Indore woman professor terminated for lodging Sexual Harrassment complaint #Vaw #WTFnews


TNN | May 10, 2013, 03.18 AM IST

INDORE: The complainant of alleged sexual harassment reported in the Indian Institute of Management, Indore (IIM-I) has been terminated from the post. The decision was taken after the report was tabled by the gender sensitivity committee recently.

Sources said, the woman professor was terminated on the grounds of administrative action. However, various people have raised fingers over the quick termination of the faculty member. “The woman was terminated without being served any notice or charge-sheet. How can a complainant in such a serious case sacked?” quipped a source.

On the other hand, the institute authorities, like in the past, are tightlipped over the issue. The institute has not revealed the finding of the newly established gender sensitivity committee. IIM-I, director, N Ravichandran refused to comment on the issue. “No comments,” he said.

The lady professor of the marketing department had lodged a complaint in February last week with the gender sensitivity committee. She had also expressed her mistrust on the committee to the IIM-I board chairman K V Kamath. Later, a fresh committee was constituted, which had tabled its report recently.

 

#Chhattisgarh- Centre reverses stand on governor’s powers under Fifth Schedule


Author(s): Jitendra, downtoearth

Assistant solicitor general’s affidavit says the constitutional head of state has no discretionary powers over functioning of Tribes Advisory Council, headed by chief minister

The Centre seems to have reversed its stand on the powers of a governor over administering tribal areas in a state. Earlier, the attorney general of India had given an opinion to the home ministry, in response to a reference, that governors do have discretionary powers, but an assistant solicitor general has said exactly the opposite. Fauzia Mirza has said that the governor has no discretionary powers under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India in a submission filed in the Chhattisgarh High Court on behalf of the Centre. The Fifth Schedule is rooted in Article 244 (1) and deals with administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes.

Mirza filed the submission in February end in connection with an ongoing case that has virtually challenged the Fifth Schedule and validity of the Tribes Advisory Council (TAC).  “The governor has granted powers to the chairpersons as per the rules of TAC,” the assistant solicitor general stated. “It cannot be said that these rules have been formulated to exercise the governor’s discretionary powers. While framing these rules, the power of governor has been exercised as the Constitutional head of the state acting with the aid and advice of the council of ministers and not in his discretion,” the document says.

The statement contradicts the opinion expressed by attorney general G E Vahanvati on April 21, 2010. Vahanvati, in his opinion on the nature of powers of the governor under the Fifth Schedule, had stated that the governor does have discretionary powers and had based his opinion on nine judgements of the Supreme Court and other references.

The division bench of Chief Justice Yatindra Singh and Justice Pritinkar Diwakar granted two weeks to the advocate general to file a reply. The next hearing is on March 12.

Fifth Schedule and its implementation in practice

The public interest petition filed last year in the Chhattisgarh High Court virtually questions the Fifth Schedule. The petition says it was impractical to implement the Fifth Schedule in its present form because of its flawed nature. While it was the root cause of the tribals’ plight, the functioning of TAC is also questionable, it said. According to the petitioner, if governors exercise their near extra-constitutional powers, they would be in direct confrontation with state executive heads.

According to the petition, paragraph 4(2) of the Fifth Schedule stipulates that TAC should hold deliberations in such a manner that the governor refers to them. “In reality, the chief minister, who is also the chairperson of TAC, decides the agenda and seizes sole control over functioning of the body without taking any reference from the governor,” the petition states.

“Governors never exercise their power entrusted in the Fifth Schedule,” says B K Manish, the petitioner who is a tribal rights activist. He cited two recent incidents—Nagari movement of Jharkhand and illegal detention of thousands of tribals in the name of Maoist movement in Chhattisgarh. In Nagari, adivasis approached the governor to annul a project to establish a centre of the Indian Institute of Management by forcible acquisition of fertile land. The governor ignored their demand. In Chhattisgarh, the governor turned a deaf ear to tribals’ appeals to annul the draconian Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act.

 

#Jharkhand Activist Dayamani Barla gets bail #goodnews


ANUMEHA YADAV, The hIndu, Dec 22,2012

She has been in jail for over two months for leading protests related to land acquisition

The Jharkhand High Court on Friday granted bail to activist Dayamani Barla, who has been in jail for over two months for leading protests related to land acquisition and functioning of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).

Ms. Barla, who was brought to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) here, is expected to be released from Birsa jail on Saturday afternoon.

“This is of significance to our movement to save our land and water resources. This is a victory for the people of Jharkhand. Our struggle will go on,” said the award-winning activist and journalist at the court.

The court sent a property warrant against Ms. Barla on September 23 in a 2006 case against her for leading a protest march demanding that the people of the Angada block in Ranchi district be given MGNREGS job cards or given unemployment allowance. At this time, she led a successful protest against the setting up of a steel plant by ArcelorMittal at Gumla and Khunti, citing the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act that prohibits sale of tribal land to non-tribals.

She surrendered and got bail in this case, but two days later, on October 19, she was arrested in a case of leading a protest of tribal farmers against the government move to acquire 227 acres of agricultural land in Nagri village, 15 km from Ranchi, for campuses of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indian Institute of Information Technology and the National University of Study & Research in Law (NUSRL).

An FIR was registered against her on August 15 in the course of protests in Nagri for “leading a group of over 100-150 farmers, who entered the plot where the NUSRL and the IIM had constructed boundary walls and cultivated the land.”

On November 5, while in jail, Ms. Barla became an accused in another case. This was for participating in a demonstration organised by Jharkhand Dishom Party (JDM) leader Salkhan Murmu on October 4, in which JDM workers were accused of burning an effigy of the High Court.

Ms. Barla got bail in this case, but both the CJM court and the district court rejected her bail application in the Nagri case.

The agitation in Nagri continued while Ms. Barla was in jail. On December 15, over 100 Oraon adivasi farmers organised a protest in front of Raj Bhavan here for Ms. Barla’s release and against violation of the CNT Act.

 

#India- #Jharkhand Dayamani Barla faces government’s wrath over agitation against land grab


Edited by Sabyasachi Dasgupta | Updated: December 11, 2012

 Jharkhand activist Dayamani Barla faces government's wrath over agitation against land grab
RanchiIn Jharkhand, activist and journalist Dayamani Barla has spent the last month and half in prison. Activists in the state allege she is facing government persecution for leading an agitation of villagers near the state’s capital Ranchi. The government says her arrest has nothing to do with any particular agitation and is in line with the law, and related to her participation in earlier agitations across the state where police cases were registered against Ms Barla.

48-year-old Dayamani Barla rose to prominence in the 1990s when she led the ‘Koel Karo’ agitation, protesting against a dam that threatened to submerge 66,000 acres and displace 135,000 tribal families. The plans for the dam had to be finally shelved. Ms Barla also led agitations against all major steel giants in Jharkhand, including ArcelorMittal.

This time though, her agitation against the government seems to have proved costly for this tribal activist.

Since 2010, Ms Barla has led the agitation at Nagri, a village 25 kilometres from Ranchi, where the Jharkhand government is trying to acquire 202 acres of fertile land for building a law university, an Indian Institute of Management and another institute. Ms Barla’s troubles mounted since she began the agitation at Nagri.

On October 16 this year, Ms Barla had to surrender before a Ranchi court in a four-year-old case related to a road block she had led in Ranchi. Ms Barla surrendered after the court ordered her property attached in the case. Activists allege that before the launch of Nagri agitation there was no movement in the case for four years.

In August, Ms Barla got bail in the case within two days, but never came out of prison, as she was rearrested by the Jharkhand Police for allegedly ploughing land at the Nagri village despite government restrictions. Since then, her bail application has been rejected three times by lower courts in Ranchi.

Sushanto Mukherjee, a state member of the Marxist Coordination Committee, the organisations leading the agitation at Nagri, says, “Dayamani Barla is being 100 percent persecuted. The government feels if they keep her in jail, they will manage to grab the lands in Nagri. But we will not let that happen.’

At ground zero of the agitation, people like Kadir Kujur are defiant. He owns a few acres of land at Nagri which he says is extremely fertile and suitable for multiple crops, dismissing the government’s claims of the low fertility of this land. He says Barla’s arrest is a pressure tactic by the Jharkhand government. “Why should the government persecute activists? They are only showing us the way forward in this struggle. I don’t feed Dayamani Barla in return for her contributions to our cause,” said Kujur.

But at the Jharkhand Police Headquarters, Director General of Police GS Rath says all allegations by activists about Dayamani Barla’s arrest are blatant lies. According to Mr Rath Dayamani Barla “is a political activist and the law of the land is the same for everybody. If someone violates the law can you blame the police for acting against them.”

Activists have now approached the Jharkhand High Court in an effort to get bail for Ms Barla, and have also threatened to move the Supreme Court if necessary. But the immediate future looks bleak for Dayamani Barla, as she counts her days in jail with little hope of coming out anytime soon.

Activist Dayamani Barla has spent 45 days in jail now with three of her bail pleas rejected. She is perhaps paying the price for agitating against the Jharkhand government. Human rights activist Binayak Sen speaks to NDTV on the arrest.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/india-decides-9/binayak-sen-on-dayamani-barla-s-arrest/257938?v_also_see

Dayamni barla appears at teh court on 12-12-12

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=393580630725146&set=a.393575577392318.91813.373449066071636&type=1&theater

 

 

No place for Dayamani, in mainstream media why ?


No place for Dayamani, Media Watch, Thehoot .org
A significant agitation against land acquisition and the bail and re-arrest of its leader were barely noticed by mainstream media.
 Isn’t it the media’s disdain for lower caste/class dissenters, wonders ARITRA BHATTACHARYA. Pix: Dayamani Barla, Indiatogether.org
 Friday, Oct 26 11:16:49, 2012

I remember my first glimpse of Dayamani Barla: there she was on the screen, fierce, stoic, talking about the ravages the Koel Karo dam and hydel power project would bring to the people of the region. I remember thinking of her as a charismatic-yet-grounded activist then, taking my cue from the images flickering on the screen. She was featured on a documentary on radical women writers, poets, and activists I think, but I may be wrong; I remember nothing of the documentary except that I encountered Dayamani Barla (and Putul Murmu) there for the first time.

Since that day in 2007, I encountered Barla on numerous occasions–in news reports on agitations against land acquisition, in meetings and agitations against excesses committed by the state, in newsletters of grassroots NGOs, and in her own writings on numerous issues.

And so, it wasn’t so much of a surprise when I came across this news report stating that she’d been sent to jail in a 2006 case. Of late, the convener of the Adivasi-Moolvasi Astitva Raksha Manch and one of the national conveners of National Alliance for People’s Movement had been camping with villagers in Nagri, who were protesting against the “acquisition” of fertile agricultural land for the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) and the NationalUniversity for Study and Research in Law (NUSRL). Barla’s activities as a journalist turned anti-displacement (tribal, woman) activist had been a sore point for the Jharkhand government, and her participation in the Nagri agitation perhaps tested the State’s patience, which sent the police to hound her. She evaded arrest and surrendered before the court on October 16 and was granted bail two days later.

The jail authorities, however, refused to release Barla on October 19, and instead said that she had been arrested in a fresh case. Among similar instances, my mind went back to the occasion when activist Arun Ferreira was re-arrested in front of the very jail he was released from this January. Like Barla, Ferreira had spent years exposing the excesses of the state, and it’s no secret that the state’s machinery tries to keep such elements behind bars.

Barla’s bail and her re-arrest, however, were hardly noticed by the mainstream media. None of the big three among the English papers—The Times of IndiaHindustan Times, and Indian Expresscarried a story on Barla’s bail and re-arrest. There was no story either on the two English television news networks–NDTV and CNN-IBN.

What was more surprising, however, was the fact that while Dainik JagranHindustan andAmar Ujala had no story on her surrender, bail, or re-arrest, Dainik Bhaskar and Navbharat Times reported her surrender before the court, but had no story on her being granted bail, and her subsequent re-arrest. Only Prabhat Khabar, the paper Barla used to write for, carried ashort article on October 19 on her being granted bail. But even here, there was no report on her being re-arrested thereafter.

Holy cows

It has often been observed by media analysts that the regional media is more sensitive to local happenings, and the spurt in the regional media’s readership and circulation owes a lot to the localization of content. What might the exclusion of news about Barla’s re-arrest tell us about the regional media then?

For one, it might point to the fact that across the board, the media considers the IIMs and such educational institutions as holy cows; they are, like the Kudankulam nuclear power plant, a matter of prestige, and essential to the progress of the country. Anyone opposing these is viewed with deep suspicion therefore. So also Barla.

Another factor to keep in mind perhaps in the context of localization of the regional media’s content and the exclusion of Barla’s bail and re-arrest is numbers. Barla surrendered before the court against the backdrop of the Nagri agitation. Arguably, the 153 families that are the landowners–or project-affected in the land acquisition for IIM and NUSRL, on paper–do not constitute a large enough number for the regional media to take notice and tweak their content.

Also, when a paper carries an article on someone being sent to a 14-day judicial custody, mentioning the charges she is accused of, but chooses not to report on her being subsequently granted bail and then re-arrested–like in the case of Dainik Bhaskar and Navbharat Times–where does that leave the reader? Does such partial news serve to discredit/malign the activist in the eyes of the reader?

Since the IIM is a matter of prestige, it comes as no surprise that The Times of India did cover the Nagri protest. The article in the paper, however, does not mince words about which side it is on, when it states, “All the protesters, led by Barla, were carrying traditional weapons and attacked the policemen on duty”. With this one statement, an alleged act of attacking the policemen on duty, in a case for which the accused has not even appeared in court, is converted into an undisputed fact.

Still more curious is The Times of India’s attribution of a quote to Barla for a story datelined October 20. How did the paper manage to speak to Barla when she was supposedly in jail? Are we, as readers, to disregard the Asian Human Rights Committee report which states that Barla has been in jail since October 16? In the TOI’s scheme of things, Barla was clearly still leading the protesters!

Pecking order

Does the exclusion of Barla’s bail and re-arrest reflect the social hierarchies that the media is deeply entrenched in? Tehelka happens to be the only mainstream media outlet in English that has carried a story on Barla and the Nagri agitation. (Or is it Nargi? Why does Tehelka say it’s Nargi, when everyone else across the Hindi and English media calls it Nagri? Further, why doesTehelka state that Barla surrendered before the Jharkhand police when everyone else says she surrendered before the local court?).

In the media’s pecking order perhaps, Barla is not a credible activist; at least she’s not big enough for her case to be reported.  

To be considered powerful/ credible in the mediascape, an activist has to be based in Delhi, and/or take potshots at big politicians (readers might recall how the national media “discovered” Anna once he shifted “base” to Delhi; we might recall Kejriwal too. And also think of how the media ignored P.V. Rajagopal and his march though the numbers he was commanding was more than Anna Hazare’ s).

It has often been said that non-violent agitation requires an audience to be effective, and in the context of agitations in rural areas, this audience is absent. And so is the media, which does not bother to report on an agitation unless the numbers are big enough for it not to ignore. The absence of media reports often becomes a credible ploy in the hands of the state in its efforts to criminalise dissent. No media coverage could very well feed into the theory that the dissenter was carrying out activities secretively and illegally.

Of course, agitators could resort to spectacles; they could work towards creating images that capture attention. Think of the jal satyagraha in Madhya Pradesh, and how the national media honed in on the story then, only to forget all about it once the spectacle was over.

Then again, even a spectacle offers no guarantee of coverage; the jal satyagraha in Kudankulam was hardly used by the media to raise questions it ought to have, as this recent Hoot storyshowed.

Barla’s exclusion from newspapers and newsreels also points to another factor: the thousands of activists and dissenters lodged in jails and the systemic ignoring of their cases by the media. Binayak Sen has often been at pains to explain that his case is just one among thousands in the country. Yet why is it that we never hear of Dayamani Barlas, Jeetan Marandis, Sudhir Dhawales, Anjali Sontakkes, or Sheetal Sathes in the same way as we heard of Sen?

Is it the media’s bias–against people from a lower caste-class background, against “people not like us”? For, the one thing common between all the names mentioned above is the fact that none of them comes from the middle class. They are from among the tribal or lower caste sections of society, and have/had been leading struggles against state excesses in various ways before being branded Maoists by the state and arrested.

Barla hasn’t been called a Maoist as yet–at least there’s no government propaganda in the media labeling her of leading a Maoist cell or indoctrinating the youth. But her case isn’t so different from the few mentioned above. And in ignoring her case, the media has once again shown itself to be part of the systematic disdain with which lower caste-class dissenters are treated.

 

Jharkhand- 300 tribal children march to Raj Bhavan to save their Land


Children’s plea to Governor: Don’t take our land to build IIM

 

By Newzfirst Correspondent5/8/12

RANCHI – More than three hundreds of tribal children today marched to the Raj Bhavan demanding immediate intervention to stop the ongoing forceful land acquisition by state government to build the Indian Institute of Management and National University for Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) campuses.

The march has come out as the part of Kakenagri villagers struggle to save their fertile agricultural land that is being acquired forcefully by government of Jharkhand to build Indian Institute of Management and National University for Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) campuses.

Children of age 5 to 13 years belonging to the victim families in their hand-written memorandum to the Governor appealed, “We the small children of Kakenagri village are very much worried to see our parents struggling to protect the agricultural land. It is being taken away forcefully from them at the gun point.  Lands are source of livelihood for us. Because of this land they are able to feed us and able to send us to schools. We request you to kindly stop the acquisition.”

Read more here

 

Scrap MoUs violating land act, say tribals


TNN | Feb 4, 2012
RANCHI: The Adivasi-Moolvasi Astitva Raksha Manch (AMARM), an umbrella organization of tribals and original settlers of the state, has demanded cancellation of all memorandums of understanding (MoUs) signed between the state and corporate houses as it violates the provisions of the CNT Act.

The AMARM is also opposed to acquisition of land by the government for Indian Institute of Management and law university at Kanke and Nagri. AMARM convener Dayamani Barla said the MoU signed by the government with the corporate houses was not approved by the Tribal Advisory Council and Gram Sabha. “We want that all MoUs should be cancelled as it is against the law of the land,” said Barla adding that the recent judgment of the Jharkhand high court on strict implementation of the CNT Act confirmed the violation.

Tthe CNT Act Suraksha Samiti has called a mahapanchayat here on February 19. Tribal leaders and activists from all over the state will address the gathering.