by Aditi Narain
The world is now witnessing the chaos between various parties who are divided on religious bias stand against each other and put the capital of India under threat from unpredictable raging out of masses set out on the roads to trouble the citizens and put up new demands in front of the government in the name of their religious divinity being the most superior.
The term Hindutva is well heard of by every Indian more than once in their lifetime. More or less the current government is driven by the ideologies of a Hindutva imperative. Under the tag of Hindu Nationalism, the government parties they are unaccounted for goons are out on the roads to cut down and violate anyone who supports the other people, referring to the Islamic population. The concept and perseverance of ‘Hindutva’ is well laid down by Sumanta Banerjee, as she recalls the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, drafted in 1967 by the government to abort all discriminatory actions which promote or attempts to promote on grounds of race, religion, caste or communities or any other reason whatsoever, which in turn brings in feeling of hatred between two ethnic or languages based communities. But when the government when was to enact this document, the scope of the legislature was only restricted to secessionist activities. Although the same draft was bought up during the conference of chief ministers of the states in May 1968, again no attempt was made to extend the scope of the legislation to communal activities.
The flow of events eventually led to political parties like BJP, VSS, Shiv Sena, RSS and their leaders who make and derive their metaphors from the old holy books of Hindu mythology. Use the feeble minds of the majorities to lay the groundwork as to how Lord Rama and Lord Krishna had said in these and how they should follow their will and teachings and lead the world. The same Hindu ideology is used to ignite the hatred towards the Muslim communities and treat them as unequal and bad elements of our society. These leaders make the simple people redirect their minds or whitewash them as per their need to move the masses to spread the sense of India being a nation of Hindus and Hindus only. They intend to state that others are all outsiders and were never meant to be on the Indian soil. They push the bull-headed population to believe that the Muslim community will corrupt our kids, take away our jobs and try to snatch away all our liberties from us. Sheer manipulation of all sorts is done by these religious political parties to drive everyone in their mirage of hatred towards the Muslim community.
In October 2019, an assistant professor Audery, from Rutgers, U.S. attended a rally outside the United Nations where our Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to speak. She openly criticized the BJP for adhering to Hindutva. She compared Hindutva to Nazism. She said that as the Jews in Germany were treated by Nazis, so is done by Hindutva followers to deal with India’s Muslim community. People highly criticized her by stating all sorts of unproven tails, saying she was anti-Hindu and supporter of Pakistanis, an online petition was raised by numerous people to have her investigated by the university she works for. But Rutgers stood with the professor’s statement stating that she always welcomes a platform to learn through a reasonable debate on the cultural and intellectual history of early-modern and modern India.
Now, where do you think your ideas stand or where do you think Indian’s ideas stand?
by Sidhanta Sarkar
The death penalty which is also known as “Capital punishment.” In criminal law though, in ancient times a number of ways were present to punish an accused with reference to the nature of his crime against the society. Such punishment was considered based on the nature of criminality presence in an act of the accused. In ancient Indian epics like; the Mahabharata and the Ramayana have also considered the death penalty which was known as “vadhadand” which meant ‘amputation by bits’ which classified into fourteen modes. While in furtherance of retention of the death penalty, King Dyumatsena observed that “if the offenders were leniently let off, crimes were bound to multiply.” In his statement, he explained that the execution of unwanted criminals was perfectly justified in the existing society. As in the same manner the great eminent law-giver Manu also stated: “that in order to refrain the people to indulge in any criminal activity fear as an essential mode for which death penalty was necessary in the society”. He further stated that in the absence of this mode of punishment the weaker would not be able to survive in the society. The concept of the death penalty was only effective in an ancient period but also has the same status in the reign of Mughals rule in India where the death penalty was not executed in a simple manner. Each and every accused person was bound to suffer and also to bear the pain until his death. Mode of the death penalty by way of nailing the body of the accused on walls was common which was abolished later in the British system of criminal justice. Thereinafter, only the mode of the death penalty by way of hanging has remained and which is yet, continuously followed by the Indian criminal justice administration. Being a way to deter offenders, it also enshrined in Section 54 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) which mentioned the death penalty as a way of punishment to refrain criminals.
Death penalty since ancient time considered as an effective weapon of refraining the people to indulge in any heinous criminal activities which may affect their life or through them in the well of death. Since that period this mode of punishment is also considered as an effective measure of retributive justice. In furtherance of the justification of the death penalty, it is to be said that this is a lawful measure to punish an offender who already takes away the life of another person. It is to be said by a scholar that “a person who kills another must be eliminated from the society and therefore his execution is justified.”
The death penalty though one hand has a retributive effect but on the other hand, it also has a deterrent effect which mainly deters the offenders to indulge in most heinous crimes. Its deterrent effect can be the best way by which perhaps, offenders keep themselves away from the criminality. If they are made aware of this and make such fear in their mind than in a positive way there can be a reduction of the incidences of homicide in the existing society. But in present, the method of public hanging in the early days is prohibited in respect of present laws in our country because of the extension of the human rights regime.
In our country, there shall be retention of the death penalty because in the present era there is no substitute for the death penalty which may play a similar role towards punishing the criminals convicted in heinous criminal activities. In India, there are several people as well as some communities raising their voice to abolish the death penalty but there is no substitution or alternate of death sentence which may prevent the criminals to commit those offenses which may be punished with a death penalty as a mode of punishment. If in India, the death penalty would be abolished than in those cases the amount of criminality or criminals or rate of the offenses would increase as the time passes. Therefore, it is not quite possible to abolish death sentence as a mode of punishment mentioned in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Because if someone wants to harvest crops from the fields, then he has to decide before what substitute he will plant. Similar is in case of the death penalty if there is a need to change the mode of punishment which already exists in the present society or also enshrined in the codified laws than a further step should be there for deterrence of the criminal minds and their behaviors towards the particular community or society at large. Though, as per the opinions of some of the people belonging to the society support the idea that in more than hundred countries death penalty has been abolished, then they should be remember that we cannot change anything with only seeing particular actions instead of this we should rely upon the circumstances of those countries where it has been abolished. The judicial actions taken and policies revised are not only based on present circumstances but also on past events which lead to historic commitments in a country hence, it is rightly said that: ‘future may be based on past’. If we want to cut the tree then we are required to analyze its roots to cut out them, similar is the case if we want to abolish the death penalty. Therefore, death penalty should be retained in India and those laws which are existing in present society shall be enforced. For the prevention of criminal activities or the rise of criminals or heinous crimes, we can say that such laws need to have some enforcement among the people as well as society at large in India.
By Sidhanta & Aditi
Recently, the global world has started experiencing some revolutionary political changes. As during the twentieth century, realism and idealism both collided as conceptual rivals for understanding international relations, but the situation kept worsening in this scenario. Throughout history, the maps of nations have changed on account of the existence of various political influentials whether it is through democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. The collision has been considered as a loophole in international relations. In a society with a high plurality, people may have all kinds of belief which can vary from person to person.
Changes in the society have led to the variation over time in patterns of political roles. Today, democracy has changed the mindset of society and the growth in competition in politics has become the major problem.
Therein media has emerged as the essential part of the subject as it plays the game of manipulating the society as we have seen in Spanish-American War and Nigeria propaganda War. The Nazis and Americans
portrayed the best of propagandist war. Nazi Germany introduced the term, “Blitzkrieg” and the American version of a blitzkrieg attack was “shock and awe”. Both actions aimed at achieving mass destruction within enemy’s territory. Such annihilation resulted in the violence of inequality and injustice, that is structural violence which as stated by Winter and Leighton, “embedded in ubiquitous social structures [and]
normalized by stable institutions and regular experience”.
Activists agree that the society needs to reconcile, per say, the three paradox of democracy are the parameters for society and its newly flourishing regulations to be kept within the boundaries of democratic