Besides the legal issues per se related to the Ayodhya case, I suppose the verdict also sparked off a debate on the relevance of historical and archeological studies and can these findings be taken with certainty. In fact, thinking is also that the original error committed in this issue was when the court of the land was expected to decide on such an emotive issue. Thus debating now on whether a court could decide anything based on historical studies and archeological findings is perhaps only academic.
Archaeology by web dictionary Wikipedia, is the study of past human societies, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data including artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes. Also known as the study of the art, customs and beliefs of ancient times, archaeology is often considered to be both a science and a humanity.
In this context, one must take note of the Presidential reference made to the Supreme Court in January 1993 by the Narasimha Rao government seeking an advisory opinion on this question: “Whether a Hindu Temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?”
On October 24, 1994, the Supreme Court, rightly so, declined to give any opinion saying it was “ill-equipped” to examine and evaluate matters related to archeology and history.
The matter was heard by a five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice MN Venkatachaliah, Justice AM Ahmadi, Justice JS Verma, Justice GN Ray and Justice SP Bharucha. The majority judgement written by Justice JS Verma on behalf of Chief Justice Venkatachaliah, himself and Justice Ray had said the Presidential reference was ‘superfluous and unnecessary’.
On March 5, 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered excavation of the land and in the ultimate analysis, the Archeological Survey of India findings were largely cited for ordering retention and continuation of the Ram Lalla’s idols at the ‘make-shift’ temple, erected after the demolition of the Mosque in December 1992.
In fact, the ASI excavation clearly showed distinctive features of a 10th century temple below the ruins of the Babri Mosque. It further mentions discovery of 50 pillar bases, decorated bricks bearing features of 10th century, deities of Hindu gods and goddesses, lotus motifs, and curved architectural pieces, say experts.
It has been also argued by historians that when the Babri Masjid was demolished an inscription was unearthed which said that 'a temple was constructed by a King Nayachandra in the 12th century to honour Ram.' But the Muslims had rejected the ASI report saying it as a 'concoction' of the ASI to please its 'political masters', the BJP-led Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board had said the report was ‘inconsistent’ with the interim report submitted earlier.
Nevertheless, in his ruling, Justice Sharma contended that “the Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure” even as he said “It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.”
But there remained certain questions on the findings of Archeological Survey of India as well.
There is a school of thought which counters that the ASI’s report was ‘not above controversy’ as on the possibility of Hindu temple its argument rested primarily on ‘pillar basis’ – which according to them could not be ascertained as no final words could be said purely based on the pillars. In fact, the Muslims clergy in Faizabad say the alleged existence of pillars too has been debated by historians on material evidence relating to ASI’s excavation.
They maintain Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations of certain animal bones as well as of the use of ‘surkhi’ a typical characteristic of Muslim presence would challenge the possibility of a Hindu temple.
The Sunni Board or Muslim Personal Law Board contest ASI reports but accept the authenticity of the discovery of archeological materials. They refuse to take evidence as conclusive evidence that it was a Hindu temple. Even the main advocate for Muslims in the title suit, Zafaryab Jillani, said that the ASI has 'misinterpreted the findings'. The allegation has been also that the ASI report of ignoring the discovery of glazed tiles and pottery indicative of Muslim settlements in the area before Babar's invasion.
However, from the Hindu point of view, Mahant Brijmohan Das, chief priest of Dasarth Garhi in Ayodhya countered this saying “we never disputed the fact Muslims came and set up a Mosque there. We only say they did it after demolishing a temple”.
He said three crucial questions related to Ayodhya case were - Whether the disputed structure that is, Babri Masjid was constructed over some other pre-existing structure after demolishing it? Whether that preexisting structure was a Hindu Temple? And whether that temple, if any, was located on Lord Rama’s birth place in Ayodhya?
The Hindu argument is also that originally there was a Vishnu Temple earlier at the same spot where the Masjid was erected after demolishing the same. This temple of Lord Vishnu, according to faith, existed from time immemorial. It was renovated several times and the temple as well as worship of Ram Lalla, they say is referred to in many texts and inscriptions. This temple of Vishnu was erected exactly on the same holy spot where Lord Rama was born and around the place, Sita’s kitchen, Hanuman’s house, Kaikeyi’s palace etc were all located and worshipped even since Vikramaditya era and even published in official gazettes brought out by the British government.
Those countering these versions say most of the official gazettes prepared during British rule especially in the 19th century were based on here-says.
The Muslims have on the contrary argued that there were official documentation which claimed that the Hindu claim was erroneous and the place used to be a Masjid.
On September 29, a day before the verdict IUML UP unit chief Dr Ghani was a confident person though anxious about other kind of repercussions. He said documentary evidence cannot go against Muslims. Here are some of the points, which Muslims thought would sail them through in the case.
On 23 December 1948, the Inspector of Waqfs, Mohammed Ibrahim alleged harassment and stoning of the Namazis going to the mosque and that yet prayers continued to be offered on Fridays.
Radio message on December 23, 1949, by District Magistrate K.K. Nayar to the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary and Home Secretary: “A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the Masjid was deserted and installed a deity there.”
The State of Uttar Pradesh, in a document signed by Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, J.N. Ugra, on April 25, 1950 had claimed “it has for a long period been in use as a mosque for the purpose of worship by the Muslims and not a temple”.
Another strong argument from the Muslims has been that false claims have been made by Hindus on the findings of inscription of Lord Vishnu on December 6, 1992. The Hindu groups had claimed that during the demolition of the Babri mosque in December 1992, three inscriptions on stone were found. The most important one was the inscription that the temple was dedicated to Lord Vishnu, slayer of Bali. The Muslim allegation was that the said Hari-Vishnu inscription corresponded to an inscription dedicated to Vishnu that was supposedly missing in the Lucknow State Museum. However, the museum authorities had denied the inscription (stone) had gone missing from the museum. He showed the inscription of his museum at a press conference and it was different in shape, colour and text contents from the Vishnu-Hari inscription.
Another argument from Muslims was that Richard M Eaton, an American historian of medieval India, in his ‘Essays on Islam and Indian History’ documented in details about 80 major instances of destruction of the Hindu temples between 1190 and 1760. But the list did not include any Ram temple at Ayodhya.
The Muslim League leader Dr Ghani had also claimed that “Litigation in the 19th century was only for permission to build a temple at and near the chabutra – and not the mosque”. Subsequently even till 1948-49, till the idol was placed, there were only efforts to build a Ram temple on the chabutra (platform) outside the mosque but within its complex.
This Ram chabutara, which has been now allotted to the sect Nirmohi Akhara, falls on the left hand side as one walks through strictly barricaded security arrangement for the make-shift Hindu temple.
(ends)
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Faith versus Fact debate on Ayodhya verdict
Predictably, the debate between evidence submitted and faith as highlighted in the verdict by the Allahabad High Court
ought to be analyzed here in certain details.
One observation on the verdict was that the majority verdict of the High Court was well intentioned, politically correct, meant to be a measure of compromise and aimed at avoiding any communal riots. The process of national reconciliation has been lauded by many including those not happy with the verdict totally. A local furniture maker near Ghantaghar Market at Faizabad Md Siddiqui, summed up the paradox aptly, “the court had no option but to appease all. Otherwise by now there would have been bloodbath in UP and the rest of India”.
“If it (the verdict) is accepted in that spirit (reconciliation) by the Muslim community, it will resolve a burning communal problem of our nation,” wrote former Solicitor-General of India, T.R. Andhyarujina in The Hindu.
Thus, for weeks aftermath the verdict, political jargons revolved around whether the court order has legitimized the vandalisation of December 6, 1992.
Contemporary historians would recall that so great was the sense of outrage in the country on the demolition that the Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and the Central Government said on December 7, 1992 that the Babri mosque would be re-built.
Surprisingly neither of the judges took note of December 6, 1992 and virtually give an impression that the demolition as a fait accompli, as if the disputed 2.77-acre site was vacant land. It legitimized the Hindu claim over what was once described as ‘make-shift’ temple.
The Congress party, clearly on defensive following Muslims’ anguish, held its highest policy making body, the steering committee, meeting on October 5. At the end of marathon meeting, the party resolution said in no way the verdict had given sanction to the demolition exercise of December 6, 1992.
This aspect was truly exploited by other players as well. Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari, often known for hardline stance said, “the verdict of the High Court provides legal validity to the shameful and criminal act of the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.” Bukhari, who also held a closed door meeting with discredited secular brigade leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, ruled out the possibility of any attempt to resolve the Babri Masjid issue through dialogue. “Giving away of the mosque, its forcible occupation or allowing idolatry within its premises was totally haram (illegal),” he had said.
LJP led by discredited secular champion, Ram Vilas Paswan, has gone a step further only to put pressure on Congress and urged the Centre to seek Supreme Court's opinion on the verdict and especially address the 'faith'
part.
CPI(M), another key self-styled champion of the cause of secularism, after quite a balanced and guarded statement on September 30; a few days later slammed the ‘faith’ part of the verdict and also the “post-facto justification for the (Babri) demolition".
"There are apprehensions that some of the reasoning set out in the (title deed suit) judgements may be taken as a post-facto justification for the (Babri) demolition" which was a criminal offence, CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat told reporters after a two-day meet of the party's Politburo.
In a statement, the CPI national executive also held that the Allahabad High Court verdict was based on "faith and religious belief" and said it did open a few questions on rule of law and principles of secular democracy.
Pushed to the corner by the much goodwill generated for Ms Mayawati-led BSP government in the wake of incident free passage of entire Ayodha verdict imbroglio, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party launched aggressive and detailed roadmap to retain its base among Muslims. On October 1, a day after the verdict, in Lucknow, Yadav, once called ‘Maulana Mulayam Singh’, said, “a nation state is run by the rule of law and not on the basis of religious faith”.
The BJP, predictably, had, however, slammed parties for their remarks that Ayodhya verdict is based on faith and belief. Party’s chief spokesperson and also a lawyer in the dispute Ravi Shankar Prasad instead asked the political parties including the Left to read the length judgement.
Interestingly, L K Advani, though stood vindicated in the wake of the verdict, remarked in a statesmanlike spirit that “what the court has said does not justify the demolition”.
Aptly, Advani’s statement has come in for appreciation by objective observers. “This is a clear denunciation and disowning of the crime of 1992 by a top BJP leader than you have heard of the Emergency of 1975 by a top Congress leader,” wrote Shekhar Gupta in his popular column ‘National Interest’ in The Indian Express, October 2, 2010.
December 6 Vandalism:
However, it goes without saying the vandalism on December 6, 1992 was grossly erroneous and sinful. No less than the Supreme Court had passed an order in 1994 for the demolition of the Masjid, saying “the Hindus must bear the Cross for it.”
Former union Law minister and country’s best known maverick politician Subramanian Swamy argues that while the Supreme Court absolved the Hindus in general sense for the December 6 act, adding, “what was wrong with the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence.” (The Hindu)
In this context, those who believe temple was destroyed by Babar and a mosque built in its place, argue that way back on March 18, 1886, the Faizabad sub-judge, a Briton, had ruled that “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.”
The case was thus kept open – for political exploitation in democratic independent India where the political class had vested interest to pursue vote bank politics.
Another question which has evaded scrutiny is whether a temple and a masjid be considered equally ‘sacred’? The answer is perhaps a big no as the informed legal opinion suggests strongly “a mosque is not en essential part” of Islam.
“Under Mohammedan law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open,” the constitution bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in 1994.
Thus based on this ruling, with due respect, the acquisition of a masjid is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India. That way Babri Masjid demolition case essentially means a criminal offense because the destruction was not allowed by the state or any judicial order.
Moreover, the point which ought to be emphasized is that the vandalism and subsequent destruction of the mosque had resulted in communal riots in several parts of the country including the hitherto peaceful places like Mumbai or parts of Assam.
“…. in Islamic law as well as in Saudi Arabia the authorities have demolished mosques from time to time for developmental works like to build bridges and lay roads. Even the mosque where Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished,” Subramanian Swamy told me in Parliament within days the historic verdict was pronounced.
However, like the political class and other players like Shahi Imam, even legal experts on the other side of dividing line had some strong words for the verdict.
The court’s judgment robbed Muslims of their entitlement to a site and a mosque on no flimsy legal grounds. The Lucknow judgment is a mess of potage,” wrote eminent jurist Rajeev Dhawan.
One would not like to value judgement either on the verdict or the merits and demerits of each of the arguments for and against the bench ruling; but it ought to said that majoritanism-minoritism is a reality.
It is this, I had found during and after post-Godhra riots in 2002.
Unlike their self-styled leaders like Shahi Imam, the common Muslims pretty well appreciate the futility of confrontation.
It is this realization about the “futility of confrontation” that made Ayodhya-based oldest plaintiff Mohammad Hashim Ansari swear by the compromise formula. “Agar masjid chhor dene se aman hoti hae …. Toh chhor do, humey nahi chahihye,” he retorted.
It is in this context, he had said, “Khushi ho ya gam, Band kamre mein raho. Musalman sarko pe ani nahi chahihiye, (Whether it is victory or loss in the case, Muslims should not take to the streets either to protest or rejoice)”.
After the verdict, giving his reaction to it, Ansari told me on October 1, “throughout my life I have maintained that Muslims should not adopt confrontation approach towards Hindus. Most of the time, people did not listen to me. I have gone through all that. Even before partition, Muslims would say, I am coward. But look at the reality today, Muslims are no where. Any further confrontation against the High Court order legal and political will be suicidal. That’s why I am meeting the Hindu leaders; many Hindus agree with me. We should use the opportunity.”
(ends)
ought to be analyzed here in certain details.
One observation on the verdict was that the majority verdict of the High Court was well intentioned, politically correct, meant to be a measure of compromise and aimed at avoiding any communal riots. The process of national reconciliation has been lauded by many including those not happy with the verdict totally. A local furniture maker near Ghantaghar Market at Faizabad Md Siddiqui, summed up the paradox aptly, “the court had no option but to appease all. Otherwise by now there would have been bloodbath in UP and the rest of India”.
“If it (the verdict) is accepted in that spirit (reconciliation) by the Muslim community, it will resolve a burning communal problem of our nation,” wrote former Solicitor-General of India, T.R. Andhyarujina in The Hindu.
Thus, for weeks aftermath the verdict, political jargons revolved around whether the court order has legitimized the vandalisation of December 6, 1992.
Contemporary historians would recall that so great was the sense of outrage in the country on the demolition that the Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and the Central Government said on December 7, 1992 that the Babri mosque would be re-built.
Surprisingly neither of the judges took note of December 6, 1992 and virtually give an impression that the demolition as a fait accompli, as if the disputed 2.77-acre site was vacant land. It legitimized the Hindu claim over what was once described as ‘make-shift’ temple.
The Congress party, clearly on defensive following Muslims’ anguish, held its highest policy making body, the steering committee, meeting on October 5. At the end of marathon meeting, the party resolution said in no way the verdict had given sanction to the demolition exercise of December 6, 1992.
This aspect was truly exploited by other players as well. Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari, often known for hardline stance said, “the verdict of the High Court provides legal validity to the shameful and criminal act of the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.” Bukhari, who also held a closed door meeting with discredited secular brigade leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, ruled out the possibility of any attempt to resolve the Babri Masjid issue through dialogue. “Giving away of the mosque, its forcible occupation or allowing idolatry within its premises was totally haram (illegal),” he had said.
LJP led by discredited secular champion, Ram Vilas Paswan, has gone a step further only to put pressure on Congress and urged the Centre to seek Supreme Court's opinion on the verdict and especially address the 'faith'
part.
CPI(M), another key self-styled champion of the cause of secularism, after quite a balanced and guarded statement on September 30; a few days later slammed the ‘faith’ part of the verdict and also the “post-facto justification for the (Babri) demolition".
"There are apprehensions that some of the reasoning set out in the (title deed suit) judgements may be taken as a post-facto justification for the (Babri) demolition" which was a criminal offence, CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat told reporters after a two-day meet of the party's Politburo.
In a statement, the CPI national executive also held that the Allahabad High Court verdict was based on "faith and religious belief" and said it did open a few questions on rule of law and principles of secular democracy.
Pushed to the corner by the much goodwill generated for Ms Mayawati-led BSP government in the wake of incident free passage of entire Ayodha verdict imbroglio, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party launched aggressive and detailed roadmap to retain its base among Muslims. On October 1, a day after the verdict, in Lucknow, Yadav, once called ‘Maulana Mulayam Singh’, said, “a nation state is run by the rule of law and not on the basis of religious faith”.
The BJP, predictably, had, however, slammed parties for their remarks that Ayodhya verdict is based on faith and belief. Party’s chief spokesperson and also a lawyer in the dispute Ravi Shankar Prasad instead asked the political parties including the Left to read the length judgement.
Interestingly, L K Advani, though stood vindicated in the wake of the verdict, remarked in a statesmanlike spirit that “what the court has said does not justify the demolition”.
Aptly, Advani’s statement has come in for appreciation by objective observers. “This is a clear denunciation and disowning of the crime of 1992 by a top BJP leader than you have heard of the Emergency of 1975 by a top Congress leader,” wrote Shekhar Gupta in his popular column ‘National Interest’ in The Indian Express, October 2, 2010.
December 6 Vandalism:
However, it goes without saying the vandalism on December 6, 1992 was grossly erroneous and sinful. No less than the Supreme Court had passed an order in 1994 for the demolition of the Masjid, saying “the Hindus must bear the Cross for it.”
Former union Law minister and country’s best known maverick politician Subramanian Swamy argues that while the Supreme Court absolved the Hindus in general sense for the December 6 act, adding, “what was wrong with the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence.” (The Hindu)
In this context, those who believe temple was destroyed by Babar and a mosque built in its place, argue that way back on March 18, 1886, the Faizabad sub-judge, a Briton, had ruled that “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.”
The case was thus kept open – for political exploitation in democratic independent India where the political class had vested interest to pursue vote bank politics.
Another question which has evaded scrutiny is whether a temple and a masjid be considered equally ‘sacred’? The answer is perhaps a big no as the informed legal opinion suggests strongly “a mosque is not en essential part” of Islam.
“Under Mohammedan law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open,” the constitution bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in 1994.
Thus based on this ruling, with due respect, the acquisition of a masjid is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India. That way Babri Masjid demolition case essentially means a criminal offense because the destruction was not allowed by the state or any judicial order.
Moreover, the point which ought to be emphasized is that the vandalism and subsequent destruction of the mosque had resulted in communal riots in several parts of the country including the hitherto peaceful places like Mumbai or parts of Assam.
“…. in Islamic law as well as in Saudi Arabia the authorities have demolished mosques from time to time for developmental works like to build bridges and lay roads. Even the mosque where Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished,” Subramanian Swamy told me in Parliament within days the historic verdict was pronounced.
However, like the political class and other players like Shahi Imam, even legal experts on the other side of dividing line had some strong words for the verdict.
The court’s judgment robbed Muslims of their entitlement to a site and a mosque on no flimsy legal grounds. The Lucknow judgment is a mess of potage,” wrote eminent jurist Rajeev Dhawan.
One would not like to value judgement either on the verdict or the merits and demerits of each of the arguments for and against the bench ruling; but it ought to said that majoritanism-minoritism is a reality.
It is this, I had found during and after post-Godhra riots in 2002.
Unlike their self-styled leaders like Shahi Imam, the common Muslims pretty well appreciate the futility of confrontation.
It is this realization about the “futility of confrontation” that made Ayodhya-based oldest plaintiff Mohammad Hashim Ansari swear by the compromise formula. “Agar masjid chhor dene se aman hoti hae …. Toh chhor do, humey nahi chahihye,” he retorted.
It is in this context, he had said, “Khushi ho ya gam, Band kamre mein raho. Musalman sarko pe ani nahi chahihiye, (Whether it is victory or loss in the case, Muslims should not take to the streets either to protest or rejoice)”.
After the verdict, giving his reaction to it, Ansari told me on October 1, “throughout my life I have maintained that Muslims should not adopt confrontation approach towards Hindus. Most of the time, people did not listen to me. I have gone through all that. Even before partition, Muslims would say, I am coward. But look at the reality today, Muslims are no where. Any further confrontation against the High Court order legal and political will be suicidal. That’s why I am meeting the Hindu leaders; many Hindus agree with me. We should use the opportunity.”
(ends)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Ayodhya 2010 : Advantage Hindus
On 30th September, 2010; in more ways than one history was written for the Hindus in India. Predictably, the historic temple city of Ayodhya heaved a sigh of relief over the verdict from Allahabad High Court on the six-decades old title dispute with local residents rejoicing.
Sweet-maker Avdesh Kumar lit candles in front of his house near Hanuman Garhi temple with his two children even as a large number of enthusiastic Hindus applied restrain after the Janmabhoomi Nyas (trust) head Nritya Gopal Das said: “Hindus should not be over-joyous".
"... there's no question of half joy or quarter victory. We want the entire land.” The message was clear. The Hindus are again going assertive and would not spare an inch of the land, where Lord Rama was born.
Later, police officials did not allow citizens in Ayodhya near the disputed structure and in vulnerable pockets like Hanuman Garhi to lit candles or so in orde to keep things calm and under control.
But the sweet-maker wasn't interested: “I am happy, my family is happy. We will have Ram temple here. The dispute should end and there should be normalcy so that we can continue to earn our living.”
A large number of VHP leaders and senior members of the VHP-affiliated Digambar Akhara, Karsevak puram and Nyas leaders welcomed the verdict, raising slogans of 'Jai Shri Ram' and ‘Ram lalla hum ayenge …. Mandir wahin banayenge’. Ram Janmabhoomi trust members said the concept of 33 per cent land allocation for the Sunni Central Wakf board out of the 2.77 acres land was “not acceptable”. “This will only open yet another window of confrontation,” one of them said. The Janmabhoomi Nyas president said: “It's a big victory for Hindus that the Sunni Wakf Board’s claim over the land has been rejected by the court. But we have to fight another battle in the Supreme Court. No land should be given to the Muslims”.
However, there is another section among Hindu leaders such as Acharya Satyender Das, chief priest of the Ram Janmabhoomi mandir, who said: “The High Court ruling has come after years of litigation. The dispute should end here. The general demand of Hindus has been that the Ram idol should be placed where he was born and that theory has been accepted”.
He said any further confrontation or litigation would only keep the issue alive which was not good for peace and tranquility. “All parties including Muslims and Hindu leadership should respect the order of the court,” he said.
Muslims in Ayodhya and Faizabad, too, favoured an early end to the dispute. But a section of them felt the verdict was a “big setback” and did not rule out moving the Supreme Court. Mohammad Shafiq, in-charge of Iqbal Dargah near the Faizabad-Ayodhya road said “I don’t understand the logic of 33 per cent land distribution."
“There appears to be a Congress hand behind all this ~ sab ko khush karne ka koshish Congress ki policy hai (appease all parties is an old practice of Congress party)”.
“Muslims feel somewhat let down by today’s judgement,” said one resident of Kazian Mohalla. “All these wars in court or out of court are not good for common people. We suffer the most but the government is happy making security arrangements only,” said a tailor, Kareem Ibrahim.
Congress could be loser: Muslims
The verdict could have significant political fallout with politically
hyper sensitive Muslims already saying that the development could
result in “erosion” in Congress support base among the “aggrieved
minorities”
Perhaps it will also give a set back to Rahul Gandhi's efforts to revive
party's prospects in UP.
“I am happy about the general peace and amity. But Muslims are
saddened. We firmly believed it was a Masjid as namaaz used to be
performed. Now Congress will have to pay a price for this,” said Mohammad
Zameer, Naib Imam of Farizabad-based Sunni community’s major Tatshah
Masjid.
He maintained the division of the disputed land reflects “a typical
Congress stamp” though it is a judicial order. “The attempt to delay
the judgement by way of special leave petition was also seen as
Congress hand. This party has always betrayed Muslims whenever we had
shown faith in it,” he said.
Several of those who had gathered in the city’s spacious Mosque to
conduct the Friday prayer seemed to have endorsed the sentiments of
the Imam.
In fact, an angry Congress member from Fatehganj Block displaying his
Congress party card said he would “surrender it” in the evening.
Irshad Ahmed, a footwear businessman, said the ultimate message of the
verdict was that “jo Musalman ko milna chahiye thee, nahi mili”.
Agreeing with him, 56-year-old Rais Khan said “yeh faisla sey bahut hi
mayusi hae. Yeh faisla, faisla nahi tha…. Panchayati thi (This verdict
has left us aggrieved. The order was like a panchayati order)”.
Significantly, though the verdict was a judicial order where in
probably even Congress party has been caught unawares; the general
impression among the Muslims in Faizabad and Ayodhya is that the
appease all formula typically reflected a Congress style of
functioning.
“Actually, what happens, when you try to appease all. You end up
everyone unhappy. No doubt the case would go to the Supreme Court. But
meanwhile, Congress will again have to rethink about their faith in
Congress. Shilanayas was their work and even Babri demolition took
place during Congress rule in Centre,” lamented 80-year-old Anwar
Ahmed.
Sweet-maker Avdesh Kumar lit candles in front of his house near Hanuman Garhi temple with his two children even as a large number of enthusiastic Hindus applied restrain after the Janmabhoomi Nyas (trust) head Nritya Gopal Das said: “Hindus should not be over-joyous".
"... there's no question of half joy or quarter victory. We want the entire land.” The message was clear. The Hindus are again going assertive and would not spare an inch of the land, where Lord Rama was born.
Later, police officials did not allow citizens in Ayodhya near the disputed structure and in vulnerable pockets like Hanuman Garhi to lit candles or so in orde to keep things calm and under control.
But the sweet-maker wasn't interested: “I am happy, my family is happy. We will have Ram temple here. The dispute should end and there should be normalcy so that we can continue to earn our living.”
A large number of VHP leaders and senior members of the VHP-affiliated Digambar Akhara, Karsevak puram and Nyas leaders welcomed the verdict, raising slogans of 'Jai Shri Ram' and ‘Ram lalla hum ayenge …. Mandir wahin banayenge’. Ram Janmabhoomi trust members said the concept of 33 per cent land allocation for the Sunni Central Wakf board out of the 2.77 acres land was “not acceptable”. “This will only open yet another window of confrontation,” one of them said. The Janmabhoomi Nyas president said: “It's a big victory for Hindus that the Sunni Wakf Board’s claim over the land has been rejected by the court. But we have to fight another battle in the Supreme Court. No land should be given to the Muslims”.
However, there is another section among Hindu leaders such as Acharya Satyender Das, chief priest of the Ram Janmabhoomi mandir, who said: “The High Court ruling has come after years of litigation. The dispute should end here. The general demand of Hindus has been that the Ram idol should be placed where he was born and that theory has been accepted”.
He said any further confrontation or litigation would only keep the issue alive which was not good for peace and tranquility. “All parties including Muslims and Hindu leadership should respect the order of the court,” he said.
Muslims in Ayodhya and Faizabad, too, favoured an early end to the dispute. But a section of them felt the verdict was a “big setback” and did not rule out moving the Supreme Court. Mohammad Shafiq, in-charge of Iqbal Dargah near the Faizabad-Ayodhya road said “I don’t understand the logic of 33 per cent land distribution."
“There appears to be a Congress hand behind all this ~ sab ko khush karne ka koshish Congress ki policy hai (appease all parties is an old practice of Congress party)”.
“Muslims feel somewhat let down by today’s judgement,” said one resident of Kazian Mohalla. “All these wars in court or out of court are not good for common people. We suffer the most but the government is happy making security arrangements only,” said a tailor, Kareem Ibrahim.
Congress could be loser: Muslims
The verdict could have significant political fallout with politically
hyper sensitive Muslims already saying that the development could
result in “erosion” in Congress support base among the “aggrieved
minorities”
Perhaps it will also give a set back to Rahul Gandhi's efforts to revive
party's prospects in UP.
“I am happy about the general peace and amity. But Muslims are
saddened. We firmly believed it was a Masjid as namaaz used to be
performed. Now Congress will have to pay a price for this,” said Mohammad
Zameer, Naib Imam of Farizabad-based Sunni community’s major Tatshah
Masjid.
He maintained the division of the disputed land reflects “a typical
Congress stamp” though it is a judicial order. “The attempt to delay
the judgement by way of special leave petition was also seen as
Congress hand. This party has always betrayed Muslims whenever we had
shown faith in it,” he said.
Several of those who had gathered in the city’s spacious Mosque to
conduct the Friday prayer seemed to have endorsed the sentiments of
the Imam.
In fact, an angry Congress member from Fatehganj Block displaying his
Congress party card said he would “surrender it” in the evening.
Irshad Ahmed, a footwear businessman, said the ultimate message of the
verdict was that “jo Musalman ko milna chahiye thee, nahi mili”.
Agreeing with him, 56-year-old Rais Khan said “yeh faisla sey bahut hi
mayusi hae. Yeh faisla, faisla nahi tha…. Panchayati thi (This verdict
has left us aggrieved. The order was like a panchayati order)”.
Significantly, though the verdict was a judicial order where in
probably even Congress party has been caught unawares; the general
impression among the Muslims in Faizabad and Ayodhya is that the
appease all formula typically reflected a Congress style of
functioning.
“Actually, what happens, when you try to appease all. You end up
everyone unhappy. No doubt the case would go to the Supreme Court. But
meanwhile, Congress will again have to rethink about their faith in
Congress. Shilanayas was their work and even Babri demolition took
place during Congress rule in Centre,” lamented 80-year-old Anwar
Ahmed.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Reporting from Ayodhya - Hindus and Muslims favour early judgement
The people in Ayodhya and adjoining Faizabad strongly favour an early end to the impasse and the surcharged atmosphere that has been offset ever since the possibility of a verdict on the dispute from the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court brightened. “Even after 1990s things were peaceful here. But tension has gripped this time. Not that something would happen here, but whatever happens even in Mumbai or Bhagalpur, it leaves an impact for the people here and more so for the Muslims,” says Haji Mohammad Asif Ansari, who has been a plaintiff to the decades old communally vulnerable legal case.
It is this realization about the “futility of confrontation” that has made Ansari, 90 and a former detenue under MISA during emergency, today swear by the compromise formula. “Agar masjid chhor dene se aman hoti hae …. Toh chhor do, humey nahi chahihye, (If my giving up the Masjid, there is harmony, let us give it up,” he retorted.
It is in this context, he says, “Khushi ho ya gam, Band kamre mein raho. Musalman sarko pe ani nahi chahihiye, (Whether it is victory or loss in the case, Muslims should confined within closed rooms and not take to the streets either to protest or rejoice)”.
He also announced that whatever the judgement, he would accept it. “The dispute should end for once and all. We want the Masjid but peace is also equally important,” he said on September 24 the day within hours the news spread like wildfire in this temple city that the delivery of the Allahabad High Court ruling had
been delayed.
He said he would also not favour moving the Supreme Court on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board as the confrontation would serve no purpose.
“Yeh dalalo ko mauka dena hae (This will only give opportunities to middlemen to exploit the situation),” he said.
“The delay would not affect the strength of the case either way. Whatever evidence was to be submitted has been submitted and court has already applied its mind. This delay has been worked out by those political forces like Congress and Mulayam Singh and their ‘agents’,” he said.
His views are rather strongly shared by the local VHP unit president Brij Mohan Das, who says, “the priests and the general citizens here are suffering for days due to the tension. Pilgrims have stopped coming and further delay has only intensified things”.
He said the case is pending before the Allahabad High court for years and till now there has been no scope of mutual settlement. “I fail to understand what makes people at this juncture feel that out of court settlement was possible,” he said.
It is the economic factor that is driving even Muslim youths. Rais Ahmed, 25-year-old LIC agent, said “when pilgrims don’t come here it is not only Hindu priests and their families who suffer. Even Muslims suffer. My cousins run tempo (auto rickshaws) and poorer Muslim youths survive on catering to the tourists with their horse carts. Now for months, there is hardly anything called income for them”.
The story of Ayodhya and its citizenry in the circa 2010 – about 60 years since the dispute over a place of worship – truly illustrates the combination of triumph and tragedy.
There have been staggering achievement in ensuring harmony and peaceful co-existence; yet there is equally confounding shortcoming. Other than to merely depend on religious sanctity of the place, more as a birthplace of Lord Rama, no other economic exercise and job avenue has emerged here over the decades.
“There is no factory or industry here. The entire economy is based on pilgrims’ visit, their contribution and donations,” points out local VHP unit president Brij Mohan Das, also the head priest at the prestigious Dasarth Gaddi.
Delay could aggravate the situation:
Local VHP unit feels the delay could only aggravate the situation as the Hindus would only feel frustrated. “There is a strong chance to believe that the status quo suits Muslims and so called secular parties. We only feel bad about it. So if anything happens who is to blame,” says Mahant Brij Mohan Das.
VHP leaders and several Hindu priests here believe that the judgement would be in favour of the Hindus. “All crucial evidence pertaining to the Ram janmabhoomi since the emperor Vikramaditya has been submitted before the court. Things are convincing that there was a temple over which mosque was built. It’s a historical fact,” says the Mahant.
It is this realization about the “futility of confrontation” that has made Ansari, 90 and a former detenue under MISA during emergency, today swear by the compromise formula. “Agar masjid chhor dene se aman hoti hae …. Toh chhor do, humey nahi chahihye, (If my giving up the Masjid, there is harmony, let us give it up,” he retorted.
It is in this context, he says, “Khushi ho ya gam, Band kamre mein raho. Musalman sarko pe ani nahi chahihiye, (Whether it is victory or loss in the case, Muslims should confined within closed rooms and not take to the streets either to protest or rejoice)”.
He also announced that whatever the judgement, he would accept it. “The dispute should end for once and all. We want the Masjid but peace is also equally important,” he said on September 24 the day within hours the news spread like wildfire in this temple city that the delivery of the Allahabad High Court ruling had
been delayed.
He said he would also not favour moving the Supreme Court on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board as the confrontation would serve no purpose.
“Yeh dalalo ko mauka dena hae (This will only give opportunities to middlemen to exploit the situation),” he said.
“The delay would not affect the strength of the case either way. Whatever evidence was to be submitted has been submitted and court has already applied its mind. This delay has been worked out by those political forces like Congress and Mulayam Singh and their ‘agents’,” he said.
His views are rather strongly shared by the local VHP unit president Brij Mohan Das, who says, “the priests and the general citizens here are suffering for days due to the tension. Pilgrims have stopped coming and further delay has only intensified things”.
He said the case is pending before the Allahabad High court for years and till now there has been no scope of mutual settlement. “I fail to understand what makes people at this juncture feel that out of court settlement was possible,” he said.
It is the economic factor that is driving even Muslim youths. Rais Ahmed, 25-year-old LIC agent, said “when pilgrims don’t come here it is not only Hindu priests and their families who suffer. Even Muslims suffer. My cousins run tempo (auto rickshaws) and poorer Muslim youths survive on catering to the tourists with their horse carts. Now for months, there is hardly anything called income for them”.
The story of Ayodhya and its citizenry in the circa 2010 – about 60 years since the dispute over a place of worship – truly illustrates the combination of triumph and tragedy.
There have been staggering achievement in ensuring harmony and peaceful co-existence; yet there is equally confounding shortcoming. Other than to merely depend on religious sanctity of the place, more as a birthplace of Lord Rama, no other economic exercise and job avenue has emerged here over the decades.
“There is no factory or industry here. The entire economy is based on pilgrims’ visit, their contribution and donations,” points out local VHP unit president Brij Mohan Das, also the head priest at the prestigious Dasarth Gaddi.
Delay could aggravate the situation:
Local VHP unit feels the delay could only aggravate the situation as the Hindus would only feel frustrated. “There is a strong chance to believe that the status quo suits Muslims and so called secular parties. We only feel bad about it. So if anything happens who is to blame,” says Mahant Brij Mohan Das.
VHP leaders and several Hindu priests here believe that the judgement would be in favour of the Hindus. “All crucial evidence pertaining to the Ram janmabhoomi since the emperor Vikramaditya has been submitted before the court. Things are convincing that there was a temple over which mosque was built. It’s a historical fact,” says the Mahant.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Withering Law: The Armed Forces Special Power Act
In a way I am jumping the gun here. We will talk about EVM misuse in another posting. Here I take the opportunity of sharing my views on the highly controversial Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFPSA), which is these days hitting headlines in the wake of a move by the Manmohan Singh government to withdraw it or to ‘weaken/moderate’ its influence to assuage the hurt sentiments of the people of trouble-torn Kashmir valley.
Before going into details on various facets of AFPSA and their use and abuse by the olive green forces, we need to examine certain things most vital in understanding the scenario either in Kashmir or in the northeast.
The natives, either in Kashmir or the northeastern states believe that Indian army is only “an instrument of expansionist designs”. This perception has only increased over the years due to plethora of factors. One of them being sustained campaign by the insurgent groups/militants with tacit and often open support by locals and human rights’ bodies. Then media plays its part by often blowing things out of proportion making a classic case of a mountain being made out of molehill. Thus, knowingly or unknowingly, the country’s biggest asset ‘ethnic pluralism’ turns out to be a great liability practically in all states.
Therefore, in Manipur the controversy over demand for scraping of the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFPSA) had local people’s sanction. After all, the army or para military forces like Assam Rifles are identified with the “outsiders”.
Similar is the case in Jammu and Kashmir. Now, the so called high-handedness of the forces has now made even children and women in Kashmir taking to the streets.
Now, what is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act/
This piece of legislation was passed in 1958 and has been always bogged down in controversies with human right activists in the northeast already called it a ‘draconian’ law.
Under this Act, all security forces operating in trouble-torn areas are given unbridled power to carry out their operations in designated areas declared disturbed. In fact, sometime in the northeast, even the entire state, like Nagaland under Congress chief minister S C Jamir government in 1995 was declared ‘disturbed’ by enforcing the provisions of the Disturbed Area Act.
In fact, the saying goes well that AFPSA is meaningless in ‘peaceful situation’ and in effect it goes hand-in-hand with the Disturbed Area Act.
Under this law, even a non-commissioned officer (rank of havildars) is granted the right to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion in order to "maintain the public order".
No wonder, in the troubled region of Nagaland and Manipur often ministers are held up and ‘insulted’ for their alleged nexus with the militants. These charges are sometime true and sometime not.
Regarding “indiscriminate use of black laws”, the Assam-based potent militant organization ULFA charges the Indian state machinery with “continuously violating basic fundamental human rights of the people of seven sister region although India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations”. The laws like the Armed Forces Special Power Act of 1958 and the Disturbed Areas Act “continue with the concurrence of Indian judiciary and are means of crushing dissent and struggles,” a popular ULFA leader had said once.
It is of much relevance here to take note of another test case in Manipur.
There is in fact a cycle affect involving governance, deployment of armed forces and opportunistic stand taken by politicians and so-called civil liberty activists.
We must examine how successive governments in New Delhi, in Jammu and Kashmir and in the north eastern states have relied heavily on the presence of the military to perform the basic functions of governance.
Former Army chief Gen (Retd) V P Malik also wrote in a piece to ‘The Indian Express’ (September 1, 2004), “The administration assisted by the Central government ought to create conditions so that armed forces do not have to be deployed for long durations”. In fact, Gen (Retd) Malik cited an illustration where in one Manipur Chief Minister while favoured revoking Armed Forces Special Power Act declined permission to withdraw armed forces from 60 odd posts in Manipur saying, “you cannot do that! What will happen to the law and order situation?”
This is the paradox.
(to be continued)
Before going into details on various facets of AFPSA and their use and abuse by the olive green forces, we need to examine certain things most vital in understanding the scenario either in Kashmir or in the northeast.
The natives, either in Kashmir or the northeastern states believe that Indian army is only “an instrument of expansionist designs”. This perception has only increased over the years due to plethora of factors. One of them being sustained campaign by the insurgent groups/militants with tacit and often open support by locals and human rights’ bodies. Then media plays its part by often blowing things out of proportion making a classic case of a mountain being made out of molehill. Thus, knowingly or unknowingly, the country’s biggest asset ‘ethnic pluralism’ turns out to be a great liability practically in all states.
Therefore, in Manipur the controversy over demand for scraping of the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFPSA) had local people’s sanction. After all, the army or para military forces like Assam Rifles are identified with the “outsiders”.
Similar is the case in Jammu and Kashmir. Now, the so called high-handedness of the forces has now made even children and women in Kashmir taking to the streets.
Now, what is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act/
This piece of legislation was passed in 1958 and has been always bogged down in controversies with human right activists in the northeast already called it a ‘draconian’ law.
Under this Act, all security forces operating in trouble-torn areas are given unbridled power to carry out their operations in designated areas declared disturbed. In fact, sometime in the northeast, even the entire state, like Nagaland under Congress chief minister S C Jamir government in 1995 was declared ‘disturbed’ by enforcing the provisions of the Disturbed Area Act.
In fact, the saying goes well that AFPSA is meaningless in ‘peaceful situation’ and in effect it goes hand-in-hand with the Disturbed Area Act.
Under this law, even a non-commissioned officer (rank of havildars) is granted the right to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion in order to "maintain the public order".
No wonder, in the troubled region of Nagaland and Manipur often ministers are held up and ‘insulted’ for their alleged nexus with the militants. These charges are sometime true and sometime not.
Regarding “indiscriminate use of black laws”, the Assam-based potent militant organization ULFA charges the Indian state machinery with “continuously violating basic fundamental human rights of the people of seven sister region although India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations”. The laws like the Armed Forces Special Power Act of 1958 and the Disturbed Areas Act “continue with the concurrence of Indian judiciary and are means of crushing dissent and struggles,” a popular ULFA leader had said once.
It is of much relevance here to take note of another test case in Manipur.
There is in fact a cycle affect involving governance, deployment of armed forces and opportunistic stand taken by politicians and so-called civil liberty activists.
We must examine how successive governments in New Delhi, in Jammu and Kashmir and in the north eastern states have relied heavily on the presence of the military to perform the basic functions of governance.
Former Army chief Gen (Retd) V P Malik also wrote in a piece to ‘The Indian Express’ (September 1, 2004), “The administration assisted by the Central government ought to create conditions so that armed forces do not have to be deployed for long durations”. In fact, Gen (Retd) Malik cited an illustration where in one Manipur Chief Minister while favoured revoking Armed Forces Special Power Act declined permission to withdraw armed forces from 60 odd posts in Manipur saying, “you cannot do that! What will happen to the law and order situation?”
This is the paradox.
(to be continued)
Saturday, September 11, 2010
EVM misuse – Who will Bell the Cat?
It's not without good reason that the politicians are called strange bed fellows. They are expert in their own way not only in sleeping with the enemies but also change their stand on any issue under the sky, given the context what's their immediate benefits are. A few years ago, the then Punjab chief minister and dynamic Congress leader in the northern region, Capt. Amarinder Singh, had staged a demonstration in the office of a reputed editor of a Chandigarh daily trying to argue that the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) could be misused.
Not long ago, EVMs were billed as an instrument of panacea in organizing elections and which could deal with mal practices of Indian electoral system. However, the table has seemingly taken a gory turn since 2004.
At the national level Congress has bounced back to power and five years since then with a renewed and resurgent mandate in May 2009.
So the general refrain of the political class being, how can Congress now complain of the EVMs.
Worse, the BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi has virtually sanctified the theory by suggesting that EVMs are now the “Elections Voting Machines” (sic) for the Congress.
Now, when was the last time, we heard that misuse of EVMs is only a rhetoric of losers.
The Election Commission has quickly denied rather authoritatively that EVMs in India (ECI-EVMs) are stand alone objects and cannot be misused.
This is too simplistic part of the story.
But there are evidences in several parts of the world where experts claim the electronic voting machines were subject to gross abuse resulting in questioning the very credibility of the democratic process.
Theoretically, these arguments have basically raised questions on the credibility of Indian election system, something which had gained much respect globally especially the post T N Seshan era.
So an argument has been placed forward that instead of questioning the intention of those raising the bogey of misuse of EVM machines, the authorities, the UPA government, the Congress party and importantly the Election Commission would do well to appreciate the sincerity of purpose. And in the ultimate, help arrive some conclusive and much importantly a credible conclusion that the EVMs in use in India are above board.
This is what is being suggested by a former IAS officer and ex-chief secretary Delhi government, Omesh Saigal. “It is an important issue as the fate of this country’s democratic set-up hinges on the fairness of the elections. There shouldn’t be an iota of doubt about the same,” he says.
Saigal also cited a study conducted by the Johns Hopkins University and Rice University, which established that if one gets to know the “source code” of an EVM, it is possible for a single person to cast unlimited ballots without detection.
“To see if a similar fraud could be done in India, on my request a young programmer wrote a very simple programme which could skew the result if a pre-programmed code number was keyed in. A mock poll showed that every 5th vote after the first 10 would go in favour of a particular candidate. This poll was conducted in the presence of some eminent people, whose names were sent to the chief election commissioner, Naveen Chawla,” Saigal had said.
However, Saigal later, according to Election Commission officials, refused to stage a demonstration with EC-given EVMs at the Commission office in August 2009.
International Experience:
Electronic voting systems for electorates have been in use since the 1960s. So the hype that the technology is something latest and a 21st century phenomenon is itself a misnomer.
To put record straight, electronic voting system, albeit with differences in specifications, have been used in several countries including Venezuela, Brazil, Netherlands, Estonia, Canada and of course Uncle Sam, the US.
But the developments in certain countries could not be over sighted. After all, as says former Delhi chief secretary, Saigal, election in a democracy like justice should not be simply be fair but also seen as fair and above board.
In Netherlands, the electronic voting machines have been decommissioned after public protests.
There have been contentions, especially in the United States, that electronic voting, specifically DRE voting, could facilitate electoral fraud.
Meanwhile, computer scientists in the US have demonstrated how electronic voting machines (EVM) can be hacked and votes ‘stolen’ using a malicious programming approach that had not been invented when the voting machine was designed. The team of scientists from the Universites of California, San Diego, Michigan and Princeton employed "return-oriented programming" to force an electronic voting machine to turn against itself. Hovav Shacham, a professor of computer science at UC San Diego's (UC-SD) Jacobs School of Engineering and a study co-author, demonstrated that return-oriented programming can be used to execute vote-stealing computations by taking control of an EVM designed to prevent the code injection.
However, the school of thought, which believes firmly that EVMs can be misused and were misused in India, has sounded skeptical about Election Commission’s modus operandi in inviting people to demonstrate about the possibility of ‘tamperibility’.
A sustained campaign is still on in the internet and blogs and not surprisingly many of the participants are technocrats and a sizeable of them from abroad.
One argument from this school of thought has gone like this. “It was a trick played by concerned people, probably with the blessing and active participation of Congress party. To demonstrate the possibility of abuse of EVMs, one has to know the inner details of the programming configuration,” they say. So the refrain being if a section of people, including in political parties know about it, they could misuse it very well.
Another argument has been the Indian EVM is not a computer it is like a calculator. So to decode a calculator is much more difficult, they say but not impossible if there are players “within inner circles” to help you.
Possibilities of Fraud:
One cannot make a value judgement simply based on these theories. However, certain pertinent questions remain to be answered effectively.
Are EVMs vulnerable to hacking/misuse? Could the software of EVM be programmed to alter the outcome? From the global experience, are EVMs more susceptible to fraud than other types of voting machines?
Now take a closer look at these possibilities, as suggested by software professionals.
Someone doing fraudulent and moving 2-5% of the votes from one major party's candidate to the other would be very unlikely to be detected.
On these if precautions are taken like never reduce a candidate’s total votes to a questionable minimum can always ensure that there’s no suspicion raised.
For instance, it could be ensured that winnability of some candidates is not put to question. Vijay Malhotra as BJP leader or Trinamul chief Mamata Banerjee need not be defeated.
Next, it is “possible” for a malevolent software developer to successfully insert suspect code.
There’s another aspect to it. Unlike the situation when poll rigging meant violence and involving larger number of people, when computers/EVMs are involved, a small number of individuals could be easily ‘managed’.
Another vital aspect that could not be neglected or overruled; it is not technology that is in question; it is the trust of the official machinery and officials. If a guard protecting the EVMs could be bribed so that a bribed engineer can load a suitable programme to the EVMs, which technology could save one.
There are also technical possibilities on how EVMs can be tampered, essentially through insertion of virus Trojan. To outward appearances and ordinary testing, the programme would appear normal. However, when it is fed a sequence of keystrokes by the agent of the party committing the fraud, the Trojan Horse wakes up, and then, regardless of what buttons the voter actually presses, it can assign a certain (non-suspicious-looking) percentage say 55-60 to the preferred party.
Experts also suggest, a chip’s internal circuitry cannot be verified after it is manufactured. There can be hardly a guarantee that all the chips manufactured were as per original design.
The size, appearance, and even the Unique ID of the Chip would be emulated as it is, and thus it is extremely difficult to verify, if the current Chip components used is indeed the original one.
In Tamil Nadu, in fact, during the parliamentary elections there were allegations by AIADMK supporters, voters and party workers that the LIGHT lit to the wrong party inspite them pressing the button of AIADMK candidates.
Apparently, Jaya TV showed a protest by about 200 voters and group clashes with the workers from the ruling party.
The refrain from this campaign basically is, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of any fraud.
However, in the ultimate, the responsibility and the authority to take the final call on this vital aspect of Indian democracy are with the Election Commission.
The Commission’s official response is: it is “amply satisfied about the non-tamperability and the fool-proof working of the EVMs.” The Commission’s confidence in the efficacy of the EVMs has been fortified by the judgments of various courts and the views of technical experts. The Karnataka High Court has once hailed the EVM as ‘a national pride’ (judgment dated 5.2.2004 in Michael B. Fernandes Vs C.K.Jaffer Sharief and others in E.P No 29 of 1999), they say. Similarly, the Madras High Court, after elaborate consideration of the issue in a batch of petitions in 2001, rejected allegations that the EVMs could be tampered.
To be continued…../..
Not long ago, EVMs were billed as an instrument of panacea in organizing elections and which could deal with mal practices of Indian electoral system. However, the table has seemingly taken a gory turn since 2004.
At the national level Congress has bounced back to power and five years since then with a renewed and resurgent mandate in May 2009.
So the general refrain of the political class being, how can Congress now complain of the EVMs.
Worse, the BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi has virtually sanctified the theory by suggesting that EVMs are now the “Elections Voting Machines” (sic) for the Congress.
Now, when was the last time, we heard that misuse of EVMs is only a rhetoric of losers.
The Election Commission has quickly denied rather authoritatively that EVMs in India (ECI-EVMs) are stand alone objects and cannot be misused.
This is too simplistic part of the story.
But there are evidences in several parts of the world where experts claim the electronic voting machines were subject to gross abuse resulting in questioning the very credibility of the democratic process.
Theoretically, these arguments have basically raised questions on the credibility of Indian election system, something which had gained much respect globally especially the post T N Seshan era.
So an argument has been placed forward that instead of questioning the intention of those raising the bogey of misuse of EVM machines, the authorities, the UPA government, the Congress party and importantly the Election Commission would do well to appreciate the sincerity of purpose. And in the ultimate, help arrive some conclusive and much importantly a credible conclusion that the EVMs in use in India are above board.
This is what is being suggested by a former IAS officer and ex-chief secretary Delhi government, Omesh Saigal. “It is an important issue as the fate of this country’s democratic set-up hinges on the fairness of the elections. There shouldn’t be an iota of doubt about the same,” he says.
Saigal also cited a study conducted by the Johns Hopkins University and Rice University, which established that if one gets to know the “source code” of an EVM, it is possible for a single person to cast unlimited ballots without detection.
“To see if a similar fraud could be done in India, on my request a young programmer wrote a very simple programme which could skew the result if a pre-programmed code number was keyed in. A mock poll showed that every 5th vote after the first 10 would go in favour of a particular candidate. This poll was conducted in the presence of some eminent people, whose names were sent to the chief election commissioner, Naveen Chawla,” Saigal had said.
However, Saigal later, according to Election Commission officials, refused to stage a demonstration with EC-given EVMs at the Commission office in August 2009.
International Experience:
Electronic voting systems for electorates have been in use since the 1960s. So the hype that the technology is something latest and a 21st century phenomenon is itself a misnomer.
To put record straight, electronic voting system, albeit with differences in specifications, have been used in several countries including Venezuela, Brazil, Netherlands, Estonia, Canada and of course Uncle Sam, the US.
But the developments in certain countries could not be over sighted. After all, as says former Delhi chief secretary, Saigal, election in a democracy like justice should not be simply be fair but also seen as fair and above board.
In Netherlands, the electronic voting machines have been decommissioned after public protests.
There have been contentions, especially in the United States, that electronic voting, specifically DRE voting, could facilitate electoral fraud.
Meanwhile, computer scientists in the US have demonstrated how electronic voting machines (EVM) can be hacked and votes ‘stolen’ using a malicious programming approach that had not been invented when the voting machine was designed. The team of scientists from the Universites of California, San Diego, Michigan and Princeton employed "return-oriented programming" to force an electronic voting machine to turn against itself. Hovav Shacham, a professor of computer science at UC San Diego's (UC-SD) Jacobs School of Engineering and a study co-author, demonstrated that return-oriented programming can be used to execute vote-stealing computations by taking control of an EVM designed to prevent the code injection.
However, the school of thought, which believes firmly that EVMs can be misused and were misused in India, has sounded skeptical about Election Commission’s modus operandi in inviting people to demonstrate about the possibility of ‘tamperibility’.
A sustained campaign is still on in the internet and blogs and not surprisingly many of the participants are technocrats and a sizeable of them from abroad.
One argument from this school of thought has gone like this. “It was a trick played by concerned people, probably with the blessing and active participation of Congress party. To demonstrate the possibility of abuse of EVMs, one has to know the inner details of the programming configuration,” they say. So the refrain being if a section of people, including in political parties know about it, they could misuse it very well.
Another argument has been the Indian EVM is not a computer it is like a calculator. So to decode a calculator is much more difficult, they say but not impossible if there are players “within inner circles” to help you.
Possibilities of Fraud:
One cannot make a value judgement simply based on these theories. However, certain pertinent questions remain to be answered effectively.
Are EVMs vulnerable to hacking/misuse? Could the software of EVM be programmed to alter the outcome? From the global experience, are EVMs more susceptible to fraud than other types of voting machines?
Now take a closer look at these possibilities, as suggested by software professionals.
Someone doing fraudulent and moving 2-5% of the votes from one major party's candidate to the other would be very unlikely to be detected.
On these if precautions are taken like never reduce a candidate’s total votes to a questionable minimum can always ensure that there’s no suspicion raised.
For instance, it could be ensured that winnability of some candidates is not put to question. Vijay Malhotra as BJP leader or Trinamul chief Mamata Banerjee need not be defeated.
Next, it is “possible” for a malevolent software developer to successfully insert suspect code.
There’s another aspect to it. Unlike the situation when poll rigging meant violence and involving larger number of people, when computers/EVMs are involved, a small number of individuals could be easily ‘managed’.
Another vital aspect that could not be neglected or overruled; it is not technology that is in question; it is the trust of the official machinery and officials. If a guard protecting the EVMs could be bribed so that a bribed engineer can load a suitable programme to the EVMs, which technology could save one.
There are also technical possibilities on how EVMs can be tampered, essentially through insertion of virus Trojan. To outward appearances and ordinary testing, the programme would appear normal. However, when it is fed a sequence of keystrokes by the agent of the party committing the fraud, the Trojan Horse wakes up, and then, regardless of what buttons the voter actually presses, it can assign a certain (non-suspicious-looking) percentage say 55-60 to the preferred party.
Experts also suggest, a chip’s internal circuitry cannot be verified after it is manufactured. There can be hardly a guarantee that all the chips manufactured were as per original design.
The size, appearance, and even the Unique ID of the Chip would be emulated as it is, and thus it is extremely difficult to verify, if the current Chip components used is indeed the original one.
In Tamil Nadu, in fact, during the parliamentary elections there were allegations by AIADMK supporters, voters and party workers that the LIGHT lit to the wrong party inspite them pressing the button of AIADMK candidates.
Apparently, Jaya TV showed a protest by about 200 voters and group clashes with the workers from the ruling party.
The refrain from this campaign basically is, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of any fraud.
However, in the ultimate, the responsibility and the authority to take the final call on this vital aspect of Indian democracy are with the Election Commission.
The Commission’s official response is: it is “amply satisfied about the non-tamperability and the fool-proof working of the EVMs.” The Commission’s confidence in the efficacy of the EVMs has been fortified by the judgments of various courts and the views of technical experts. The Karnataka High Court has once hailed the EVM as ‘a national pride’ (judgment dated 5.2.2004 in Michael B. Fernandes Vs C.K.Jaffer Sharief and others in E.P No 29 of 1999), they say. Similarly, the Madras High Court, after elaborate consideration of the issue in a batch of petitions in 2001, rejected allegations that the EVMs could be tampered.
To be continued…../..
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Misuse of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) - a hot potato in India
The debate on misuse of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) has sought to come back yet again into public domain with the stage set for the crucial
Bihar elections. It is truly like a hot potato.
Every one wants to talk about it, but some are cautious not to display their inclination on the issue, others have made up their minds already.
It's not without good reason that the politicians are called strange bed fellows. They are expert in their own way not only in sleeping with the enemies but also change their stand on any issue under the sky, given the context what's their immediate benefits are. A few years ago, the then Punjab chief minister and dynamic Congress leader in the northern region, Capt. Amarinder Singh, had staged a demonstration in the office of a reputed editor of a Chandigarh daily trying to argue that the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) could be misused.
Not long ago, EVMs were billed as an instrument of panacea in organizing elections and which could deal with mal practices of Indian electoral system. However, the table has seemingly taken a gory turn since 2004.
At the national level Congress has bounced back to power and five years since then with a renewed and resurgent mandate in May 2009.
So the general refrain of the political class being, how can Congress now complain of the EVMs.
Worse, the BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi has virtually sanctified the theory by suggesting that EVMs are now the “Elections Voting Machines” (sic) for the Congress.
Now, when was the last time, we heard that misuse of EVMs is only a rhetoric of losers.
After all, post-May 2009 parliamentary elections, BJP, L K Advani, Ram Vilas Paswan -- et all come in that club.
In recent times many leaders have spoken about EVM misuse.
BJP’s arch rivals CPI (M), LJP and RJD have supported the contention.
Even a lady at the winning side, Mamata Banerjee has said, “I have been saying that EVMs are being manipulated for years. Now (CPM) are saying the same thing. I have said that EVMs should be replaced with ballot paper. However, we will accept what the Election Commission directs”.
Even during the just concluded monsoon session of parliament, the RJD leader Mr Lalu Prasad, who is leading an aggressive electoral campaign for poll-bound Bihar, and his friend Mulayam Singh Yadav made a strong demand
for abolition of electronic voting machine (EVMs) in the country saying
the earlier manual system was "more genuine".
"The use of EVM has raised many questions about misuse of technology
to infuence the poll results," Mr Prasad said in Lok Sabha on August 31 while speaking during a debate on a new legislation to allow participaton of overseas Indians into the voting system.
"On this even BJP is with us. We all had submitted representation on
this to the election commission," said the former Bihar chief minister,
whose party had suffered a stunning defeat during the 2009 Lok Sabha polls. "The unlettered voters often are vulnerable to be misguided on EVM. Many atimes it seems people vote for my party but the tally is shown for cycle (Mulayam Singh's SP symbol)," he said throwing the house into peals of laughter.
Besides Mulayam Singh Yadav even BSP members like Gorakh Nath Pandey also supported.
However, replying to the members, the Law Minister Mr M Veerappa Moily
said the Indian EVMs are foolproof. "It has been testified by a group
of experts headed by a former IIT director'.
The minister spoke on the expected line and said the issue of abuse of EVMs and irregularities with them has been raised a number of times in the Parliament but so far "no one has able to to prove the EVM wrong convincingly".
In the past also, the Election Commission had denied rather uthoritatively that EVMs in India (ECI-EVMs) are stand alone objects and cannot be misused.
But this is too simplistic part of the story.
We need to take a closer view on the vital question; is it right to presume that not having any proof for a crime implies that the crime was never committed.
The new Chief Election Commission S Y Quraishi has to ensure that the polls are not merely conducted fairly but like the judiciary they ought to be seen being conducted above board.
To be continued .....
Bihar elections. It is truly like a hot potato.
Every one wants to talk about it, but some are cautious not to display their inclination on the issue, others have made up their minds already.
It's not without good reason that the politicians are called strange bed fellows. They are expert in their own way not only in sleeping with the enemies but also change their stand on any issue under the sky, given the context what's their immediate benefits are. A few years ago, the then Punjab chief minister and dynamic Congress leader in the northern region, Capt. Amarinder Singh, had staged a demonstration in the office of a reputed editor of a Chandigarh daily trying to argue that the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) could be misused.
Not long ago, EVMs were billed as an instrument of panacea in organizing elections and which could deal with mal practices of Indian electoral system. However, the table has seemingly taken a gory turn since 2004.
At the national level Congress has bounced back to power and five years since then with a renewed and resurgent mandate in May 2009.
So the general refrain of the political class being, how can Congress now complain of the EVMs.
Worse, the BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi has virtually sanctified the theory by suggesting that EVMs are now the “Elections Voting Machines” (sic) for the Congress.
Now, when was the last time, we heard that misuse of EVMs is only a rhetoric of losers.
After all, post-May 2009 parliamentary elections, BJP, L K Advani, Ram Vilas Paswan -- et all come in that club.
In recent times many leaders have spoken about EVM misuse.
BJP’s arch rivals CPI (M), LJP and RJD have supported the contention.
Even a lady at the winning side, Mamata Banerjee has said, “I have been saying that EVMs are being manipulated for years. Now (CPM) are saying the same thing. I have said that EVMs should be replaced with ballot paper. However, we will accept what the Election Commission directs”.
Even during the just concluded monsoon session of parliament, the RJD leader Mr Lalu Prasad, who is leading an aggressive electoral campaign for poll-bound Bihar, and his friend Mulayam Singh Yadav made a strong demand
for abolition of electronic voting machine (EVMs) in the country saying
the earlier manual system was "more genuine".
"The use of EVM has raised many questions about misuse of technology
to infuence the poll results," Mr Prasad said in Lok Sabha on August 31 while speaking during a debate on a new legislation to allow participaton of overseas Indians into the voting system.
"On this even BJP is with us. We all had submitted representation on
this to the election commission," said the former Bihar chief minister,
whose party had suffered a stunning defeat during the 2009 Lok Sabha polls. "The unlettered voters often are vulnerable to be misguided on EVM. Many atimes it seems people vote for my party but the tally is shown for cycle (Mulayam Singh's SP symbol)," he said throwing the house into peals of laughter.
Besides Mulayam Singh Yadav even BSP members like Gorakh Nath Pandey also supported.
However, replying to the members, the Law Minister Mr M Veerappa Moily
said the Indian EVMs are foolproof. "It has been testified by a group
of experts headed by a former IIT director'.
The minister spoke on the expected line and said the issue of abuse of EVMs and irregularities with them has been raised a number of times in the Parliament but so far "no one has able to to prove the EVM wrong convincingly".
In the past also, the Election Commission had denied rather uthoritatively that EVMs in India (ECI-EVMs) are stand alone objects and cannot be misused.
But this is too simplistic part of the story.
We need to take a closer view on the vital question; is it right to presume that not having any proof for a crime implies that the crime was never committed.
The new Chief Election Commission S Y Quraishi has to ensure that the polls are not merely conducted fairly but like the judiciary they ought to be seen being conducted above board.
To be continued .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"A car is never a weapon for settling an ego dispute" :::::: "... being overtaken (while driving) is not an insult, .... and a woman riding motorcycle is no challenge to male authority" --- says Ex cop Kiran Bedi
"People are not born with a finished moral code. Behaviour is shaped by temperament, family, peers, education, social norms, experience...
-
The polarization of India’s intellectual class is so deep that it is difficult to express an opinion and that would still be considered a...
-
Interview with Lt Gen Abhay Krishna (Retd). He served as Commander of Eastern Command, Central Command and South West Command and has vast e...
-
The day of chaos takes it toll .... the real challenge begins, when survivors face their future Money Minting: Log and Trade *** The sto...
