The Indian Republic, Draconian Laws and The Quest for an Alternative

Amit Bhattacharyya

(Courtesy: The Arrested)

The framers of the Constitution of India, who adopted the Constitution in November 1949 after the ‘transfer of power to friendly hands’ in 1947, described India as a “Sovereign Democratic Republic”. On 3 January 1977, during the period of Emergency under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India became, through an amendment to the Constitution, a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic” and remains so till now. What did such a “Democratic Republic” or a “Socialist Republic” stands for? Was it a People’s Republic? Was this an independent republic free from all imperialist control and influence? Did the “founding fathers” of this republic really aspire to have a new society where all sections of the people—the rich and the poor, the upper and the downtrodden—would have all-round development, would have food, education, health, where there would be equitable distribution of property and ‘fundamental rights’ of all the citizens would be guaranteed. Would it be a society where the gap between the rich and the poor would first diminish and then wither away? History has proved over the years that this “Sovereign Democratic Republic”, far from being ‘sovereign’ and free from imperialist influence, actually lost its sovereignty to imperialist powers, particularly USA; far from bringing about the uplift in the standard of living of the basic masses, it has only widened the gap between one section and another and made the rich richer and poor poorer; far from creating an equitable society, it has only led to the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and has created an ocean of misery, poverty, malnutrition, and death for the overwhelming majority. In the name of giving ‘fundamental rights’ to its citizens, it had done everything in its power to see to it that its citizens enjoy them only at the pleasure of the executive. However surprising it might seem to many, the Indian Constitution and the Republic it had given shape bore the unmistakable mark of the British raj and the US constitution.

The Indian Constitution

How was the power transferred to “responsible Indian hands”? The February Declaration of 1947, which led to the Mountbatten Settlement, spoke of transferring power by June 1948. At the same time the Declaration warned that no constitution drawn up by a Constituent Assembly would be accepted by Britain unless it was drawn up “in accordance with the proposals” contained in the Cabinet Mission Plan. This Declaration of February 1947 was the key guiding statement of policy for the “transfer of power” that took place six months later. Thus there was no question of a free choice by the Indian people of the kind of government under which they might wish to live. There was also no question of a free sovereign Constituent Assembly, freely elected by universal suffrage of the Indian people. The Constituent Assembly was under direct British imperialist pressure to draw up a constitution acceptable to them. Thus would it be wrong to state that the “transfer of power” did not create an independent sovereign Indian State, but merely installed in power a ‘representative’ body chosen by the imperialists and committed to protect their interests?

India’s Constitutional Assembly was convened by the British viceroy Lord Wavell and it began work when India was still a colony. The members of the Constituent Assembly were not elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage. Who were asked to elect their representatives? It was the provincial legislative assemblies of British-India, formed under the GOI Act of 1935, which restricted the franchise to about 11.5% of the people comprising mainly of property-owners and provided for separate electorates for different religious communities. Some important people like Jinnah, Nehru, Ambedkar and others were not even ‘elected’ by these legislatures, but were simply chosen by the British to ‘represent’ and ‘lead’ the Indian people.  Let us point out in this connection that J. Nehru at one time described the GOI Act of 1935 as a “charter of bondage”.1

The Indian ruling classes and their political representatives described the ‘transfer of power’ as the attainment of genuine independence for India, contrary to the stand of the then CPI leadership which described it as ‘sham’, although they were to retract from that position soon. In case there was a real transformation in political, economic and social fields after the end of colonial rule as our national leaders would have us believe, what was, therefore, expected was that along with the change in base, there should also be changes at the level of superstructure. It implies thereby that new laws, institutions, culture, education  and other things which form part of the superstructure should be set up which would stand distinctly apart from those that the British colonial rulers had created over the long period of colonial rule in their own imperial interest. However, what actually came about was just the opposite of what was expected, i.e, the continuation of the colonial superstructure—same laws, acts, education, police system etc. Michael Brecher, Nehru’s biographer wrote: “One of the striking features of India’s ‘new’ constitution is the continuity with British-Indian practice. Approximately 250 articles (out of 395 articles) were taken either verbatim or with minor changes in phraseology from the 1935 Government of India Act, and the basic principles remained unchanged”.2  G.D.Birla, one of the top representatives of the Indian big bourgeoisie, took particular pride in it and said: “We have embodied large portions of the (1935) Act, as finally passed, in the constitution which we have framed ourselves and which shows that in it (the 1935 Act) was cast the pattern of our future plans”.3 Thus the ‘pattern of our future plans’ was laid by the colonial masters themselves, and was, in no way, the product of genuine national aspirations of the people of India.

As we have pointed out before, Nehru described the 1935 Act as a “charter of our dependence”; however, he did not acknowledge his debt to that charter when he himself became independent India’s first prime minister on the basis of a Constitution based on that very ‘charter of dependence’. The ‘founding fathers’ of the Indian constitution used almost the same phrase as that coined by the Philadelphia Convention that drew up the US Constitution in 1787. The phrase “We the people of the United States” has been substituted by ‘India’ for ‘the United States’ and this ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic” promised to uphold the noble ideals of Justice, liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

‘Fundamental Rights’ of the People

What about the enjoyment of ‘fundamental rights’ of its citizens? The Bombay public Security Act before the transfer of power empowered the police “to arrest without trial any person acting in a manner prejudicial to public peace of the province”. In 1948, the newly-formed Congress ministry amended it to include within its scope “any person liable to act…” Such an amendment was no doubt the portent of things to come. Article 19 Clause (1) and some articles following them speak of some ‘fundamental rights’ for its citizens. However, the interesting thing is that the clauses that follow each of these articles empower the State to impose some restrictions on those very rights thereby effectively nullifying the whole exercise. Thus the acknowledgement of ‘fundamental rights’ and protection against arbitrary arrest and detention has its anti-thesis in the constitution itself.

In February 1950, just after the inauguration of the Constitution of the “Sovereign, Democratic Republic” of India, the Nehru-led government enacted the Preventive Detention Act to imprison thousands without trial. It was applicable to the whole of the country. During the first few years after the new government took over, fifty thousand political opponents were picked up and sent to prison, and thirteen thousand persons were killed or wounded, according to official accounts. In jail, they were compelled to languish under inhuman conditions. Preventive detention itself makes a mockery of democracy, as in this case, people are imprisoned not because of any ‘offence’ they have committed, but because, in the opinion of the government, they may commit such unless they are prevented from doing so by State intervention. All the Press and Security Acts of the colonial days remain unchanged under the new Constitution. The old repressive machinery of the colonial State with its Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, the Police Act of 1861, Defence of India Rules, Preventive Detention Acts and many others were perfected over the years by the ruling classes and thereby made newer and newer attacks on the liberty of the people. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (1958) was enforced first in Nagaland and then extended to other parts of the north-east and to Jammu & Kashmir. It empowered the armed forces to kill anyone with impunity on mere suspicion that that person was going to commit certain ‘offence’. These laws were passed to curb the growing resistance of the people. The Preventive Detention Act was replaced in 1971 by the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) under which tens of thousands of people were imprisoned between 1970 and 1973 in West Bengal alone, of which the overwhelming majority comprised the Naxalites. During and before Emergency (1975-77), thousands of people—mostly Naxalites—were shot down or made to disappear.

In fact, there is no end to such black acts which had both regional and national application. The West Bengal Prevention of Violent activities Act, Punjab Disturbed Areas Ordinance, the National Security Act (1980), the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance (1984), TADA (1985), POTA and many other Acts and Ordinances were being passed. Every succeeding “lawless law” is a greater attack on the liberties of the people than the previous one. One may add here the very recent decision to create a Federal investigation Agency and more stringent laws to deal with ‘terrorists’ where the onus of proving one’s innocence lies with the accused. S. Sahay of The Statesman commented: “The gay abandon with which the Central government has been accumulating extraordinary powers makes one wonder whether in the not too distant future anything will be left of the normal law of the land”. The “sweep of the Ordinance is really breathtaking”4, he wrote.

In November 2008, the central government, without any opposition from any political party in Parliament, had passed two draconian acts—the Unlawful Activities Preventive Act (Amended) and the National Investigative Agency, which, according to The Statesman (03-01-2009) are but “a marginal modification of earlier terror laws like the TADA and POTA”. Under this law, anyone can be kept in police or jail custody for 180 days without any trial. During this period, the detained person can be brought to the police station for questioning for as many times as possible. It is very difficult to get release on bail under UAPA. As in the draconian TADA and POTA, the accused would have to prove his/her innocence, rather than the accuser/police proving his/her guilt in the court of law. These provisions, besides others, give the state a blank cheque to do with the detained anything that they like to do, thus making a mockery of Indian ‘democracy’. In the recent years, thousands of people from Jharkhand, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and other regions are booked under this act.

How are the ‘fundamental rights’ respected in the everyday life of this ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’? Are there any ‘fundamental rights’ at all for the basic masses? For the overwhelming majority of the basic masses comprising the dalits, adivasis and other sections of the people irrespective of any community, any talk about these is illusory. It is the normal practice of the police to pick up innocent people on mere suspicion or on the basis of complaints from the higher-ups, to torture them in the police lock ups to extract “confessions”. Several human rights organizations reported gory details of torture, rape and deaths in the police custody. A report of the Amnesty International(March 1992) stated: “…torture is pervasive and a daily routine in every one of India’s 25 states, irrespective of whether arrests were made by the police, the paramilitary forces or the army. Many hundreds, if not thousands, have died because of the torture during the last decade…Many who were tortured to death were never charged with any crime…”5 Rape, ill-treatment and molestation of women by the police are widespread throughout the country. Persons taken into custody are not produced in courts within the stipulated 24 hours and many a time are detained illegally at police stations and investigation centres (read torture centres) sometimes for days together. There most of them are being subjected to cruel and sadistic torture in such a manner that beggars description. Continuous interrogation  for 18 hours a day for days together, and allowing no sleep for 4 to 5 days at a stretch unless he or she cannot bear it any longer, keeping prisoners blindfolded even when he or she goes to the toilet, application of electric shocks on the private parts of the body, beating up with batons, kicking them with heavy boots, spitting on the face, breaking down fingers by pressing them in the opposite direction, threatening prisoners with death or rape unless he or she makes confessions. These are only a few of the methods of torture meted out by the WB government’s police force to the Maoists, Kamtapuris and some other dissident voices.6 In States like Andhra Pradesh, the ‘Grey Hounds’ police forces created specifically to kill Maoists, do not even take political prisoners. They kill the Maoist activists or sympathizers in cold blood, in fake encounters, by torturing them, even cutting off their limbs and distributing the spoils among themselves even when they are alive and still bleeding. Many human rights bodies such as the APCLC, Human Rights Forum, APDR and others have published their reports on the basis of their fact-findings in affected areas. One can go on multiplying such instances. The Indian para-military forces are fond of indulging in cold-blooded murders and rape. It seems that the get special training for committing such heinous crimes against their own people. The Maoist leader Azad was killed when the central home minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram was supposedly carrying forward peace proposals through Swami Agnibesh. How was Kishanji killed? His body—left in Burishol forest in West Medinipur bore marks of injury of four types all over: cut marks with sharp weapons like bayonets; burn marks; mark of wound on fingers and other parts which were found broken, implying that those were pounded by heavy instruments; and then there were gunshot wounds. Such cruelties perpetrated against political opponents will go down in history as crimes against humanity. The main reason why torture and such denials of right to life go on unabated, is that the police feel themselves to be immune from punishment, even if they kill the victim.

Without minimizing the brutality committed by the Indian armed forces against the peoples of Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur and other areas, it can be stated that the violations of human rights, nay commission of crimes against humanity, in Jammu & Kashmir (where Nehru promised to hold a plebiscite long back in 1947, equalled, if not actually surpassed other areas in the perpetration of cruelty. Enforced disappearance and mass graves coexist side by side in the land of the Kashmiri people, making a mockery of how the Indian armed forces maintain ‘democracy’. The presence of a massive Indian army and para-military forces and the war of suppression unleashed by them in 1990 have produced an immense humanitarian crisis in Kashmir. According to reports published by human rights organizations, the human cost is tremendous. A high unnatural death toll of more than 70,000 persons, primarily in the age-group of 18-35, detention and torture of more than 60,000 persons, massacres, custodial killings, fake encounters, rape and molestations are some of the shocking results of this intensely violent campaign of State terrorism done by these security forces. There is a mystery surrounding the fate of the 8 to 10 thousand persons who had been subjected to Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (EID) since 1990. According to a report by the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), “some of the answers could perhaps lie buried in the so-called ‘unidentified’ graves strewn across J & K”.7

India’sDevelopment Planning

The ‘pattern’ of India’s ‘future plans’ was evident not only in the Constitution of new India, i.e, in the realm of superstructure, but also at the level of base. The mark of the colonial rule was reflected, not unexpectedly, also in the future model of development planning in India. In fact, the Bombay Plan(1944) prepared by top representatives of the Indian big bourgeoisie, the Nehru plan of the National Planning Committee(1938) set up by the Congress and the GOI plan under the charge of the same Sir Ardeshir Dalal, had the same objectives in view. Essentially, the blue-print of India’s model of future development was prepared at a time when India was still a colony of the British raj. It was based on the Western capitalist model which advocated investment of foreign capital and technology and state intervention in areas where ‘private capital was not forthcoming’ and to create the infrastructure with state backing for future investment by private capital—both domestic and foreign—in a big way. As Hanson stated, there was little to distinguish the Industrial Policy Resolution of April 1945 i.e, of colonial India from the Industrial policy Resolutions of 1948 and 1956 i.e, of independent India.8All these plans were silent about the need for restructuring the society—the abolition of feudal relations and the confiscation of existing imperialist capital. The ‘mixed-economy’ pattern or the so-called ‘socialist economy’ pattern with which Nehru is generally identified was actually the Western capitalist pattern which owed its parentage to the Viceroy’s executive council rather than to Nehru, and had hardly anything ‘socialist’ about it.

Political and Strategic Tie-ups

There were important political considerations also. The victory of the Chinese Revolution in 1949 alarmed imperialism, particularly US imperialism and the Indian ruling classes. The transformation of such a large country like China posed a threat to the Indian ruling classes. New China was a threat by example also to the imperialist world, as during the days of Mao Tse-tung from the beginning of the fifties to about the mid-seventies, she pursued a strategy of five-year-planning and development which ensured freedom, work, food, education, health, democratic rights and dignity for all working people, raised their material and cultural standards and promoted rapid advancement on the basis of the principle of self-reliance. As the political interests of both India and the USA converged, India gladly consented to act as a ‘bulwark against the rising tide of Communism’. Since then, Nehru was being projected by the Anglo-US imperialist forces as the leader of Asian democracy as a counter-weight to Asian Communism as represented by Mao Tse-tung.

India has been projected by some as the land of the ‘largest democracy’ in the world. But what type of parliamentary system is this? Is the Indian parliament the product of independent India formed by the independent capitalist class? Is it the outcome of a national revolution which did away with imperialist rule and control and ushered in the process of the full-blooded development of capitalism by defeating feudalism? Facts speak otherwise. Indian parliament is not like a bourgeois parliament that exists in the Western world where an independent capitalist class enjoys political power. On the contrary, it is formed by the Indian comprador big bourgeoisie which owed its birth and growth to the British capital and had its economic and political interests tied up with it.

These political ties and convergence of interests were accompanied by economic and strategic tie-ups of great implications. In fact, India’s economic policy was formulated by American agencies rather than by Indians. The Community Development Project (CDP), land reforms, the ‘Green Revolution’—all owed their birth to some of the top American officials and diplomats as also to American agencies, although the influence of the Soviet forces on the Indian ruling classes and their political representatives was also a reality. After the dismemberment of the USSR and the change in the colour of China during the post-Mao phase, America practically became the sole overlord which appeared to do whatever it wished with the rest of the world. The further opening of the country to the predatory hordes of the American business magnates by the withdrawal of all restrictions from the early 1990s during the ‘Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization’ phase bore the mark of American imperialism.

These ties were not only political and economic, but also military and strategic. America whetted the appetite of India for becoming a super-power, although India in reality did never qualify to become one. In fact, with the disappearance of the Soviet bloc along with social imperialism, the Indian ruling classes have been carrying out US plans of building close integration between US and Indian military establishments. This military/strategic collaboration is based on the International Military Educational Training programme whose salient features are as follows: the upgrading of Indian military equipment with US help; the strengthening of army-to-army and navy-to-navy ‘co-operation’ by holding joint seminars, joint exercises etc; combined training exercises; the military officers’ exchange programme; the setting up of steering committees to work out the various proposals to bring about closer integration etc. All these are done in the name of strategic ‘co-operation’. Similar ties are also scripted with the Zionist forces of Israel. The former external affairs minister, Yashwant Sinha described India a “client state of America”.

Successive Slogans of the Ruling Classes

The Indian ruling classes raised different slogans at different times. The ruling classes, since the transfer of power in 1947, adopted different strategies at different times to deceive the people and keep their political control intact. Their first slogan was the ‘socialist pattern of society’. In the name of creating a self-reliant, independent, socialist economy, they have made it more dependent on foreign capital and technology. In the name of democracy and equal opportunities for all, they have trampled underfoot the democratic rights of the masses and tried to drown the struggles of various nationalities for freedom and autonomy in pools of blood. Every clause in the Constitution which acknowledges fundamental rights and protection against arbitrary arrest and detention has its anti-thesis in it. In the name of non-alignment, they pursued a policy of bi-alignment with Anglo-US and erstwhile Soviet social-imperialist powers. By 1966, the policies of the ruling classes matured into a deep crisis.

When this ‘socialist pattern’ outlived its utility in the eyes of the ruling classes, they opted for the second slogan. It was ‘garibi hatao’ (Away with poverty). However, instead of poverty being eradicated, it made the people sink deeper and deeper into it and people lost their lives in thousands because of poverty, hunger and mal-nutrition. Then ‘Emergency’ was declared in 1975.

After coming to power in 1977, the Janata Party raised the third slogan of the ruling classes. That was ‘Democracy versus Dictatorship’. By raising this slogan, they could divert the attention from the main enemies of the people. The erstwhile Jan Sangh seemed reincarnated as the Bharatiya Janata Party in 1981.

The fourth slogan of the ruling classes was Hindutva championed by the RSS brand of Hindu fundamentalists and LK Advani who demolished the Babri Masjid in 1994. Gradually, it occupied the centre-stage of Indian politics. However, the Hindutva slogan failed to exercise sway over large areas and came to be concentrated within a few zones.8

The fifth slogan was ‘Development’ and ‘Industrialization’ and after 9/11, the ‘war against terror’. Here the interests and slogans of the Indian ruling classes and their American patrons clearly merged. These slogans are currently been championed and are being accompanied by an aggressive land-grab movement, evicting people particularly those from areas rich in minerals and other natural resources and for creating SEZs, chemical hubs in the interests of the MNCs. Any criticism leveled against it is being branded as anti-development and any people’s movement launched against it is being branded as ‘terrorist’ or a ‘Maoist-inspired’ conspiracy. Needless to emphasize, such attempts by the ruling classes in the name of ‘development’ are integral parts of the policy of ‘Globalization’ which is a crisis-management programme to overcome the recurrent recessions hitting them and would spell doom for the basic masses, environment and the country’s natural resources.

In the recent period the central government has introduced the UID (Unique Identification) number which every citizen should have by undergoing a biometric enlistment, popularly known as the Aadhar. The government states that such UID is essential to do every conceivable thing, such as opening bank accounts, taking loans, receiving salaries through banks, sitting for examination for jobs and what not. It appears that a day will come when Passports, PAN cards etc. would be impossible to get without this UID. What the government conceals from public knowledge is that this biometric device is actually meant to exercise surveillance over the citizens of the country. Such biometric enlistment was rejected by European like UK and France. We are confronted with more difficult times, as the state is actually creating an atmosphere through its colluding media that it is compulsory and, in a way, forcing people to do it. We should address this issue at different forums.

Ground reality in the Indian ‘Republic’

The ruling classes and their political representatives go on propagating such untruths that the poverty in India is declining and a group of academicians lose no time to preach to the world through their treatises, speeches and TV talks how fast it is declining. The living conditions of the people throughout the country would belie such claims. Hundreds and thousands of people—adivasis, dalits, workers, peasants die every year due to mal-nutrition, hunger and poverty. Even official estimates about human development would prove that poverty in India increases over the years. The official National Sample Survey of 2000 revealed that three-fourths of India’s rural population and half the urban population did not get the minimal recommended calories. This is corroborated by nutritional and health surveys, according to which more than two-fifths of the adult population suffer from chronic energy deficiency, and a large number stands on the border line; half of India’s women are anemic(this is a very conservative estimate); half its children can be clinically defined as malnourished.9 According to Utsa Patnaik, “There is already a sub-Saharan Africa(SSA) within India—half of our rural population or over 350 million people are below the average food energy intake of SSA countries”.10 Some disturbing and serious facts have been published in a book that shows how cruel the reality is. Roughly 20% of India’s national income—$65 billion (Rs.3 lakh crores)—is drained out of the country every year by the foreign imperialists. The external debt (till the end of 2000) has crossed the $100 billion mark—i.e, every family in the country has a foreign debt of Rs.30,000 on their head. By the end of the 1990s, some 20 lakh small-scale units were killed. Roughly 70 % of the people live below poverty line. For every $ spent on the social sector, the government of India spends $170 on defence and debt servicing. Expenditure on health care is Rs.1.2 per capita yearly, and on repressive machinery (not including defence) Rs.2200 per family per year. Availability of food-grain dropped from 510 gms per day in 1990 to 470 gms per day by the end of 2000.11 Needless to say, the figures have changed on the negative side over the years since 2001.

Our Observations

In view of the facts stated above some uncomfortable but pertinent questions emerge. Is India a ‘sovereign’ and ‘democratic’ country? Is it a ‘Republic’? Can it be called a People’s Republic? It appears that It can only be a republic—if at all—of the ruling classes who have done everything in their power to cement relationships of all types with foreign imperialism, particularly American imperialism so as to enable them to plunder the country economically, dominate it politically and militarily and thereby bring immense suffering for the basic masses of the country. In the very recent period, these ruling classes and imperialist agencies are confronted with a terrible crisis—the crisis that is endemic within the capitalist system itself; it is global melt-down which, according to many analysts, is much more devastating in its magnitude than that faced by global capitalism during the late-1920s and early 1930s. Moreover, these forces are confronting people’s resistance of different types in many parts of the country against land acquisition, against the plunder of natural resources and against the roots of poverty and death. The State is at a loss what to do, how to get out of this impasse, this crisis which actually threatens the system that they have created on the dead bodies of the people. They can seek a solution in War, as they had done in 1939, which can turn out to be both local and global in character and would have great and serious implications.

On the other side, stand the masses. The people of India, the toiling people of India, scientists, engineers, academicians, political and cultural activists, democratic people and many others who have suffered for long during the colonial and post-colonial periods, are standing at the crossroads of history. No self-respecting Indian can accept foreign domination of our country. The question is: should we allow the creation of new East India Companies and allow them to turn our country into a happy hunting ground to serve their interests? No patriot can remain silent at the gigantic foreign loot of our country’s wealth and natural resources that devastate our economy. And no sensitive Indian can ignore the massive impoverishment and grinding poverty confronted every hour by our people. They would have to seriously look for an alternative, for a society based on the principle of self-reliance and total opposition to imperialist capital, where exploitation, hunger, death, torture centres, dungeons and prisons would be things of the past and human values would prevail over the lust for profits.

References:

1.   Jawaharlal Nehru, Selected Works, edited by S. Gopal, Vol.VII, p.355.

2.   Michael Brecher, Nehru: A Political Biography, London 1959, p.421.

3.   G.D.Birla, In the Shadow of the Mahatma, Bombay, 1968, p.131.

4.   Quoted in People’s Union for civil Liberties (PUCL), Black laws 1984-85, Delhi, 1985, p.34.

5.   Amnesty International, India: Torture, Rape and Deaths in Custody, London, 1992, p.76.

6.   Memorandum of the Bandi Mukti Committee to the chief minister, government of West Bengal dt.20-8-02; Political Prisoners in West Bengal A brief Update to the Nation from the Bandi Mukti Committee dt. 2 June 2007 from Chhoton Das, General Secretary, BMC; Come let us set them free BMC, Kolkata dt. 25 March 2008; The Arrested (Bulletin of the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners/CRPP) Vol.1, No.1, July-August 2006, New Delhi; See also ‘Pulishi otyacharer bibhotsho chehara: Medinipur Jail theke pathano Ralbondider chithhi’ in BMC-r Sanbad  Bulletin No.6 August 2005; Leaflet captioned ‘Somosto Rajnoitik Bandir Muktir dAbite 20 August Bikshobh michhil Sofol Korun’ dt. 7-8-02 issued by Pradip Banerjee, Convenor, BMC. For a description of how the Delhi police tortured and humiliated Prof. S.A.R. Geelani, the accused in the Parliament attack case and subsequently acquitted, see his account captioned “You will confess everything” my ordeal of fighting the so-called war against terror” in The Arrested (Bulletin of the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners/CRPP), Vol.1, No.1 July-August 2008, pp.24-26.

7.   Facts Underground a Fact-finding Mission on Nameless Graves & Mass Graves in Uri Area, A Report by Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), No date. Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, Srinagar, pp.1-23.

8.   A.H.Hanson, The Process of Planning: A Study of India’s Five-Year Plans   1950-1964, London 1966, p.38.

9.   For a discussion on the slogans of the Indian ruling classes, see Suniti Kumar Ghosh, The Indian Constitution and its Review, RUPE, Mumbai, 2001, p.6.

10. See Aspects of India’s Economy, RUPE  Nos.36 & 37, Mumbai, 2004.

11. Utsa Patnaik, “It is time for Kumbhakarna to wake up”, The Hindu, 5-8-05.

12. Arvind, Globalisation an Attack on India’s Sovereignty, New Delhi October 2002. See back cover page.

[Keynote address at the Convention Against Draconian Laws, Hyderabad]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *