AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROHINGYA CONTROVERSY

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROHINGYA CONTROVERSY

Myanmar is a sovereign country, so is India.
Myanmar is a democratic country, so is India.
Myanmar emphasizes ‘equality’ and ‘peace’, so does India.

Myanmar is a small country surrounded by 5 different countries. The relationship between Myanmar and India is been a high point of discussion in the light of Rohingya refugees. Rohingya community comes from Rakhine state of Myanmar where it is deprived of citizenship and basic human rights. Their immigration of this “unaccepted everywhere” people to other countries and the issue of their citizenship have heated up the debate on international platforms. Moreover, being highly politicized in India. Political correctness is being defined in all new terms where it is either being given a religious angle or a humanitarian one.

Rohingyas should not be called migrants firstly, they are “refugees”. A refugee is a person who has fled his state due to some war like situation or suppression. In the name of ‘ethnic cleansing’, they have been forced to move away from their homeland. Secondly, the debate is about 40,000 new refugees which have entered India and not the already existing 14,000 refugee certificate holder Rohingyas in India. The new population is termed to be illegal as they do not hold any card or certificate to reside as refugees.

Indian government recently reflected its intentions to deport Rohingyas back to their country which is apparently for the sake of these refugees. These intentions do not imply denial of equality and personal liberty under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution respectively. However, they imply solution on an international level in expressed terms. In Surbanand Sonowal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that it is the foremost duty of the Government to protect its borders and prevent trespass from other countries which could be a national threat. However, citing the example of Chakmas is completely baseless as it was a matter of migration of ‘Indian citizenship holder migrants (from East-Pakistan, now Bangladesh)’ from Assam to Arunanchal Pradesh. The issue of Rohingyas is about ‘illegal non-citizenship holder’ community crossing Indian border to shelter themselves. In NHRC v. State of Arunanchal Pradesh where the migrated Chakmas’ life and liberty was at stake, the Supreme Court held the duty of state to protect life and liberty of citizens and non-citizens. Clearly, India carries no intention to violate the human rights of any community. It seeks for a solution which settles the unsettled Rohingyas as well as benefits this community by providing them rights in their own homeland.
The reports of the Indian intelligence agencies such as RAW cannot be ignored where it is clearly mentioned that Rohingyas could be associated with terrorist activities. Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) has been reportedly involved in terrorist activities. Even the attack at BodhGaya was suspected to be the done by ARSA. Where terrorist organizations are backing Rohingyas for settlement in India as well as India being already centre to terror motives of these organizations, accepting Rohingyas would be a big security threat. Rohingyas are deprived of basic human rights and facilities which creates enough aggression amongst them to join terror groups.
In diplomatic terms, healthy India-Myanmar relationship is important for the growth and development of North-East India. Myanmar has been very supportive for India’s constructive motive for NE. Indian Economic balance would be exposed to serious risks if Rohingyas are accepted. Moreover, it may also create internal disturbances.

Myanmar’s Citizenship Law, 1982 refuses to recognize many communities in the country as citizens. Rohingyas are one of them. The basic reasons of such ignorance can be traced back to history. Rohingyas were British supporters and even worked as British army. Despite being expressly written in the Myanmar constitution about equality and peace, there is no particular solution to Buddhist-Muslim rivalries in Myanmar. Also, Su Kyi, the noble peace prize winner who fought bravely against army rule in Myanmar is silent about the Rohingyas. Rohingya community is vulnerable, aggressive and involved in terrorism because they were never accepted in their own homeland in any manner. Their plight cannot be denied or ignored. But the solution lies in the hands of international organizations.

Myanmar is a member of ASEAN countries. Stable countries like India can strongly raise their voice towards solution to Myanmar. Also, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of United Nations. Even the refugee certificate obtained by the 14,000 rohingyas pre-existing in several parts of India quotes that “As refugees, they are persons of concern to the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ….” {see attached photograph}. Clearly, UN must force Myanmar to work on its laws and policies for rohingyas rather than expecting any other country to entertain them. Such force over Myanmar must also be maintained in ASEAN. All the neighbors must unite and strictly seal their borders which would subsequently pressurize Myanmar to take feasible steps. Dalai Lama, being a great and influential preacher of Buddhism could be involved towards solution path making.

It is not at all logical or feasible for India to accommodate Rohingyas. An extremist approach to the issue should not be appreciated at this matter of National importance. India is a secular country where the state does not recognize a specific religion and respects all the faith and beliefs which prevail. India, also seeks humanitarian principles since past which lays the very foundation of the idea of country as it exists. National security is the priority of any country of this world. It is the foremost moral principle. Risking the life of existing citizens, allowing a new set of population which could be a threat to security; all in the name of HUMANITARIANISM cannot be justified.  And moreover, they are ‘refugees’ above religion and hereinafter, “Nation” lies above religion.

A step closer to Uniform Civil Code

A step closer to Uniform Civil Code

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution directs the state to secure Uniform Civil Code under the Community Welfare Charter. UCC is something that the whole society should look forward to. Providing a common and uniform platform to the personal matters, it would give a new direction to justice for the ones who suffer the dilemmas of personal laws. Hindu or Muslim, each and every religious practice has the right to prevail; but not when the cost is to be paid with sufferings.

We applauded at the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, declaring instant talaq or ‘triple talaq’ unconstitutional as per Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. However, it is not fortunate to see the reactions some people make against this step.  Muslim women are an important sect of the society who came along collectively opposing the practice of triple talaq. Political turn away seems irreversible in every condition though, but this remains something which requires vision from different dimension for the society. No doubt, there are several other practices which prevail and needs to be removed from society. But this couldn’t be a good defence in favour of triple talaq. Interference is not the right word being used. Rectifying something is not going against the views and beliefs or a particular sect. Hindu law has evolved itself with time. Polygamy, dowry, marital rape, polygamy, maintenance, inheritance rights, right to property, nikah-halala etc etc. There is a list of endless problems which needs redressal. Triple Talaq was one of them which came down. Personal laws give an edge to the beliefs of a particular religion, but it does not completely define a particular religion.

The debate on implementation of Uniform Civil Code has heated up with the decision of scrapping down instant divorce, i.e., triple talaq. The Union Law Ministry seeks the suggestions of the Law commission in this context.  UCC is the need of hour carrying several advantages for communities and society at large. It would ensure gender equality with a vision of unifying the youth towards peace and nation building  Registration of marriages is very essential for UCC to enforce. Also, taking radical decisions on some practices of personal laws should be taken. Judicial Activism is mainly required for this as political instability seems constant on the UCC debate over vote banks and pleasing some sect.


UCC is in no way forcing upon any rituals of one sect on another. It would govern the broad concepts like marriage, divorce, inheritance etc and not the narrow once like rituals, practices and beliefs. We already seek legal assistance and court’s remedy in most of these broader concepts. Then, how could a law ensuring equality for all on these grounds be INTERFERENCE of some sort into personal matters?  We seek Secularism so loudly, then why do we opt against UCC? UCC is one of the best ways to ensure secularism. It would in no way end or hurt the beliefs of any religion. It is a golden way where every religion along with working on its practices and beliefs could be ensured equality and upliftment of sections like women and young children. We have an urge to remove differences between different diversities, then why is our voice so shallow when it comes to gaining equality? It is needed to be understood that UCC is not a one-party agenda; it has been given place in the Constitution of India for a reason. UCC was given place in the Directive Principles of the State Policy with a view that some legislation would be formed for it with time. Society takes time to develop, but we cannot stand on the same place just watching the world run from the window. Mindsets from ground level need to come up to accept the concept of UCC.

SEDITION: What it means and what it definitely doesn’t?

SEDITION: What it means and what it definitely doesn’t?

Amidst the debate over sedition turning hotter day by day, arouses a certain need for understanding the actual meaning and motive of this law.

124-A is one of the most debated topic today, and most of the people are completely blinded by a certain ideology which restricts their vision making sedition law partially visible to them. When other people of the society start looking at this law with different views and dimensions, the motive of the existing law is completely defeated.

Looking back at the history, article 124-A has its place in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) since 1870. However, 3 explanations were added to it in 1898 amending this section.  This amendment was done with a view to change the monarch perspective of the law.

Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code (known as the sedition law) is as follows:

“124A. Sedition.—Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government estab­lished by law in India, shall be punished with im­prisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with impris­onment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the meas­ures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the admin­istrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”

Ø  PROBLEMS FACED BY THE LAW

·         Misunderstanding the law.

·         Looking it as a law drafted by the Britishers (which is apparently true), but the motive has changed today.

·         Looking at law of sedition as a law of monarchy rulers.

·         Misuse of law by putting this charge unnecessarily, even when the said conditions are not fulfilled.

·         Giving self judgements without understanding the law.

Ø  WHAT IT DOES NOT MEAN?

·         We live in a democratic country where the one who attracts maximum votes of the people is said to be the representative of people. However, the minority votes cannot be ignored. The government has to be accepted by the country but that doesn’t leads to infringement of right to criticize the government.  Even if one carries an unfavourable opinion about something, it is not a sufficient ground to prove that the person carries enmity or disloyalty towards the government.

·         The gist of the offence is that the person addressed must be provoked or incited to disorder. Mere expression using abusive language, which neither was intended nor did provoke anyone, could not amount to the offence. This provision applies to publications, speeches, drama, poetry, novel etc. But if seditious writing is not published and remains with the author, it doesn’t constitute to the offence. (This is the reason why the law against defamation- section 499 of IPC is seen as a solution to the problem where disclosure or publication of defamatory words, signs etc. is essential.)

·         Suggesting changes in any government policy, working or procedure doesn’t amounts to sedition. A general criticism always has its place. Commenting in a strong manner with a view to improvement is not same as disloyalty towards the government.

Ø  WHAT IT DOES MEAN?

·         Anything spoken or written which carries the essence of hatred in itself for the government and which intends or would lead to violence or public disorder, would be seditious.

·         Criticism of government within reasonable limits is consistent with the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19). There is a difference between opposing something being aware about and being violent for the same. The law of sedition ensures that violence and public disorder is restricted. Also the feeling of ‘enmity’ is not promoted.  Expressing disapproval without provoking and promoting disaffection would not lead to committing the offence.

·         In case, where the people who are addressed by the words spoken or written could have been provoked with the feeling of contempt and hatred towards the government leading to violent actions, the offence is committed. The attempt to create hatred, whether successful or unsuccessful would amount to the offence. The circumstances, place and conditions are also to be considered.

Law against sedition is not defending the government but the whole society. Sedition is a crime against society as the government is the representation of majority of people who elected them. One must be aware of their rights and oppose everything which is wrongful.

Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2016

“Every accident is a notice that something is wrong with man, method or material”

Road accidents kills more people than total number killed in wars of the country. Nearly 137000 died in 2013 due to road accidents and nearly 400 deaths are reported daily because of the same reason. The country seeks a loss of 3% in the GDP due to these increased number of road accidents.

The Motor Vehicle (Amendments) Act, 2016 which was tabled by Shri Nitin Gadkari, Minister of Road Transport and Highway on 9^th August 2016 is pending in the Parliament as the monsoon session of LokSabha ended on 12^th August. The bill may be considered in the winter session. 68 of 233 sections of the act have been amended. The basic goal of this amended act is to bring down the number of deaths and injuries due to road accidents to half.

Following are the features of the MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

·         Upper Limit of Insurer’s liability: The maximum claim has been ceiled up to Rs. 10 Lakhs in case of death and Rs. 5 Lakhs in case of grievous hurt in road accidents. Under third part claim, the victim could not claim for more amount thanthis from the insurer.

·         Compulsory Insurance: A Motor Vehicle Accident fund is to be created consulting the states as per the act and to be managed by special authorities specified by the central government. This could be an insurance cover to all road users in India.

·         Good Samaritans to be protected: As per section 134A of the act, any person who in good faith without expecting any award voluntarily comes to rescue the person or provide medical or non medical assistance would not be liable to any civil or criminal offence if his action causes any injury or death to the person. Also, the personal information would be provided only after a specific procedure.

·         Lesser corruption/waiting time (e-governance) : There would be lesser chances of corruption and no waiting lines with the introduction of e-governance system. Computerisation of services like issuing licence, registration of vehicle, filling of forms, change in address etc would be provided.

·         Recalling Vehicles: If any vehicle is found to harm the driver, the environment or other driver or persons on road, such vehicle would be called off. The manufacturer would either have to compensate for the vehicle or replace the vehicle.

·         Cashless treatment in golden hour: Golden Hour here means, the hour just after the severe injury took place when the chance to save the life and give good medical care is the highest. The patient would not be charged anything for treatment during this time period.

·         Increase of compensation for death in Hit and Run cases: The compensation amount has increased to Rs. 25 Lakhs from Rs 2 Lakhs as per the central government.

·         Responsibilities of the states: The states must make transportation schemes which would take care of increasing road pressure, safety of road users, last mile connectivity, safety of bicycle riders etc.

·         Unauthorised use of vehicles by the juveniles: The parents/ guardians would be liable for the same and penalty would be imposed over them.

·         Tremendous increase in fines: Increase in the fine imposed is seen as the most debatable point. However, it would ensure compliance of the rules by the road users. The list of increased penalties are as follows:

Section		Old Provision / Penalty	New Proposed Provision / Minimum Penalties
177	General	Rs. 100	Rs. 500
177A	Rules of road regulation violation	Rs. 100	Rs. 500
178	Travel without ticket	Rs. 200	Rs. 500
179	Disobedience of orders of authorities	Rs. 500	Rs. 200
180	Unauthorized use of vehicles without licence	Rs. 1000	Rs. 5000
181	Driving without licence	Rs. 500	Rs. 5000
182	Driving despite disqualification	Rs. 500	Rs. 10,000
182 B	Oversize vehicles	New	Rs 5000 Rs 1000 for LMV
183	Over speeding	Rs. 400	Rs 2000 for Medium passenger vehicle
184	Dangerous driving penalty	Rs. 1000	Upto Rs. 5000
185	Drunken driving	Rs. 2000	Rs. 10,000
189	Speeding/Racing	Rs. 500	Rs. 5000
192 A	Vehicle without permit	Rs. 5000	Rs. 10,000
194	Overloading	Rs 2000 and Rs 1000 per extra tonne	Rs 20,000 and Rs 2000 per extra tonne
194 A	Overloading of passengers		Rs. 1000 per extra passenger
194 B	Seatbelts	Rs. 100	Rs. 1000
194 C	Overloading of two wheelers	Rs. 100	Rs 2000, Disqualification for 3 months for licence
194 D	Helmets	Rs.100	Rs 1000 Disqualification for 3 months for licence
194 E	Not providing way for emergency vehicle	New	Rs. 10,000
196	Driving Without Insurance	Rs. 1000	Rs. 2000
199	Offences by juvenile	New	Guardian / owner shall be deemed to be guilty. Rs 25,000 with 3 yrs imprisonment. For Juvenile to be tried under JJ Act. Registration of Motor Vehicle to be cancelled
206	Power of Officers to impound documents		Suspension of driving licenses u/s 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194C, 194D, 194E
210 B	Offences committed by enforcing authorities		Twice the penalty under the relevant section

Table source: www.pib.nic.in  – Press Information Bureau

Peaceful protesting is a fundamental right: SC

Peaceful protesting is a fundamental right: SC

Dakshita Garhwal

India is the world’s largest democracy. Fundamental rights play an important role in maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of India. Having so many disparities, right to protest (in a peaceful manner) or showing dissent or disagreement to something is a fundamental right secured by each citizen of India.

The legal maxim “Rex non potest peccare” or ‘the king can never do wrong’ ceases to have its relevance in a democracy. People have complete right to show dissatisfaction and defects in the system.

A writ petition was filed by migrants of Jammu and Kashmir where they putted up allegations on the state for infringing their rights secured under Article 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. The facts stated that the petitioners wished to take a peaceful march to Delhi to raise their grievances.  However, they were brutally beaten up by the police when they reached Katra (J&K). The petitioners have prayed for criminal action against the faulty officers and a compensation of Rs. 10 lakh for the severe injuries sustained.

The Bench comprising Justice R.K. Agarwal and A.K Sikri held that taking out peaceful protests to address grievances is a fundamental right. Article 19(1)(a) ensures freedom of speech and expressions, article 19(1)(b) provides right to peaceful assembly without arms and article 19(1)(c) ensures freedom to form unions. All of these rights come with a reasonable restriction but can be claimed in a democratic, peaceful and prescribed manner. Showing dissent in a legitimate manner is always permissible.

In the present case, an analysis of facts was done. It was observed that the first step was initiated by the petitioners who turned the peaceful protest to violent march by pelting stone at the police. On the other hand, the police exercised powers beyond limits as they continued their lathicharge even after overpowering them.  The court awarded compensation to the victims under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The first petitioner is awarded Rs. 2 lakhs and the other two petitioners are awarded with the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh each which has to be paid to them within 2 months.

There is a lack of proper training amongst police personnel to handle adverse situations. The protesting mob turn out to be very ugly that the police are forced to take strict actions. Human rights’ activists claim that practicing one’s fundamental rights must not result in infringement of some other persons. In case of rebellious situations the police are responsible to take proper course of action and restore the sustainability of law and order. Also, it must be taken care that the degree of action is not more than required. Police often crosses the limit which creates a negative image amongst the people. Abuse of power by police may lead to threat to rule of law.
The UN Human Rights’ body has also told to India that the right to peaceful protest must not turn out to paralyse the society.