Could India Create the World’s (Second) Largest Police State?

This article was originally published here on Eurasia Review.

As the world’s largest democracy, India is known as an emerging economic powerhouse, a new member of the UN Human Rights Council vying for a seat on the Security Council, but also a country whose rampant poverty, corruption and bureaucracy weighs down its every upward stride. Now, imagine if instead of cultivating a culture of openness, transparency and discourse, it gallops towards one of fear, mistrust and closed doors. Imagine if the 1.2 billion people who live here became part of a new era electronic police state.

Could India create an electronic police state (characterised by government surveillance of telephonic traffic, email, internet surfing, video surveillance and other electronic tracking)? It’s certainly trying. Through the Unique Identification Project, the Government is building a database – the largest of its kind – documenting every citizen to create a unique biometric-based identity: the Aadhaar number. The scheme has been lauded for its eventual ability to ensure that benefits and services promised by the government actually reach those to whom they are due. In a country where claiming entitlements under a government scheme is often difficult, and where benefits are given, they are often below par or scarce, an identity number could provide people with an empowering tool. However, cases of fraud, misinformation and unnecessary bureaucracy, exemplified by the fortunate coriander plant in Andhra Pradesh which (or should I say who?) received its own Aadhaar number, have already marred progress. Perhaps what is most concerning is the unreliability of biometric data: fingerprints which are not taken to a particular standard are not accurate, and can change with heavy labour and age. Iris scans can be fooled by something as simple as a contact lens. Neither of these methods then are fool-proof identifiers, especially when the initial data is itself recorded incorrectly. The fact that this technology is already failing calls into question whether a database of such massive scale can be securely maintained.

The Finance Ministry has recently suggested that 16 states link the Aadhaar number to social development programmes – covering everything from Public Distribution System (PDS) to National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). The National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 was rejected by Parliament because of the provision to make the Aadhaar number compulsory. This new measure suggests an attempt to supplant this by giving people no choice if they want to receive their benefits. With the Finance Minister’s sanction of over Rs. 14000 crore to enroll 40 crore more citizens, perhaps the government has recognised the benefits of the UID, not to the country’s poor, but to its own welfare.

With all this, the question of privacy is being ignored. A growing number of media exposés highlight the many ways in which the government is watching its citizens, suggesting an implicit lack of respect for this right: to be free from unsanctioned intrusion. The right to privacy is fundamental, enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Indian constitution. Without a law in place, personal security too is sidelined; there is no way to control the government’s use of private data or its access to it.

With the Right to Privacy Bill 2011 to be on the monsoon parliamentary agenda, public awareness of these issues is crucial. Privacy rights are fundamental to put safeguards in place to prevent overzealous government authorities from monitoring innocent citizens. In a country with a long history of corruption, there is no guarantee that this data will not be shared by greedy powers-that-be or handed over to National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), already accesses 21 databases of personal information, under the often alarmist argument of national security and counter terrorism.

To make matters worse, the mounting tension between the Registrar General of Census’s National Population Register (NPR) and Nilekan’s UID, was diffused only by the decision to link the UID database to the Home Ministry’s Crime and Criminal Tracking System (CCTNS) – a complete reversal from the initial assurances that information collected under the UID would not be linked to any other databases. CCTNS is legally bound by the Information Technology Act 2008, amended by the Information Technology Rules 2011. Under these Rules, the Government has unprecedented powers of surveillance, intrusive monitoring and interception of encrypted information. The Rules maintain that “information shall be shared, without obtaining prior consent… with Government agencies… to obtain information including sensitive personal data or information for the purpose of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation including cyber incidents, prosecution, and punishment of offences.“  If the UID database falls under this mandate, it means that provided the government claims national security or even merely criminal investigation, they can access any information, and privacy be damned.

In a country like India, where there is little discourse between government and ordinary citizens, where government entities are not known for prioritising and safeguarding citizens’ rights, or of being overly conscious of legal practices, access to huge amounts of information can only increase this chasm of power.  After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the excuse of “national security” to fight against the all-encompassing threat of “terrorism” has allowed the Government free reign to spy on and collect information on its own citizens. The ability to then profile each citizen will give them the ability to decide off-hand who is or isn’t a danger to their personal ideal of a safe Indian nation. When a citizen does something which opposes a traditionalist Government, what is to stop the government from threatening, accusing, or arresting them on mere suspicion?

The ensuing worry that private data may end up in malicious hands stopped a biometric identity from being created in the UK in 2004; the right to privacy is so significant that the Data Protection law superseded even the Freedom of Information Act.

The notion then of a well-understood and utilised right to privacy law is crucial, but over 200 million people have already been registered and the likelihood of the UID’s denunciation is now slim. In countries where ‘big brother’ laws are leading to electronic police states, this culture of monitoring can only be exacerbated by a database of personal information this large and could lead to other violations of human rights. Monitoring, through intelligence equipment, and profiling, through stores of personal data, can become pervasive, invasive and all-encompassing. And particularly in a country with a poor and uneducated populace, governments are able to run unchecked, monitoring their citizens while proclaiming gleefully, “it’s for your own good.” Worst of all, India could lose its crown as the world’s largest democracy and instead become the far less glamorous world’s second largest police state.

As the world’s largest democracy, India is known as an emerging economic powerhouse,a new member of the UN Human Rights Council vying for a seat on the Security Council, but alsoa country whose rampant poverty, corruption and bureaucracy weighs down itsevery upward stride. Now, imagine if instead of cultivating a culture of openness, transparency and discourse, it gallops towards one of fear, mistrust and closed doors. Imagine if the 1.2 billion people who live here became part of a new era electronic police state.

Could India create an electronic police state (characterised by government surveillance of telephonic traffic, email, internet surfing, video surveillance and other electronic tracking)? It’s certainly trying. Through the Unique Identification Project, the Government is building a database–the largest of its kind – documenting every citizen to create a unique biometric-based identity: the Aadhaar number. The scheme has been lauded for its eventual ability to ensure that benefits and services promised by the government actually reach those to whom they are due. In a country where claiming entitlements under a government scheme is often difficult, and where benefits are given, they are often below par or scarce, an identity number could provide people with an empowering tool. However, cases of fraud, misinformation and unnecessary bureaucracy, exemplified by the fortunate coriander plant in Andhra Pradesh which (or should I say who?) received its own Aadhaar number, have already marred progress. Perhaps what is most concerning is the unreliability of biometric data: fingerprints which are not taken to a particular standard are not accurate, and can change with heavy labour and age. Iris scans can be fooled by something as simple as a contact lens. Neither of these methods then are fool-proof identifiers, especially when the initial data is itself recorded incorrectly. The fact that this technology is already failing calls into question whether a database of such massive scale can be securely maintained.

The Finance Ministry has recently suggested that 16 states link the Aadhaar number to social development programmes – covering everything from Public Distribution System (PDS) to National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). The National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 was rejected by Parliament because of the provision to make the Aadhaar number compulsory. This new measure suggests an attempt to supplant this by giving people no choice if they want to receive their benefits. With the Finance Minister’s sanction of over Rs. 14000 crore to enroll 40 crore more citizens, perhaps the government has recognised the benefits of the UID, not to the country’s poor, but to its own welfare.

With all this, the question of privacy is being ignored. A growing number of media exposés highlight the many ways in which the government is watching its citizens, suggesting an implicit lack of respect for this right: to be free from unsanctioned intrusion. The right to privacy is fundamental, enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Indian constitution. Without a law in place, personal security too is sidelined; there is no way to control the government’s use of private data or its access to it.

With the Right to Privacy Bill 2011 to be on the monsoon parliamentary agenda, public awareness of these issues is crucial. Privacy rights are fundamental to put safeguards in place to prevent overzealous government authorities from monitoring innocent citizens. In a country with a long history of corruption, there is no guarantee that this data will not be shared by greedy powers-that-be or handed over to National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), already accesses 21 databases of personal information, under the often alarmist argument of national security and counter terrorism.

To make matters worse, the mounting tension between the Registrar General of Census’s National Population Register (NPR) and Nilekan’s UID, was diffused only by the decision to link the UID database to the Home Ministry’s Crime and Criminal Tracking System (CCTNS)– a complete reversal from the initial assurances that information collected under the UID would not be linked to any other databases. CCTNS is legally bound by the Information Technology Act 2008, amended by the Information Technology Rules 2011. Under these Rules, the Government has unprecedented powers of surveillance, intrusive monitoring and interception of encrypted information. The Rules maintain that “information shall be shared, without obtaining prior consent… with Government agencies… to obtain information including sensitive personal data or information for the purpose of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation including cyber incidents, prosecution, and punishment of offences.“ If the UID database falls under this mandate, it means that provided the government claims national security or even merely criminal investigation, they can access any information, and privacy be damned.

In a country like India, where there is little discourse between government and ordinary citizens, where government entities are not known for prioritising and safeguarding citizens’ rights, or of being overly conscious of legal practices, access to huge amounts of information can only increase this chasm of power. After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the excuse of “national security” to fight against the all-encompassing threat of “terrorism” has allowed the Government free reign to spy on and collect information on its own citizens. The ability to then profile each citizen will give them the ability to decide off-hand who is or isn’t a danger to their personal ideal of a safe Indian nation. When a citizen does something which opposes a traditionalist Government, what is to stop the government from threatening, accusing, or arresting them on mere suspicion?

The ensuing worry that private data may end up in malicious hands stopped a biometric identity from being created in the UK in 2004; the right to privacy is so significant that the Data Protection law superseded even the Freedom of Information Act.

The notion then of a well-understood and utilised right to privacy law is crucial, but over 200 million people have already been registered and the likelihood of the UID’s denunciation is now slim. In countries where ‘big brother’ laws are leading to electronic police states, this culture of monitoring can only be exacerbated by a database of personal information this large and could lead to other violations of human rights. Monitoring, through intelligence equipment, and profiling, through stores of personal data, can become pervasive, invasive and all-encompassing. And particularly in a country with a poor and uneducated populace, governments are able to run unchecked, monitoring their citizens while proclaiming gleefully, “it’s for your own good.” Worst of all, India could lose its crown as the world’s largest democracy and instead become the far less glamorous world’s second largest police state.

Impunity Reigns In India

This article was originally published on Eurasia Review.

Once again, it seems India’s pledge to uphold the tenets of human rights has come to nothing. In January this year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) painted a damning picture of the state of human rights in its World Report. The report assessing 90 countries indicts India for allowing impunity for human rights violators, for failing to protect vulnerable communities and victims of abuse and for missing vital opportunities to prove its commitment to human rights internationally. Yet, in the 4 months since the report was published, little has been done.

The report illuminates sickening acts of cruelty and brutality perpetrated by the security forces around the country. Forcible disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir, unlawful killings by Border Security Forces at the Bangladesh border and during counterinsurgency operations in Maoist-controlled states, threats, beatings and deaths of activists and whistleblowers, are just some of the violations mentioned. Most damning of all is HRW’s conclusion that little or nothing has been done to end the impunity of the forces sworn to protect the citizens of this country. Christof Heynes’ visit last month, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, reiterated these deep-seated concerns when he mentioned these abuses, particularly focusing on special acts which write impunity into the law.

Only last year, India stood up and solemnly pledged to the Human Rights Council that it “will continue to abide by its national mechanisms… to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens.” It vowed to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, promote the empowerment of women, ratify the United Nations treaties against torture and enforced disappearances, abide by the Right to Information Act and strengthen civil society. Yet, little progress has been made – perpetrators of grave human rights violations continue to run free whilst millions of innocents remain hidden in the depths of India’s prisons.

Maja Daruwala, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, points out: “Rights violations take place in all countries but it is the response that matters. Governments must act swiftly and sternly particularly against criminal acts by its own agents but it does not. There is also a high tolerance for illegal behavior within security forces and the police. The senior leadership must speak out and act against bad apples if they really believe in upholding the law.”

A plethora of ‘special’ acts allow for impunity to unreservedly embed itself in daily practice. Even as the Home Minister repeatedly promises to amend and moderate the effects of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) – a law which provides extensive police powers and wide protections to armed forces operating in vaguely defined “disturbed” areas – no great efforts have been made. Bringing criminal and illegal acts of armed forces, operating in conflict areas, to justice remains absurdly difficult. ‘Special’ acts apart, general protections for government servants written into ordinary law are routinely abused to deliberately delay well-deserved investigation and prosecution. The pace at which the legal system clunks along helps contribute to the culture of ‘getting away’ with abuse under the guise of uniformed authority. Despite the continually piling up evidence, the promised law to severely punish torture remains a pipedream, police reforms are strongly resisted and no overhaul of the criminal justice system is in sight.

Due to India’s new economic clout, its presence and influence on the global stage is more visible than ever before. As a member of both BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia, China and South Africa) and IBSA (India Brazil South Africa Dialogue Forum), India’s human rights stance is now being scrutinised even more closely; the failure to act is noticed and will most definitely be critiqued. As a member of the Human Rights Council, India is positioned at the very forefront of promoting human rights, but credibility can only come if it acts with integrity at home. India’s leadership on human rights is courted by the West as a counter to China, but in reality India’s domestic human rights record repeatedly forces it to be defensive and equivocal on human rights issues.

In light of Katherine Boo’s acclaimed Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope In a Mumbai Undercity which has shaken naïve views of India as an emergent superpower and instead highlighted the rampant corruption and police abuse, the Government of India needs to start taking human rights abuse seriously. Otherwise, damning reports will again humiliate the country as its human rights record comes up at the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in the next few months. India must prevent the blows of rights violation and impunity from falling upon individual victims, their families and whole communities. Otherwise, another shaming report will be ignored and suppressed by a power-hungry and cavalier political class, leaving behind an enduring mess of human suffering and abuse throughout the country.

“Asking for it”: Delhi police blame rape on the victims

This article was originally published here on The F Word, an online UK feminist magazine.

A recent sting exposé in an Indian magazine, Tehelka, well-known for its investigative journalism, showed police officials in New Delhi, blaming rape on the victims. Their views ranged from “it was about the money”, “she was drinking alcohol”, these “girls wear short skirts”, “she had sex with her boyfriend, and so his friends joined in” and the all-encompassing “she was asking for it”. The insensitive, misogynistic and deeply horrifying commentary given by high-ranking police officials in the capital and its satellite towns, Gurgaon, Noida and Faridabad, are representative of the embedded misogyny still so prevalent in Indian society.

The problematic nature of casual jokes about rape in the UK have been discussed on The F-Word, and are taken note of in the mainstream media, but what about a society which brushes sexual crime under the carpet, refuses to introduce sex education in schools, and still holds men superior to women in a myriad of ways?

In much of India, women’s rights remain paltry. Recent reports have detailed dowry deaths, child marriage, honour killings, trafficking and domestic violence as rife in both rural and urban areas. These facts are widely noted by human rights organisations, are covered in the media but a culturally lackadaisical attitude (“this is India, anything goes”) has meant that little has been done to combat these issues.

Tehelka’s exposé very baldly paints a damning picture of the attitudes towards women. The fact that these men are police officers, are educated, have been trained and supposedly sensitised, are entrusted with the safety of India’s citizens, gives us an insight into how safe the city really is. Known as the rape capital of India, hardly a day goes by when a case of molestation, rape, or gang rape is not reported by the mainstream media. And yet, for every rape case, studies show that 50 go unreported, because of the social stigma attached to rape. According to the police, only 10% of cases are genuine, because no true victim would report the crime. They claim: “In reality, the ones who complain are those who have made rape a business”.

The propensity of these officers to speak so bluntly about sensitive issues shows a complete lack of sensitisation to the proliferation of rape cases in India. The lack of safe public transport at night limits female independence, so much so that the Gurgaon administration recently told women to stop working after 8pm because they could not guarantee their safety. Instead of attempting to weed out the corrupt, sleazy and untrustworthy forces within the police, the administration chose to restrict women’s freedom. The mentality then that women are to blame is pervasive not just through the police force, but also the government who prefer to blame the victims instead of indicting the actual criminals. This move would take India back decades, creating a greater skew towards men, as employers will resent being told to ensure women have safe transport home. On April 13th, 200 women protested against the 8pm curfew demanding a safer city: these are women who refuse to take this attitude lying down. The feminist movement is most definitely alive then and acting as a counter to a misogynistic and patriarchal society.

As an emerging power on the global stage, which is being considered for a place on the United Nations Security Council, which has gained a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the hypocrisy of India’s ruling class must be addressed. While most articles on India note the economic disparities which permeate the country, rarely do they consider India’s human rights record, its treatment of the stigmatised and unfortunately of women, who remain a vulnerable group. The continued use of the archaic and heinous “two-finger test” to determine a victim’s “virginity” and “habituation to sexual intercourse” merely provides another mode by which women can be subjugated. If the two inserted fingers are easily admitted, the victim is quite literally describes as a “loose” woman. The fact that a victim must be further abused, that her lack of virginity calls into question her moral character, is a sickening violation of human rights. It is no wonder then that so many rapes go unreported.

For India to sit up on its high horse and ignore the extreme rights violations perpetuated by its own forces is quite blatantly ridiculous. The exposé has caused a flood of outrage on both social and mainstream media by activists, advocates and public figures; however, there has been little coverage in the international media. Activists, feminists and indeed, anyone who believes it is the perpetrators not the victims who should be punished, should take note of the vitriolic attitudes towards women still alive in the vibrant, power-hungry and emerging power-to-be that is India.

The battle for internet freedom (India edition)

This is an update to my last post on this blog which dealt with many of the same issues. Sadly, in the past few months, internet freedom has come under further attack.

The battle for internet freedom is ongoing. With the advent of bills like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and now CISPA, governments around the world are cracking down on freedom. Iran plans to unplug the internet and create its own internal form. The UK government is attempting to enact legislation to snoop on all forms of communication to mass outrage. Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsburg, Birgitta Jónsdóttir are suing the US government to protect internet freedom. People can now be arrested merely for the vitriol they enjoy posting on twitter.

None of this was possible even 10 years ago. The way information is created, shared and thought about has changed for the millions around the world with daily access to the internet. Internet freedom is being much debated all over the web this week, thanks to the Guardian’s series ‘Battle for the Internet’, but the mainstream Indian media seems to have decided to remain mute on the issue.

The Information Technology Act 2008 was surreptitiously passed with little notice by the Indian public. The Act grossly undercuts internet freedom and may soon be getting worse. Under the Act, the Government was given unprecedented powers of surveillance, intrusive monitoring and interception of encrypted information. Already, cyber café owners are required to keep backups of logs and computer resource records for at least six months for each access or login by any user – a serious invasion of privacy.

In December last year, the Telecommunications Minister, Kapil Sibal felt that any objectionable content must be “pre-screened” before posting on social media. Clearly, he failed to recognise the physical impossibility and blatant absurdity of such a move. However, his somewhat unhinged ideas about regulating the internet are evident in the IT Rules 2011.

According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, anything which is deemed to be “harassing”, “blasphemous”, “defamatory”, “disparaging” or “threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order” must be removed. With such vague parameters, almost anything offensive to the sentiments that the state wishes to perpetuate, to not just the public, but the rest of the world, can then be removed from the internet. It is almost impossible to patrol the web in such a manner, given the sheer amount of content, but that doesn’t seem to stop the government from wanting to try.

At the same time, the Rules require sensitive personal information to be disclosed to government agencies “for the purpose of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation including cyber incidents, prosecution, and punishment of offences.” This is an extreme privacy violation, but far more worrying is the ability of the government to lawfully create a profile on all of their citizens. If this happens, it is likely to result in a move from the presumption of innocent to a  presumption of guilt. Monitoring, surveilling and profiling will become the norm.

These Rules violate both the Right to Privacy and the Right to Free Speech, and may in fact be in violation of India’s own constitutional laws to free speech, and are in violation of international human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 8, 9 and 10) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12 and 19).

For a more thorough critique of the Rules, see the PRS brief, and have a look at this excellent blogpost on Govinthelab.

Moves like this reveal an avowal by the government to slowly but surely fritter away our human rights. We cannot let this happen. If we want to stop the government from legally censoring our web content, accessing our private data and monitoring what we say, then:

Sign the petition: www.it2011.in.

While an electronic signature might not seem like much, it could make a huge difference to stop the government from encroaching on all of our civil liberties and tell MPs that we refuse to have our voices stifled. Cracking down on free speech is just the first step.

An interview with a Syrian Christian: “I don’t prefer USA’s freedom to Syria’s”

In the age of new media, it has become increasingly easy to have conversations with people you know nothing about, who believe in values completely removed from your own and have opinions on contentious subjects that you can barely believe possible. I had one such conversation with @HumanishTweeter when he responded to something I said about Syria on Twitter.

For a bit of context of the current situation, a New York Times article discusses how squeezing the economy (in the form of sanctions) will eventually put the pressure on the merchant elite to rebel against Assad:

““We’re all waiting for the thing that will crack them,” an Obama administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “And it will be the economy that will wake everybody up, both those who support him, and Assad and his circle.”

“…But uncertainties persist over the international strategy to put pressure on the Syrian economy. American and European officials have debated whether the sanctions will end up hurting average Syrians more than the leadership. Some analysts have contended that the government may try to paint itself as a victim and court support by casting the sanctions as a contest of “us against them.””

These economic concerns are oddly foregrounded by my conversation with a Christian Syrian tweeter whose comments (although vitriolic and angry) echo this unease over economic loss and its effect on the average citizen.

He said: “Millions of them [the people of Syria] despise the uprising as fake, and a mere grab for power.Syriawas extremely at peace in itself for many years now, and there was no reason to do this at all. Ask yourself why Syria is the target of world scorn… but the Saudi King is 100 times worse and people like Obama kiss his ass.”

“It’s all a joke. Israel wants Assad gone because of Hezbollah…Israelis the most powerful lobbyer of American politics, so, we support their bidding.Syriawould be fine, if not for little power hungry killers, aka, “peaceful protesters” [who are] shooting at police etc. Not all of them are violent, I know, but it [Syria] wasn’t some hell hole. The sanctions were the worst thing about Syria, and the very people that set the sanctions up (to get people to topple Assad) are the same people the rebels sided with.”

I commented that there were obviously people not at peace with the regime, who chose to rebel.

He replied: “I believe their motivations are revenge for what happened under his dad, the 20 thousand Hama deaths. It’s the past. Well, see if “families” were tortured for vengeance, of course that’s wrong. But I don’t believe all these stories, either… but if some occur, I can’t believe Assad etc signed off on it. It’s like in theIraqwar, someUSApeople did brutal, sadistic things to prisoners etc, but it’s not like generals wanted it happening…just random crimes.

I pointed to stats, to Amnesty, to the facts that say that these kinds of crimes aren’t random, but a way of inciting terror and keeping the oppressed downtrodden. The recent expose of the use of torture to keep family members in foreign countries from protesting was alarming, not because it’s surprising, but because it points to worse human rights abuses happening in Syria that we don’t know about. I asked if he believed he was truly free under the Assad regime?

“Free. I am Christian. Jesus when he was here never preached overthrow of the Romans. Ever. Why? Because unlike what Jews thought, Jesus knew true freedom is within, spiritual…USApreaches freedom, “land of the free”… know what they did recently? Forced fag marriage on the state of NY, against what violators of NY already said NO to on a ballot. They did the same nationally forcing abortion on our people. Free you ask. To do what? Live? Have families? Be happy? Yes…. to be a fag and get married and kill your baby? No.”

And most importantly, a statement that echoes the youth from all over the Arab Spring countries: “I don’t preferUSA’s freedom toSyria’s. This is my point,Syriain that regard was free. What nation doesn’t have rules people hate? They were as free as anywhere except to make mass money, because of sanctions. Makes many people think “if only Assad were gone we could make more cash.”” Surprisingly, many of his concerns echo orthodox Christians all over the world (the loss of the nuclear family values) and are concerned less with the war, but what the regime change will do to his lifestyle and values (however misguided they may otherwise be considered.)

As part of the Christian minority, perhaps “@humanishtweeter’s” worries are founded in becoming part of a sizable minority in what would otherwise be a Sunni Muslim majority. Media reports suggest that Syrian Christians worry that the unrest could turn into civil war, dividing another country by religion where the divide, previously existent, was not yet so fractured.

The statements portrayed here are xenophobic, racist and bigoted, and yet I see an echo in his worry about Western involvement, in how it will change his country and the way that economic sanctions are, not just potentially, damaging the average citizen. I support the movement in Syria completely, but I cannot help thinking it’s worth listening to the other side, only in the hope of coming to some kind of middle ground, remembering the minority groups which also make up the country, and maybe changing these extreme opinions into something more inclusive.

The hypocrisy of India’s anti-corruption movement

Being a staunch liberalist means that I was overjoyed when I watched the beginning of the current anti-corruption movement in India. The Lokpal Bill seemed a shining beacon of hope for the beginning of a new India. This apparent naïveté didn’t last long however.

The Anna Hazare movement is an apparent harking back to Gandhian principles, and his movement is carried out with absolute sincerity. Critiques of Hazare’s fast comment that he is blackmailing the Government. This may be so, but the Indian Government requires this kind of hard-line approach and the eyes of the international media to really stand up and take notice of its citizens. However, the assumption that ‘Team Anna’ speaks for all the people in India is a gross misjudgment.

The middle class, Hindu-centric followers which arrogantly believe they speak for all of India’s religions, factions and minorities (of which there are thousands) are hugely mistaken. The disgust for corruption which pervades the country does not necessarily translate to support for this specific Bill that Hazare is putting forth. As Tehelka points out, “Arvind Kejriwal, has never been known to be a supporter of Dalits or an admirer of Ambedkar. He did not even hesitate to declare that no reservation can be made for Dalits in the drafting committee for the Lokpal on the grounds that for formulating laws one needs specialisation.” The lack of inclusivity of the movement fails to take into account the varied nature of India’s citizens and the caste, class, locality (rural versus urban) problems that continue to be sustained today.

What of Anna Hazare’s followers? The media is speaking of the galvanization of the middle class – ‘the apathy of the middle class is over’- but is it really? How many people standing there in Ramlila Maidan had any idea of the difference this could, and may, make to our country? Pictures of the movement show groups of gormless teenagers surrounded by endless flashes, taking facebook ‘profile pictures’ to prove their political awareness. How many of them have ever bribed a police officer in the middle of the night for drunk driving? How many people have paid for their driving license to skip the endless queuing? How many have budgeted bribes into a proposed building project just to push it through faster? Kiran Bedi made an effort to explain the movement to the crowds, and perhaps that made an impact. The movement continues with the hope that the message really will sink in.

Corruption is, in so many ways, India’s biggest problem. It creates a ‘chalta hai’ (it’ll do) mindset which gives India it’s wonderful laid-back attitude, but unfortunately, leads people to believe that bribes are a normal part of daily existence. It is those people who take a step back, look at other countries and come to appreciate that the blatancy with which corruption occurs in India is perhaps somewhat ridiculous.

I know of no one (save perhaps those ministers, cops and politicians who reap the rewards of these bribes) who is against the movement. I only have a problem with the fact that it is being marketed as a “people’s” movement. The masses are not mobilising, the middle class is. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but how many people in villages living under the poverty line know why and what is happening, apparently on their behalf? Corruption is rooted so deeply in the government mechanism, in the Indian way of life that people find it difficult to imagine life without it. Part of the problem is that officials really do not receive a salary that they can actually live off of. The bribes become part of their calculated living costs. I don’t say this to excuse bribes, but to point out that there was once a reason for why corruption became so deep-rooted. The legacy of bureaucracy that the British left behind only helped to create the red tape behind which corruption became commonplace. It is time to finally life ourselves out of that tangled mess. I have heard from so many people: “I don’t agree with the bribe system, but what can I do? There’s no other way to get anything done in India.” Perhaps now, people will realise that there is another way.

The horror of the movement finally comes to light in a story in the Times of India yesterday, buried on page 15. A college student in Chennai lost his life for not taking part in an anti-corruption protest. “The student was chased into the Adyar River and allegedly left to drown by a group of fellow students.” The twisted mind that thinks it’s acceptable for someone to actually die for this movement worries me. Indian hearts are invested in this, but Gandhian principles of civil disobedience say nothing about innocent bystanders dying for the cause. The cold-blooded malice of the students who left him for death in a river is disgusting. Corruption may be a big problem; money laundering is rampant, as was demonstrated by the Commonwealth Games, but, an innocent life has been lost. And for what?

Anna Hazare’s non-violent movement should not be tarred with blood. It should remain true to the cause of purging corruption from the ranks of India’s higher officers without injuring an innocent audience. A democratic state should mean that people also have the right not to protest; Gandhi’s “Satyagraha” (holding firmly to truth) is pertinent to today’s anti-corruption movement but Hazare’s followers would do well to remember he also stood for “ahimsa” (non-violence).

University staff asked to inform on ‘vulnerable’ Muslim students

University staff have recently been asked to inform on those Muslim students who are considered ‘vulnerable’ and appear depressed or isolated. This Guardian article tells us that guidelines are given to ascertain their position as ‘vulnerable’: “Documents handed to staff claim that students who seem depressed or who are estranged from their families, who bear political grievances, or who use extremist websites or have poor access to mainstream religious instruction could be at risk of radicalisation.”

The continued targeting of an innocent community is now reaching a worrying climax. This cold-blooded desire for information is bringing in an almost Stalin-esque shift in policy towards informing on your friends, neighbours, fellow students and maybe one day your family. Since when is it acceptable, in what is supposed to be a democratic state, to ask citizens to inform on each other?

If spying is normal, why not put cameras in every room? Put a filter on every Muslim student’s internet? Track their perusal of “extremist” websites? Better yet, let’s take a leaf out of News of the World’s phone hacking – oh wait, the government’s already doing that. My mistake.

Why not give every student with Islamic leanings a chip to embed in their arm to track their every movement? Let’s have them report to the nearest police station everyday like any other common criminal. They are Muslim, aren’t they?

Facetious anger aside, this is not legal. The government doesn’t seem to understand that deciding to single out the Muslim community, even more so than it already has, is only going to backfire on them. (BackFIRE, get it?)

Angering a community that already has a thousand reasons to hate you is not going to help the problem. Instead, maybe if they provided support for all students that are depressed, isolated or have no close family members, maybe those students would be able to create a support system for themselves.

James Haywood, president of Goldsmiths college students’ union, rightly said: “After the rise of hate groups such as the English Defence League, and the recent massacre in Norway, why are Prevent not also telling us to refer on students who have an irrational hatred of Islam?” Why not indeed? It is interesting that the terror act which was recently perpetrated in Norway was categorised by the media as the behaviour of a crazy man. If, instead, the massacre was carried out by a Muslim, would they still be considered so? Terrorism, it seems, is no longer the word used to describe those who commit a terror act.  It is confined to the space that ‘Islam’ occupies in the media hype around terrorism. It has become the justification for changing the very tenets that the UK was built on.

By specifically focusing on students, is the government putting forth the idea that those people who probably have the greatest immersion in British culture in their interaction with other students, are most at risk for the terrible disease that is ‘terrorism’?

With the rise of CCTV numbers, the increase in riot police numbers, the alarming idea that “spying” is normal, the UK seems to be slowly making its way over to a rightist state. Not centre-right, but entirely right-wing, xenophobic, fearful and skeptical of the rest of the world, especially those who come from these “third world” countries.  

I hate to make the classic comparison to 1984 and Big Brother, but does the government really think that its human rights violations can continue to go unnoticed? Everything done in the name of the War against Terror seems to be leading them to spy even more upon their own citizens. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems to be losing its influence on the laws of this country. This violates Articles 2, 7 and 18 but this seems to make no difference as long as the words ‘Muslim’, ‘extremist’, ‘terrorism’ are bandied about.

The UK is continuing this almost fascist trend, signified by their dismissal of the European Convention of Human Rights earlier this year in reference to the rights of sex offenders and their refusal to sign the Council of Europe’s pioneering treaty to protect women from violence.

Is a country that prides itself most on its democratic principles, its freedom of the press, its apparently equal treatment of every person regardless of the colour of their skin, their religion, their background, finally outwardly changing their tune?