The strong sentiment around cow-slaughter – and Mahatma Gandhi’s strong views on the matter – led to its inclusion in Constitution under Article 48 (Part IV; Directive Principles of State Policy) which states that: (the) State shall preserve and improve the breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other cows and drought cattle.

It has also been mentioned that when this issue was being debated in Parliament, many wanted a total ban on cow slaughter but this was opposed by Nehru and thus a compromise was reached by including it in terms of Directive Principles. I do not have sufficient references (also see #164) to back this up but hope to find links to debate/discussion in Constituent Assembly on this matter. However, it appears that during the debate in the Constituent Assembly at least some Muslim Members (Mr. Z.H. Lari and Syed Mohammad Saidulla?) were willing for cow slaughter prohibition to be kept as a Fundamental Right.  Regardless of the deliberations in Constituent Assembly – and since then – the cow continues to be an object of great reverence and is widely considered sacred – cutting across castes and regions in India.  Laws banning slaughter of cow and its progeny have been promulgated in almost all states in India except Paschim Banga, Kerala, Nagaland and Meghalaya (the latter two have a predominant Christian population). The ban on cow slaughter was in news last year too when the government of Karnataka passed a law that prohibiting the slaughter of buffaloes along with cow and its progeny (a law protecting the cow was already in force in Karnataka since earlier).  And as noted above, this has been in news once again prompted by a move by the government in MP to seek punishment of up to 7 years for slaughter of cow (note the punishment is not for consumption of beef but for slaughter of cow).

The  cow and bullock have a venerated place in the ancient traditions of Bharat. The cow  is referred to by various names in the Vedas including Aditi, KamaDhenu and Aghnya (that which cannot be killed). Other than its milk and by-products, a cow has numerous “economic” uses. Cow dung is known to act as an anti-septic and reportedly acts as an air purifier when burnt. It also acts as a coolant when mixed with mud and applied to walls of dwellings. There is also some evidence to suggest that the chemical composition of cow-urine may have medicinal properties (and may play a part in cancer therapy).

One of the many names of Bhagwaan ShriKrishna’s is “Gopal” (Protector of Cows).  Muhammad Ghori was apparently pardoned by Prithviraj Chauhan when he asked to be treated like a “cow” (unfortunately I don’t have full & reliable references). There are records to suggest that Akbar issued firmans prohibiting cow-slaughter to respect the sentiments of the large Hindu population during his reign. This “ban” continued during the reign Jehangir and ShahJahan. The cow may also have been one of the triggers for the uprising against the British in 1857.

Before we proceed any further, it would be instructive to read the judgement of the Supreme Court in the landmark case on this matter, Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(& Others), April, 1958 (emphasis added):

So approaching and analysing the problem, we have reached the conclusion (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down in Art. 48, (ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she- buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

Note that while the Directive Principles are unenforceable by themselves but constitutionality of laws is usually examined in the light of directive principles.  Even stronger than the 1958 ruling, is this conclusion from a (relatively) recent judgement by the Supreme Court (from 2005) in the case of State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab (emphasis added):

In the case before us, we have material in abundance justifying the need to alter the flow of judicial opinion.…Independent India, having got rid of the shackles of foreign rule, was not even 11 years old then. Since then, the Indian economy has made much headway and gained a foothold internationally. Constitutional jurisprudence has indeed changed from what it was in 1958, as pointed out earlier. Our socio-economic scenario has progressed from being gloomy to a shining one, full of hopes and expectations and determinations for present and future. Our economy is steadily moving towards prosperity in a planned way through five year plans, nine of which have been accomplished and tenth is under way. We deal with the findings in Quareshi-I seriatim.

Finding 1 :…So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, we have already noticed, while dealing with the documentary evidence available on record, that fodder shortage is not a problem so far as this state is concerned and cow progeny, the slaughtering whereof has already shown a downward trend during the recent years, can very well be fed and maintained without causing any wasteful drain on the feed requisite for active milch, breeding and draught cattle.…the documentary evidence available on record shows that beef contributes only 1.3% of the total meat consumption pattern of the Indian society. Butchers are not prohibited from slaughtering animals other than the cattle belonging to cow progeny. Consequently, only a part of their activity has been prohibited. They can continue with their activity of slaughtering other animals. Even if it results in slight inconvenience, it is liable to be ignored if the prohibition is found to be in the interest of economy and social needs of the country

Finding 3 : 47 years since, it is futile to think that meat originating from cow progeny can be the only staple food or protein diet for the poor population of the country. ‘…The real problem, facing India, is not the availability of food, staple food and protein rich diet; the real problem is its unequal distribution. The real challenge comes from the slow growth of purchasing power of the people and lack of adequate employment opportunities. ….It will, therefore, not be correct to say that poor will suffer in availing staple food and nutritional diet only because slaughter of cow progeny was prohibited.

Finding 4 :…For multiple reasons which we have stated in very many details while dealing with Question-6 in Part II of the judgment, we have found that bulls and bullocks do not become useless merely by crossing a particular age. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, apart from other evidence available, clearly conveys that cow and her progeny constitute the backbone of Indian agriculture and economy. …This Statement of Objects and Reasons tilts the balance in favour of the constitutional validity of the impugned enactment. …

In the light of the material available in abundance before us, there is no escape from the conclusion that the protection conferred by impugned enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest of Nation’s economy. Merely because it may cause ‘inconvenience’ or some ‘dislocation’ to the butchers, restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the general public.

The former must yield to the latter.…The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act No. 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vires the Constitution.

Let us now look at the “rational” or “liberal” argument against a ban on cow slaughter:

1] That Hindus ate beef in the past – as mentioned in the Vedas. The first point against this argument is the fact that there are contradictory statements within the Vedas regarding “beef eating”. Very likely, these are the result of incorrect and improper translation (e.g. see this post on Agniveer.com) and therefore cannot be relied on as being authoritative. But even if one was to assume so – for the sake of argument – this is a bad argument because not all past practices are carried over to current times (neither should they be; e.g. past practice of not dining or marrying outside the “jati”). The second (important) point to note (and ask) re. the Vedic references is: are these references really laudatory – and praiseworthy – or are “beef-eaters” looked down upon? Furthermore, most (all?) references are to the meat of the bull – not cow; and even of there were references to cow, they refer to a sterile cow; also see part II of the post on Agniveer)

2] The second “liberal” argument against a ban on cow slaughter is that the state shall not dictate what I can and cannot eat; that the only reason the state can impose its views on such matters is if you harm others in this process, or if doing so will harm the environment. A good illustration of this argument is in this post by Sanjeev Sabhlok (also FTI colleague):

If eating beef is not lethal and it doesn’t kill others, then there is no cause to interfere in the freedoms of others to eat beef.

Now substitute “eating beef” with “taking drugs” or “having multiple wives” – and you will begin to see why this argument looks somewhat shaky. Freedom cannot be absolute – and is usually circumscribed by prevailing social norms and expectations. If such expectations overwhelmingly treat the cow as an object of reverence – or if there is general social revulsion towards slaughter of a particular animal – perhaps there is case to be made for a law banning slaughter of cows?

It is obvious that cow-slaughter arouses strong emotions in people. Bear in mind that people elect a government (in a democracy) to make/propose laws and take decisions that represent the collective will of the society (in addition to maintaining their safety and security). In a democracy, laws will usually be a manifestation of how the society wishes to govern itself (including in the form of a Constitution) – and are usually based on traditions and norms. If the society and the community wishes that the slaughter of cow ought to be prohibited in a land where it has been worshiped and held sacred for millennia, is that not a good reason for having such a law? Unless public opinion change to such a degree where such a ban becomes irrelevant?

I am tempted to point out that another argument (which is sometimes) used in this discussion – along the lines of “let society decide on its own to not eat beef, if it so wishes, but governments should have no role to play in this” – would mean government should have no role in banning untouchability or demands for dowry, right?

Please note that a nuanced argument can be made supporting a ban on cow-slaughter while maintaining neutrality with regards beef consumption (this would mean – for instance – that restaurants are free to import beef and serve it to their customers).  Anyway, enough food for thoughts for now, I guess. I will stop at this point – with the caveat that my thoughts on this matter are still evolving. Therefore, happy to be challenged, contradicted and of course supported!  Comments and thoughts, welcome as always

P.S. While I am broadly supportive of the government’s bill in MP, I worry seriously about the apparent “presumption” of guilt and putting the onus on the accused to prove his or her innocence (these are also the reasons – among others – on why I worry about the Communal Violence Bill and an all-powerful “Jan Lokpal”).

References/ Supporting Documents (the three below, courtesy Wikipedia; have not been independently verified):

1. “Religious Nationalism, Hindus and Muslims in India”, Peter van der Veer, pp. 83 and 86, 91 and 92 ISBN 0520082567
2. “The Making of an Indian Metropolis, Colonial governance and public culture in Bombay”, 1890/1920, Prashant Kidambi, p. 176, ISBN 9780754656128
3. “Vishnu’s crowded temple, India since the great rebellion”, pp. 67-69, Maria Misra, 2008, Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300137217

Here is a richly linked and referenced web-page on the history and background to this question and the matter of cow slaughter

Here is an unusual case for eating beef – from a Hindu perspective and a case for cow slaughter – from an economic perspective (this also has an excerpt that suggests Swami Vivekananda reportedly favoured beef-consumption).

Surprising Find of the Day: the following quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi (December 1927):

As for me, not even to win Swaraj, will I renounce my principle of cow protection.

Related Posts: If Muslims revered cattle – excerpt and  Of “Sacred Bulls”, Divinity & Development

Also see: This is funny.. and the Deoband fatwa on “beef-eating”

P.P.S. I was not aware that certain types of meat consumption is banned in Australia (so I guess Hindus are the not the only ones who are irrational!):

RSPCA Australia believes the consumption of cat and dog meat should be expressly prohibited in statute. Cats and dogs hold a specific place in Australian society as companion animals. Eating cats and dogs is therefore offensive to mainstream Australian cultural values. RSPCA Australia believes that state governments should follow the lead of South Australia and create specific offences for eating cats and dogs...

Additional (suggested) Readings: Eating less meat may help save the planet and Eating red meat may be really bad for you..

…in which a High Court with 466 years of backlog of cases will now also monitor sale of “junk food” near schools and other educational institutes, potentially worsening (and adding several more years to) an already creaking system.

Sigh.

Related Post: Forget Right to Justice; Just Do What is Right and Do we Really Need a Jan LokPal?

Dumb Headline of the Day: Do women really realize how harmful junk food is? Image Courtesy: Wikipedia

Her “Open Letter” is a refreshing change (and very welcome development) in the current high-on-decibels and low-on-reason atmosphere and cacaphony of protests and agitations against development and related issues (including land acquisition). Please do read and share widely.

*** Excerpts from the “Open Letter” (emphasis added) ***

Arundhati, I’m sorry to have to write a critical letter to you. I very much liked The God of Small Things. I also appreciated your intervention on the nuclear issue…

I can understand the urgency you feel for the people of the valley and the victims of misguided development projects everywhere, but I feel that you’re missing many things.

…The first time I even heard of the Narmada dams was around 1984. ..A little after that, in 1986, many of the same activists of the Shramik Sanghatana and SMD organised an “Adivasi-Forest Conference” in Shahada. I had come to Dhule to help in rallying support among the social and political activists of the district.This was just after Medha had made her first visit to the district. She had crossed the Narmada with Achyut Yagnik of Ahmedabad; their boat had capsized but somehow they had made their way down through the district, stopping off at Shahada to meet Shramik Sanghatana people the main organisation of adivasi toilers in the region-and then coming to Dhule where she formeda support organisation. All this was fine. There were only two critical questions raised. One was mine: Medha at that time was following the guidelines of the World Bank in demanding justice for evictees, and these guidelines identified only male heads of families as eligible for alternative land. We were at the time already starting to raise the question of land for women, and I felt it was too bad that the landlessness of women was being neglected in the process of rehabilitation and building anew.
But that was minor. Looking back, probably a more important negative reaction came from Waharu Sonavane, at that time the leading young adivasi activist of Shramik Sanghatana. Waharu had been in the movement since 1971-72, working with Ambarsingh Maharaj, a truly unique indigenous leader and with the Shramik Sanghatana and Shramik Mukti Dal, a Maharashtra-wide organisation of Marxist activists. Waharu is a poet and an intellectual though he has never had the opportunity to learn English, and I will quote for you a few lines of one of his poems.. It is given as a title the English word (a word that also has come in Marathi) “Stage”.

We did not go on to the stage, neither were we called.

We were shown our places, told to sit.

But they, sitting on the stage, went on telling us of our sorrows, our sorrows remained ours, they never became theirs.

There is more but that is the main point. ..More recently also it was Waharu who raised the question to Sanjay Sanghvi (sic) of the NBA, “Why is it that there is no top ranking adivasi leadership in the NBA?” This was at a seminar organised by the Pune University Women’s Studies Centre. Sanjay could not answer except to say “But all our village leaders are adivasis.”

…There were and are real questions about the way in which the leadership of the NBA relates to and “represents”, uses, its adivasi and non-adivasi farmer following. One of these has to do with an area you should be an expert in : words.
Why the term “tribal”? I know, nearly every English speaker in India, apparently including supporters and activists of the NBA, uses “tribal” for adivasis when speaking in English. (In Indian languages all now use “adivasi” or some equivalent). But, though established now, the term “tribal” is an insulting and demeaning word, inaccurate even from a social-scientific point of view; and I don’t know of any group of indigenous people the world over who would accept it for themselves. (I won’t here go into the debate about whether or not “adivasis” should be called “indigenous people.”)
The only reason it survives in India is that because of the abysmal state of education in general among adivasis and even worse state of English education, there is no one really in a position to protest. Otherwise there would be massive objections, just as Dalits have thrown out the term “harijan.” Those classified as “scheduled tribe” in northeast India – people like Mr. Sangma made clear long ago their feelings about being called “hill tribes”. The fact “tribal” is still a widely used word in English, I think, has something to do with the way people are a little careless about the identities and real feelings of those they represent. And if this includes you and the NBA, then you should think about it.
In any case, Waharu’s earliest objection was in terms of non-recognition of what they had done before; and this was very early on in the anti-Narmada movement, when there was no NBA as such and Medha and others were still talking mainly of rehabilitation and not of total opposition to big dams as such. But the tendency of not recognising the work of others, or really being willing to admit that there has been a history of struggles, has remained.

…In Maharashtra the largest “peoples’ organisation” or alliance working on rehabilitation issues is the Maharashtra Rajya Dharangrast va Prakalgrast Shetkari Parishad (Maharashtra State Conference of Dam and Project Affected Farmers), which has been working since the 1970s. It has been a broad platfor…These have nearly all been involved on issues or irrigation and water as well as problems of dam evictees.

People in these organisations were concerned about the social justice of dams and the sustainable use of water from very early. But they never opposed dams as such. The main slogan of the people involved in their struggles was “first rehabilitation, then the dam”. Later this was linked to “equal water distribution” the demand that irrigation projects should be restructured to provide water to every family in every village in a watershed area. Movements are going on for this, for example in regard to the Krishna Valley dams.

…Why does anybody need “big dams” or “big irrigation projects”? Arundhati, there is a very simple issue here that urban people – I hope this doesn’t sound too sarcastic – find hard to understand. Water is needed, not only for drinking, but for agriculture….You cannot grow crops without water, and when there is only 500mm of water per year – this is true of three-fourths of the Krishna valley area in Maharashtra and of much of Gujarat including Saurashtra and Kutch – then some external water, provided by canals, is necessary to supplement rainfall.

…You say that the thousands of dams built in India since independence have simply led to eviction on one hand and waterlogging on the other, but this is not true. So many farmers have benefited from irrigation water, and millions who have not can see this, and want such benefits also. Our arguments are not against big irrigation projects as such, but against badly conceived ones; big projects can be sustainable and work in a decentralised manner.

…In any case, most of those who stand to lose their lands for dam projects are farmers, whether adivasis or non-adivasis, who understand the need of water for agriculture. Their refusal to be victims of development does not mean an opposition to development; they would like a share in it; they would like it to be just and sustainable.

…I ask myself, what kind of movement is this, what kind of movement is the NBA? Whose movement is it, anyway?

…That requires a few comments about the question of development. You are, like many urbanites and many people in Europe and North America who buy food from the market every day, very pessimistic and even antagonistic to the idea of Indian farmers getting into “commercialised agriculture”.

…Economists have even argued that the average wage for agricultural and basic manual labourers at the time of the Arthashastra represented the same in money terms as the average wage during colonial times; and it has not changed very much in the 50 years of independence. That is your traditional, non-commercialised society. Do you really think the adivasis, dalits and shudra or Rajput farmers of the Narmada valley want to keep that? Are you so convinced that the thousands of dams built since independence have been an unmitigated evil? Or that the goal should not be to restructure and improve them rather than abandon them?

*** End of Excerpts ***

Read it in full here.  Related Posts: Of Kondhs, Aluminium and Vedantapur, “Kaam Aadmi” Politics – Can it work?

Also read: Obstruction As Ideology by Madhu Kishwar and the counter-response.