 Hello, and let's talk about Kashmir and the Public Safety Act. This is a law that allows the state to detain people for up to two years without trial. On the night of February 6, just hours before their five-month-long preventive detention was to end, the Ministry of Home Affairs slapped its provisions on two former Chief Ministers of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti and Umar Abdullah. Before we talk to Gautam Navlaka about the latest developments in Kashmir, here is the story so far. On August 5, the Indian government abrogated articles 35A and article 370. Article 370 and 35A had granted Jammu and Kashmir autonomous status. Announcing this decision, the Home Minister Mr. Amit Shah had said that he was correcting a mistake made 70 years ago. The abrogation was passed by two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha and also got the President's nod. The Congress Party had opposed this bill in the Parliament. Recently, on 5 February, the former Chief Minister Umar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti were detained under the controversial Public Safety Act with charges such as glorifying militancy and promoting separatism in Kashmir. A dossier has been prepared on them, in which Mufti has been, in particular, called dangerous. And the dossier also said that she participates in insidious machinations and that she has an usurping nature. It calls her names like Daddy's Girl, Kota Rani, and so on. I quote from the dossier, the subject, meaning Mehbooba Mufti, has a history of making provocative speeches and charged statements leading to incitement of violence on several occasions in her political career. The same dossier says that she's a potential threat to public order in view of the prevalent security scenario. Of course, the dossier also acknowledges that Mufti was a vocal voice against the center's dilution of both the articles 370 and 35A, and that she'd supported unlawful groups like the Jamaat in Kashmir. So the government has also made similar charges against Umar Abdullah, the other former Chief Minister. In today's episode, we will speak with Gautam Navlekhah about the PSA and what this means for the political representation of the people of Kashmir. Gautam, firstly, were you very surprised by the re-imposition of the PSA? And you know, it comes in the context of... Why is it imposed on Kashmir again and again? Well, PSA Public Safety Act has been in operation since 1978. And since 1988, it's used. I mean, when it was brought in, it was supposed to be meant for tackling, timber smuggling and things like that. And that is how it was used. But right from the very beginning, it had been used against political dissidents. But the scale of its use increased enormously since 1990. According to an estimate, in the last 30 years, no less than 17,000 people have been detained under Public Safety Act. So keeping that in mind, it's a handy tool for authorities. Since they picked up, I mean, once they charged Farooq Abdullah with PSA, I think it was just a matter of time before they did the same with Umar Abdullah and Mahmoud Mufti. And with the Prime Minister making on the floor of the parliament, attacking by name Umar Abdullah and Mahmoud Mufti, deriding them, ridiculing them, actually reviling them, where they were not there to defend themselves. It was an act of, it was clearly indicative of what was in the offing as far as these two personalities of two former Chief Ministers were concerned. So this was something they have done. The interesting thing is that the dossier itself, in fact, this is not the first time that the dossier has become an issue. This has been the fate of PSA since it has been, I mean, since it's a routinized manner in which it has been used. The charges which the authority is level against a person on, even on a Prime Office reading, I mean, even just the face of it doesn't make much sense. Why is that? Why does it not? They could be, they could be referring to, for instance, in Mia Kayoom's case, his lawyers have claimed that the charges that have been framed against him, I mean, for the reasons why he has been booked, pertains to something he did or said in 2008 to 2010. We are now in 2020. He was picked up in August 2019. What was it that happened immediately preceding that or to have figured in the dossier? That doesn't happen. It's there referring to that he had been placed under the FIS against him and things earlier. Other important thing, Pragya, that you must keep in mind is that Public Safety Act, although it was enacted by JNK assembly in 1978, August 1978, the remarkable thing is that for 40 years of its operation, no rules have been framed and no standard operating procedure has been laid down for enforcement of Public Safety Act. So it seems to be an arbitrary act, devoid of any rules or any procedure, laid down procedures, which is mandatory under the law and it has been used as often as possible. So whenever the government imposes the PSA, does it have to actually have a justification for it? Does it have to, when there are no rules and how do you decide who gets booked under it? Well, if you go by experience in 2017, out of an estimated 1,004 detentions, this is from April 2016 to December 2017, a study showed that out of 1,004 detention orders that were issued, 998 were approved by the advisory board. Now, it's an interesting history even of an advisory board. Out of them around 941 cases went in appeal to the High Court where they challenged PSA. Remarkably, in 81% of cases, that is 764 cases, the High Court cost the detention orders, which meant that whereas the advisory board upheld all these, the same cases when they were referred to High Court, they were found wanting and in 81% of the cases, they were cost. The other interesting thing Pragya that one has to keep in mind is that while the number that people get picked up and the High Court cautious him, what various reports of, I mean, studies of public safety act shows is that it's a revolving door kind of the thing. So, you get detained, you get booked under PSA, then you move your appeal after the advisory board rejects your and upholds the detention, you move the High Court for cautioning it, High Court cautious it. No sooner the High Court cautious, the same day or the very next day, another new PSA is invoked and the person gets booked under it. So, it's like you come out and get picked up again. This is exactly like a revolving door. This is exactly what has happened to the two chief ministers in this case. Not just the chief minister, there are many people who have spent more than 20 years under detention without being charged. The remarkable thing is that in Mia Kayoong's case, the High Court judge said that if there is suspicion and apprehension then the court has no mandate to look into that. So, the court has also, I mean, refusing to apply its own mind and look at the detention orders to see whether the grounds mentioned or the dossier that is provided carries something which is above board. So, the court is also abdicating its responsibility by saying that we can't do anything now because if the authorities have this suspicion and apprehension, then we have no reason to question them and therefore it can't be cost. How would people in Kashmir actually view this? It's been months of lockdown. Well, PSA has been used against political dissidents in the last, more than 30 years, I mean since its invocation, but in the last 30 years even more so. And despite the fact that the High Court in so many orders and it's the percentage of, if you go by the numbers of PSA persons who have been charged have been charged, you'll find that in 60 to 70% of the cases when the matter has been referred to the High Court, they have costed it. Which means that in a high, overwhelming number of cases, there are no grounds for detaining a person. And in fact, if there are serious charges, then I think the best way is that you charge that person, prosecute him, let the trial establish his guilt or his innocence and then let the law follow its course. Detention becomes a way of shutting somebody without, I mean without rhyme or reason it seems and keeping them behind bars for months and years together. Indefinitely. Now look at in Omar Abdullah's and Mehboor Mahmoodi's case, they were picked up and detained under section 107 of CRPC. There is a limit beyond which they can't be kept under 107. Just when it was lapsing, the government needed to keep them, they don't have any charge sheet, they don't have any case against them. All they can do is to keep them under detention. Once that course had run its course, they decided that well put them under PSA. Now it depends, right now they are saying that they are a threat to public order. Public order means that under PSA they can be detained for another up to a year. If it's a threat to security of the state, then your period of detention can increase to two years. If this detention is also coming to an end, it's quite likely as it has happened in the case of others that they may invoke threat to security as an argument to keep them again under detention. Going by the dossier, the language used on it, that does seem like. The more important thing is that why is it that the government is taking recourse to detention of political activists and leaders. If they are so confident that the people are with them, that they are happy with the abrogation of 370, this government claims that they are doing everything for the benefit of the people. Instead of being cowards, let them free these activists and political leaders. Because if they are so confident of themselves, you have such a huge deployment of forces. You have access to draconian laws that you can use against anybody in Jammu and Kashmir. There are no rights that exist, no constitutional freedoms. Let these activists and leaders be allowed to be amongst the people and let's see what happens then. You know Gautam, one of the things we see off late especially is two strands. On the one hand you have these draconian measures, on the other hand the government is talking about development, industrialization. So you know these two things, why are they proceeding on a parallel track? They seem so contradictory. Well it seems like it's a cruel joke. You know there is this news item in the Hindu which basically talks about exactly this. That's what I said, it's a cruel joke. Just when you are picking up people, the detention of and the number of people who are under detention is unprecedentedly, it's very high. More than 450 people continue to be in detention and they have no chance, no escape, no hope of coming out. Because judiciary also seems to be abdicating as a responsibility. But at a time like this when nothing is happening, no constitutional freedoms are allowed to the Kashmiris. Everything has been clamped down, no political activity is permitted. Journalists can get picked up for filing reports which are completely normal and above board. I mean without any just news worthy news items they can be picked up. At a time like this to come out and say that we are now going to announce an industrial policy which is going to attract investments. And in that the pride of place is being given to internet, IT based industries. Now the existing IT based industries in Jammu and Kashmir have been knocked down. They had to shut shop, people have lost their jobs. Investors who had invested in this or entrepreneurs who had started these enterprises. I have been bankrupted. You come out with a policy which says to outside investors that you're going to be that we are encouraging people to come and invest in IT based units. That they'll be uninterrupted power supply that broadband access would be and transmission of material and data would be without any interruption. It's a joke. It's a joke and a cruel joke at that. The internet operates at 2G speed. There is no broadband. The white list has only 350 odd websites that are accessible. More than a million including websites of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department, Raj Bhavan, IT, even these are blacklisted. So my point is when this is happening, power supply today in Kashmir during the winters, there is a lack of power for up to 12 hours. So it's a joke when you tell investors that you're going to have uninterrupted power supply that there will be, you know, IT would be without any interruptions or without any blockage and bands. All of this happening with detentions going on in parallel. Exactly. And this is the cruel reality that Kashmir is going into. So you can talk on the floor of the parliament and claim and boast about a lot of things. Reality doesn't match that. Reality doesn't reveal that fact. Just a simple thing I'd like to end with. Just the fact that a single news item saying that they should be banned on occasion of Afzal Gurus hanging. The same Afzal Gurus hanging now which is a question mark after the arrest of the winters. Right. The government, despite its crackdown and all the control it had, it could not prevent the ban from being successfully enforced. To mark the anniversary. What does it say? That people are not with us. People are not with government of India. Right. They don't approve of government of India's policies. Right. So there are simple ways in which they express their opposition. Right. Thank you, Gautam. Thanks for joining us. We are two months into the Shaheen Bagh protests. The women have shown no sign of giving up their agitation. The Supreme Court has said that the protesters cannot block the roads. Before we discuss this issue, let's take a look at a video from the protest site where people have been sending one lakh postcards to the Supreme Court to ask the court to listen to their plea. This is to the Supreme Court, to the honorable judges, uphold the constitution. We, the people, are counting on you. Don't send me. I'm a citizen of this country and I don't have to prove this to anyone. This country is a part of India. Don't send this country to casteism, religion, or religion. You won't be able to distribute it. The people of India are totally rejected by the Nazis. They are the same president of this nation. India is a part of India. Your government was saying that these people are not mad. You are saying that these people are not mad. These people understand everything. These people are the people of the world. These people are not mad. So, we have with us Tariq Anwar from NewsClick, who's been reporting from Shaheen Bagh. Welcome, Tariq. Tariq, today the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal on the protest in Shaheen Bagh. Can you give us an update? You're coming straight from there. What happened today? Yes, the petition was filed by two lawyers, Mr. Sahani and Mr. Gurg, who have challenged the earlier Delhi High Court order, which refused to pass any order to the Delhi police for vacating the stretch which has been blocked for the past 50 days. So, saying that it was an SLP, a special leave petition between the division bench of Supreme Court, Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice S.K. Kahl, and the petitioner sought the prayer. The main prayer was before the Supreme Court to pass an order so that the entire stretch of Kalindi Queen Sarita via highway, which is blocked for so many days, can be cleared and the traffic is can be provided to people. But the Supreme Court refused to pass any interim order saying that they can't go ahead without hearing the other side of the argument. When the petitioners insisted that the court must pass an interim order, the court said that protests have been going on for the past 50 days. It can go a bit longer, but they cannot go ahead without listening to the other side and issued a notice to the center and adjourned the matter for February 17. So, this was the case. Two or three important observations were, this was of course oral observation, not part of the order, which was made by the bench, mainly by Justice S.K. Kahl, who said that there cannot be a definite protest in a common area if everybody starts protesting everywhere what will happen. You cannot incriminate people. At the same time, he acknowledged that there is a right to protest and those who are protesting should be provided in an alternative place, a designated area, where they can go and lodge their protest. So, this was oral observation made by the Supreme Court. So, tell me, Tarek, the issue is that we have seen in Delhi that there has been a slowing down of the traffic because ever since the Shaheen Bagh protests started, is there a way to ensure that there can be a protest and the traffic is not blocked? There have been various things have been said about this, that the police has blocked too long a stretch of it is one of the things we keep hearing. The Shaheen Bagh protesters are also, I think, they are not keen to move to any other place because they are rooted in the whole Jamia and Shaheen Bagh are interconnected, organically connected. So, what do you think can be the way out? You've been speaking to people there, what do they really say? See, there is no denial that there is traffic inconvenience because the stretch which is blocked for so many days is being used by around over 3 lakh people every day. It is in fact backbone after no entry ends in the evening that a stretch becomes a hub of business because commercial vehicle pass from there, that stretch connects not only Delhi to UP but also Haryana via Fridabad. So, that is a very important road. But what actually happened? The government tried it best initially when this problem could have been very easily sorted out. When they staged a protest, the government representatives should have come earlier, talked to the protesters, at least they would have taken them into confidence that your problem will be addressed. The government is ready for a negotiation. You please vacate the road, come to negotiation table. But it did not happen from political leadership. What was done? The police was pushed forward to talk to the protesters. We generally don't work in this tense situation. People don't believe police because for people or protesters, police is the real level for them. So, the police was initially used. Again, when the election drew closer, the government used that protest as main election plank. You are talking about the central government. Yes. So, the entire campaign of the Delhi election centered around Shaheen Bagh. And it worked to an extent for the BJP and it encouraged it very well. Currently, when the protest had started initially, see I know what had happened at the time. There was that road is divided by, there are two carriageway. One which is close to Shaheen Bagh, which is towards Shaheen Bagh was blocked and maximum stretch of around 700-800 meters is still blocked. The other carriageway was opened, but initially it was blocked by the police. And the argument was given that it has been done to avoid any towards situation. They cannot allow any vehicle to ply on the other side because there will be a law and order situation. Then how real do you think this apprehension of law and order situation is? Is it a likelihood? It is very convenient for the police. They play with law and order situation argument. They don't need any permission to barge into the Jamiya campus, but they need permission to intervene when genuine campus was being attacked. The police across India don't need permission. They enter houses, they vandalize property in the name of anti-CA protesters. They do whatever they want. They damn care about what the court says. So Tariq now, tell me something. If the protest is moved to some other site, would Shaheen Bagh lose some of its relevance? Are the people willing to move somebody? If you are given a designated site for protest, would it be no test? Because that's very important. That is the problem when you go and talk to people there and ask about an alternative site for the protest. Their first argument is we are being noticed just because we have blocked the road. Simply. Is that actually true? Are they being noticed just for this? Yes, of course. So many protests happen at Jantar Mantar. What happens to them? But it can't be any argument. It can't be a solution should be reached because there is a traffic problem. Additionally, there are so many outlets on one side of the road. Big company outlets are there and they are facing huge loss. The entire one season of winters went so all the shops are closed. So there should be a negotiation between the protesters and the administration, political administration, police administration and we should be find out. And that's what the Supreme Court is trying to do. Did you get that impression? No, it can't be said what the Supreme Court I cannot predict what the Supreme Court is thinking. Supreme Court made it very clear that yes, you have rights, you can protest but you cannot create inconvenience for others who are not taking part in protests. Has any kind of committee or body been set up which would decide what happens next? There are people, there are organizers they should be reached out and there should be a solution for that. Thank you so much, Tariq. So we all know now who did what and said what at the Oscars. What we are most excited about is of course Parasite, the first non-English film to win the top award at the Oscars. My colleague Upasana Hazarika is a major film buff and she's watched the movie. We spoke earlier about what she made of Bong Joon who's offering. Okay, Upasana, welcome. So let's talk about this film which has swept the Oscars this time, Parasite when you've had a chance to see the film. So when you saw it, could you really tell why it's called Parasite? Yeah, I mean the name of the movie is very important because it makes us think who is the Parasite and I think in the movie when we see the movie we see that it's not just one particular class of people who are Parasites but it's all of us who are Parasites dependent, interdependent in a capitalist world where not just the poor family who goes and starts working infiltrate almost, if I can use the word infiltrate the rich family's house but it's also the rich family which is completely dependent on the people who are serving them for their most basic things for their day to day things as well. So one very interesting thing is that even the poorer sections depicted in these three families in the film the two which are not so rich were they able to when the crunch time came were they able to put aside their differences and look at each other as poor? No, that is one thing that even Bong Joon who has also highlighted in some of his interviews is that the solidarity amongst the have-nots is something which is not there in the movie and which he tried to highlight because when it comes to a crucial juncture we see these families turning against each other without giving the spoilers I would not... So there is of course even amongst them there is this thing of looking down upon somebody who they consider as below there And when you see the film did you feel that you could it could relate to every audience because here we have a Korean film and this is a sort of landmark film now for being in the Oscars I think the way the movie has been made and the treatment that it has got it has got an international feeling it's not like you know even though it's based in Korea it's a very specific situation where they are there but then the class divide which they are portraying is something people from all across like you know from different parts of the world can relate to You were telling me about the metro that was very fascinating Yeah so there is this particular scene in this movie where the rich family they are talking about you know a smell of the subway of the people who travel in the subway so they are kind of they talk about it like you know the smell of the poor people very averse to it and they don't they try to remember how it used to smell like travelling in the subway but they are not ready to do it now not ready to do it now so that's one thing which I think people can relate to and other things as well alright thank you so much Upasana that's all we have in today's episode let's talk Catch us live Monday to Friday at 3pm Thanks for watching