Monday, 17 August 2015


Respected Shanti Bhushan ji,
                                                We've known you as an honest and upright citizen who has faught against corruption all his life. Moreover, you've always helped the people's movements by taking up their cases without charging any fees. You've also been an important public figure of the nation in the capacity of Law Minister during Janata Party government or as member of the drafing committee for Jan Lokpal Bill.
                       We wish to bring to your notice a peculiar situation which has arisen in Lucknow. We know that you've been a lawyer for the Founder Manager Jagdish Gandhi of City Montessori School in Lucknow for over three decades and realise that as a lawyer your ethical commitment is to defend your client.
                       The Basic Shiksha Adhikari of Lucknow has ordered admission of 31 children, including 23 SC and 8 Muslims, 6 of whom belong to OBC category, to CMS under Section 12 of the Right to Education Act, 2009. However, Shri Jagdish Gandhi and his daughter Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, President of CMS, have refused to admit these children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections to the Indira Nagar branch of their school. Jagdish Gandhi went to the High Court claiming that they don't have physical space in their school and questioned why the BSA ordered admission to their school when there were other government and private schools closer to the homes of the children. On High Court's order BSA visited the school and found that there is enough space in the school and the court has taken a view that even if other schools are there the parents have a right to seek admission to a school of their choice according to the law. The court ordered the BSA to find out how many children lived in the neighbourhood of the school, as required by the law. Upon measuring the distances from their homes it turned out that 14 out of 31 children lived within a km of the school, which is the definition of neighbourhood as prescribed by U.P. government rules. The HC ordered admission of these 14 children to CMS on 6th August, 2015. Socialist Party (India) is involved with this struggle to get children admitted to school under RTE.
                       Your appearance for a truant school in the HC (first on hearing on 30 July and then on first hearing of appeal against the court order directing CMS to admit 14 children within a week on 12 August, 2015) not only emboldens a person bent upon violating a national law and who holds court order in contempt but also weakens our fight for social justice. The RTE Act, for the first time in this country since economic policies of privatization, liberalization and globalization have been implemented is an attempt to bridge the ever widening gap between the children of rich and poor and gives a chance to government to regulate the private schools to ensure compliance of various laws and norms. The outlaw school's founder manager and president and a weak government have colluded to deny children from socio-economic weaker background their legal right and an opportunity to transform their lives by receiving education available to only the elite in the country. Your appearance in HC is unfortunately strengthening the forces which have made quality education for underprivileged children a distant dream in this country and are preventing the implementation of long standing demand of common school system.
                       We cannot request a person of your stature not to help your client but can only make an appeal to you to think of the larger cause of universalization of primary education which is at stake and then take a decision based on your conscience.
Sandeep Pandey, Socialist Party (India),

Another Naga accord: Now let’s make it work

Another Naga accord: Now let’s make it work
Rajindar Sachar

 The recent accord that was signed between the Centre and the largest faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland NSCN (IM) is welcome. The group has given up its demand for a sovereign state outside India.

  Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the NSCN leaders at the signing ceremony of historic peace accord, in New Delhi. PTI
A pact has been signed between Government of India and Naga faction of NSCN (I.M.). The details will be officially released in due course of time. It is a good sign, if as reported by the government that (I.M.), which is admittedly the largest Naga group, has given up its demand for a sovereign State outside India, as was originally the demand of A.Z. Phizo. 

It is also a good sign that T. Muivah has agreed not to insist on including the areas inhabited by Nagas in the other states of Manipur, Assam, Arunchal Pradesh in the state of Nagaland. This demand which required cutting off areas from those states was a non-starter. No government could afford to settle on terms which would provoke counter movements in other North-East states. Of course, it will require the Central Government to honestly abide by the spirit of Article 371A of the Constitution.

Right since 1947, the Naga question has been the unsolved knot leading to almost a war-like situation between the Nagas and the Indian government. Some respite came when the then Prime Minister I. K. Gujral, made the following announcement on July 25, 1997: “In recent talks with the Isac Muivah group of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), it has been mutually agreed to ceasefire with effect from 1 August, 1997 and initiate discussions at the political levels.” Of course, a serious drawback was that ceasefire did not extend to other North-Eastern states that had a considerable Naga population, even when subsequent governments were so advised by some of us. So the situation continued to remain unsettled and fluid. 

I have had a fair deal of inkling of the open hostility and anger of Nagas towards India. As President of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, I had occasion to meetn some of the top leaders of the Naga movement, including T Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu. 

It was in 2000 that I was invited by Asia forum for a conference and also watched the proceedings in a Court at Bangkok (Thailand) where T. Muivah was being prosecuted for travelling on a fake passport. The delicate situation was because NSCN believed that the information about the movements of Muivah had been given by the Indian government — that later denied it.

I also attended the court proceeding and was able to chat with Muivah, courtesy the security guards. Later in the evening, some of us were invited  by Isac Swu and his team, who were all underground, for dinner. We were taken from our hotel in a car with dark curtains on both sides, obviously so that we could not see the route from the hotel. We understood their delicate concern, because the place was in Bangkok itself. At the meeting we suggested to Isac Swu and his colleagues that in the meanwhile talks need not be stalled and Muivah (who was in prison) could nominate a team to continue the dialogue in his absence. We even then felt that Muivah and others were genuinely in favour of a peaceful settlement, especially when Rh Raising, member, NSCN Steering Committee, openly told us that “Nagas are totally committed to solving the problem through peaceful means. They want to solve any problem through mutual discussion, understanding, respect and consent”. We told them plainly that no government in India can be a party to allow Nagaland to secede from India. Of course, a degree of autonomy can be worked out mutually within the broad parameters of the Constitution. It is thereafter that talks between Nagas and the Government of India, represented by its Home Secretary. K. Padmanabhaiah, started.   

Even when both Muivah and Swu came to Delhi and a meeting was held by some of us, along with V. P.  Singh, at the latter's residence. V.P Singh had ceased to be the  prime minister. They reiterated their desire for settlement with more autonomy, in a dignified manner. It is a pity that it has taken such a long time for the accord. One may now be hesitatingly optimistic, especially when Muivah has openly welcomed it by describing it as: “Better understanding has been arrived ……based on the unique history and position of Nagas”.  It is also a sign of practical wisdom that the Indian government has agreed to facilitate the visit of the Muivah group to travel to Myanmar to consult and bring on board the Khaplang group. One has still to be cautious because the Prime Minister has isolated the Congress chief ministers of Assam, Manipur and Arunchal Pradesh details with them because they too have a similar issue about Nagas. It’s a relief that the Centre has now told those states that the deal will not affect their territories and also assured them that the details will be discussed with them before a final accord is signed. 

If it is any satisfaction, even Raj Nath the Home Minister, was excluded from the initial talks (when all the previous negotiations were held by the Home Ministry). It would seem that the Prime Minister realising the gravity of the Naga problem, was keen to find an equitable settlement when he said in his speech : “We will not only try to heal wounds and resolve problems, but also be your partner as you restore your pride and prestige and that the only path to peace and understanding can come about when we deal with each other in a spirit of equality and respect, trust and confidence; when we seek to understand concerns and try to address aspirations.” 

Would not the Prime Minister like to express the same sentiments and approach with respect to minorities in our country, especially to Muslims, the largest minority of 14 crore? This course is not only Raj Dharam but a practical and realistic approach that any top leader would adopt. 

The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

उभरती शूद्र चेतना की सीमाएं

उभरती शूद्र चेतना की सीमाएं किशन पटनायक              लालू यादव के मुंह में दूध शक्कर | एक दिन अचानक उन्होंने कहा कि हरिजनों को द...