Flawed Governance & Painful Prejudices
Isolated
incidents look obscure. Strung together,
every sequence has a consequence.
On November 12,
newspapers in Gujarat front-paged news of the “verbal” directives issued by two
key municipal corporations of the state, Vadodara and Rajkot, to ensure that
non-vegetarian street food-carts remain invisible to human eye. The stated
reason: It hurts religious sensibilities ; an unstated fact: a fair share of
these in urban agglomerations are minority owned.
Soon Junagadh
and Bhavnagar municipal corporations
chimed in with their own version
of the verbal orders and Ahmedabad sought to raise the pitch as well.
The revenue
minister Rajendra Trivedi, a legislator from Vadodara waded into the turbulence
equating these food carts on footpaths with
land grabbing and creating issues of health.
The timing of
the concerted “drive” seemed to have gone woefully wrong as the ante was upped at a time when the enrolment drive
under the PM Street Vendor’s Atma Nirbhar Nidhi (PM SVANidhi) which covers
vendors of food items was underway.
The whiplash from the top was quick and
sharp.
As the heat from
the street sizzled the ruling party dithered . The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson
termed it a decision by individual civic bodies with the party having no
role to play . Realising the damage
potential , Gujarat BJP chief C. R. Paatil moved in to negate the minister’s
statement. ” He has been told not to make such statements again.The civic
bodies too shall not touch carts which
are not an obstruction”. Chimed in chief minister Bhupendra Patel” people are
free to eat vegetarian or non-vegetarian food. The state government has nothing
to say in the matter”.
All municipal
corporations are BJP controlled and Vidhan Sabha elections are due in Gujarat
next year. Besides, Gujarat is the home state of Prime Minister Narendra Modi
and Home minister Amit Shah where no move can
evade their hawk-eyed gaze.
“If the issue is
merely hygiene, why differentiate”, questions
Arvind Sindha, state president of the National Association of Street
vendors in India adding that it should apply across the board. Lost in the
welter of disguised zealotry deputizing
for civic responsibility is the fact that the converging clientele which keeps
these non-vegetarian handcarts humming
late into the night is predominantly hindu .
Ahmedabad alone
consumes an estimated 150 tonnes of meat and fish and 15 lakh eggs a day.
There is disquiet within the ruling party . Enlightened opinion believes
that such half - wit measures will hurt rather than help. ” Jains and upper
castes for long remained the face of Gujarati society but nearly half of the
population does not subscribe to vegetarianism and these include OBCs,
kshatriyas, tribals, dalits and kolis , to name a few”, points out noted social
scientist Dr Gaurang Jani.
Sequencing
further, shift the scene to August 2021 when the Gujarat High Court stayed key
provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion(Amendment)Act 2021 pertaining to
marriages involving religious conversion. Though a larger constitutional
challenge still remains pending, the interim stay provides relief to
inter-faith couples.
The
Gujarat freedom of Religion Act, 2003 was
first enacted during chief minister Narendra Modi’s tenure in the
aftermath of the 2002 communal riots. It was on the same lines as some other
states, except under section 5 of this Act, where a person wanting to convert
must seek prior permission from the
district magistrate. In 2006, an amendment was passed by the ruling BJP government which sought to
redefine ‘conversions’ to not include “inter-denomination conversion of the
same religion. “The amendment said that Jains and Buddhists would be construed
as denominations of Hindu religion; Shias and Sunnis shall be construed as
denominations of the muslim religion; and Catholics and Protestants of Christianity.
The amendment was however withdrawn after Buddhists and Jains raised objections
at being bunched as part of the Hindu religion.
Nevertheless,
the Vijay Rupani - led BJP government amended the Act, over-riding Congress opposition, on April 1,2021 , making it operational after
the Governor’s assent, from June 15. The law ostensibly seeks to end conversion
through unlawful means, specifically prohibiting any conversion for marriage,
even if it is with the consent of the individual except when prior sanction is
obtained from the state. Many BJP ruled states including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh have enacted such laws, making the pattern clear.
The
amended law shifts the burden of proof of what is a lawful religious conversion
from the converted to his or her partner and legitimates the intrusion of
family and society at large to oppose inter-faith marriages. The state
government then sought rectification of Section 5 of the amended Act which penalises
forcible or fraudulent conversion through marriage which the High Court had stayed but was turned down.
The
section mandates that religious priests take prior permission from the district
magistrate before converting any person from one religion to another. The one
who got converted also needs to intimate the district magistrate in a
prescribed form. ”We do not find any reason to make any changes in our order” a
division bench of chief justice Vikram
Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav ruled. The State government has made known its
intention to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
Another
sequence with another consequence :In April 2019 the
High Court quashed three notifications of the Gujarat government aimed at
stopping export of livestock from Tuna port in Kutch, terming it a ‘colourable
exercise of powers”, to do something which cannot be done directly.
A
division bench of Justices Harsha Devani and Bhargav Karia termed the decision
as “grossly illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the petitioners’ fundamental
rights ”. Several livestock exporters had sought judicial redressal after the
state government issued orders up to
December 2018 which banned the export of
livestock, principally sheep and goat, from Tuna .
The
sequence of events makes for interesting reading. On December 14, 2018 Chief
Minister Vijay Rupani announced that the government will not allow livestock
exports from the port. On the same day, the agriculture department issued a
notification under the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle(Control) Act,
prohibiting movement of cattle from outside into any drought-affected area.
Kutch had already been declared drought affected .
Soon after, the director of animal husbandry
informed the collector of customs that the state government has decided to
withdraw the services provided for health check-ups of animals to be exported
and would not allow export of live
animals until the specified(check-up) facility was established. On the same
day, the home department directed the
Kutch police to set up check-posts to keep a watch on transportation of
animals, the High Court noted.
“What
cannot be done directly by the state government is sought to be done indirectly
under the guise of exercise of powers under section 4(1)(b) of the (Cattle
Protection)Act…notification therefore ,clearly has been issued in colourable
exercise of powers and deserves to be struck down”, the court ruled. It added
that ” the intention was to prohibit export which is otherwise not a state
subject”. The state government requested a stay of the order so that it could
move the Supreme Court but no stay was granted.
Note
that livestock exports from Tuna in 2016-2017 and 2017-18 had crossed seven
lakh heads and therefore the BJP helmed Rupani government must have been well
aware of the heavy economic loss that the ban
around Eid would cause the exporters besides the loss of face and yet it
nonchalantly went ahead. Why ?
https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/a-pattern-to-gujarats-ban-on-meat-display-1053637.html
Comments
Post a Comment