Pre-teens in UP village boycott mid day meal prepared by ‘lower’ caste cook
School throws food after protests
Sitapur, Sept 08: Students of a primary school in an Uttar Pradesh village refused to have mid day meal on Friday as they couldn't stomach the fact that it was prepared by a woman from a Scheduled Caste.
The incident took place in Palharia village in Sitapur district's Pisawan block. As the word spread that a 'lower' caste woman was cooking the meal, parents of the schoolchildren gathered at the school and protested against her hiring. Eventually, only six of the 76 students enrolled in the school had the food. The remaining rotis and the potato curry had to be thrown.
Palharia village has 50-odd households and is mostly populated by Yadavs and Brahmins, deemed upper caste. A few Scheduled Caste families also live here.
Golu Singh, a local journalist working with a news channel, informed that the school's regular cook is a Yadav. He said Rama Devi, who hails from the Arakh caste (listed as a Scheduled Caste), was roped in on Friday to fill in for the regular cook, who had taken a day's leave. He said that parents of the students thought the regular cook has been replaced. He also added that the caste equation continues to remain an important matter in these villages.
School principal Manoj Kumar told 101Reporters that when parents came en masse and asked their children not to have the food, he tried to reason with them but to no avail.
A Class 4 student, Ashish, who only gave his first name, told this reporter that he saw Rama peeling potatoes when he came to the school in the morning. He said she asked him if he'll have lunch and he refused. He said that for five years, they have been having food prepared by chachi (the regular cook) and they won't accept Rama. When asked what was wrong with Rama, he seemed unsure.
"What do I say! What do I say! If all the children eat, I'll also eat," he said defiantly, seemingly annoyed at the question.
Condemning the incident, former IPS officer and social activist SR Darapuri called for an inquiry. He said boycotting the cook is in direct violation of an order of the Uttar Pradesh government. He said the order, issued as per the direction of the Supreme Court, asks that people from socially backward castes be hired as cooks to eradicate the concept of caste-based discrimination from the minds of children.
Further, he demanded that the role of school principal and teachers too be probed as they are also responsible for shaping children’s mind.
District Basic Education Officer Ajay Kumar refused to comment on the incident. Sub-divisional magistrate of Maholi town in Sitapur, Neeraj Prasad, assured an inquiry would be held. He said the administration will also take action against those found guilty if the cook chooses to file a complaint.
The author is a Sitapur-based independent journalist and a member of 101Reporters, a pan-India network of grassroots reporters
Courtesy: www.firstpost.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
36 ex-judges slam Opposition move to impeach Justice Swaminathan
New Delhi (PTI): Thirty-six former judges on Saturday gave a call to people, including parliamentarians, to denounce opposition leaders' move to impeach Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan, saying such an attempt, if allowed to proceed, would cut at the very roots of democracy and independence of the judiciary.
On December 1, Justice Swaminathan held that the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple was duty-bound to light the lamp at the Deepathoon, in addition to the customary lighting near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam.
The single-judge bench said that doing so would not encroach upon the rights of the adjacent dargah or the Muslim community.
ALSO READ: 55-bed free palliative care centre to open near Bengaluru’s Nelamangala
The order sparked a row, and on December 9, several opposition MPs, led by the DMK, submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to move a motion for the removal of the judge.
Taking serious exception to the move, the former judges in a joint statement said this is a "brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not fall in line with the ideological and political expectations of a particular section of society".
"If such an attempt is permitted to proceed, it would cut at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary," they said.
"We therefore call upon all stakeholders -- Members of Parliament across party lines, members of the Bar, civil society, and citizens at large -- to unequivocally denounce this move and ensure that it is nipped in the bud at the very inception," they added.
The statement emphasised that the judges must remain answerable to their oath and to the Constitution of India, not to "partisan political pressures or ideological intimidation".
"The message from all constitutional stakeholders must be clear and firm: in a republic governed by the rule of law, judgments are tested by appeals and legal critique, and not by threats of impeachment for political nonconformity," it said.
The statement was signed by former Supreme Court judge Krishn Murari J as well as ex-chief justices and former judges of different high courts.
The statement said the opposition party's move is not an "isolated aberration". It fits into a "clear and deeply troubling pattern" in India's recent constitutional history, where sections of the political class have sought to discredit and intimidate the higher judiciary whenever outcomes do not align with their interests, it added.
"The unprecedented bid in 2018 to initiate impeachment proceedings against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, the sustained campaigns of vilification directed at Chief Justices Ranjan Gogoi, S A Bobde and D Y Chandrachud while they were in office," the statement noted.
"The targeted attacks now being mounted against the incumbent CJI, Justice Surya Kant, whenever a judgment/remark displeases a political constituency, are all manifestations of the same trend," it said.
"This is not principled, reasoned criticism of judicial decisions; it is an attempt to weaponise impeachment and public calumny as instruments of pressure -- a practice that strikes at the heart of judicial independence and the basic norms of constitutional democracy," the statement added.
