In the corridors of the headquarters of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Alimuddin Street in Calcutta, a conspiracy theory is being given shape ever since the name of Justice A.K. Ganguly was made public, ending two weeks of speculation about the identity of the Supreme Court judge accused of sexual harassment by a female law intern from Calcutta. Matters reached a head on December 4, as an NGO, the Bharat Bachao Sansthan, submitted a memorandum at a Calcutta police station demanding legal action and filing of an FIR against Justice Ganguly over the allegations.
Since making the charges in a blog, the intern has deposed before a three-member SC committee and told them that Ganguly, also the chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC), had harassed her in a hotel room in Delhi last December—ironically, a time when protests were raging against the December 16 gangrape of a paramedic.
While not wanting to be seen as making light of the charge of sexual harassment, Left leaders point to several ‘facts’ about Justice Ganguly’s “vulnerable political position in the state”. “The Trinamool government has been trying for a very long time to oust Justice A.K. Ganguly from the chairmanship of the WBHRC,” CPI(M) leader Mohammed Selim tells Outlook.
Indeed, though Mamata Banerjee herself appointed Ganguly (who has been serving as the WBHRC chief since April 2012), she has subsequently and openly—in the state Assembly, no less—declared that she made a mistake. The immediate cause of that outburst was the demand of the rights panel, under the leadership of Justice Ganguly, that the TMC government compensate and apologise for what was deemed as several instances of serious “human rights violations”. Amidst a growing personality cult around Mamata and a Trinamool culture of intolerance and intransigence, the WBHRC under Justice Ganguly has often proved to be a thorn in the TMC’s side.
In July this year, Justice Ganguly ordered the government to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to Shiladitya Chowdhury, a farmer from Bengal’s Maoist-affected Jangalmahal who was branded a Maoist by the CM and hauled off to jail for daring to complain to her directly during a rally about the rising prices of fertilisers. The commission has also asked the government to apologise to him. “Shiladitya Chowdhury must be compensated for the loss of dignity and social status at the instance of the honourable chief minister in an open meeting. It cannot be that just because he is a poor farmer his status and dignity can be trifled with by slapping a wild allegation of being a Maoist/terrorist,” the panel had told the state government. Given eight weeks to pay up, the government did not even respond to the rights panel’s ‘recommendations’.
“We are not ruling out the possibility that he was framed or trapped because such things do happen in politics unfortunately,” Selim says. “Mamata Banerjee herself had called the allegations of a rape victim ‘a concocted story’ without an investigation; how is it that they cannot conceive of such a situation? We think there is more to these allegations than meets the eye.”
Speaking to Outlook (see box), Justice Ganguly is ambivalent about allegations of a political conspiracy. “I cannot comment on that right now,” he said. On whether his refusal to step down as WBHRC chief can be attributed to the solidarity shown from human rights groups like APDR (Association for Protection of Democratic Rights) because of the panel’s decisions on cases like those mentioned above, he said he didn’t consider those factors germane to the issue.
Gitanath Ganguly, a Calcutta High Court judge, head of the legal aid cell in West Bengal and a former colleague of Justice Ganguly, explains that “It is immaterial whether he has an endless list of exemplary judgements upholding human rights. He may be a great human being and a greater judge, but in a case of sexual harassment, he will be judged on whether or not at that moment he had committed the alleged offence or not.”
Even as legal experts around the country are divided whether Justice Ganguly should step down as WBHRC chief, Justice Gitanath Ganguly denies that Justice Ganguly has not been arrested yet because he enjoys immunity for having been a SC judge. “In such cases, no one can escape arrest once the matter is forwarded to the police and the accused brought before a magistrate. When the magistrate takes cognizance...and an FIR has been filed, it may be forwarded to the local police (the police station of the area where the alleged offence took place) and then the arrest can be made. This has not yet happened in this case.”
Trinamool leaders severely trashed the “political conspiracy” theory of the Opposition, claiming it is “a vile attempt to politicise the issue.” TMC MP Kalyan Bandyopadhyay told Outlook: “We completely deny the vicious allegations.... This is a serious crime and our demand for Justice Ganguly’s resignation has nothing to do with our political views. He’s the head of a human rights body and if he stands accused of a heinous crime of sexually harassing a woman, it is his moral duty to step down.”
The law intern herself is said to have admitted to some after Justice Ganguly’s name became public, that she felt “scared and overwhelmed” by the way the issue spiralled out of her control. Indeed, considering her comments to a newspaper about how she was browbeaten and intimidated by the SC panel that was set up to interrogate her charges, the theory that she was ‘planted’ seems far-fetched.
A Calcutta HC lawyer, who was present at the Le Meridien hotel in Delhi the morning of the alleged crime says, “I had spent the entire day with Justice Ganguly and had lunch with him. That was the first time I met him. He seemed like the perfect gentleman. But you never know what goes on behind closed doors.” In Calcutta, no one is quite sure what transpired. “He may be a perfect gentleman,” says Justice Gitanath Ganguly. “But he will be judged by that one moment of lapse in a case like this.”
By painting Justice Ganguly as the TMC’s political target, the Outlook correspondent merely demonstrated her utter bias (In a Negative Frame, Dec 16). Nothing could be more transgressive than to term the SC panel’s exposure of sleaze as a tug of war between the TMC and the CPI(M)! The same man who as chairman of the HRC had showered succour on the victims of TMC’s political vengeance is now facing the heat of shocking charges—the panel has established them prima facie. The affront on the modesty of a young woman overweighs his professional feats. His disgraceful act has taken the sheen off the office he holds. Mamata is justified in seeking his ouster.
C. Chandrasekaran, Madurai
Of course, there is now yet another twist in the Justice Ganguly saga. But stories like these only leave you confused. Usually, media reports give you an idea whether a crime was committed or not. But with the increasing politicisation, and trial by media (which has its own biases), it is difficult to ascertain what happened. Initially, given the media trial, I assumed that Justice Ganguly was guilty. Now, with the TMC angle, one is forced to wonder if he was trapped. The report by Indian Express, one hopes, is definitive. Justice Ganguly should have resigned from the WBHRC a long while ago and waited for justice to take effect.
C.K. Jaidev, Dubai
The defining principles of the new Indian justice set up by TV barons is: guilty till proven innocent. As it was with the Kanchi Shankaracharya case.
Pradip Singh, Stafford, UK
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
And that s why CPI(M) is irrelevant in indan politics , and so will Congress (Italian) pretty soon.
By painting Ganguly as the political target of TMC, the author demonstrates his utter bias. Nothing could be more transgressive than to term the SC panel's exposure of sleaze as a tug of war between TMC and CPM. It is the very same Ganguly, who as the chairman of HRC, had howered succour to the victims of the political vengence of TMC, is facing the heat of charges which the panel had shockingly established as prima face. The affront on m odesty of women overweighs his professional feat. The disgraced act of the black brothren has taken the sheen of the office which he holds. Mamata is justified in seeking Ganguly"s ouster. That Brinda Karat, the leader of CPM has turned her glowering eyes on the guilty, reaffirms the struggle of the Left against atrocities on women. If there is any veracity in the report of a few CPM leaders in West Bengal seen defending Ganguly, just to counter Mamata, the party may not spare such cheap strategy.
4 D Jaidev
" In the meantime, in the interest of public probity, Justice Ganguly should resign from the WBHRC ..."
" In the meantime, in the interest of public probity, Justice Ganguly should resign from the WBHRC ..."
You yourself clearly expressed your worry that Ganguly should not be punished for an allegation made by a woman, just because a woman made it.
But then, you have asked that Ganguly should resign. Would that not be grave injustice to punish a reputated male, just because a female has thrown dung on him?
I agree that Indian justice is notoriously slow, but to be fair to all, severe punishment MUST be meted out to feminists who make false /exaggerated allegations to character assasinate males, and to the media that supports them in hyper reporting it.
The defining principle of new Indian justice set up by TV barons is:
Guilty until proven otherwise. As they did in the case of Kanchi Shankaracharya.
There is some truth in Farukh Abdullah's statement.
All this reporting is leaving me confused. Usually, you have an idea whether the crime was committed or not, from media reports. But with increasing politicisation and trial by media (which has its own biases), it is difficult to ascertain what actually happened. Initially, given the media trial, I assumed that Justice Ganguly was guilty. Now, with the TMC angle, one is not sure whether he has been trapped (after all it is the alleged victim's word against his, at this point in time). Given that the wheels of justice move at a glacial pace in India, it will be long before justice is rendered in this case. And if it is found to be that Justice Ganguly after all was actually innocent, then grave injustice would have been done to a man who otherwise was also a great judge. We Indians need to be careful not to be swayed by the media and various lobbies. In the meantime, in the interest of public probity, Justice Ganguly should resign from the WBHRC and wait for justice to take its course.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT