[Commons-Law] Protest Demonstration against events in Baroda:
Prashant Iyengar
prashantiyengar at gmail.com
Tue May 15 00:15:49 IST 2007
Hi,
Finally some good news from Vadodara. Chandramohan has been granted bail.(
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1096774)
Some other interesting links related to this story that I've come across:
*Son in the eye of Gujarat storm, parents in Andhra clueless
*<http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEA20070514063838&Page=A&Title=Southern+News+-+Andhra+Pradesh&Topic=0>
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEA20070514063838&Page=A&Title=Southern+News+-+Andhra+Pradesh&Topic=0
Niraj Jain's role in the Godhra carnage:
http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/volI/incivadodra.html ("Concerned Citizens
Tribunal" report)
http://www.jagori.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/what%20happened%20in%20gujarat.PDF
Best,
Prashant
On 5/13/07, anil gupta <anilg at sristi.org> wrote:
>
> thanks Shuddha and prashant for illuminating posts. My suggestion is
> that in addition to all the ideas that are emerging on the subject, an
> appeal by eminent artists of India may l have a wider impact because art
> can and indeed needs to be judged not by artists alone. They have a
> right to comment on the historical relevance of showing connections
> between tradition and modern as was being attempted in the exhibition.
>
> I feel very sad and hope that the wiser sense will prevail, young
> student will not get demoralized and will in fact gather greater
> fortitudinous strength from it, some of these experiences are not bad in
> the life of young artists and scholars if only to cement their
> resolutions.
>
> India is transforming and the greater freedom of expression will only
> hasten this transformation.
> I hope that the dean will be reinstated honourably and the VC will say
> sorry to him, for all that he did. May be i am naive.
>
> anil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Prashant Iyengar wrote:
> > Dear Shuddha,
> > Thanks for this extremely enlightening series of posts. What is
> > happening in Baroda is a shameful reminder of the extent to which
> > jingoistic communalism is still a regular feature of life in Gujarat.
> > Just wanted to add my tuppence on the specific charges that have been
> > made against him,
> >
> > I think the possibility of conviction under Section 153A (Promoting
> > enmity between communities to the prejudice of public tranquility) is
> > remote if one goes strictly according to its wording and the way that
> > section has been interpreted. In a recent case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v
> > State of Maharashtra (the Shivaji book case) the Supreme Court held that
> > "The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of
> > enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to
> > cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of
> > the offence under Section 153A of IPC and the prosecution has to prove
> > prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused."
> >
> > So more than merely proving the intention to paint the particular
> > image, it is the intention to cause disorder or incite people of
> > different communities to violence that must be established. Whilst I
> > don't for a moment underestimate the extent of politicisation of the
> > lower judiciary in Gujarat, I think it will take fairly complicated
> > judicial pirouettes for this charge to stick. The fact that far from
> > fighting, the two communities are united in their opposition to the
> > painting is also something I don't think can be ignored. AFAIK there
> > is no offence in the IPC of "uniting people of different communities
> > to violence against the offender".
> > As an aside, I think it would be interesting to challenge the very
> > existence of "public tranquility" which the section assumes the
> > accused has disturbed. The section does not make an offence out of an
> > innocent act committed in an atmosphere of hatred.
> >
> > On the charges under Section 295A (Deliberate/Malicious acts with
> > intent to outrage religious feelings), here is Das, J's explanation of
> > the section in RAMJI LAL MODI vs State of UP:
> > "[The Section] does not penalise any and every act of insult to or
> > attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of
> > citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or those
> > varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs
> > of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and
> > malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.
> > Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any
> > deli. berate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings
> > of that class do not come within the section. It only Punishes the
> > aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the
> > deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings
> > of that class."
> >
> > Ok, I know it is offensive to describe art as "unwitting" or
> > "careless" but within the context (wits/care to outrage religious
> > feelings), I think it is.
> >
> > Anyway.. just my somewhat hurriedly compiled thoughts.
> > Cannot be in Baroda for this demonstration. I wish Baroda was in AP.
> > Regards,
> > Prashant
> >
> > On 5/12/07, * Shuddhabrata Sengupta* <shuddha at sarai.net
> > <mailto:shuddha at sarai.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > (apologies for cross posting on Vikalp, Commons Law, Reader List
> > and CAC
> > lists)
> >
> > I have recieved a mail from Lalit Batra, about a protest
> demonstration
> > against Chandramohan's (the MSU Baroda art student) and the
> > closure of
> > exhibitions at the faculty of fine arts, MSU Baroda, and the
> > suspension
> > of faculty (Shivji Pannickar) planned for tomorrow, 12th of May, at
> 3
> > p.m. at Gujarat Bhawan, Chanakya Puri, Near Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi.
> >
> > Anyone wanting to contact Lalit Batra about this (or for more
> > information can call Lalit at 9899091413)
> >
> > I am pasting the message from members of the faculty (Bina
> > Sriniviasand
> > and Shivji Panickkar) that Lalit circulated below. Although
> > everyone on
> > this list is by now familiar with this story, this notice does have
> > details of the sections of the penal code under which Chandramohan
> is
> > being charged - Sections 153A and 114, along with Section 295. I
> would
> > urge everyone to pay attention especially to the wonderful alliance
> > between VHP activists and Christian priests in Gujarat, against the
> > freedom of expression of a student.
> >
> > Further, here are some details about the relevant sections:
> >
> > Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds
> of
> > religion, race etc, commiting acts prejudicial to the harmony of
> > the public
> >
> > According to the section whoever by words or expression promotes
> > enmity
> > between different groups of the country on the grounds of religion,
> > race, place of birth, residence, language, or any such grounds or
> > commits an act which is prejudicial to the harmony of he public is
> > culpable under the section with imprisonment which may extend to
> > three
> > years with or without fine. Further, when the offence is committed
> on
> > any religious place or any place worship the imprisonment can
> > extend to
> > 5 years with or without fine. The offence is non-bailable and even
> > cognizable (after 1898) ie. Police can arrest a person under the
> > section
> > without warrant.
> >
> >
> > Section 295: Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to
> > insult
> > the religion of any class
> >
> > Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any
> > object
> > held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby
> > insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge
> > that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction,
> > damage
> > or defilement as a insult to their religion, shall be punished with
> > imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
> two
> > years, or with fine, or with both.
> >
> > Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage
> > religious feelings
> >
> > Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious
> > feelings or
> > any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs 295A.
> > Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious
> > feelings or
> > any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
> >
> > Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the
> > religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words,
> either
> > spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or
> > otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the
> religious
> > beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
> > description for a term which may extend to three years, or with
> > fine, or
> > with both.
> >
> > Section 114 is about abetment and presence when any crime is being
> > committed.
> >
> > As a close reading of these sections would suggest, the problem
> > lies not
> > only with the act, but also with the idea of intention.
> >
> > The problem is, Chandramohan's lawyers can at best argue that his
> > actions are not evidence of his intentions. However, an artist is
> such
> > only because his actions have deliberation. Thus, to save
> > Chandramohan
> > the person from a prison sentence, his lawyers might have to
> jettison
> > Chandramohan's identity as an artist. Such an argument, given the
> > circumstances that the images in question were made for an exam of
> the
> > fine arts department, may be impossible, or at the very least,
> > difficult
> > to sustain,
> >
> > The reason that distinguishes between the scrawls made by a
> chimpanzee
> > and an abstract expressionist has to do with the idea of
> > intention. To
> > protect Chandramohan's act as an instance of un0 malicious
> > behavious, it
> > has to be freed from the matrix of artistic intention. We cannot
> > really
> > quarrel about the purport of the intention, because the onus of
> > proving
> > hurt, has to do not with the hurter, but with the hurtee.
> >
> > Hurt, is a subjective feeling, and as long as the hurt say that they
> > feel their pain, we are in no position to debate whether their pain
> or
> > humiliation is real or imagined. There cannot, in fact be,
> > imagined or
> > feigned pain, because a court is in no position to measure the
> > intensity
> > of feeling on any given issue. Thus when a person says that their
> > religious sensibilities are hurt, a court has to listen, (if the
> > injury
> > to sensibilities is mentioned as a cause of harm). Chandramohan
> cannot
> > say that he intended to cause pain. He can only say that he
> > intended to
> > cause meaning to be read into his actions. If someone says that they
> > read meaning in his actions in a manner that caused them pain,
> > there is
> > very little that Chandramohan or his lawyers can say in defence
> > against
> > such a charge
> >
> > The only thing that can be debated is the question of whether or not
> > there was 'intention'in the first place. As an artist, Chandramohan
> > cannot run away from intention.
> >
> > Therefore the only recourse that anyone wishing to protect the
> freedom
> > of speech in this case is to subject the law itself to criticism,
> > not to
> > speculate about whether it's application in this case is an
> > instance of
> > its misreading.
> >
> > This means arguing for a straightforward assault on sections 153 and
> > 295. The only way that an artist or a writer's freedom of speech
> > can be
> > protected against religious zealots is through a complete and total
> > repeal of sections 153 and 295.
> >
> > Having said that, arguing for these provisions to be struck down
> also
> > means accepting the right of the Hindutva forces to insult and
> > (through
> > speech acts, signs, and visual representations) humiliate and attack
> > people of other religions and convictions.
> >
> > I have no problem with that, but many who will rightly condemn the
> > freedom of Chandramohan to act as he has done, will also call for
> > bans
> > on the 'hate speech' of those who have moved the machinery of law
> and
> > order against him.
> >
> > Let it be understood that to do that will only invite further
> assaults
> > on the freedom of art students like Chandramohan in the future.
> > Meanwhile, I would urge everyone to attend as many meetings and
> > protests, as possible on this issue, and make people aware of the
> > draconian nature of sections 153 and 295.
> >
> > best
> >
> > Shuddha
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > You are all aware of the latest Sangh Parivar
> > offensive against the
> > democratic rights of the students and Faculty members
> > of the well known Fine
> > Arts Faculty of Baroda, M.S.University. The Fine Arts
> > Faculty is one of the
> > best institutions within the M.S.University, which has
> > managed to retain
> > high academic standards, in the face of the general
> > academic deterioration
> > within the University.
> >
> > The recent incident of hooliganism and blatant
> > bullying unleashed by the
> > Sangh Parivar has sent shock waves all over the
> > country. It took place on
> > Wednesday, 9th May 2007, at around 3 p.m. As part of
> > the examination
> > procedure underway in the Faculty, students are
> > supposed to put up their
> > works which are to be assessed by external examiners
> > who come in from
> > outside the city for this purpose. Accordingly,
> > students had put up their
> > installations around the Faculty campus. Some of
> > these installations,
> > (graphic prints) by Chandra Mohan attracted the wrath
> > of the BJP leader
> > Neeraj Jain, who barged into the campus with a bunch
> > of goons and started
> > disrupting the atmosphere, using abusive language and
> > mouthing threats.
> > They roughed up the Chandra Mohan and accused him of
> > offending their
> > religious sentiments, saying that he had portrayed
> > Durga Mata in an obscene
> > way. Not by any stretch of imagination did the prints
> > actually portray any
> > goddess. Under the leadership of Neeraj Jain (who had
> > incidentally played a
> > very dubious role in the May 2006 riots that followed
> > the demolition of a
> > 200 year old dargah in the heart of the city), and
> > with the police in tow,
> > they took Chandra Mohan and a friend of his away to
> > the Sayajiganj police
> > station. Shivji Panickkar, the acting Dean of the
> > Fine Arts Faculty, was
> > also threatened with dire consequences by Neeraj Jain
> > and his goons.
> > Chandra Mohan's friend was released later, but he was
> > himself charged under
> > sections 153 and 114. Later, on 10th May, when the
> > bail application came up
> > for hearing, two more charges were slapped on him,
> > namely, Section 295 A and
> > 295 B, and he was taken under judicial custody, and
> > moved to the Central
> > Jail. By now, Christian fundamentalists had joined
> > hands with the
> > Hindutvavadis. Alongwith the VHP and BJP crowds,
> > reportedly, there were at
> > least 40 priests in the court when Chandra Mohan's
> > bail application came up
> > for hearing. The priests were objecting to some
> > painting to do with a
> > cross - which, they thought offended their religious
> > feelings.
> >
> > In the meantime, Shivji Panickkar met the Vice
> > Chancellor, who basically,
> > wanted him to make a statement that was nothing short
> > of an apology for
> > putting up offensive installations. Panickkar refused
> > to do so. After
> > this, the students submitted a statement expressing
> > thier concern over such
> > tactics, and with a set of their demands, which
> > included police bandobast
> > for the Faculty. Reportedly, Neeraj Jain barged into
> > the Vice Chancellor's
> > office on the same day, and threatened that he would
> > make sure that the
> > entire city would shut down if a single case is
> > registered against him.
> >
> > As of now, all efforts are on to get Chandra Mohan
> > released.
> >
> > However, what is of grave concern in this entire
> > unfolding of events is the
> > fascist agendas that underly the actions of the likes
> > of Neeraj Jain.
> > Citizenship and democratic rights face a grave crisis
> > in the State of
> > Gujarat and elsewhere. The nexus between the police
> > and elements of the
> > Sangh Parivar is so clearly established (it has been
> > so since 2002) and it
> > is also clear that fascist tactics affect everybody.
> > In this instance, it
> > is not only a matter for the artist community to
> > agitate about. It is for
> > ALL of us to sit up and take notice of what is going
> > on in the name of
> > religion. If we do not counter these tactics NOW, we
> > are all going to be
> > crushed sooner or later, either in our work arenas or
> > within the confines of
> > our homes. The dangers of giving in to or being cowed
> > down by these forces
> > cannot be underestimated.
> >
> > THE FACULTY OF FINE ARTS HAS PLANNED A LARGE
> > DEMONSTRATION FOR 14TH MAY
> > 2007, MONDAY WHERE ARTISTS, LAWYERS, DOCTORS, ORDINARY
> > CITIZENS FROM ALL
> > OVER THE COUNTRY WILL GET TOGETHER IN PROTEST AGAINST
> > SUCH GAGGING OF
> > EXPRESSION AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS. PLEASE
> > DO COME FOR THE
> > DEMONSTRATION, AND MOTIVATE OTHERS TO JOIN IT. THE
> > TIME TO ACT IS UPON US,
> > WE CANNOT ABDICATE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS SOCIETY,
> > OURSELVES AND THE
> > YOUNGER GENERATIONS.
> >
> > VENUE: FINE ARTS FACULTY, M.S.UNIVERSITY , FATEHGANJ,
> > BARODA
> > TIME: 2 PM ONWARDS
> >
> > CONTACT PHONE NUMBERS:
> > BINA SRINIVASAN: 9879377280
> > SHIVJI PANICKKAR: 9898403097
> >
> > Best
> > Bina
> >
> > PS: pls. circulate this email to as many people as
> > possible. Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the
> > answer. Try it
> > now.
> > http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foil-l mailing list
> > Foil-l at insaf.net <mailto:Foil-l at insaf.net>
> > http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/foil-l_insaf.net
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > commons-law mailing list
> > commons-law at sarai.net <mailto:commons-law at sarai.net>
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > commons-law mailing list
> > commons-law at sarai.net
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
> >
>
> --
> Prof. Anil K Gupta
> Professor, Indian Institute of Management
> Ahmedabad 380015, India anilg at sristi.org or anilgb at gmail.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Personal Page: http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~anilg/
> SRISTI Page: http://www.sristi.org,
> GIAN Page: http://www.gian.org
> NIF : www.nifindia.org www.nif.org.in
> blog: sristi.org/anilg
> National Innovation Foundation (NIF): http://www.nifindia.org
> Phone Numbers: (0) +91 (79) 2632 4927 (o) +91 79 2630 4979 ( r),
> 2630 9973 O ), 2632 4930 ( secty); Fax Number: +91 (79) 26307341
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070515/f8d6a7ce/attachment.html
More information about the commons-law
mailing list