War Against the World: A Look Into the Environmental Impact of War.

“A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people. ” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

Through the course of time, there has been a metamorphosis in how war is fought. Humans have gone from using light wooden chariots in vast battlefields to 60-tonne tanks in congested streets. With every such paradigm shift, the critics of the war have devised relevant propaganda to depopularise it. From Mutually Assured Destruction to poverty and draining of resources, we’ve said it all. However, one of the most destructive facets of war which also happens to be the one that is least talked about – Its Environmental Impact – must urgently find its way into anti-war propaganda. 

Syria

The environmental impacts of war start right from the assembly line way before someone can shout “incoming”!  In 2015 the world managed a global defence trade of nearly a trillion dollars. That accounts for thousands of tanks, planes, and bullets one can’t even count. Such massive production of war inventory leads to the emissions of millions of units of toxic substances which are released into the air or water. The effects of such emissions are well known and result in global warming, the melting of ice caps and a slow contribution towards the apocalypse. The development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons has added yet another nail in an already sealed coffin, that holds the survival of humanity.

Moving on to the battlefield, the M1 Abrams main battle tank of the U.S. army takes more gas just to power up than a normal car would use in a day’s work. The point to be made here is that military vehicles, vessels, and planes are fuel guzzling machines which cause harmful emissions like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide apart from chlorofluorocarbons that feed ravenously on the ozone layer and lay a huge burden on natural resources. But far more harmful are the effects of the ammunition dropped in conflicts zones. During the Vietnam war America dropped a chemical substance known as Agent Orange on the Vietnamese jungles. The sole purpose of this concoction was to clear the forests to eradicate cover for the Vietcong. All the way from 1962 – 1971 Agent Orange was responsible for the destruction of nearly 15% of the total forest cover over Vietnam and lasting ailments on the indigenous wildlife and inhabitants.

Conventional bombs also generate massive bursts of heat when detonated. This explosion that burns at nearly three thousand degrees centigrade has the potential to annihilate flora and fauna. It also erodes the top layer of the soil which could take nearly 7000 years to regenerate. Further, all hell has broken lose since the eruption of the Middle Eastern crisis. The Gulf is the fuel barrel of the world. The entire war, people speculate, is for the oil. Burning of oil wells by retreating militants and stray bombs engulf the entire vicinity in a shroud of harmful discharge. Apart from causing air pollution, this results in respiratory problems, cancers and a wide range of life-threatening conditions. Lastly one of the most gruesome facts of war (and my strongest points) is the trail of decomposing bodies it leaves behind. Rotting human flesh not only results in bad order, it attracts various bacteria which are in turn responsible for the spreading of epidemics and diseases that ruin the local environment.

After staying silent for nearly half a century the global community has finally started to acknowledge the adverse environmental impacts of armed conflict. The United Nation Environment Programme has begun studying the impacts in places of crisis like Syria. Though only a few surveys have been taken up due to extensive conflict, initial reports reveal massive degradation of the already scarce agricultural land. Further UNEP has observed, due to the bombing that has quite literally flattened cities like Aleppo, residents face severe respiratory problems due to constant dust arising from the debris and smoke. Further Vice News featured a video that shows little children in war-torn Syria playing in a bomb crater filled with water from a damaged sewer pipe. This leads me to believe that bombing has damaged the city’s underground plumbing, thus infecting ground water and drinking water pipes. However, the true extent of damage can only be judged when the dust from the falling bombs settles and full-scale studies are initiated.

Palestine 

Through resolution 56/4, the United Nations declared November 6^th of every year as The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. Sadly, this proclamation is one of the biggest among a few steps taken by the U.N. in furtherance of curbing environmental impacts of war. Though some principals of international human rights laws and conventions such as UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) (1976) protect the environment from the harmful impacts of war, no comprehensive legal framework exists. There is an urgent need for a universally accepted legislation that lays down liability for causing degradation and prohibits all wrongful acts.

Thus, to conclude I would say that an environmental stance should be opted by the global community to de-popularise war. It’s easier said than done, but if a kid can burn fewer crackers on Diwali with a little push, I’m sure states can choose to drop fewer bombs as well. That would be a start.

About the Author:

Nazeer U. Khan, is a 5th year BBA.LLB. student from the Faculty of Law, IFHE. He is holds high interest for the legality of armed conflict and is a staunch pacifist.

Read more »

To Protect Divine Feelings: A Look Into Section 295A of Indian Penal Code

“Blasphemy is the crime of not taking someone's beliefs as seriously as they do.” 

                                                                                                                        ― Jasper Sole

Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) is India’s closest correlation to ‘law against blasphemy’. Any speech, writings, or signs which have “deliberate and malicious intention” to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of any class of citizens would constitute an offence under this Section of the IPC.

Initially, this Section did not feature in the IPC. It was only after an outrage of the Muslim community on publication of a pamphlet Rangila Rasula by Mahashe Rajpal criticising the personal life of Prophet Mohammed, wherein Rajpal was booked under Section 153A of the IPC.  The Lahore High Court, reversing the conviction passed by the Trial Court, decreed Rajpal not guilty. This was met with great resentment by the Muslim community, ultimately leading the erstwhile British Governor of Punjab, Sir Malcolm Hailey to assure the Muslim community that the penal code would see an amendment to that effect, failing which would lead to endless discord. It was under these circumstances that the draft Section 295A made its way into the National Assembly.

This section has been reproduced herebelow;

“295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any classof citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

The Section expressly operates on the requirement of a “deliberate and malicious intention”along with the act of such representation, illustration, impersonation, etc. An attempt to defile religious sentiments should be marked with malice and tainted with spite to attract the wrath of 295A. However, this is too subjective a consideration and cannot be the end all determinant to accuse anyone of deliberately attempting to outrage the sentiments of any religious community. To this end, it can be suggested that this provision runs the risk of being misused to the effect that a harmless satire might be taken in the wrong light and the origin of the harmless joke suddenly comes under the strict scanner of religious fanaticism. If such a rule exists, there should be a way to invoke it. Even though the concept of eggshell skull is present in tort law, criminal law also uses a similar doctrine which entails that facility of an injured person cannot be a defense. But, unfortunately presence of section 295A IPC in our penal code have attracted unwanted attention and a few section of the people has used the section to their advantage. It is beyond any doubt, that  different person(s) will have different tolerance levels, yet there should be a minimal threshold to hold which of these random feelings of being outraged is so frivolous that they need not be acted upon.

In this context, it shall be worthwhile to iterate the latest incident where in section 295A was invoked is the Kiku Sharda incident. Itlights the anomaly of this provision. Kiku Sharda, an Indian comedian, and film and television actor, appeared as Dera Sacha Sauda head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in Zee TV’s year-ender show Jashn-E-Ummeed, aired on December 27, 2015.  Repercussion of the act was that, someone in Kaithal (a district in northwestern Haryana with one of the lowest sex ratios in the country) took offence and filed a complaint against Kiku Sharda in the Civil Lines Police station of the district. The police jumped to action, sending a team to Mumbai, and collaborating with the Mumbai Police. According to Vilas Chavan, Senior Inspector in Aarey Police Station, Mumbai, the Haryana police team was lead by Investigation Officer Sub-Inspector Ishwar Singh. “We only assisted the Haryana police team in arresting the accused; investigations were entirely carried out by them,” said Chavan.[1]

Not only this, after the Comedian-actor obtained bail from the district court of Kaithal by furnishing an amount of 1 lacs, he was arrested again and taken on protection warrant to Fatehabad, wherein he came to know another FIR was registered alleging the same incident. 

Ultimately the Comedian-actor had to approach the Hon’ble High court of Punjab and Haryana for obtaining a stay on his arrest. The Hon’ble P&H High Court had made it very clear that the actor would not be arrested in an case arising out of the said controversy, alongside the bench issued notice to the State of Harana and asked them to file a reply.

What is of pivotal importance is that, after all this, Dera Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim said: “if he has apologized, no complaint from my side.”[2]

            Section 295A IPC has since long caused unwanted arrests and malice to various people for showcasing their personal opinion. We shall see a few of the past incidents of which section 295A IPC is the root cause.

For instance, a Muslim  organization in Hyderabad filed a case at a local court under this section, accusing tennis star SaniaMirza, her then prospective husband Shoaib Malik, and his alleged former wife Ayesha Siddiqui of misleading the community about their marriage and divorce proceedings — thereby “hurting religious sentiments”.[3]

The legal battle over Taslima Nasreen’s autobiographical novel Dwikhandita is a case on spot. In 2004, the West Bengal government issued a notification, based on Section 295A, seeking a ban on the book on account of its “deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of Muslims in India and insult or attempt to insult religion and religious beliefs”. The ban was challenged in Calcutta High Court by human rights activist Sujato Bhadra.[4]

The Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta has held in the context of the case titled as Sujato Bhadra v. State of West Bengal[5] that section 295A IPC can only be attracted when insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious belief are made with an intention, which must be deliberate or has malicious intent, of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India.

The High court at Calcutta after analyzing every aspect of the book, held that section 295A IPC is inapplicable in the case.

                        LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT

The Apex Court, in plethora of judgements has held that for any person to commit offence u/s 295A IPC, it is necessary to point out that the Act so committed was of deliberate intention to cause malice.

In Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar[6], it was held “It is well to recall that to come within the ambit of S. 295-A the intent must be both malicious and deliberate.”

However, in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.[7]  SC held section 295 A IPC to be constitutional and not ultra vires and also laid down as to when section 295A IPC can be attracted.

In recent years, the attitude of the Courts changed towards offences u/s 295A IPC. The Allahabad High Court, in Mudassir Ullah Khan v. State of U.P.[8] held that,

“Mere allegation in the complaint that the statement was deliberately made without any supporting material to show that there was a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India or of any person would not be sufficient to draw the proceedings under sections 295-A/298, IPC. The malicious intention should either be shown to exist or should be apparent from the nature of the act alleged to constitute an offense.”

            CONCLUSION:

Legal experts contend that Section 295A and the right to free speech are not necessarily mutually exclusive. “The intention to hurt religious feelings requires a deliberate and malicious act. But a woman not being allowed to touch the idol is an overtly discriminatory practice, and should be unequivocally condemned,”[9] says Shameek Sen, assistant professor, the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Calcutta.

            It is important to understand that in todays’ era, freedom of speech and expression has gained pivotal importance. Governments have to guarantee that freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is not trampled upon when Section 295A is invoked. However, it may be noted here that even though Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, there are reasonable restrictions on it if it goes against the interest of the country’s integrity and sovereignty and public order but such restriction should not be put as an impediment to every act or behavior of such individual who are made the soft target of section 295A IPC.

            To sum up, we can say that, the section 295A IPC has been widely misused against various persons for political reasons or otherwise and that it is a tool at the hands of some section of the society to control few others,  It is also seen that the doors of justice has been knocked for getting the valued result. In 2015, veteran lawyer, Subramaniam Swamy has approached the Apex Court, against the order of an Assam trial court issuing a non-bailable warrant against him for failing to appear before it in a case of alleged hate speech. Mr. Swamy has challenged the vires of Sections 153, 153A, 153B (dealing with offence of rioting), 295A (outraging religious feelings), 298 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings) and 505 (making a statement to cause incitement) of the IPC, all of which deal with the offences popularly labelled as “hate speech”.

With the daily increase of false accusations it is becoming difficult to mark a distinction between the incitement or advocacy and the expression of opinion. Nonetheless, in civil society, belief continues to be separated on Section 295A and the ease with which it can be used to charge a person with having “outraged” religious sentiments. Thus, the mandate of the day is to consider the veracity and legality of Section 295A IPC and to rethink its presence in our criminal legal system.

---

[1] http://www.newslaundry.com/2016/01/13/kiku-shardas-arrest-how-our-laws-lend-legitimacy-to-such-idiocy/

[2] said: “if he has apologized, no complaint from my side.”

[3] http://communalism.blogspot.in/2011/01/indias-section-295a-and-sabarimala.html

[4] ibid

[5] 2006 CrLJ 368

[6] 1985 CrLJ 797

[7]AIR 1957 SC 620

[8]2013 CrLJ 3741

[9]http://communalism.blogspot.in/2011/01/indias-section-295a-and-sabarimala.html

About the Author:

Kinnori Ghosh, a 2015 graduate of Gujarat National Law University, is currently enrolled with the Delhi Bar Council and is a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Her area of practice include criminal law, matrimonial law and allied laws. She regularly appears before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble Delhi High Court and District Courts of Delhi and adjoining states. She has also appeared in the Saradha Chit scam matter before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. At present she is working with the Chambers of Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate, New Delhi. 

Read more »

From Battlefields to Brazil: A look into the Refugee Olympics Team

"These refugees have no home, no team, no flag, no national anthem," International Olympic Committee president Thomas Bach said when he announced the selected athletes last month."

Rio Summer Olympics 2016 has already faced enough flak and controversies – The country’s political instability, the fact that Brazil’s government is on the verge of collapsing; Rio sure found itself amidst a lot of problems. However, this year’s Olympics have something that has quite possibly made history. Why? Well, The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has handpicked a team of refugees giving them an opportunity to participate in the Rio Olympics 2016.  The Refugee Olympic Team (ROT) as it is called includes five athletes from South Sudan, two from Syria, two from Democratic Republic of Congo and one from Ethiopia.  The team will compete under the Olympic flag according to the decision of the International Olympic Committee to highlight the plight of asylum seekers around the world. In March, International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach announced he would select refugee athletes to compete as a team for the first time at the Rio Games amid a worldwide refugee and migrant crisis.

The team comprises of six men and four women, who will compete in the sports of swimming, judo and athletics. Along with Yusra Mardini and  Rami Anis from Syria, both swimmers; runners Yiech Pur Biel, Paulo Amotun Lokoro, Anjelina Nadai Lohalith, James Nyang Chiengjiek, and Rose Nathike Lokonyen (also the flag bearer), all originally from South Sudan; judokas Yolande Bukasa Mabika and Popole Misenga, originally from the DRC; and Yonas Kinde, a runner originally from Ethiopia.

 This year's Olympics also houses a team from Kosovo (still a part of Serbia) making its official debut with eight members after the IOC recognized its bid for its independent status and a team from Taiwan (also known as Chinese Taipei) is bringing in 59 members. 

 On August 6th, 2016, Yusra Mardini - a member of the ROT won her heat in the 100-meter butterfly at the games. An admirable feat although she did not make it through the semifinals, she will be competing in the women's freestyle on Wednesday.

But what needs to be addressed is that how potentially problematic bringing in a refugee team is, because although the refugee Olympic team represents the 65.5 million refugees and migrants around the world, it also quite sadly represents the failure of the international community by giving this long-term refugees a semi permanent status of the same name instead of solving the refugee crisis. Sure, a refugee Olympic Team is a step forward, but at the same time a step backward because the international community has tagged this team as a special refugee team – questioning if this will become an annual phenomena instead of helping these long-term refugees go home. What the Olympic team ultimately represents is not the discipline, and courage but the millions of people for whom the term refugee is now an unfailing term. Maybe the point of a ROT is to inspire more government officials/ politicians to let these refugees in their countries by showing these refugees’ talents and in a way showcasing what a credit having these refugees in their country is – the problem with this is that it’s a talent show game happening here. Is this ROT a business tactic to show what these refugees are worth so that the international community will let more refugees in?

Or is it a ploy to distract from the ongoing controversies in Rio? A ploy to gain sympathies from the international community and subtly distract them from the seeming dance of a political samba in Brazil?

The Refugee participants were already practicing advanced level ‘games’ before being selected – Yusra escaped Syria by swimming across the Aegan Sea with her sister. The South Sudanese runners talk of childhoods seared by violence. Their athletic skills became their survival ticket for them.

But one can only hope that this media attention that the ROT is receiving is not just some short lived attention forgotten in all the current events compilation of the year -fading away in time but will hopefully prompt the world leaders in taking in more refugees and sharing world responsibility – making the very essence of the creation of this Olympic Team a success for refugees around the world.

Read more »

Untold Tales: These Happen Only In India

[The following is an experience narrated by a current student of a Law School. For obvious reasons the author chooses to remain anonymous. No changes have been made to the version of the author by Arguendo. All pictures are for representative purposes only.]

And there we were, on a fine cloudy day, at Sajjangarh Palace, Udaipur, which is a palatial hilltop palace, residence of the then rulers of Udaipur, situated 3100 feet above sea level. There were six of us, on an all-girls' road trip for the weekend. It was perfect, right upto what happened at the palace. We were all clicking pictures of the beautiful scenic view of Udaipur city, but as it turned out, someone else was clicking our pictures at that moment. Not once, not twice but every time we looked away, this man (who by the way, looked creepy as hell) kept clicking our pictures.

Two of us did notice that and I turned back to shout at him as to what he was upto, to which he changed his camera's angle and pretended to click the hills in the background, without answering me. He (and his group of three others) walked a little farther from where all of us were standing and pretended as if nothing happened. Me and my friends, for obvious reasons, moved towards the exit to look out for a watchman, or police (which generally we find in tourist places) or any other security personnel. But as most incidents with girls in India, we had to fight this on our own, because we found NOTA (none of the above) !

Finally we ended up finding this really aged care taker of the palace and tried to explain to him what had happened. He came inside the palace with us again to confront the person. The watchman questioned him about clicking our pictures and very conveniently and covertly disappeared from the scene. The next thing we know, Mr. Creep had the audacity to question me about the complaint we made to the caretaker.  Without arguing, I asked him to hand me over his phone. After a lot of denial, he finally, acting very cunningly, handed me his friend's phone with the confidence that I will not find any photos in it. They were four in all, out of which, with a lot of shouting and brawling, I managed to check three other phones, except the one actually owned by Mr. Creep. He managed to shout back at me and make me look like the fool who was lying or may be doing all this for fun. In his defence, all he said was "I am here as a tourist and I am bound to click pictures, if you are coming in the way of it, I can't help it." Well, how convenient.

I wasted my time and energy, and my friends', plus I failed to get his phone in my hand to check for any pictures. It was all in vain. Which is why I am writing this article today.

It is important to note here, that apart from the six of us, and four of them, the place had 50 odd people who got an easy, free tamasha to watch, and who were probably waiting for popcorn to be served.

Why did I not get access to his phone which was right there in his pocket, when I was dead sure that he clicked our pictures? Because of all "manly figures of the society" and all "modern women of the society", along with the "modern families" chose to sit back and watch who wins the game.

I was shouting at the top of my voice, my friends supporting me. But that was all. None of the educated class of people present there had the guts to come and help us get the phone or confront those losers. It is sad to see that people don't realize the gravity of incidents like these until they are the ones facing the music. People sure stopped there and heard what I was saying, how I checked their phones, but none of them made an effort to stop the guy from humiliating me and my friends. They were mere spectators.

That one thing that helped me was my telling him that we were law students and would pursue the matter if needed. That thing put him in a little confusion and that's when he lowered his tone a bit. But again, that didn't stop him. He asked me to apologize to him because I couldn't find any pictures in those phones he showed me.

So what are we supposed to do when there's nobody around to help? No security personnel, no help from the public. Just 6 girls who know they were wronged, but they were the only ones ready to stand for it.  This could've been worse, but since it wasn't, I am thankful. But what if it was? People who do not come together when such a thing is happening in front of their eyes are the same people who go for candle light marches after some gruesome and sickening incident takes place. Of course nobody was obligated to help us, but, it could've been their sister, your mother or daughter or wife. Would they have still been quiet? Would you have been a mere spectator?

One of my friends called me a "Dabangg" for doing this without any fear, but how many of us do this? I may have confronted him, but what good did it do? This is the reason most women do not come out openly with the problems they face, they do not confront their wrong-doers, because they do not have any confidence or faith in the people, in the system.  And how would they? Because all they become is matter of gossip, sympathy (and not in a good way) or may be isolated from the society for having such a fate to have faced all of it.There are some things that we need to sincerely work upon. 

To get rid of that attitude "Mera kya jaata hai" is the priority in that list.

Instead of help, women face statements like "Why did they send girls on the trip alone anyway? What were the girls wearing? How could they mess with the guys..kuch ho jaata toh?"

It's time we stand for each other, it's time we take responsibility. We should make sure that there is no need that we take out candle light marches, it's time we stop such incidents that lead to candle marches.

PS : The irony is that I can't disclose my name here, because this, being India! 

Read more »