New York (USA), 29 April: Swarnamalya will be performing Traditional Bharathanatyam dance at TamarindArt. Swarnamlya is a well known dancer who is proficient in many different styles of dance. On May 2 at 7pm she will perform in the Classical style of Bharathanatyam.
Bhrathanayam is a classical dance form originating from Southern India. It’s thought to have been created by Bharata Muni, a Hindu sage, who wrote the Natya Shastra, the most important ancient treatise on classical Indian dance. It is also called the fifth Veda in reference to the foundation of Hindu religion and philosophy, from which sprang the related South Indian musical tradition of Carnatic music.
Swarnamlya is a perfesional dancer and actrice who is based in Chennai, India. She has performed all over the word and acted in a number of films. She has received may awadrds and honors including; Yuvakala Bharati, Lakshmi Viswanathan Endowment Prize and a schlorship from Tamilnadu Iyal Isai Nataka Mandram. She is a Founder Trustee and Director of RANGA MANDIRA, a Trust founded to promote Bharatanatyam and other performing arts.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
The Supreme Court Wavers On Police Reform: An update on the Prakash Singh case
New Delhi (India), 29 April: On 22 September 2006, the Supreme Court ordered governments to begin the process of reforming the police in India. It gave the center and states three months to put in place a number of practical mechanisms to do this.
This week the center and state governments were to report back to the Court. Alarmingly, a quick reading of their affidavits shows that a meagre 11% are totally compliant, 40% are non-compliant and 46% only partially compliant. Most states want more time or a review of the original directives. Some are busy cobbling together new police acts without any consultation with the public.
On 9 April, the Supreme Court took less than 5 minutes to set yet another date to look at applications for extension and modification! This leeway is a radical departure from the Court’s earlier no-nonsense stand of 11 January that ‘no extension can be granted to any government in this respect.’
This wavering by the Court has opened the doors wide for states to file review applications. The danger of this stance is that:
• the entire original judgment of 22 September 2006 is now up for re-examination, possibly with a view to diluting it; and
• the insubstantial objections by the states and their resistance to taking ANY steps towards police reform will be given credence.
Mrs. Maja Daruwala, Executive Director of CHRI, comments: "Police reform in India has been on the backburner for far too long. The Court’s strong stance on compliance is crucial to shake states out of their lethargy on the issue of police reform. Without the Court monitoring this process, this simply will not happen. We need democratic policing and we need it now.”
New Delhi (India), 29 April: On 22 September 2006, the Supreme Court ordered governments to begin the process of reforming the police in India. It gave the center and states three months to put in place a number of practical mechanisms to do this.
This week the center and state governments were to report back to the Court. Alarmingly, a quick reading of their affidavits shows that a meagre 11% are totally compliant, 40% are non-compliant and 46% only partially compliant. Most states want more time or a review of the original directives. Some are busy cobbling together new police acts without any consultation with the public.
On 9 April, the Supreme Court took less than 5 minutes to set yet another date to look at applications for extension and modification! This leeway is a radical departure from the Court’s earlier no-nonsense stand of 11 January that ‘no extension can be granted to any government in this respect.’
This wavering by the Court has opened the doors wide for states to file review applications. The danger of this stance is that:
• the entire original judgment of 22 September 2006 is now up for re-examination, possibly with a view to diluting it; and
• the insubstantial objections by the states and their resistance to taking ANY steps towards police reform will be given credence.
Mrs. Maja Daruwala, Executive Director of CHRI, comments: "Police reform in India has been on the backburner for far too long. The Court’s strong stance on compliance is crucial to shake states out of their lethargy on the issue of police reform. Without the Court monitoring this process, this simply will not happen. We need democratic policing and we need it now.”
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Governments To Police Reform
New Delhi, 10 April: Central and state governments are required to come clean on police reform by Tuesday 10 April 2007 by submitting affidavits to the Supreme Court that say what they have each done to make reform a reality in their state or territory. The date is one of a number of Court ordered deadlines that the central and state governments need to meet to satisfy a judgment in the longrunning public interest litigation case Prakash Singh v Union of India.
The Prakash Singh case began in 1996, when two retired Director Generals of Police filed a case in the Supreme Court calling for police reform. After ten years of hearings and deliberations, the Court ruled last year that reform must become a reality in India and, earlier this year, set two deadlines for complying with a number of directives it set down to ensure reform. These deadlines have passed and the governments must now have complied with the Supreme Court’s directives.
The sad reality is that while a number of governments have made real progress towards police reform, there are a number of governments who have failed to even attempt to meet the Court’s ruling. This means that they could be found in contempt of court in a hearing set down for July this year. At this hearing, the Court will go through each governments’ affidavits and look at whether they have done everything they had to do under the judgment. There are also a number of states that are partially compliant, or union territories that are relying on the central government to legislate for reform and accountability.
Police reform in India is overdue and the Supreme Court decision has made police reform the reality. Responsibility is now with the central and state governments to move police reform from a reality on paper to a reality for communities – and Tuesday’s deadline will show how much of this responsibility has been shouldered by the governments.
Www.mediabharti.com
The Prakash Singh case began in 1996, when two retired Director Generals of Police filed a case in the Supreme Court calling for police reform. After ten years of hearings and deliberations, the Court ruled last year that reform must become a reality in India and, earlier this year, set two deadlines for complying with a number of directives it set down to ensure reform. These deadlines have passed and the governments must now have complied with the Supreme Court’s directives.
The sad reality is that while a number of governments have made real progress towards police reform, there are a number of governments who have failed to even attempt to meet the Court’s ruling. This means that they could be found in contempt of court in a hearing set down for July this year. At this hearing, the Court will go through each governments’ affidavits and look at whether they have done everything they had to do under the judgment. There are also a number of states that are partially compliant, or union territories that are relying on the central government to legislate for reform and accountability.
Police reform in India is overdue and the Supreme Court decision has made police reform the reality. Responsibility is now with the central and state governments to move police reform from a reality on paper to a reality for communities – and Tuesday’s deadline will show how much of this responsibility has been shouldered by the governments.
Www.mediabharti.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
