Dussehra

This weekend was Dussehra. For many Hindus, this is when Lord Ram killed Ravan, and is generally celebrated as the day good triumphed over evil (yay!). Others (particularly in Bengal) celebrate Durga, and do many pujas to her (with this day, Vijayadashami) as her day of homecoming.

First: the Durga puja. So in the days leading up to Vijayadashami tents are constructed specifically for the purpose of putting up murtis of Durga and having special pujas to her. On the day of the holiday, the murtis are then taken to a local river, and put into the water (in a process called visarjan). The whole path of taking the murti to the river is like a big parade, several of which were happening in the streets close to where I was.

Second: Ramlila. Ramlila is a play that is performed each night of Navratri, leading up to Dussehra. It's the story of Ram, and each night a different segment is told. The basic story of Ram (as I understand it, though in the tradition of any epic religious tales, there's a bazillion versions): Ram is a prince of Ayodhya, but has the bad misfortune of having an evil stepmother who would prefer her own son to be king. Ram is banished from Ayodhya for 14 years, and lives in the forest with his wife, Sita, and his brother, Lakshman. Ravan, the evil king of Lanka, sees Sita one day and decides he must have her. Ram is away one day (doing Ram-ly things? not sure where he goes, but it's necessary for the next part of the story), and Ravan comes and kidnaps Sita. The final showdown happens in Lanka when Ram goes to rescue Sita, and along with Lakshman and Hanuman, they beat the evil and Ram kills Ravan (and rescues Sita, of course, though methinks that's kind of a minor part).

This had been something I had seen in movies, and my mom always talked about it, and I was REALLY super excited. It did not disappoint. The costumes, the soundtrack, the over the top dialogue - great fun. Pictures here are of the noble Ram, the evil Ravan (he had this AWESOME evil laugh muahahahahaha sort of thing that would play every time he entered), etc.

Third: Ravan on fiiiiiiiire. No, this does not mean he was having a super performance one night. They literally light statutes/creations of Ravan on fire. Below, first, is video of the Ravan that was blown up at the Ramlila performance, after Ram defeats Ravan. At the performance there were two other figures blown up - these are commonly seen, I think, where there is a bigger crowd. They were Meghnath and Kumbhkarna, Ravan's son and brother, respectively.

But this whole business is not just reserved for big performances - this is something that happens in basically every street. Kids/neighbors will get together and make Ravans out of papier-mâché. Some are small, about my height, while some were mounted at street corners and were as tall as the buildings. Everyone put firecrackers on the inside of the head, so as it started to light up, it would literally blow up. For several hours that night there were continuous bursts of firecrackers and lights in the distance from explosions. SO MUCH FUN. I would compare it to July Fourth, but let's face it, this was way cooler.

Babri Masjid - Verdict from Ayodhya

So this is kind of old news, but I figure the case has been going on since 1961, so a little more time won't hurt anyone. The issue is fresh in my mind because at the weekly HRLN staff meeting, we had a lengthy discussion regarding the verdict.

The history of the situation in Ayodhya, about the Masjid itself as well as its societal impact on all of India, is long and convoluted, and I won't pretend to be able to summarize it all here. (FYI - the Court judgment in this case? Over 8000 pages.)

However humble it is, a brief timeline of the relevant events:

????: Lord Ram is allegedly born in Ayodhya.
1528: Babri Masjid is built, allegedly on the site of Ram's birth. For over four hundred years, the Babri Masjid was used as a masjid.
1949: Overnight, deities of Ram are placed in the center courtyard of the Masjid.
1961: Overlapping title suits are filed, with both sides (Hindu and Muslim) claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over the property.
1980s - 1990s: Rising religious fundamentalism, particularly on the part of the Hindu right, leads to the Babri Masjid matter being center stage. Politicians use the alleged ownership of this site, and how the government is withholding access, as a launching point for more political and religious rhetoric.
1992: The Masjid is demolished, piece by piece, by activists.
Mass riots ensue as a result of the demolition, mass violence between Hindus and Muslims.
2010: The High Court of Allahabad comes to a decision in the title suit regarding ownership of the land under the Babri Masjid.

In the time leading up to the verdict being announced, there was a lot of fear that whatever the decision was, it would lead to more violence. The day of the decision, a lot of people left work early, so they could be inside when the decision was announced - in case something did happen, and riots occurred. It was a tense feeling: sort of surreal, because everything was normal that day, so how could violence erupt so easily? But at the same time, that's exactly how it had happened before, and that reality was present in everyone's mind. One of the women in my office was quite confident nothing would happen, simply because of the police/security presence due to the Commonwealth Games - an interesting theory that remained untested, so far as I know.

The verdict that came out was this: the land would be divided three ways. The Hindus would get a part of it, the Muslims another part of it, and a third group (a sect of Hinduism) would get a part of it. Most people looked at the verdict as a success - not because it was particularly fair, or the legal reasoning was particularly sound - but simply because no violence resulted from it.

The discussion at the meeting was lively. Some of the more salient points:

• The layers of politics, going back dozens of years, are fascinating. Just one example: the Shah Bano controversy. Shah Bano was a Muslim woman whose husband had divorced her, but Muslim law dictated that she could not receive alimony. The Supreme Court ruled against Muslim law, and said that secular law should hold power in India. There was a lot of uproar over this in some Muslim communities, and in a move that most interpreted as an attempt to appease such communities, the Parliament passed a law essentially overturning the Supreme Court's decision. Certain Hindu communities were angered by this obvious appeasement, and demanded their own appeasement: they should be allowed to have a mandir at the site of Ram Janam Bhoomi.
  
• An "archaeological survey" was done several years ago, and reported to the court that there were indeed ruins of a Hindu temple under the mosque, supposedly giving proof to the claims of the Hindus that there was a mandir before a masjid. But what the Survey could not determine is whether the masjid was simply built upon the ruins of a temple, or if the masjid-builders had deliberately destroyed the mandir and then built the mosque. The judges took differing views on this: some determined that it did mean it was destroyed; another said there was no way to tell.
• Another problem of this archaeological survey? It was not even complete. The temple that was extemporaneously created in 1992 (upon the demolition of the mosque) was not dug up in order to complete the study.
  
• A large part of this judgment was clearly based on "sentiment" - NOT law. In order to avoid religious conflict, the court decided in a way it thought to avoid violence. But is this anyway to make decisions? Is the judiciary to be held hostage by the masses (and not even masses, really, but a small violent minority)? This sets a bad precedent, to make a decision for convenience and diplomacy. One guy pointed out that the Supreme Court itself had made many decisions about free speech, etc., which were guaranteed to cause havoc, but that didn't stop it from ruling on the law.
• A lot of people in the discussion felt very strongly that this verdict, in granting that Hindus had a right to worship on the spot, and keep their idols there, served to justify the demolition. There was a lot of feeling that the court had set a precedent - a bad precedent - that if any religious group wanted to claim a particular ground, they could just storm in (causing destruction and harm along the way) and claim it. Not only claim it, but then receive legal authority to stay there.
  
• There was a lot of discussion of faith in this judgment - the public's belief that this was the birth site of Ram, etc. But if the courts are now making judgments based on religious faith, will this lead to courts sanctioning the caste system? Dowry? Where will they draw the line?
  

This discussion could go on forever. It's a crazy complicated issue, with such a conflation of politics, religion, violence, Constitutional rights, everythingyoucanimagine - one could read for years and still not be able to decide what to do. A certain part of me understands that the court did what was necessary to make sure that people didn't get hurt, but more of me looks at how idealistic Indian courts have been in the past, in terms of being socially progressive, and working towards a better India... why couldn't this court have done the same?

Dandiya!

It seemed wrong that I had gone to Navratri celebrations so much in the U.S., and couldn't make my way to one garba here in India... luckily, I am super well connected (:P), and managed to get into one on Friday night!

Started with food, obvs. Delicious pav bhaji.

Just one of my excellent hosts, enjoying the aforementioned deliciousness.


Then we quickly moved onto dessert: kulfi. YUM.


And then: the main event. They had the dancing areas blocked off with two circles: one for people who had been through training for the past month (I kind of felt like my three years in FOGANA should count, but whatevs), and the other circle for people who wanted to be silly and just mess around. Unlike in the U.S., they started off with the raas.

ACTION SHOT. We had a blast, though dandia were in limited supply. We mostly just twirled around in circles and laughed at ourselves.

Commonwealth Games

The Closing Ceremony of the 2010 Commonwealth Games is currently going on - bringing to an end two weeks of athletics (and school/work closings for many, though not for HRLN!). Much has been said about the mistakes India made in preparing for the Games - or rather, in their lack of preparation. Stories of collapsing roofs, broken bridges, unclean and unhygienic housing and bathrooms in the Athletes' Village, amongst other problems, led a number of tourists and supporters to cancel their plans to attend, and a fair number of athletes to withdraw from the Games.

In any case, the Games started last week with a huge dramatic (and seriously spectacular) Opening Ceremony. The Government declared the day a holiday for all of New Delhi, and everything was closed. Dances, outfits, and music from every corner of India was showcased, with brilliant lighting and huge fireworks in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. It was a triumph for a lot of the Committee members and those in the Government who had participated in the planning.

[Having trouble focusing right now because the song selection for the Closing Ceremony has been absolutely absurd. Jee Karda from Singh is King, I Gotta Feeling from Black Eyed Peas, We Will Rock You, Aahun Aahun from Love Aaj Kal, Koi Kahe Kehte Rahe from Dil Chahta Hai... Random.]

In any case: so yay for all the glam and glory of the Opening/Closing Ceremonies, and for the Delhi Metro, etc etc. The real burden of the CWG, though, was carried by (as often is the case) the poorest of the poor. Slums have been destroyed without compensation or rehabilitation for the slum-dwellers. And, as I learned more about in the High Court the other day, wages and benefits for construction workers were completely withheld, not to mention the poor working conditions (leading to grievous injuries and several deaths).

HRLN's case was about the lack of compensation for more than 70,000 construction workers. Lack of compensation in actual wages, as well as benefits, not to mention compensation when the workers were injured or killed due to the unsafe working conditions. Previous court orders had been obtained, ordering the construction companies and the Government to provide compensation for these workers, but the orders remained unfulfilled. The defendants claimed a variety of defenses: the statute providing for this compensation was too new (it's not - it's been in place since 1996), the workers did not register (16,000 registration applications are pending, with no movement on their applications), the workers themselves were not coming forward (many had gone back to their native places, seeing as the work was over)... the list goes on.

There was a very interesting dialogue in the court regarding the practical application of the statute - the judges seemed very invested in fulfilling the mandate of the previous court orders, but at the same were aware of the realities of having one company held responsible for all the problems (there were about 6 different contractors for the work, with dozens of subcontractors on each project). There was also a great moment when (after Colin and others continually used the number of 70,000), the other side challenged this statistic. It turned out that the actual Regional Labor Commission was sitting in the back of the court, and came forward to confirm that there were indeed 70,000 construction workers responsible for the all the CWG construction.

The case ended with the discovery that the subcontractors had been required to give a registration (of at least the number of their employees) to the Commission when they received their contracts, and so the subcontractors could be called in for the registration of their workers.

It remains to be seen whether the subcontractors will follow through, and if the construction workers will get what they should have from the beginning. In any case, it does make it a little hard to take in the grandeur of the Ceremonies, knowing what lives were destroyed in order to make it possible.

PC & PNDT Act Consultation

Last Sunday was the consultation for the PC & PNDT Act. The Pre-Conception* and Pre-Natal Determination Techniques stand for those tests that are used to determine a child’s sex before birth – and sadly, in many parts of India, lead to the abortion of female fetuses. The legislation concerned here was meant to be used to police the use of such devices: require that any such devices be registered with a particular government agency, and to ban the use of such devices for the sole purpose of determining the sex.

This consultation, in particular, was regarding a public interest litigation case that HRLN had filed recently regarding the implementation of the Act. Although the Act was passed several years ago, implementation was lax, and enforcement was non-existent. Attending the consultation were representatives from NGOs and organizations who were working on this particular issue in their respective states, and each representative gave a report on the status of implementation in their state. Representatives were in attendance from Haryana, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh (as well as Delhi itself).

After getting briefings from each state on the implementation of the legislation (mostly reporting that there was little enforcement, with maybe one-two convictions over the last four years), we then moved to the real goal of the consultation: formulating the exact requests that would go into the consent decree that we would present to the court in the upcoming hearing. We already had a draft put together, with requests ranging from increased infrastructure to implement the legislation, to better maintenance of records, more reporting requirements, and more transparency in the committee meetings for those who would be implementing the legislation.

It was interesting to see this discussion – some of the more interesting points:

• the language barriers. There was no common language among all the participants in the room, though English was probably the closest. Those from the North would often go between Hindi and English, but when they flowed into Hindi, someone would have to be sitting with those from the South to translate into English. When people spoke in pure English, then there would also need to be some translation for certain participants. I’ve become used to this constant language problem, to some extent, but it always amazes me to think that even being in the same country, with all relatively highly-educated people, there are still such basic communications issues. Add that to the complex topic we were discussing, and it’s kind of miraculous that anything is able to get done in a single day (not really, I supposed, but that’s often how it feels).
• the extent to which details were discussed. Consent decrees in the U.S., at least so far as my familiarity goes, are not usually incredibly detailed, in order to allow the parties the flexibility to negotiate. Also, there were a lot of things being discussed which seemed, to my mind, to stretch beyond the Court’s powers – going into the Executive’s realm of power. This was only raised once the whole day, and it was kind of a token aside, to not go too far in their requests. The attitude seems to be that different courts are willing to order different things, and so one might as well ask for as much as they want, and see how far the court will go.
• the difficulty in applying national legislation to the range of problems experienced in the states. It was clear that not only was the implementation at different levels in different states, but also that different authorities were trusted in different areas. Some states had faith in the committees that would be formed as a result of legislation implementation, and were willing to entrust them with enforcement duties, while others wanted more strict liability enforcement from the statute so that they would not have to rely on any committees.

The day ended up with a pretty complete list of demands to put before the court. The case has not come up yet, so it’ll be interesting to see what the court’s reaction is.

*If any science-y people are reading this (I know you're out there), can you please explain to me how one could possibly tell the sex of a child "pre-conception"? I mean, a child has to be conceived before any of this... right?