Pages

Thursday, March 20, 2014

When I was caught for violating the law

It all happened in Chennai Beach Railway station. After a hectic day which included an interesting court visit, this is part of law degree which is akin to engineering students going to industry visit, walked in to the station bought a ticket for Chennai Avadi station from Beach. It was 4.pm by then. After indulging myself for more than half an hour on twitter through my mobile phone I casually enquired a bystander about the timing of next train to Avadi, who said it is at 5.20 PM. I then realized that I should have taken a bus and must have enquired about the timing of next train before buying the ticket. Task at hand was to thrash the next one hour somehow, twitter wasn’t encouraging. Suddenly I saw a bunch of, say 10 Aam Admi party activists alighting from a train, I think they were planning for some road show or were trying to create some scene and looking for some opportunity. I thought there was no better way to kill that one hour other than engaging in a conversion with them. Before I could approach (I was on a phone call when they were nearby) them they have moved swiftly to the other end of platform. And I had no interest to pursue them anyway.

I thought that wasting an hour sitting in a railway station is useless and unproductive and I was already tired and decided to go by bus. On my way back to out of Railway Station while crossing railway tracks I phoned up a friend and was talking. And the moment I was walking up the ramp one fat guy stood in front of me, he is RPF (Railway Police Force) Constable. I ignored him and continued talking. Later I have abruptly disconnected the phone call to talk to him and I thought that now I have a good chance of whiling away that one hour.

Following was the conversation

Constable: Sir where are you going?

Me: Home

Constable: Ticket

Me: Here it is

I knew by that time that he is an RPF constable and his job is not to check the tickets, he was still starring at my ticket, it appeared to me that he just did not know how to read a ticket.

Me: what are you looking at for a long time sire? This is the ticket to Avadi and I decided to go by bus because the next train is only at 5.30 PM

Constable: Have you not seen the sign board which says not to use cell phones while crossing?

I turned around to see the sign board and I could not infer a thing from that, but decided not to argue with him and by now I know the offence I have committed.

Me: Give me the ticket

Constable: No, come to office

Me: Don’t book somebody because he looks like a fool, (that was with sarcasm)

Constable: I have never said something like that.

He might have noticed my uniform(white shirt and black pant, law student/advocate attire) since beginning and was in a dilemma on what to do with me.

Constable: Are you an advocate?

Me: No, final year student.

Constable: Come to office.

If I would have lied that I was an advocate I think he must have let me go, but then I did not. I just did not know what to do, but something had to be done. I suddenly erupted,

Me: Selective application of law is no law.

Constable: Oh! My god. Sire, please come and say all this in office room. Everything is captured in video camera

Now that I have realized that I have to go to office room, I just followed him. And I was constantly thinking/planning how I should get myself out of this. Now we have reached the office room and to my surprise there are around 25 to 30 people just like me, all of them brought there for some petty offenses/reasons, there was a set up like a room which was created with the help of barricades and inside that long benches and chairs were arranged. The other guys were welcoming me, one guy said, come sire what did you do? Just like in movies we see in a jail cell if a new inmate arrives the guy who is already there in that cell will ask a similar question. I have asked myself, what the hell of a mistake I did. And decided that if I am made to pay the fine, they are not going to get it easily.

The process is after they have gathered certain number of people they will all be taken together to the nearby Mobile court where the judge will decide the fine amount. I have walked to the Writer and asked is there a way out and what is all this? How long will it take because I am about to miss my 5.20 PM train.

Now the writer was taking the details from me Name, address, age, father’s name etc., concurrently he filled out a sheet with my details and asked me to sign. 

Me: On what charge you are booking me?

The moment I asked that question there was a silence, for a moment he just did not respond, then reacted.

Writer: I am helping you, by saying in this complaint that you were in ladies compartment for 10 minutes, because that will cost you only 200 hundred rupees, otherwise for phone it will be 500 and for speaking it will be another 500.

By then I knew he was surely bluffing. I repeated.

Me: Thank you sire, but on what charge ie., which section and on which act you are booking me?

He pointed me to the sheet he was filling out and said, Raiway act sire and this is the section. I wasn’t sure but it looked like 165, but decided that when I go to the court I will ask the judge. And then I have signed the paper, two signatures. 

Now I am back to the place where I was earlier asked to wait ie., in the midst of guys all of them are of same age group, we were just cracking jokes and were laughing, that was a great time indeed.

Simultaneously I have been thinking about nailing these people who booked me. That is exactly why I have agreed to be booked for a wrong reason and signed the papers not because I will save some money. And I have now laid out the scheme of things to be executed once I go to court. These were some questions I have prepared in my mind to ask the judge.

Here’s how the conversation would have been in my opinion.

1.    Me: Before you confirm the fine, what evidence are you going to rely up on? Is oral evidence of Police is final?

I did do some casual reading of Indian Evidence Act and I know that the evidence of police is bad evidence and it will not be given a priority.

2.    Judge: No we shall have a video footage.

3.    Me: I will challenge the RPF to prove it.

I know very well that they could not produce it, now they are literally locked out and I would further allege that they have asked me pay some money as bribe and booked for an alternate offence where I could be charged with lesser fine. They will be literally screwed.

4.    Judge: Then why have you signed the sheet agreeing the charges?

5.    Me: I was induced first and then threatened by the police to do so.

And I know very well when it to comes signing the declaration in police custody i.e. RPF in this case by accepting a charge can be related to confession in Evidence act, which cannot be held valid even though I have signed it, if it is alleged that it was acquired through undue influence. So that argument of ‘I have signed and accepted the charge” will not stand. And the judge would have literally thrashed the police, and subsequently let me go or ask me to pay for the original offense that is for the phone, for which I was already prepared.

But all this would have happened only if they have taken me to the court, unfortunately they have decided not to do so. Here is why I think it is.

When the writer asked me to wait with others and in a moment we all shall be taken to court, after sitting for a while I have gone back to the writer now with a notepad and pen.

Me: Sire, what is your name?

There was a complete silence, he did not respond for a moment, then said

Writer: Why are you asking my name?

Me: There is no reason, just wanted to make a note of it.

Though I have said that there is no reason, I have actually planned to ruin their careers.

Writer: No, take the names of Sub-Inspector, Inspector and others. Please go and talk to them.

Me: what is problem with telling your name and designation?

Writer: No, please go and talk to the Sub Inspector (SI)

Now I am inside the cabin of SI, where the other guy explained him what my offense was and he also said I was also asking for names.

Then he starred at me. I thought now it is my turn to talk. And I thundered with my favorite quote and concept which I have read it in some journal but I could not recall which journal it was.

Me: Sire, Selective application of law is no law and the law enforcement authorities who apply the law for their convenience are not law enforcement authorities in its true sense.

Now he gave me a confused look, and said sire please take your chair, I said it is ok, after a pause he replied

SI: Why do you want names?

Me: Sire, I am a very poor man and you are a police officer, why are you worried to give your names and designation? What do you think I am going to do? I could do nothing.

SI: Ok, here they are.

I have noted all their names SI, Inspector, Constable etc. After that I have just walked out and gone to the bench where I was sitting  It was full of fun there, guys were just making a lot of fun, one guy asked me sire, what they were saying? I replied no, nothing I have just collected their names. Did you watch some Tamil movie this morning and is that the reason why you are doing all these, i.e., collecting their names? He was trying to make a joke out of it.

From the moment I was out of SI cabin, there was a complete commotion inside; they were brainstorming on what to do with me and how to proceed further. And they appeared worried that I am going to do something with their names. Suddenly, the writer rushed out to me and said 

Writer: Sire, SI asked me to fill out another form for the original offence ie., for that phone thing.

Me: Ok, no problem.

Then he quickly filled out and asked me to sign.

Me: Hand me over the sheet which I have earlier signed, only then I will sign this.

He again started scratching his forehead and rushed inside the SI room. After sometime inspector came out to take me to another senior officer who is in the first floor, this guy seemed to be the complete in charge. SI, Constable and the inspector all are present there to complain about me and inspector has explained what I have done, ie., was on phone while crossing the track inside the railway station. In-charge/Senior officer/Head looked at me and nodded, is it not an offence?  Before I could reply SI intervened, Sire, on top of it he (me) is asking for all our names too.

Then once again I have gently said, this time to the in charge, “Sire, Selective application of law is no law and the law enforcement authorities who apply the law for their convenience are not law enforcement authorities in its true sense”

In-Charge: Are you an advocate?

Me: No, not yet. Few months away from my Law degree.

In-Charge: Ok, waiting for exams?

Me: Yes.

In-Charge: They have done their duty.

He said this looking at the police personnel.

Me: I completely agree, and there is no dispute on that.

SI Intervened again, Sir he is collecting our names too.

I interrupted the SI and said, Sire, India is a democratic country and here I thought it is within my rights to know who is charging me, and there is nothing more to it. The law enforcement authorities have a wide range of discretion when it comes to enforcing the law. They should judiciously apply it and discriminate between a serious and less serious offence though the statutes are not asking them to do. If I have grievously hurt somebody on railway premises for which you have jurisdiction, you should show no leniency, but see what I have done? I was on phone is that so serious? Then he In-Charge said many people were killed because they were carelessly on phone while crossing. I have just said, point taken. He added that it is only for my benefit he saying this, I just nodded. SI asked the In-Charge, can we let him go? In-Charge replied, yes please. In-charge stood up and shook hands with me and said good luck for everything and take care. And then I have walked out.

But to let you know the reason for collecting their names is to accuse them of demanding the bribe which is violation of Prevention of Corruption act Sec: 7. so those who booked me for an offence which is different from what I have actually committed would have been in deep trouble. And there is a high probability that my case will stand. Though I could not accuse the judge as per the sec: 77 of IPC, i.e., Act of judge when acting judicially, but the Inspector, Constable and the SI could very well be pinned, that was an easy task. So they have narrowly saved themselves by just letting me go.

Moral of the story (of this incident) goes something like this. In my opinion Law is nothing but a set of processes and rules which the enforcement authorities are obliged to follow when enforcing the law, if they miss even one rule for which there is no judicial sanction and apply it selectively for their own convenience they can be held accountable. So the job of a learned man is to pick up those rules which the enforcement authority has missed or failed to comply with, whether he did it willfully or not it hardly matters. Somehow I had my way this time.

Once I reached home I was scanning through the Railways act Sec.165 on which I was booked originally but it was only about bringing the offensive goods not about getting in to a ladies compartment. Now I know why police goofs up most of the time when it comes to application of law.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

The Judgemental Hayat Alvi

A request for assistance and a conversation (through email first and on FaceBook) with Hayat Alvi.

What I have said ?
=====================================================
Namaste Hayat Ji, 

I have been following you in twitter for quite some and your tweets are undoubtedly informative. This email is to seek your assistance/guidance on a monograph which I am planning to attempt on the topic of Identity crisis of Muslims in South Asia in general and particularly in India.

What prompted me to do this is the unsettling question which is lingering in my mind for a very long time on why even after centuries together the Muslim society has not integrated itself with the Indian society completely and why its allegiance oscillates between Pakistan or to ummah at large and India. 

In the post partition scenario why the state Identity given to them from India is not a satisfying Muslims. Is it enough to side with the traditional argument that institutional deprivation of growth and development is the prime reason and then blame the governments which were formed since Political Independence. Why should their loyalty fluctuate between Pakistan and India. Is that an issue with the perception on Pakistan? What will make them to associate themselves with the nation states in which they live at the moment ? 

Research Question ?

When the India was partitioned primarily driven by the demand of Muslims that they need a separate land exclusively for them as they cannot live in peace with their Hindu brothers side by side, not all Muslims have migrated. Is it correct to assume that those who chose to stay back they did it on their own volition or they have had no choice ? If they would have had a great transport facility and institutional security provided to them their migration would have been complete ? What Idea of Pakistan that attracts them to identify themselves with Pakistan or the imaginary caliph. What necessary steps the state should take win over their allegiance with in the context of India? 

I intend to produce a monograph on this or a mini thesis or what ever it may be, I'll leave the decision on the nomenclature to you. This is how I would like organize the monograph/thesis etc.,

The Identity crisis of Muslims in India

1. Origins.

2. Khilafat movement.

3. The fraud of Jinnah.

4. Religion as an opium.

5. Muslims as a method to power.

6. The anti-Hinduness

7. Suppressing the liberal voices.

8. Economic Status.

9. Thinking beyond Kashmir.

10. Disconnected with reality.

11. Suggestions/Conclusion

I would request you to guide me on this. Co-authoring is also fine. 

My Bio in brief:

I have a Masters in Information Technology, and Pursuing my Bachelors in Law and a Major in Political Science. Thanks !


I hope you will definitely have many questions to ask me on this which I am more than happy to answer. Thanks for your assistance in advance.
=====================================================

Her Response :

====================================================
I'm not sure what "pursuing Bachelors in law and major in Poli Sci" means, b/c Bachelor degrees come before Masters, so that's confusing. 
In any case, no, I am not interested in this "project." It is not scholarly or academic social science material with objective research and analysis. I really question your intentions with this, because it's clearly loaded with xenophobic prejudice and biases, without any factual empirical evidence. On the contrary, there's ample empirical evidence to prove your premises wrong. I cannot spend a lot of time going back and forth discussing this, so just take it from me, it's not scholarly material and it has very suspicious intentions and objectives as far as academic objectivity is concerned. Now, I gave you the FB friends opportunity for the sake of conveying your message / questions to me. Don't take it personally, but I don't keep FB friends status with people I do not know. So eventually I will unfriend. Good luck.

======================================================================

Me Responding back :
=====================================================

Let me explain on the confusion about Bio.

Under Graduation (Three years)- Bachelors in Computer Applications (BCA.,) Annamalai University. 2003-2006 
Post Graduation (Two Years)- Masters in Information Technology (Msc., IT) University of Madras. 2008 2010
Bachelors in Law (BL) (Three years) – Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University – 2010 -2013 (Did not attend couple of papers, exams are due in a month. Only have to attend the exams)

Master’s in Political Science (Two years) – 2013 - 2014.

That is on the Bio thing..

On your rejection :

That was not surprising. But I am really not sure about that xenophobic prejudice and biases. It is a genuine concern to understand the issue, that when in India how certain section of Muslims sympathize with Pakistan? Though the ISI backed terrorists have no regard for them when they decide to kill.

The only thing that drives them to do the unthinkable things is religion? They were fooled by the communal electorate system introduced by British and then fooled by Jinnah as he asked them to vote for Muslim league in the name of allah, if this is not enough they were further hallucinated by this Khilafat stuff. And in the post independence period they are fooled continuously in the name of minorities by successive governments of India. This is a real question and a real issue. When a Muslim hoists a Pakistan flag in India and burns an Indian flag in protest, there are some profound ramifications behind that act. What makes him think that his life will be better off in Pakistan and not here? That means given the opportunity he could have very well migrated to Pakistan or he could have demanded that the place where he is living right now to be declared as a part of Pakistan? Can we safely say that if the economic status of an average Muslim is up to the mark he will be satisfied? If the economic growth and development is the only solution then why in developed countries including US and Europe, despite enjoying greater standards of life they still end up being recruited by terrorist organizations? That argument also needs to be verified.

As I have always maintained that for the greater stability of world, stability of South Asia (Erstwhile Greater India) is important. If we have to stack it in Pareto all the known issues of this region, religious terrorism will stand out, and to understand that phenomena study of Muslims as a social group in my opinion is relevant. When a Pak based terrorist group goes for a recruitment drive they won’t knock the door of a Sikh or a Jain but a Muslim. If we have to deduce that only because of lack growth Muslims are attracted towards Terrorism then the culprit is the Indian State. 

There are great books which nail this identity crisis of Muslims. My intention was to keep this analysis with in a time window say since independence till now etc.

Since that you have already passed the judgment that I am xenophophic without even resorting to elementary principles of natural justice, there is nothing much to say. Only a neutral referee must say who is prejudiced here. Thanks for your time.