Connect with us


Senior citizens battling the Public Safety Act




The winter’s dim light exposes Haneefa Begum’s sad countenance. She is 72-years-old and her voice trembles as she makes a low, moaning sound. “Ab yahan koi nahin rehta (nobody lives here anymore),” she says as she enters her garden, leafless in December’s biting cold.
Inside the front room of her big, quaint house in Sopore town of Kashmir’s Baramulla district, one wonders what happened to the members of her family as she takes out some court papers from a folder and spreads them in front of her.
Her husband, Haji Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf, has been in jail for more than 15 months. Her elder son Altafur Rehman, a pharmacist, was gunned down by unidentified assailants in 2015 and her younger son, Abdul Rauf, a PhD student at Aligarh Muslim University, was killed, allegedly by security forces, in 2000 near Badami Bagh, a cantonment in Srinagar. “I now live with my elder son’s 36-year-old widow, two granddaughters and a grandson [who are] all schoolchildren,” says Haneefa.
Her house, silent except for the sound of her sniffling, gives no hint of its living occupants. Just as Sopore’s opulent natural surroundings give no idea of the infamous massacre of January 6, 1993 when India’s Border Security Force (BSF), following an ambush, allegedly burnt down houses and shops in this ‘apple town’, 50 kilometres northwest of Srinagar. The Indian government maintains the fire was caused by explosives stocked by militants who had attacked a BSF patrol party.
“Kaun kehta nahin Khuda ko Khuda, hamne kaha to saza payi” (Why would anyone not call God as God, [but] we were punished when we said so), says Haneefa, as she begins talking about her family. The choice of the couplet is not unwitting. It alludes to the instinctive call by Kashmiris for azadi (freedom) and describes how this call is nipped in the bud in (Indian-administered) Kashmir. For political workers affiliated with pro-freedom groups and parties, like Haneefa’s husband who is a member of the pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami, the ‘witch-hunt’ is even more intense.
Pointing to the papers on the floor, Haneefa says the Jammu and Kashmir police detained Yousuf four times under the Public Safety Act (PSA) of 1978 in the span of about a year and a half. On three occasions, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court found no tenable grounds for his detention and quashed the orders issued for his detention under the PSA.
“The police [first] came here on the night of August 8, 2016,” she recounts. They wanted her husband to accompany them but he did not want to leave her alone at night. “He went to the police station the next morning. They arrested him.”
The summer of 2016 was an extraordinary time in the Kashmir valley. After a young militant commander, Burhan Wani, was gunned down by security forces in an encounter on July 8 that year in Anantnag (locally called Islamabad), 106 kilometres south of Sopore, the whole valley rose up in anti-India protests. By winter, more than 90 civilian protesters were dead. Thousands of others were injured. Hundreds, including minors, were blinded by the indiscriminate use of pellet guns by law enforcement agencies.
In order to quell the protests, the police also targeted pro-freedom political workers of all ages, including those who were 75 years and above, allege rights group. Most of them were detained either under Section 8 (i) or Section 8 (ii) of the PSA. The former section empowers law enforcement agencies to detain people without trial for a period of three months – which can be extended for up to one year – if they are involved in any activities deemed prejudicial to public order. The latter section gives the authorities the power to detain people without trial for a period of six months – that can extend up to two years – if they are involved in any activities deemed prejudicial to the security of the state.
A district magistrate has to subjectively satisfy himself that the relevant constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled before he issues a detention order under the PSA. “[The magistrates] never follow the constitutional safeguard,” says Nasir Qadri, who offers free counsel to PSA detainees.
“I was arrested because I am a member of Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s Tehreek-e-Hurriyat,” alleges 84-year-old Shah Wali Mohammad. “Whatever they [Jammu and Kashmir police] have written in the detention order is untrue.”
He says he was arrested on September 1, 2016, when he was returning to Sopore from a village called Tujjar. “The police stopped me midway and took me to Sopore Police Station where I was kept for one week. They issued a PSA order and shifted me to Kupwara jail, alleging that I had headed a mob that pelted stones at CRPF [Central Reserve Police Force] personnel at Sopore’s main chowk,” narrates the former school teacher of Handwara Government Primary School in Zachaldara village of Kupwara district. “Can I head a mob at 84?” he asks.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court rubbished the charges against him when the matter reached its doors in February 2017.
“When the court quashed the first PSA order, he was released from one door but was re-arrested from the other door,” says Mohammad’s lawyer, Qadri. “The police told him they had arrested him on the basis of FIRs [first information reports] registered against him [for substantive offences].”
He was kept in detention at Baramulla’s district jail for 15 days. During this time, a second detention order under the PSA was issued and he was sent back to Kupwara jail.
The second detention order, according to Qadri, was in contradiction to the Supreme Court of India’s observations in 2005, 2011 and 2017, in which it said that if a person was involved in substantive offences he could not be detained under the PSA unless the police had a compelling reason to cite it. Instead, the person should be booked under the ordinary law of the land, the Ranbir Penal Code in Jammu and Kashmir, for instance, which covers criminal offences.
Qadri, therefore, contends that the second PSA order was illegal to begin with as Mohammad, having been incarcerated for months, could not have been involved in any new activities prejudicial to public order or the security of the state.
Mohammad’s case was then taken up by Engineer Rashid, an independent member of Jammu and Kashmir’s legislative assembly from Langate town in the Handwara region of Kupwara district. The legislator lobbied hard for his release. “Chief Minister [Mehbooba Mufti] was under pressure. Within three months, the high court quashed my PSA order again,” Mohammad says, smiling benignly and sipping tea prepared by his 80-year-old wife and lone companion.
Haneefa’s husband was not as fortunate. When the Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed his second PSA detention order on March 2, 2017, a third one was issued on April 17. It, too, was quashed on September 26, but police slapped a fourth one on October 21. “The police acts with barefaced audacity,” she says.
The ailing woman, who has been bedridden for three months due to thyroid and renal disorders, alleges that her husband has been targeted because he is a political worker. “Why else would they go after a 77-year-old?” She recalls how a judge was embarrassed to see an old, fragile man in custody when his case first came up for hearing. “But the judge had no powers,” she says. “This is a police state.”
Ghulam Mohammed Khan Sopori, 70, has been similarly languishing in detention for more than 10 months now.
He is the chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir People’s League, the oldest pro-freedom group in (Indian-administered) Kashmir. He was arrested on February 15, 2017. Police allege he organised the stone pelting of law enforcement personnel and the damage of their properties. “These were fake charges,” says his son Sajad Ahmed, a cloth merchant in Sopore. “The high court quashed his PSA [detention order] on September 15.”
But he is still in detention. “The police brought him back from Kot Bhalwal jail in Jammu, where he was lodged, to Sopore Police Station, and kept him there for 15 days [without any legal basis].”
“They slapped a second PSA order, alleging that my father had participated in the funeral of Abdul Qayoom Nazar, a top militant commander, on September 26.” He could not have been there, says Ahmed. Sopori was then being held illegally at Sopore Police Station.
The police, indeed, use many different tactics to keep people in detention, both legal and illegal, allege rights group.
Once the Jammu and Kashmir High Court sets aside a preventive detention order, the police sometimes call the Counter Intelligence Kashmir (CIK), which detains the person again and takes him to an interrogation centre in Jammu, says Mir Shafqat Hussain, a noted human rights lawyer based in Srinagar. He has handled over a 100 cases of detention under the PSA. The CIK, he contends, cannot arrest any person unless it has documentary evidence against him. “What happens is that the person is kept at the police station illegally for 10-15 days and then a successive PSA order is soon invoked,” he says.
Between Wani’s killing in July 2016 and February 2017, more than 750 habeas corpus petitions have been filed in Kashmir against detentions made under the PSA. Only 257 detainees have been released so far. Although no separate data is available for senior citizen detainees, human rights lawyers allege the PSA has been used to detain prominent political workers across the valley regardless of age.
The older detainees and their families complain that they are not provided with adequate medical attention in jail. “One night I had acute pain in my chest. When I was taken to the district hospital in Kupwara, the doctors recommended I should be shifted to a better-equipped hospital in Srinagar but the police showed no consideration,” says Mohammad.
Sopori, too, fell ill in detention but, his son says, “the police did not take him to a hospital despite our appeal.”
Yousuf’s eye problems have also worsened due to lack of medical care but Haneefa says that he “is in peace”. When she last asked him about his health, he said: Khuda ke hawale (I am in God’s care).



Some baffling decisions of the SC

The Kashmir Monitor



By Manini Chatterjee

Of the three pillars of the state, the judiciary has always evoked much greater respect from ordinary citizens than either the legislature or the executive. Since the legislature comprises elected representatives of the people, we — the people who elect them — feel justly entitled to criticize them at will. The executive, similarly, is more often pilloried than praised when it fails to deliver on its many promises.

The judiciary, on the other hand, has usually been treated as a hallowed institution. Judges, unlike politicians, are seen not only as wise but also possessed of thinner skins. The fear of being hauled up for contempt of court (what construes contempt remains a mystery to most of us) acts as a deterrent to commenting on the judiciary.


But that silence was broken last year. And not by an irreverent media or crusading activists or outspoken lawmakers. It was members of the highest judiciary who dealt the blow, coming out with home truths whose reverberations have yet to subside.

On January 12, 2018, the then four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court — J. Chelameswar, RanjanGogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — held an unprecedented press conference in the capital. In the course of the press conference, they revealed the letters they had written to the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, questioning his style of administration and the manner in which he allocated cases to difference benches of the court. Expressing dismay at the CJI’s refusal to address their grievances, they said, “Unless the institution of Supreme Court is preserved, democracy won’t survive in the country.”

That press conference, which alluded to government interference in the workings of the court, was not a one-off affair. Soon after, in separate letters to the CJI, J. Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph expressed concerns about the judiciary’s independence in face of the executive’s encroachment.

But what made waves in circles well beyond the judiciary was RanjanGogoi’s speech on July 12 to a packed auditorium in Delhi.Delivering the RamnathGoenka memorial lecture, Gogoi spoke at length on the “Vision of Justice” and the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional ideals.

In the course of the lecture, he quoted an article from the Economist which said, “…independent judges and noisy journalists are democracy’s first line of defence.” Gogoi went on to say, “I agree but will only suggest a slight modification in today’s context — not only independent judges and noisy journalists, but even independent journalists and sometimes noisy judges.” Those words made headlines then and have been quoted frequently since.

Pointing out that the judiciary had been endowed with great societal trust, he said, “This very fact gives it its credibility and this very credibility gives it its legitimacy… I will only say that if it wishes to preserve its moral and institutional leverage, it must remain uncontaminated. And, independent. And, fierce. And, at all times. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So is an institution.”

Gogoi’s speech was remarkable because he was in line to be the next Chief Justice. In fact, many feared that he had risked his career with that speech and the government might not elevate him to the post of the CJI after Dipak Misra retired.

Those fears were belied. Gogoi became the Chief Justice of India in early October. But, truth be told, hopes that a feisty judiciary would force more transparency on opaque and questionable executive decisions have also remained unfulfilled.

Some of the Supreme Court’s decisions, such as in the case relating to the removal of the Central Bureau of Investigation chief, has left even retired judges puzzled.

On October 23, the government conducted a midnight raid on the headquarters of the CBI and seized a whole lot of material related to pending investigations. It then summarily removed the CBI chief, AlokVerma, from his post. Since Verma had been appointed by a three-member selection committee (comprising the prime minister, the leader of the largest Opposition party and the CJI), he contended that only that committee could remove him — and not the central vigilance commissioner. Verma moved the Supreme Court with alacrity against his arbitrary removal.

The apex court chose not to adjudicate on the removal. Instead, it appointed a retired Supreme Court judge, A.K. Patnaik, to supervise a CVC probe into the allegations of corruption levelled against Verma by his bête noire, the then CBI special director, Rakesh Asthana. It directed the probe be completed within two weeks. The three-judge bench of Gogoi, Sanjay KishanKaul, and K.M. Joseph passed no strictures against the manner in which the raids were conducted by the government nor asked why and what materials had been seized.

Although the probe was completed in two weeks and the report presented to the court, it was not till January 8 that the judges delivered their verdict. On the face of it, the verdict was a victory for Verma. It said that only the three-member selection committee could transfer or divest Verma of his powers, and not the CVC or the Centre.

Again, puzzlingly, it passed no strictures against the government for removing him in the manner it did. Instead, it asked the selection committee to go through the contents of the CVC probe report and decide in a week whether Verma should be exonerated or indicted.

The government convened a meeting the very next day and less than 48 hours after he was reinstated as CBI chief, Verma was once again given marching orders. The CJI had recused himself from the panel, and appointed the judge, A.K. Sikri in his stead. Sikri and the prime minister, Narendra Modi, voted to remove Verma while MallikarjunKharge dissented.

What followed has been extremely unflattering for the apex court. A.K. Patnaik, the judge who had supervised the CVC probe, told The Indian Express that “[t]here was no evidence against Verma regarding corruption”, that the decision to remove him was “very very hasty”, and that the committee “should have applied their mind thoroughly, especially as a Supreme Court judge was there.”

Speaking to The Telegraph, two highly respected former Chief Justices of India also expressed misgivings on the way the committee took the decision without giving Verma a chance to present his side of the case. Former CJI, T.S. Thakur, underlined that if a decision was being taken on the basis of an adverse report against an individual, that individual must be given an opportunity to present his point of view. “If that process has not been followed… then any decision based on such adverse findings will be contrary to the principles of natural justice.”

Another former CJI, R.M. Lodha, said much the same thing: “He (Verma) needs to be heard. Ordinarily, he should be heard. Principles of natural justice deserved to be followed.”

In other words, the Supreme Court’s failure to explicitly state that Verma should be given a hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

Similarly, a CJI-headed bench’s verdict on the Rafale deal has also raised eyebrows. While the government, understandably, has hailed the verdict as a “clean chit”, the detailed review petition filed by ArunShourie, Yashwant Sinha and Prashant Bhushan points out how the “the government has blatantly misled the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court has grossly erred in placing reliance on false averments in the note not even supported by an affidavit.” In layman’s language, it questions the touching faith the apex court placed in the assertions of the government in spite of evidence to the contrary.

The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to appoint two judges to the apex court after retracting an earlier selection of two other judges is the latest controversy to hit the judiciary.

The CJI, reportedly, is “very upset” over the “media leaks” on the collegium’s functioning. Last week, he also advised the advocate, Prashant Bhushan — who wanted the government to disclose the names shortlisted by the search committee for the post of Lokpal — not to “look at things from a negative point of view” and to “be positive” instead.

That is fine advice from a spiritual guru. But advocating such a course in today’s India can also be construed as unquestioning faith in a majoritarian government’s intents and actions. The apex court has baffled us on many counts in the last few months. But that someone who spoke in praise of noisy judges and independent journalists should now worry about adverse media reports and negative attitudes to the government is, perhaps, the most bewildering of them all…

Continue Reading


Growing menace of corruption

The Kashmir Monitor



By Tawfeeq Irshad Mir

“One who listens to truth is not less than one who utters the truth”

With glued memories of my infantile period, hardly I could retrieve the surroundings and the events happening around, Brought up in a very small village “Goripora” in Sopore town of Kashmir, a village with meticulous presence, conscious, a mixture of intellect and a think tank of its own, whenever I revert my memory lane through times, I find myself in the nap of my grandfather, an image of an old man enveloped in “chadar” yet young by mind, he was the then head of village, people of all ages enjoyed his presence, igniting the debate pertaining to different issues, being the head of the village, so mostly revenue matters were discussed and the consistent content of all debates used to be “corruption” the word that recurrently vibrated my neurons and propelled me as to what is this corruption all about, initial understanding was like this, “to get your work down, have a chicken to please” and sometimes “the person inflated the pocket to get the work down” in common Kashmiri language, you might have encountered the word most frequently “channel, like the person has channel,designated to corruption. As being in rural area, the incentives for corruption used to be” chicken “an apple box” sometimes red beans “probably due to lack of money as people used to exchange their daily needs rather than money. As I grew up, exposed myself to the environment, what I found was interesting, now an updated version of corruption :every now, people discussing the scourge of corruption, as like a curse, preferably in revenue department, to have an income certificate, an amount of 2 to 3 hundred rupees was a prerequisite, with the time I found people paying huge amounts to get their land acquisitions settled, even to get a driving licence, driving skill hardly mattered, as the time passed by, now the word “corruption” was a constant encrypted into the minds of people, a peculiar picture of engulfing in corruption was most obvious from electricity department, then it was not digitalized, the new house holder enjoyed the bless even without registration by simply paying a meagre amount to officials in the department. “Not a single institution is prone to corruption” but it’s deleterious effects on education and recruitment system “has perturb and monstrous consequences. As I observed during the years, it was evident during the board exams, every one among us might have witnessed the special privilege being offered to some students in the examination Hall, a corruption of intimate level, eventually with the enlightenment of newspapers, social media, the youth Began to lay their repercussions on corruption pertaining to selection process whether it be for further education or selection of job process, like the ‘x’ person got selected because the said person had paid a huge amount for it, it swept the general consensus of youth, dredging them to denial resorting to premature statements that “now this education is futile as you won’t get any things unless you don’t have enough money, there is no place for poor fellows, we can’t continue with this” and the consequence was such that many talented ones dredged in drug dependency, heralding their further education.


Here I am talking about corruption on the local level, attached to the ground where I am the self-observant of this scourge, many a times I have been a part of discussions locally regarding this remorse, but in an alienated elite.

Social networking sites are filled with tons of data regarding corruption, gallons of ink have been spent on news papers to reflect this horror, while everyone apparently and seemingly attacking the subsequent political discourse and the concerned administrative systems,

“I have a virtual opinion, I believe, “every human being has encoded traits, and has a natural tendency to express these traits, both positive and negative as like in all other animals, but the best thing about humans is to differentiate between right and wrong and the ability to direct their energies toward humanity, that’s why called humans, but one’s the person is exacerbated by materialistic influence, the person tends to express the negative trait to fulfil the Ill designed desires, and simply the person who endorses or resorts to such mischievous act of corruption, the person is engulfed my this wild trait “
Now what astonishes me the most,” while everyone seemingly denigrates this scourge, then who supports it, I mean everyone is raising in objection to it, then who constitutes to the corruption.

I would like to prove my content with objective analysis, suppose I am the person, and I am asked to give some amount to secure a place in any govt. department, despite irrelevant educational qualifications and out of any fearful selection procedure, now it’s all about me, would I agree or not, so surely the moment I am in such a position, I will surely opt for it, likewise I believe every single person on the planet not only in the valley, will opt the same, I jus made an analogy and it almost pertains to every aspect. So literally, I mean to say that corruption is from within, not a system is corrupted, in fact the people with this thinking make the system corrupt and that’s how it seems that the whole system is overwhelmed with corruption, it is engrained in the minds of people, “the humans have rbcs, wbcs, and platelets in blood, but I suspect we have one more” corruption cell “in our blood and we have genes encoded with it dominantly.

” We have to deter this menace from within, the moment we object to this greed, it needs to be abolished from within, sanitising the systems won’t yield any results, because it’s already ingrained in the minds of people, so we have to interpret and analyse and suppress this wild trait only then we will get rid of this wild menace infesting our spirituality, ethos”

(The writer is pursuing graduation in Nursing at G M C, Srinagar and can be reached at: [email protected])

Continue Reading


Why the JNU story won’t die

The Kashmir Monitor



By Rakesh Batabyal

Not too long ago in the history of the Republic — 1974 to be precise — a large body of students entered the lobby, and later the room of Vice-Chancellor G Parthasarathy, the founding head of Jawaharlal Nehru University, a man charged with the setting up of a world-class university, and announced that they were gheraoing him. They wanted the barriers of gender separating the girls’ and boys’ hostels to be done away with, as it smacked of a feudal society based on patriarchy. They were expressing the most progressive ideas agitating the young mind — the gendered barricades encompassing society. Parthasarathy, who had interacted with the most powerful people in the world, found this group of students, many of whom did not even speak English (the language of the diplomatic elite that he was familiar with), more powerful than all who had come before — they were students, yet their demands were not for their own interests, nor even for something euphemistically called national interest. They were protesting for something which in their minds they thought would make society better all-in-all. He did not ask for the police, did not chide them, neither was he demurred — he talked to them about social, bureaucratic and other miscellaneous issues that would not permit such a great idea to be immediately pursued in a traditional society; it would in fact be harmed through the vicious constrictions of traditional society. Its time would come, though, one fine day, and then the society would remember the pioneers — those JNU students. Such was the spirit embodied in the foundation of the university that is JNU. There are many other instances that reinforced these values and established the spirit of dissent and dialogue that became the signature of this great institution.

In the mid-1980s, a Dean of Students introduced a register for women students/ guests entering the men’s hostel, where the purpose of visit was to be recorded. Many uncharitable remarks made the administration understand its own lack of practical wisdom, and this rule was never strictly enforced.


Then, in the late 1980s, an ever-watchful body of students discovered that a senior official was drawing salary from two sources. In the pre-RTI age, they made efforts to get at the source. The Vice-Chancellor, a stickler for rules, had to disown the officer; at no point was a student either issued a show-cause notice or shown the door.

In the early 1990s, students wanted to strike against the administration and they were sitting on a hunger strike when the Vice-Chancellor himself joined them in the strike, saying this was his cause too. Professor Yoginder K Alagh, the Vice-Chancellor, was no mean scholar and knew that the students were not demanding something out of the world.

Thus, through such acts, the young were indicating the new and emerging mores, which led to the university not being ossified. Teachers had their individual political and intellectual predilections and students too had their own, but one saw the campus, like the nation, carry on with the variety and colour of these differences.
There were shouts and slogans to drown the other, but they were more a demonstration of intellectual prowess than threats to physically eliminate the other. When the State imposed Emergency in 1975, JNU students became part of street agitations. Their refusal to allow then prime minister Indira Gandhi into the campus is the stuff of legends.

The story of an institution is a story of shared memories and shared ideals. JNU, as it has grown in the last 50 years, is one such great story. Within this story lay millions of small lives and their careers as they have woven the narrative of this country in the last half century.

A university reflects the character of a nation: its moral self, its confidence and its resolve to face the world. When we sat at the table in our hostel mess, when we all talked about our larger vision and smaller plans — about fighting the capital and its sway, our resolve to finish off shades of Apartheid or the discriminating caste hierarchies — we were speaking of the society and for a future society. The shared memories of those talks, of the politics that gave us the language to express those visions and plans, are small stories in the big world.

As the University celebrates its 50th anniversary, it is these shared memories of the collective self that will keep the beauty of the institution intact. All that is beautiful needs to be cherished and the memories are those beautiful things that direct us towards a great future. It is unfortunate that those who do not cherish the memory and what JNU stands for, are at the helm of affairs today. But memories fortunately cannot be killed, only repressed in some circles.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 980,296 other subscribers


January 2019
« Dec