St Xavier's cancels Stan Swamy lecture after ABVP objects
The lecture, organised by the college's Department of Inter-Religious Studies (DIRS), was to be delivered virtually by Fr Prem Xalxo, associate lecturer at the Faculty of Theology in Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome. The topic this year was 'Migration for Livelihood: Hope Amidst Miseries'.
In a letter to the college principal, the ABVP demanded the event's cancellation, objecting to it being held in memory of Father Stan Swamy, a Jesuit priest accused in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Swamy was among several human rights activists, scholars, intellectuals and others jailed for alleged naxal activities as part of the case. A tribal rights activist, Swamy was arrested in 2020 and died in custody in July 2021 while awaiting trial.
The ABVP alleged that Fr Swamy had links with banned organisations and said that honouring him through an academic platform could 'glorify' a person accused of anti-national activities. 'It is unfortunate that reputed institutions like St Xavier's are seen promoting such narratives,' said ABVP Mumbai Secretary Prashant Mali. 'We have immense respect for academic freedom, but when such events are used to whitewash the image of someone accused of working against the nation, it becomes unacceptable.'
Mali added that the ABVP was not opposing the topic of the lecture but the choice of dedicating it to Swamy's memory. 'We have no objection to discussions on migration or livelihood challenges. But associating these discussions with the name of someone accused of aiding banned organisations sends the wrong message to students. Educational institutions must remain neutral and not allow themselves to be platforms for any ideology that goes against national interest,' he claimed.
Following warnings from the student body, the college decided to cancel the lecture. Responding to the criticism, college rector Father Keith D'Souza said the DIRS was an extracurricular unit on campus that organises a variety of lectures and events throughout the year. He said the department's core aim was to promote dialogue and mutual respect. 'The underlying motive of the DIRS is 'respecting the other', in keeping with a foundational Indic civilisational attitude,' he said.
Father D'Souza also stressed that Fr Stan Swamy had been accused but never convicted. 'As per Indian criminal jurisprudence, a person is innocent unless proven guilty. While we respect other perspectives and concerns, we hope to elicit a reciprocal attitude of respect from others as well,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How BCCI has continued to resist attempts to bring it under RTI scanner
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025. According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government. Over the years, the world's richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law. The new law & an exception for BCCI The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices. This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law. At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions. The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a 'recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.' This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny. In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation 'receiving grants or any other financial assistance' from the government shall be considered a public authority only 'with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance'. This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny. The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a 'public authority'. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government. This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act — it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government's regulatory framework for public bodies. This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board's claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered. It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding. The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates — such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month. Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs 'public functions' that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the 'tacit concurrence' of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015. Previous recommendations not implemented A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body's functioning as a 'closed door and back-room affair.' It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny. The committee recommended that the 'legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,' stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency. The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a 'public authority' and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries. However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation — leaving the matter in a legal limbo. Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations. The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members. The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI's affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Rajasthan BJP leader expelled for criticising party over Jagdeep Dhankhar, Satya Pal Malik: Who is Krishan Kumar Janu?
Farmer, journalist, Jat Mahasabha leader, ABVP and VHP leader, BJP candidate and party spokesperson. Krishan Kumar Janu, 55, has donned many hats in his nearly four-decade political career, during most of which he has been associated with the Sangh in various capacities. But it was for the first time on August 8 that Janu – the surname representing his Jat gotra – hit national headlines after the Rajasthan BJP expelled him for six years for targeting the party over its treatment of former Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik and ex-Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, both Jats, in a video that went viral. Janu in the video is seen slamming the party's Jat leaders while urging them to speak up. 'I have a habit of speaking freely and I felt that the party was in the wrong, be it the Dhankhar case or with Malik. So, I spoke and wrote against this politics of prejudice and vendetta. If Jats in the BJP can't speak, then what is the point of them staying in the party? What good can they do for the community if they can't speak out? I had asked questions of Jat leaders in the BJP, be it the MPs or MLAs and not the BJP. But my expulsion means that the party needs deaf and dumb people, not the ones who speak up,' Janu told The Indian Express. Terming the move not to accord Dhankhar a farewell as 'shameful', Janu said, 'It is the limit of shamelessness when the party is exacting revenge upon the dead and not giving him (Malik) the Tricolour as a shroud. Our culture says that once you are dead, all the disputes and all the fights are over. You are humiliating someone who has been an MLA, minister, party national vice president and Governor in multiple states. It is the definition of a narrow mindset. It is very sad.' While his comments led him to face the axe from the BJP, Janu's family traces its antecedents to freedom fighter Sardar Harlal Singh, also a Jat leader and the first president of Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee in independent India. Unlike most of his family members, Janu chose to follow the Sangh ideology in 1986. He was a full-time member of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for about ten years and was its Sangathan Mantri, mostly in the Shekhawati region, as well as in Bikaner. He then rose to the post of seh-mantri at the state level and was a part of the ABVP's National Executive Council for four years. He also ran a departmental store and EYE TV news channel next door in Churu, and also contested as a BJP candidate for Jhunjhunu's Mandawa Assembly seat in 2003, but stood fifth. Janu says that veteran BJP leader Rajendra Rathore was against him ever since his student politics days and opposed him when he got a ticket too. Janu then worked with the Vishva Hindu Parishad for about five years, and was the samrasta seh-prabhari for the Jaipur region – the other two being Jodhpur and Chittorgarh in Rajasthan – where he was tasked with ensuring harmony between castes and communities, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Subsequently, he was relieved by the VHP and sent to the BJP as its political appointee. The BJP first made him a media panellist and then a spokesperson in 2022. 'I would like to thank the party for rewarding me with an expulsion for speaking the truth. If my party is going in the wrong direction, I will continue to question it. As I have experience in the media, I will again join them and put my points across. I will continue to bring out the visangati (inconsistencies) within the party,' he said after his expulsion. Claiming that the BJP will see the consequences of its actions in the panchayat polls later this year, Janu said, 'It is my moral duty to make the party realise that it has made a mistake. There are things which I couldn't speak before as I was bound by party discipline, but now I will give voice to my thoughts,' he said, and questioned why he was being targeted even as leaders of other communities in the BJP were allowed to speak freely. A Jat Mahasabha state secretary, Janu said, 'I have merely made the point of humiliation of Jat community members. If community members from the Vipra (Foundation) are post holders in the party, if (the late) Ramdas Agarwal was BJP's state president, if Karni Sena and Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh leaders also hold posts in the BJP and there are no objections or restrictions on them, the track politics of expelling a Jat community leader from the BJP… they need weak Jat leaders as showpieces. They don't need strong Jat leaders who have a hold on the ground.' 'I have nothing against the party, but vyaktivaad (person-centric) politics. Where is community leadership? If Congress's politics of nepotism is bad, then so is the BJP's person-centric politics. We made a BJP government in 2014 but by 2019, it became the 'Modi government'. A person is not important in the ideology I follow. Guruji K B Hedgewar didn't keep himself first but asked us to follow the param pavitra bhagwa dhwaj (most sacred saffron flag) as the guru, because a person's degeneration can happen anytime,' Janu said. Claiming that BJP state president Madan Rathore recently told him to avoid writing certain things, Janu said, 'He told me that I should discuss it at an appropriate stage, but when there is none in the party, Zuckerberg's platform (Facebook) seems the most appropriate to me. There was a discussion on what I said only after reading my comments on this platform, and I was served a notice only after my comments were read on this platform.' On whether he will join the Congress or the Jat-dominated Rashtriya Loktantrik Party, Janu said that the Congress in his hometown Jhunjhunu is ridden with the Ola family and its politics, and thus has no vacancies. As for the politics of change in the state, he said there are still about four years to go for state polls. 'Till then, I will keep forcing my community members in the party to speak up or push the community for their boycott,' he said.
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Pleas on land acquisition for RRR to be heard on August 11 in Telangana
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court will hear arguments on August 11 in a batch of petitions filed by more than 45 landowners and agriculturists challenging the state government's move to acquire lands for the formation of a Greenfield Radial Road from the Outer Ring Road interchange at Raviryal to the Regional Ring Road at Amangal in Rangareddy district. The petitions, filed nearly two months ago, had earlier come up for hearing but were adjourned after the Advocate General sought time to submit a detailed counter. The landowners alleged that the acquisition process violates mandatory provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. They contended that authorities, under the pretext of complying with Sections 16 to 18 of the Act, issued notices for Grama Sabhas and public hearings in May and June without first conducting the required census and household survey of affected families. In its counter, the government maintained that Grama Sabhas were duly conducted and that objections raised by the petitioners were examined and addressed in accordance with the provisions of the law.
