'An Arbitrary and Brute Exercise of Power': PUCL Slams J&K Book Ban
New Delhi: The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has expressed outrage over the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir Government's home department headed by lieutenant governor Manoj Sinha to forfeit 25 book titles in an omnibus order under Section 98 of the BNSS, for 'promoting secessionism' and 'inciting violence against [the] Indian state' in the Union territory.
In a statement issued by its national president Kavita Srivastava and general secretary V. Suresh, the PUCL termed the notification 'an arbitrary and brute exercise of power by the state uncanalised by the discipline of the Constitution'.
'What the state is seeking to tell the citizens is that any opinion which is not the opinion of the state cannot be tolerated. This is a form of totalitarian thinking which is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy,' said the PUCL statement.
'By the mass forfeiting of books, the Jammu and Kashmir government is utilising a colonial, British-era law (Section 95 of the colonial, British era, CrPC finds its Bharatiya or so-called decolonial avatar, as Section 98 of the BNSS) which was designed to suppress demands for Indian independence. This law has been used by the British to ban canonical texts like Hind Swaraj by Mahatma Gandhi,' the statement added.
PUCL said that among the 25 books forfeited are books by Anuradha Bhasin, Sumantra Bose, Tariq Ali, A.G. Noorani, Arundhati Roy, Ather Zia and a host of others, books that give a flavour of the realms traversed covering history, memory, poetry and politics.
'These books represent a vibrant intellectual culture of thinking and writing about Kashmir. These viewpoints may be deemed unacceptable by the Indian establishment, but they are viewpoints which are protected speech under the Indian Constitution. The forfeiture notice is an attempt at stifling collective memory and preventing thought in Kashmir,' said the PUCL statement.
'By clamping down on these books, the attempt to stifle the very heart of intellectual life: which is to seek knowledge and form opinion by gathering thought from all, including contrarian, sources,' it added.
'The forfeiture notification is illegal and unconstitutional'
The PUCL said that the Jammu and Kashmir government must appreciate that there may be viewpoints they disagree with, but a constitutional democracy is based on the fact that dissenting opinions exist and should be respected.
'What is not apparent from a reading of the Government notification is a reasoning as to the grounds for forfeiture. What the notification has is a bald, bare and sweeping assertion with no reference to how any of the twenty-five books have contributed to 'radicalisation of youth in J&K include distortion of historical facts, glorification of terrorists, vilification of security forces, religious radicalisation, promotion of alienation, pathway to violence and terrorism etc,'' said the PUCL statement.
'When there is an omnibus forfeiture order of 25 books, without any specific reference to the content of any of the books, prima facie it appears that the exercise of the power of forfeiture is not a justified exercise of power under Section 98 of the BNSS and will not come within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution,' it added.
The PUCL said that Section 152 of the BNS which is the so called decolonial law, strikingly goes even further than Section 124-A (sedition) of the IPC in its criminalisation of speech.
It demanded an immediate withdrawal of the forfeiture notice of 25 books by the Jammu and Kashmir government and also called for the repealing of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Benjamin Netanyahu's push for a no-state solution
It took 108 years after the Balfour Declaration, when the British first professed support for the establishment of a Jewish national home 'in Palestine', for London to even commit to recognising Palestinian statehood. Last month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain would recognise the state of Palestine in September, unless Israel ended the war in Gaza and took urgent measures aimed at long-term peace, based on the two-state framework. France, another close ally of Israel and an enabler of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, also said that it would recognise Palestine in the UN General Assembly session. Canada, Australia and a few other nations in the western alliance system have also pledged to follow suit. Make no mistake. This is not a moment of sudden moral awakening against Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel has occupied Palestinian territories since 1967. Several countries in the Global South, including India, recognised Palestinian sovereignty in the late 1980s, following the declaration of independence by the Palestine Liberation Organization. Even after the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995, which promised a two-state solution, most western governments insisted that they would recognise Palestine only as part of a final settlement. Today, such a settlement based on the two-state formula appears as remote as ever. But more and more countries in the Global North are now stepping forward to recognise Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Charges of genocide There are two possible explanations. First, the charge that Israel is committing genocide, the most serious crime before international law, is no longer a fringe theory. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, while the International Court of Justice is examining the genocide charge. Within Israel, two leading rights organisations, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, have accused the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of committing genocide, a position also echoed by Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières. Omer Bartov, an Israeli-American genocide studies scholar and a veteran of the IDF, has stated that Israel is committing genocide. David Grossman, one of Israel's most respected writers, has said that 'with immense pain and a broken heart' he must use the word genocide to describe his country's war on the Palestinians. In just 22 months, Israeli forces have killed 2.6% of Gaza's pre-war population, wounded over 6.5% and displaced nearly all of them. Among the dead are over 18,000 children. Israel had also imposed a total blockade in March 2025, weaponising hunger and aid delivery, and triggering a mass starvation crisis. Since May, over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed while trying to collect food and other relief, according to the United Nations. Such systemic violence against an entire people in an occupied territory by their colonial rulers has been unprecedented in recent history, which makes the war increasingly impossible for even Israel's staunchest allies to defend — the United States remains the outlier. Second, mounting allegations of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide have shifted international public opinion decisively against the Jewish nation. Across Europe, public protests have swelled, fuelled by anger not just towards the war but also towards the hollow position most of their governments, which, otherwise, are vocal about human rights, have taken. A YouGov poll in June found that only 13%-21% people in western Europe have a favourable view of Israel. In some countries, the support for the Gaza war has dropped to as low as 6%. Dissent is growing even in the U.S., which is Israel's patron and partner. An Economist/YouGov Survey in August found only 27% Americans to be supportive of Mr. Netanyahu, while 84% backed an immediate ceasefire. Nearly half of American voters now believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. Ideological regime Israel is aware of the strains in its ties with its traditional allies and that it is losing global public opinion. The stain of Gaza will not fade easily. The most prudent and humane thing for Israel to do is to end the war through a ceasefire for a hostage deal, open all humanitarian corridors, pull back from Gaza and take steps to hold itself accountable for its failures and violations. But Mr. Netanyahu's regime, driven by a settler, expansionist neo-Zionist ideology, is unable to pursue any of these measures. Instead, Mr. Netanyahu seeks to escalate the war further. Last week, his security cabinet cleared a proposal to take control of Gaza City. How did the 'start-up nation', imagined as a collective of communes for what Pankaj Mishra calls 'a pitilessly abused people', become a victimiser? The answer lies in a collective failure of both the post-War world and an expansionist Israel. This failure reached catastrophic proportions following Hamas's brutal October 7, 2023 massacre. Nations typically go to war with clearly defined objectives and a theory of victory. Israel's declared objectives were the destruction of Hamas and the release of hostages. But in Gaza, the target has not just been Hamas. It has been Gaza itself. Twenty-two months later, Hamas is far from destroyed. And some 50 hostages, most of them dead, remain in captivity. If Mr. Netanyahu ends the war and leaves Gaza, that would be tantamount to admitting defeat. If he agrees to a ceasefire, his far-right allies — Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir — will abandon his government, which has already lost its majority in the Knesset. And once he is out of power, he will have to face a reckoning, not just about the corruption charges he faces but also about the failures of October 7 and the war that followed. So, it is in Mr. Netanyahu's interest to prolong the war even if it continues to devastate Palestinian lives and erode Israel's standing in the world. Shoa and Nakba The second problem is more structural. Mr. Netanyahu, a child of revisionist Zionism, has long supported Jewish settlements in disputed areas. The settlers, a big political bloc in Israel, want more Lebensraum (living space). For them, the war is an opportunity to 'return to Gaza after 20 years'. But Gaza is the home of two million Palestinians. What becomes of them? Mr. Smotrich, the Finance Minister, has openly called for 'Gaza to be totally destroyed' and the Palestinians expelled. Defence Minister Israel Katz wants to push them to the 'humanitarian city' in Rafah, which is widely criticised even by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as a concentration camp. If Palestinians are expelled or confined to such concentration camps, Jewish settlers can return to the enclave. This is the theory of victory for Israel's far-right. And this theory aligns well with Mr. Netanyahu's plans to escalate the war and seize control of the territory. When the world pushes for a two-state solution, Mr. Netanyahu is pushing for a no-state solution — no sovereignty for the Palestinians, no state for the Palestinians and no rights for the Palestinians. Milan Kundera once wrote: 'The struggle of a man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting'. For over seven decades, Israel not only remembered but also reminded the world of the horrors endured by the Jews in Europe. The organised and institutional remembrance of the Shoah has, at times, become a tool in the hands of extremist Zionists to silence criticism of the Israeli state, branding dissent as anti-Semitic. But today, the organised and systemic violence in Gaza, live streamed to millions across the world, is forging a new collective conscience about the Palestinian Nakbas. The decision by Israel's closest allies to recognise Palestinian sovereignty and subjectivity may not immediately alter the situation on the ground. But it is a breaking moment in the post-1948 Israel consensus in the West. Messrs Nentanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, blinded by their shared ethno-nationalist ideology and drunk with hard power, are programmatically incapable of grasping the shifts unfolding around them.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
41 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC restrains Assam Police from coercive action against Wire's Varadarajan
The Supreme Court on Tuesday restrained Assam Police from taking any coercive action against senior journalist Siddharth Varadarajan in connection with an FIR lodged against him over an article on Operation Sindoor. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the PIL filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which runs the web portal 'The Wire', challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Section 152 of the BNS deals with the "act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India". "Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial means, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine," it reads. The top court asked the members of the foundation and Varadarajan to cooperate with the investigation into the matter. The bench tagged the matter with a similar pending plea in which notice was issued on August 8. The FIR against Varadarajan was registered after an article was published in 'The Wire' on Operation Sindoor, under which India targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in May in retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam attack.
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Explainer: What is the new H-1B wage-based selection all about
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The White House has approved a proposal to select H-1B petitions based on wages in a shift from the current norm of using lottery. The rule, if implemented, will likely impact those at entry-level salaries in the US, and force technology firms to make changes in their overseas talent hiring to a Bloomberg report, the approval from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs came on August 8 and will be released to the public year, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approves 85,000 H-1B visas allocated to highly skilled foreign workers through a lottery system, which picks petitions at have been one of the largest beneficiaries of the visa. According to the FY24 report from the USCIS, 71% of total H-1B visas, including fresh visas and renewals, issued between October 2023 and September 2024, were to Indian nationals, followed by the Chinese at 12%.The Trump administration now wants to revive the previous proposal by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that would select H-1B petitions based on the final rule released in 2021, the USCIS said, 'Modifying the H-1B cap selection process will incentivise employers to offer higher salaries, and/or petition for higher-skilled positions, and establish a more certain path for businesses to achieve personnel needs and remain globally competitive.'This means that those with higher salaries will be prioritised, over entry-level employees. For instance, for the role of a software engineer in San Francisco, between Level 1 with annual compensation of $135,699, and Level 4 at $213,512, the latter would be preferred as per the role. The compensation was based on the current wage data from the US Department of US government decision is likely to impact hiring for entry-level positions. Immigration experts said the move may also hit diversity in hiring talent as it prioritises wages. Indian IT companies and US technology firms may also have to pay higher wages for their employees to qualify, inflating operating costs and pressuring changes yet. In 2021, the new rule for H-1B saw significant push back and was withdrawn by the then Biden administration. It was also blocked by the federal that the White House has approved the proposal, Gnanamookan Senthurjothi, founder, Visa Code, said the USCIS will release it for public feedback in the federal firm Fragomen in a note said after a period of 30-60 days, the agency will take into consideration the comments and will then publish the final rule with the implementation period. 'There is no set time frame for publication of a final rule, though the process typically takes several months,' the note said.
