By Iqbal A. Ansari
After the award of the ‘Citation of Excellence’ for Promotion of Human Rights by the JNU Centre For Human Rights Teaching & Research, presented by Justice P.N. Bhagwati on 10 December 2007, A.M.U’s Vice-Chancellor Prof. P. K. Abdul Aziz presented a memento to me in a felicitation programme held on 26 January 2008 for the first time in the University to give recognition to those teachers and students who brought laurels to the University in 2007. Inspired by this programme, I am giving below a brief account of my work both as a researcher for policy development and as one struggling for justice and peace for the inspiration of my younger friends, especially teachers, students, lawyers and journalists in the hope that my unfinished work will get the required support, and also that they will join the struggle for justice and peace in the country, in South Asia and worldwide in their own way, and in other areas like the rights of the child and women and the disabled that I could not devote any time to, except for my efforts towards securing gender justice for Muslim women through reform of the Muslim Personal Law within the Islamic value system.
It was the imposition of the Emergency rule in June 1975 in India that made all the difference to resetting priorities of my life’s work. One lakh citizens from Jaya Prakash Narayan to a newspaper hawker were put behind the bars. The issue before me was simple. Shall I, a non-political University teacher, passively accept this as a reality, or shall I struggle in whatever manner possible to resist the authoritarian rule. I made the choice early in the midst of the thickening shadow of what looked like an Iron Curtain within which Indian citizens were being forced to live, like in a prison.
The detainees from the A.M.U in 1975 Emergency included my friends Dr. M. Nejatullah Siddiqi, Dr. Mumtaz Ali Khan and Dr. F.R. Faridi. This denial of right to freedom to innocent citizens took me for the first time in my life to the court of law, where I read the text of Sections of the IPC and Cr Pc under which they were detained and found that unlike MISA, the offenses under DIR were bailable. In the light of the charge sheet and facts of the case, I was convinced that there was a clear case for any independent Court to set them free on bail – which the District Judge P. N. Harkauli did after hearing the arguments of the prosecution and our counsel. It was one of the earlist bails given to any detainee during the Emergency. The learned judge who was a man of courage and clarity was much later elevated to the High Court.
As an elected member of the Academic Council at the time of Prof. A. M Khusoo’s joining the University as Vice-Chancellor, I had had plenty of opportunity of meetings and discussion with him. However it was during this period of Emergency rule that I realised that his commitment to civilized norms and liberal values was sincere enough to the extent that he did not cause any hindrance whatsoever to the meetings that a group of teachers including Prof. Irfan Habib and I organized to oppose the Emergency, especially after the People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Democratic Rights (PUCL & DR) was constituted in Delhi in 1996 by Justice V.M. Tarkunde and others.
It is my understanding of how the basic institutions of rule of law, especially the police and the district administration function in India as subservient bodies for the political satisfaction of the “rulers” that aroused my interest in the issue of reorganization of the police for rule of law to become a reality. Ever since I have been campaigning for police reform. Apart from the experience of the Emergency rule, it is my inquiry into Jabalpur riots (1961) and Ahmedabad riots (1969) and those into Aligarh riots of 1978 and the most devastating one in 1990 and finally the demolition of the Babri Masjid that led to organisation of seminars on law-enforcement system and the publication of a volume on Communal Riots, the State and Law in India (1997) and the Report on ‘Communal riots: Prevention and Control for the National Commission For Minorities ( 1999). Earlier at Jabalpur (1961) I had worked for a month with fellow students for relief of victims and had also done some investigation. I had also been to Ahmedabad (1969), where more than a lakh of Muslims were living in make-shift camps, as a representative of the AMU community, partly for educational relief and partly to conduct my inquiry – whose comprehensive report was published exposing the partisan role of the police under direction of the secular Congress party’s Government in Gujarat for retaining its power in the next election. Because of this understanding of the command-control system of the police, I have been advocating the adoption of the model suggested by the National Police Commission (NPC) led by Dharam Vira, which was appointed by the Janata Government, but whose reports came out (1979-81) when Mrs. Indira Gandhi had returned to power. In all seminars and reports on the subject, this model of reform coupled with socially diverse composition and training of the police for eradication of communal prejudice and adoption of humane method of riot-control has been one of my major concerns. I can take some credit for drawing attention to the NPC report during post 1992-Ayodhya national debate. It is well that it now enjoys support and sanction of the NHRC, the NCM and the Supreme Court.
Though my interaction with Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reform, appointed by the NDA Government, did not lead to acceptance of many of my proposals, the Sorabjee Police Act Drafting Committee accepted my suggestions which are incorporated in the Model Police Act, 2006. It also gives me some satisfaction that the issue of rights of victims of violence has gained wide acceptance.
One area of police reform that I have been pursuing relates to police firing. On all the three occasions when students were killed by police firing during the time of Janab Saiyid Hamid, Prof. M.N. Farooqi and Mr. Mahmoodur Rahman, my inquiry led me to the basic issue of use of lethal weapons for controlling unarmed mob by the police. It is unfortunate that all those who ever raise the issue of killing of these students either put the blame on the Vice-Chancellor or the agitating students. It never occurs to Muslim intellectuals including jurists among them and political class to raise the issue of the change of the Police Manual on the use of Force and Firearms and the Riot Control Scheme bringing them into conformity with human rights norms as laid down in the UN Basic Principles, which require proportionate minimum force to be used when all means have been exhausted, and only when there is grave imminent threat to life and not to proprety (an exception may be made to holy places).
My interest in this subject as a general human rights issue owes itself to the realization that it causes avoidable death of one person every second day in the country. Moreover it is this provision in the Manual & Scheme which has empowered the police to kill Muslims with impunity in the name of controlling riots. Srikrishna Commission has testified to the fact that it is excessive use of unwarranted force by police that turned a peaceful protest by Mumbai Muslims after demolition of Babri Masjid into a major riot. My representation to the NHRC on the subject along with report based on findings of four years record of police firing in April 1999 with reminders till September 2007 has not borne any fruit.
Post-Ayodhya debacle, I have been highlighting the role of the judiciary in encouraging impunity. I have repeatedly pointed out that major systemic failure leading to demolition of the Masjid was that of the judiciary. It is also responsible for non-delivery of speedy justice in the title suit as well as in the case of criminal conspiracy. Lately I have focused exclusive attention on this issue in some of my articles. It has been my plea that the judiciary must play a proactive role to end impunity – its performance so far with the exception of Best Bakery/ Bilqis Bano Cases in Gujarat has been rather disappointing. I have suggested a review of the judiciary’s performance in the area of hate crimes, to frame guidelines.
Welcoming the sense of urgency in the civil society for bringing to justice those responsible for the Gujarat genocide, I restarted the campaign for enactment of a comprehensive law on Genocide, which led to the joint formulation by Mumbai and Delhi based groups of the Draft Communal Violence/Hate Crimes Bills. It has also been my effort to get a separate law on the rights of victims of violence enacted.
It is unfortunate that neither the UPA Government, nor the Civil society is giving priority to the issue of accountability of all State and non-State players responsible for major carnages, nor is there any urgency in enacting a law for reparation and rehabilitation of victims under uniform standards.
My efforts have borne some positive results in the case of Hashimpura (Meerut) killings of more than forty Muslims by the PAC in May 1987. I helped the victims get the case transferred by the Supreme Court to Tees Hazari, Delhi, where after 19 years the trial started. The victims have also been paid compensation of rupees five lakh just on the eve of UP Assembly election 2007. Right of victims of communal violence under law is an issue that I have been raising especially since Delhi High Court’s Justice Anil Dev Singh’s judgment in anti-Sikh riot victims case in July 1996.
Though I have been advocating that durable peace in traditional societies like those in the subcontinent require basic reform of the police and justice system for the State to uphold rule of law, it also requires inter-community/inter-State conciliation through dialogue, especially on emotive ethno-religious issues like cow, conversion and Ayodhya and on the issue of Kashmir.
It has taken me to constitute jointly with Justice V.M. Tarkunde the Coordination Commirree on Kashmir in September 1990 and later Inter-Community Peace Initiative (ICPI) in 2001, both based in Delhi. I have visited Jammu & Kashmir several times alone as well as with other friends. Last time I went there to meet leaders in September 2006 to seek their consent to a Citizens’ Declaration on Protection of uninvolved Persons During all Situations of Use of Force.
Though the ICPI enjoyed the moral support of large sections of intellectuals of all communities as well as of leading Muslim ulama, my effort to prevent Ayodhya II on which I observed one-day token fast at Rajghat Delhi in 2001, did not have the desired effect, for which, in my view, the major blame attaches to non-Sangh Hindus, who did not come forward with any fair compromise solution, and thus allowed the Sangh Parivar to be the sole spokesmen of the Hindu community.
Post-Gujatar 2002, I coordinated the UP Rabita Committee’s Sadbhav-Shanti Caravan led by Janab Saiyid Hamid which visited Delhi, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Cuttack, Jamshedpur, Kolkata, Ranchi, Patna and Aligarh from 10 January to 19 January 2003, for which I prepared booklets and pamphlets and appealed to leading non-Muslims to join the Carvan, to which many gave positive response.
Our post-Ayodhya realization that protection of basic rights of vulnerable minorities require a special forum, led us to constitute, again under Justice V.M. Tarkunde, the Minorities Council in 1993 which made me involve in research and advocacy of policies for due representation of underrepresented minorities i.e. Muslims in public services, especially police & State forces as well as in legislatures. The Council has had distinguished persons from all communities associated with it.
My interaction with various Commissions, Panels and Committees on issues related to minorities led to some positive recommendations especially with the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) headed by Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah. I also served as an academic consultant of Sachar Committee in the area of political representation, though owing to the terms of reference being confined to educational, economic and social status of Muslims, not much use could be made of my report. I succeeded in convincing the Constitution Review Commission that no amendment of the Constitution is required if the Government wants to extend the benefit of reservation to minorities under the existing provisions of the Constitution including Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4). This recommendation of the NCRWC paved the way for the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities’ positive recommendation on the validity of reservation for minorities.
I have been pursuing the issue of constitutional status of the A.M.U. ever since the 1965 crisis. Realising that unless the University was recognized as a minority institution under Article 30, it could not preferentially admit Muslim students. It is this urge that made me develop expertise in Constitutional law, for which Dr. Anwarul Yaqin’s book Constitutional Protection of Minority Educational Institutions In India (1983) proved very useful. My critique of the Allahabad High Court judgment on Allahabad Agricultural Institute (1989) and subsequently of the Supreme Court judgment on St. Stephen’s College (1991) drew the attention of legal lummaries including Soli J. Sorabjee, who was also impressed by my brief that I prepared for him for the University’s case in the Supreme Court in 1997. Again during preparation of his submission before the Constitution Bench of 11 Judges for TMA Pai Foundation case, Sorabjee invited me for discussion, during which I laid stress on validation of the ratio of St. Stephen’s judgment, while getting the ceiling of 50% removed by the Bench. When India International Centre organized a discussion on the Supreme Court judgment on TMA Pai Foundation case, I was asked by the Chairman Soli J. Sorabjee, the Attorney General of India, to lead the discussion. Other panelists included Rajeev Dhawan and former Attorney General Desai. Vice-Chancellor AMU Mr. Naseem Ahmad, among others, attended the session. Later my critique of the judgment was published in Economic & Political Weekly.
The issue of uniform civil code is one area in which I can claim having made some contribution towards acceptance by the human rights class, including women’s rights groups, of the validity of community based personal laws, though reformed for gender justice, without insisting on uniformity for reasons of secular nationhood. I have had wide interaction on the issue with leading academics and jurists. I however feel let down by the Muslim religious orthodox class who still insists on triple talaq becoming enforced, howsoever sinful, even criminal, the act may be.
My academic work on minorities and Muslims – being of a pioneering nature – has earned fairly good recognition. My three volumes on Minorities characterized by A. G. Noorani as of international standard, have been widely acclaimed. Soli J. Sorabjee considers them as significant contribution to classical legal literature in India. It may inspire my senior friends to know that while Muslim Situation in India that I edited, came out in 1989 when I was in active service, the remaining seven volumes were all published after my retirement in 1995. The last one on Political Representation of Muslims in India: 1952-2004 on which I worked when I was a Visiting Professor at Jamia Hamdard 2001-2003, came out in 2006.After publication of two volumes on Minorities, I was invited by the Minority Rights Group London to participate as a delegate in an International UN seminar on Inter-Cultural Education and also to attend the session of the UN Working Group on Minorities in May 1997 in Geneva.
I also did some work in promoting the cause of human rights education in Colleges and Universities, for which the first meeting of its kind was held in Delhi at my instance. Recognizing my effort in promoting Human Rights Education, the UGC made me a member of its first Standing Committee on Human Rights Education in 1997, which resulted in formal introduction of post-graduate level courses and research in Human Rights in Universities and Colleges including the A.M.U. As early as the 1980s I had impressed upon senior colleagues of all Depts. of Social Science & Law Faculties of the A.M.U. the need to introduce teaching and research in the area of human rights, pointing out that it had immense potential.
In 1998, on the occasion of 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Institute of Objective Studies (IOS), accepted my proposal to constitute a Committee on Human Rights, on whose behalf I have been editing the Quarterly Human Rights Today, which is now completing its tenth year. I also brought out a volume on Human Rights in India.