Rahul shares dais with Hardik, attacks PM Modi

HT Correspondent

AHMEDABAD: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of creating “two Indias” -- one of a select few billionaires and the other for the common people.

Speaking at an ‘Adivasi Satyagrah Sammelan’ in Dahod district of Gujarat, Gandhi expressed confidence of a victory in the assembly elections due in the state later this year.

“The BJP government will not give you anything. Instead, they will take everything you have. You (tribals) have to grab your rights and only then will you get what is essentially yours,” he said, sharing the dais with state Congress working president

Hardik Patel, who has been accusing the state party leadership of ignoring him.

“Today, two Indias are being created, one is of the rich, a few select people, billionaires and bureaucrats who have power and money. The second India is of the common people,” he said

The Congress party does not want two Indias but equality for everyone, he added.

The state’s tribal belt has been a stronghold for the Congress since Independence. In 2017, the party won 15 seats of the 27 seats reserved for scheduled tribe (ST) candidates while the BJP won nine, in the region.

State BJP spokesperson Yamal Vyas said: “It is election tourism for him (Gandhi)... when elections are nearing, he has suddenly started visiting the state.”

SEDITION LAW

that suspending just one provision would not render investigating agencies helpless.

“We will consider the concerns of the government, but at the same time, you will have to protect those already booked and cases to be registered in future.till this exercise gets over, your ministry should issue advisories to all the states and Union territories that all the proceedings under Section 124A should be kept in abeyance,” the bench told the SG, giving him a day to come back with instructions. The clutch of cases challenging the validity of Section 124A will be taken up again on Wednesday.

On Monday, the government filed its affidavit to inform the court about its decision to “re-examine and reconsider” Section 124A, as it underscored Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impetus on protection of civil liberties and the need to shed “colonial baggage”, and urged the bench to pause the ongoing proceedings indefinitely to await the outcome of the review.

The affidavit on Monday followed another document submitted by the Centre in the top court less than 48 hours earlier, in which the government defended the penal provision of sedition. In its written submissions filed on Saturday evening, the Centre leaned on a six-decade-old Constitution bench judgment (Kedar Nath case, 1962) to assert that Section 124A is a valid law and that there are enough safeguards in place to balance the constitutional rights of the citizens and the needs of the State.

When the proceedings commenced on Tuesday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who leads the petitioners in the batch of cases, opposed the Centre’s request, emphasising that the judicial scrutiny is completely independent of any exercise that the executive or the legislature may undertake in future. “They are entitled to frame a new law or to even say that this is a bad law. But that won’t preclude this court from deciding on what the law is today. It is for the judiciary to decide whether a law is valid or not as it stands today,” argued Sibal.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was also appearing for one of the petitioners, added that the executive cannot give an assurance on behalf of the parliament, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment.

At this, the court asked SG Mehta if he could indicate an outer limit for completing the exercise of review. “I will not be able to give an accurate reply but I can assure that the process has already commenced. The tenor and the spirit of the affidavit are clear that it is not coming only from a department,” Mehta said.

Sibal, however, complained that people are still getting put behind bars under the sedition charge and that an indefinite adjournment would be detrimental to their rights.

To this, the court said that it is inclined to give some time to the government, in view of the affidavit spelling out that the issue has drawn the attention of the PM. “See what the affidavit says; the PM has been cognisant of various views being expressed on the subject of sedition...we will definitely take into consideration that they are conducting a serious exercise. We should not appear like we are being unreasonable,” the bench told Sibal.

Turning to Mehta, the bench asked: “There are some concerns. There are cases which are pending and then there will be cases which will be lodged while you reconsider the law. How are you going to protect these things?”

Pointing out that Section 124A has been in existence for over 100 years, the SG responded that FIRS are filed by the state governments and not by the Centre. Whenever there is a misuse, there are constitutional safeguards, contended Mehta, adding it would be impossible to stop prosecution in all the cases without knowing the facts.

But the court said that it is not reasonable to push everyone with a grievance to the courts and to the jails. “Why could the Centre not instruct the states not to proceed with the matters under Section 124A till the issue is under your reconsideration? Issue directives to the states that proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the time your exercise is complete,” it told Mehta.

The SG submitted that he will take instructions on the court’s proposal. “But it will be hazardous to say that don’t apply a penal provision across the board without knowing the facts. Never in history has this court stayed a penal provision across the board,” flagged Mehta.

But the bench remained emphatic that there are various other penal provisions that can come into play in serious cases. “It is not like somebody will go scot-free just because you don’t use 124A,” it told the SG.

Mehta also tried to lean on a 2021 judgment in which the Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines issued by a Constitution bench in the Kedar Nath case to check indiscriminate arrests under Section 124A.

The bench, however, retorted: “Judgments are delivered but who is invoking Section 124A at the ground level? It is local police etc. There are judgments and guidelines but who cares? Till the time you issue directives that we will keep 124A in abeyance until the reconsideration exercise is complete, cases will continue getting registered.”

When the SG started reading out his written submissions to establish that the Kedar Nath judgment has struck a balance to ensure that Section 124A is not misused, Sibal argued that this judgment was based on federal court judgments, in the pre-constitution era where there was no difference between the government and the State. “After we became a Republic, there is a difference between the government and the State. Section 124A penalises creating disaffection towards the government. It has nothing to do with the State,” Sibal argued.

Sibal also quoted Nehru’s statement in 1951 in the parliament: “Nehru said this provision (Section 124A) is obnoxious. The sooner we get rid of it, the better”.

To this, the SG responded: “What Nehru could not do then, we are trying to do now.”

The court was hearing an array of petitions, filed separately by former army officer SG Vombatkere, Editors’ Guild of India, Trimanool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, NGO PUCL, and some journalists, pressing for striking down Section 124A on grounds of infringement of fundamental rights and rampant abuse.

While admitting the case in July 2021, the bench highlighted the “enormous power of misuse” of the sedition law in India, and asked the Union government why it should not scrap a colonial law that was once used by the British government to oppress the freedom movements and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

When the case was taken up last week, attorney general KK Venugopal, who was assisting the Court, said that the sedition law in India must be retained to ascertain the security of the nation and its citizens, adding that some guidelines may be laid down by the court to control the misuse of the statutory provision.

SRI LANKA ON BOIL

creating an administrative vacuum. Even though the President has the most power under the constitution, a prime minister and cabinet are needed to manage the government. The prime minister is also the next in line if the presidency falls vacant.

Protesters angered by shortages of fuel, cooking gas and electricity defied the curfew to attack government figures, setting ablaze homes, shops and businesses belonging to ruling party lawmakers and provincial politicians.

Demonstrators on Tuesday swarmed the entrance to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s office in the capital for the 32nd day to demand that he follow in his brother’s footsteps and quit.

The Rajapaksa clan’s hold on power has been shaken by months of blackouts and shortages in Sri Lanka, the worst economic crisis since it became independent in 1948. But Monday’s attacks represented a turning point after weeks of peaceful demonstrations.

Police fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse crowds and declared an immediate curfew in Colombo, a measure later widened to include the entire South Asian nation of 22 million people.

Nearly 200 protesters were injured when government supporters were bussed into Colombo on Monday, and attacked protesters with sticks and clubs.

“We were hit, the media were hit, women and children were hit,” one witness told AFP.

The violence saw arson attacks on the homes of several politicians, including the ancestral home of the Rajapaksas in Hambantota.

Video footage showed the Rajapaksas’ house in Medamulana in Hambantota city was burning. Chandrika Kumaratunga, who was Sri Lanka’s president from 1994 to 2005, warned against violence, tweeting that “saboteurs may be used to incite violence in order to pave the way for military rule”.

President Rajapaksa is a former military officer who has loyalists within the forces.

Authorities said the curfew will be lifted Wednesday morning, with government and private offices, as well as shops and schools, ordered to remain shut on Tuesday.

The United Nations condemned the escalating violence, with human rights chief Michelle Bachelet calling on the authorities to prevent further unrest. “I am deeply troubled by the escalation of violence in Sri Lanka after supporters of the prime minister attacked peaceful protesters in Colombo yesterday May 9 and the subsequent mob violence against members of the ruling party,” Bachelet said in a statement on Tuesday.

In another sign of rapidly deteriorating security, vigilante groups blocked on Tuesday the main road to Colombo’s airport and stopped all traffic to check for any Rajapaksa loyalists trying to leave the island, witnesses said.

Despite the attack on his residence, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s son Namal said that his father would not flee, describing the surge of national anger against his family as a “bad patch”. The 76-year-old said he was resigning to pave the way for a unity government.

But it was unclear if the opposition would join any administration with Gotabaya still president. Under Sri Lanka’s political system, even with a new unity government, the president will have the power to appoint and fire ministers as well as judges, and enjoy immunity from prosecution.

Opposition parties said Tuesday they called off unity talks with the government after the outbreak of violence.

For months, people have been forced to stand in lines to buy essentials because a foreign exchange crisis has caused imports of everything to plunge, spawning dire food shortages and rolling power cuts.

INDIAN MAESTRO

(1993) was much acclaimed. After working on eight films, both musicians decided to focus on classical music.

Born in Jammu on January 13, 1938, Sharma was initiated into music by his father Pandit Uma Dutt Sharma. After learning vocals and tabla, and even performing for the Jammu radio station when he was 12, he was drawn to the sound of the santoor, which was played commonly in the Kashmir region.

The instrument is considered to be part of the dulcimer family; other similar instruments include the hammered dulcimer (as it is called in the US, UK and Canada), hackbrett (mainland Europe) and cimbalom (East Europe and Russia). Iran, Japan, Korea and China have their own types of dulcimers, too.

The Indian santoor, which derives its name from the shatatantri veena or 100-stringed instrument, is played when the strings are struck by a pair of mallets. With his father’s guidance, Sharma spent a lot of time studying its features and possibilities to devise a unique style. Because of his background in playing the tabla, he understood the instrument’s rhythmic possibilities too.

He had his critics, as traditionalists felt the santoor could not replicate certain features typical to Indian classical music. But Sharma increased its melodic range, changed its tuning, and reworked his technique to make it more conducive to classical music.

He played raga Yaman on the santoor in his first concert at the Haridas Sangeet Sammelan in Mumbai in 1955. At the same time, he looked for other avenues of performing. He played the santoor in V Shantaram’s 1955 film, Jhanak Jhanak Payal Baaje, whose music was composed by Vasant Desai. He was only 17 at the time.

Though Sharma slowly began gaining popularity as a solo artiste, the 1967 album Call of the Valley gave him the muchneeded boost. A trio with Chaurasia and guitarist Brij Bhushan Kabra, it remains one of the highest selling albums of Indian classical music.

Having made a mark across India, Sharma helped spread the santoor’s popularity abroad. Foreign audiences were attracted to the meditative and serene nature of the music. For his part, the maestro focused on the purer form of classical music, rarely doing fusion experiments. There was the rare exception, like his guest appearance at the Remember Shakti concert in Mumbai in 2000, where he played the piece Shringar, with guitarist John Mclaughlin.

Known to follow a strict schedule, Sharma regularly practised pranayam and meditation. In interviews with this writer, he often talked of his approach to music with characteristic humility. “I cannot preplan anything. My mental frame is not like that. I will just decide and play as things go,” he said.

He also believed there were two types of riyaaz, or practice. “One is the physical type, which I do as and when I get time. The other is mental riyaaz. Mentally, I am always thinking of music,” he would say. “Whether I am in a flight or in a hotel, music is always on my mind. As they say, I eat, drink and sleep music.”