'If there were no khaps [...] everything will go haywire [...] young boys and girls will start marrying into the same gotra' Understanding khap-Directed 'Honour Killings' in Northern India
Since the early 2000s, the rural landscape of Northern India has been dominated by a parallel system of governance — the khap2 (caste) panchayats.3 These caste panchayats sanction acts of gendered violence and override any notion of equality or gender empowerment, which the Indian constitution endeavoured to provide to women at the grassroots level. Khap panchayat imposes its writ through social boycotts and fines, but also in murdering victims or forcing them to commit suicide (Sangwan, 2010; Gupta and Seth, 2007). The state of Haryana has seen the most extreme cases of these ‘honour’ killings, though other states such as Uttar Pradesh have witnessed similar incidents.4 Most of the caste panchayat diktats are against young girls or against young couples accused of having transgressed customary norms through disapproved marriage. In most cases these young couples have been brutally murdered in full view of the village communities. Though khap panchayats were believed to be multi-caste (sarv jatiya) bodies (Singh, 2010), in a few districts such as Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh they have come to be dominated by Jats,5 who have used constitutional protections and provisions to expand their political and economic influence (Gupta, 2000). This upwardly mobile ‘backward’ caste has come to exercise considerable influence (Bharadwaj, 2012; Thapar-Bjorkert, 2006) demographically (on the basis of its population), economically (through extensive farm holdings) and politically (through dominance in local administration and politics).
Politics and governance in contemporary India : the paradox of democratic deepening
On 15 August 1997, India celebrated fifty years as an independent nation. Except, for a brief eighteen months between 1975-1977, India has remained a democracy. What explains the resilience of democracy in India in the face of a low-income economy, widespread poverty, illiteracy and immense religious and ethnic diversity? How have democratic governance shaped political and socioeconomic change? What is the future of Indian democracy? This paper examines these intriguing questions. It argues that the “deepening of democracy” has tended to exacerbate the problems of governance. Specifically, the progressive empowerment of popular sectors has created new sets of problems. India’s civil society and associational life, divided along narrow caste, ethnic, regional and religious divisions lacks “social capital” and “civicness” necessary for the articulation and aggregation of interests, effective political collaboration and good governance. Compounding these problems, the high levels of political mobilization in the absence of strong and responsive state institutions and political parties has served to fragment rather than unite society. Thus, instead of responding to the demands of an increasingly mobilized population, the country’s weak and over-burdened political institutions have reinforced, if not, exacerbated socioeconomic and political cleavages. Not surprisingly, despite India’s resilient democratic institutions and relatively long experience with constitutionalism, effective governance remains a major challenge. Given these challenges, what India needs is the resuscitation of its public institutions and the renegotiation of state-society relations. This paper concludes by illustrating that India’s democracy is potentially selfcorrecting along these lines.
The data privacy / national security balancing paradigm as applied in the USA and Europe: Achieving an acceptable balance
...................................................................................................................... iii Summary ..................................................................................................................... ix Overall Introduction.................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One ................................................................................................................. 7 The Privacy/National Security Balance from a European Perspective .................. 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7 Section I: The Council of Europe ............................................................................ 13 1.0 The Basis for the Data Privacy/National Security Balance .......................... 13 2.0 The Influence of the ECHR on National Legal Systems .............................. 14 3.0 The Jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the Data Privacy/National Security Balance ................................................................................................................. 27 4.0 Shortcomings in the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR The Application of the Margin of Appreciation ........................................................................................ 43 Section II: The European Union .............................................................................. 67 1.0 The European Union and Human Rights Protection in the Context of the data privacy/national security balance ......................................................................... 73 2.0 The Growing Involvement of the EU in Human Rights Protection, particularly in data protection and the circumstances influencing this. ............... 77 3.0 Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC and the Alteration of the Data Privacy/National Security Balance ....................................................................... 79 4.0 Features of Directive 2006/24/EC ................................................................ 81 5.0 Responses to Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC .................................... 82 6.0 Institutional Responses to Directive 2006/24/EC......................................... 94 7.0 Judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) on the Validity of Directive 2006/24/EC......................................................................................................... 103 8.0 The Ruling of the CJEU ............................................................................. 105 9.0 Significance of the Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger Judgment and its Context ............................................................................................................... 109 10.0 Consequences of the Digital Rights Ireland Judgment for Data Privacy/National Security in Europe .................................................................. 114 11.0 Judgments of the CJEU in the Google Spain and Schrems Cases .............. 122 12.0 Developments following the Invalidation of the Safe Harbour Agreement 131 13.0 Impact of the CJEU decisions in the Digital Rights Ireland, Google Spain, and Schrems cases on the data privacy/national security balance ...................... 135 14.0 The Alternative Data Privacy/National Security Balance: Circumventing vi Data Privacy Protections in the EU: The Mass Surveillance of Personal Data by Spy Agencies in some EU Member States ..........................................................135 15.0 Two Parallel Systems of Surveillance .........................................................146 16.0 The Council of Europe Versus The European Union: Which Regime Provides Greater Protection For Data Privacy Rights? .......................................148 17.0 Contrasting the European and U.S. positions on the Balancing of Data Privacy Rights against National Security Interests .............................................153 18.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................156 Chapter Two .............................................................................................................165 The Privacy/Security Balance in the U.S. pre-9/11 ................................................165 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................165 2.0 U.S. Understandings of the Right to Privacy and Particularly Data Privacy .............................................................................................................................168 3.0 Major Interferences with data privacy for national security reasons pre-9/11 in the context of the data privacy/national security balance, with emphasis on the background and role of the NSA. ........................................................................179 4.0 Major Scandals Relating to Data Retention: Privacy Rights Illegally Infringed by the Executive and its Agencies .......................................................186 5.0 Church Committee Report and the Balance Between National Security and Personal Liberties Pre-9/11 .................................................................................191 6.0 Judicial Oversight of Surveillance in the name of National Security: Implications for the Data Privacy/National Security Balance. ............................194 7.0 FISA: Adjusting the Data Privacy/National Security Balance? Restricting the Interpretation of Personal Data in the Context of Intelligence Surveillance by the Executive Branch in the name of National Security ...........................................197 8.0 Balancing Rights which are Qualitatively Different: Philosophical Issues Underlying the Data Privacy/National Security Balancing Paradigm ................209 9.0 Two Data Privacy/National Security Balancing Systems Pre-9/11:The Influence of NSA Surveillance Activity. The Legal and the Actual Balances....220 10.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................224 Chapter Three ...........................................................................................................229 The Privacy/Security Balance in the U.S. Post-9/11 ..............................................229 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................229 2.0 Background ...................................................................................................230 3.0 The Administration's Defence of Its Surveillance Policies and a Scholarly Response .............................................................................................................244 4.0 Ideological Context of the Patriot Act ...........................................................252 5.0 Provisions of the Patriot Act .........................................................................253