From the Urdu Press: Rahul’s 2024 prescription to exorcising note ban to SC thwarting of Haldwani eviction

SALAR

In its editorial on January 6, titled “Haldwani basti ko Supreme Court ki rahat (Supreme Court relief for Haldwani settlement)”, the Bengaluru-based Salar writes that the Uttarakhand High Court had issued a “curious order” authorising use of force to evict forthwith “unauthorised occupants”, over 4,000 families, living in Gafoor basti and other slums in Haldwani, whose land has been claimed by the railways. The Supreme Court stayed the high court’s order, saying that 50,000 people cannot be uprooted in 7 days and that some rehabilitation scheme is necessary. “Following the high court’s order, the spectre of bulldozers was haunting 4,365 families in a Haldwani area, that include those living there and having various documents since 1920 and paying taxes since 1940. Is it legal to collect taxes from illegal encroachers?” the daily asks. “Significantly, a number of these inhabitants had purchased their land in government auction. If it is a railways land, why was it auctioned by the Haldwani civic body. If bulldozers roll to carry out demolition there, besides the houses of so many people 2 intercolleges, 4 government schools, 10-12 private schools, 5 madrasas, 10 mosques, 2 temples and 2 banks would also take its brunt,” it says, stating that the locals’ deep roots in the area got reflected in their remarkable protest. Hundreds of local residents, including women and children, held protests for days amid biting cold against their eviction.

The edit says this is an old dispute in which the size of the encroached land in contention has kept on increasing, even as the demarcation of land owned by the government and the railways is not clear so far. “The railways considers these slums a hurdle in its development plans, saying the removal of encroachments from its land would help it improve train facilities in Haldwani. But would this justify uprooting of 50,000 people without making any plans for their rehabilitation?” it asks. Referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promise that everyone in the country will have her house by 2022, the daily says such a promise might sound like a dream but “what people expect is just that their existing homes do not incur the wrath of bulldozers”. By staying the high court’s order, the apex court has given immediate relief to the affected Haldwani slum-dwellers, although their legal struggle will continue, it adds.

AKHBAR-E-MASHRIQ

Referring to the Uttar Pradesh leg of Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra, the multi-edition Akhbar-e-Mashriq, in its editorial on January 8, notes that Rahul was joined by his sister and AICC general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and National Conference president Farooq Abdullah as it entered UP from Delhi, where ex-RAW chief A S Dulat also walked with Rahul. “Rahul’s Yatra has clearly got remarkable public support, drawing massive, enthusiastic crowds in both urban and rural belts in all the states it has passed through. It has also attracted people from various walks of life. The Congress is trying to reconnect with people through this Yatra even as Rahul says this is to open a shop of love in the market of hate, which is an objective worth appreciating amid the prevailing atmosphere of hate and division,” it says.

The daily points out that the Congress has been in political wilderness in UP for many years and that the party’s bid to forge various electoral alliances in the state through the years has not proved fruitful. The political and electoral significance of UP is enormous, the edit states, adding that it is imperative for the Congress to win back its lost public support in the state in order to revive itself nationally. “Without regaining its own support base, mere alliances would not help the Congress in a state like UP. The party should not misinterpret huge crowds at its meetings and rallies as a sign of its revival, which will require a long-term strategy and action plan. The party would not be able to get the people at the polling booths unless it can reassure them about its emergence as a credible alternative to the BJP,” it says.

In another leader, published on January 2, the daily highlights Rahul’s statement that there has been an undercurrent against the ruling BJP but the Opposition parties will have to come together to present an “alternative vision” to the people. Projecting Rahul’s point that the fight against the BJP would be essentially an ideological contest, the editorial quotes him as saying that only the Congress could provide a “central ideological framework and structure” against the BJP at the national level even though the regional Opposition parties have their own space in their respective states. Citing an example in this regard, the Congress leader said the Samajwadi Party does not have a national ideology that would also work for states other than UP, such as Kerala, Karnataka or Bihar, it adds.

“Rahul has underlined that there has to be mutual respect between the Opposition parties and that the Congress also must take them into confidence. Spelling out his political assessment after months of marching through the country, he has stressed that if the Opposition parties coordinate properly and reach out to the people with an effective alternative vision to the BJP, the saffron party would find it difficult to win the 2024 general elections,” the edit says.

ROZNAMA RASHTRIYA SAHARA

Commenting on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench’s judgment upholding the Modi government’s controversial decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000, the multi-edition Roznama Rashtriya Sahara, in its editorial on January 3, says the apex court’s 4-1 majority verdict is “not surprising”. The daily says, “This happens sometimes that several government decisions may cause hardships to people and become contentious but it is not necessary that the courts would also look at them through the same prism. For the courts, what matters is the law and whether such decisions have passed its test or not. Anyways, it is not necessary that the courts’ decisions should be in tune with public expectations.”

The editorial points out that the government’s stunning November 8, 2016 demonetisation move had disrupted life, forcing people to join long queues to exchange notes throughout the country for weeks. An overwhelming majority of the people are associated with the unorganised sector, it says, adding that they were devastated by “notebandi (note ban)”. “The BJP dispensation had claimed that demonetisation will help in unearthing black money, eliminating counterfeit currency and curbing terrorism. Have these objectives been fulfilled?”

Pointing out that the petitions challenging the note ban decision were centred on the charge that it had violated Section 26(2) of the RBI Act, 1934, the daily writes that Justices S Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian validated the government’s move, holding that there was no flaw in the decision-making process involving consultations with the RBI, even as they steered clear of whether demonetisation could fulfil its stated objectives or not. In her minority, dissenting judgment, Justice B V Nagarathna declared the government’s move unlawful while ruling that the RBI did not apply an independent mind and that the government should have brought a law to implement demonetisation. The edit says, “It is difficult to state whether the apex court’s verdict will conclude the public debate on the pros and cons of demonetisation, but in this year packed with Assembly polls in the lead-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections the BJP will be buoyed by it.”