[On Jan. 25, the government
gave the Padma Bhushan, the third-highest civilian award in India, to Mr.
Verma. Having heard from friends that Mr. Verma had received the award, the
judge’s widow, Pushpa Verma, wrote a letter to the president of India, Pranab
Mukherjee, on Wednesday in which she turned down the Padma Bhushan on her late
husband’s behalf.]
By Betwa Sharma
NEW DELHI — The family of the late Jagdish Sharan Verma, the former Supreme
Court chief justice whose report helped strengthen Indian sexual assault laws,
said it had rejected one of India’s top awards for the judge because he would
have never accepted it had he been alive.
Tasked
with leading a committee to make recommendations on how to combat gender
violence after the gang rape of a Delhi woman in December 2012, Mr. Verma
delivered a report in a record 29 days, which would become the basis of tougher
laws against sexual violence. Three months later, Mr. Verma died at the age of
80 from multiple organ failure.
On
Jan. 25, the government gave the Padma Bhushan, the third-highest civilian
award in India, to Mr. Verma. Having heard from friends that Mr. Verma had
received the award, the judge’s widow, Pushpa Verma, wrote a letter to the president of India, Pranab
Mukherjee, on Wednesday in which she turned down the Padma Bhushan on her late
husband’s behalf.
“The
greatest honor to him remains how he is held in the hearts and minds of his
fellow countrymen, as a true friend not just to women or the youth, but to
those most in need of one,” she wrote.
Reports
in Indian media on Friday suggested that Mr. Verma’s family was miffed that the
judge did not receive a higher honor from the government. The top civilian
award is the Bharat Ratna, followed by the Padma Vibhushan.
Dismissing
those reports, Shubra Verma, 52, said the family was only following her
father’s wishes. “My father never believed in awards and rewards so he would
not have wanted it,” Ms. Verma told India Ink on Friday. “My mother decided
that we should not accept it, and the rest of us agreed.”
She
also denied that the family was angling for a more prestigious award for the
judge.
Though
he had always been in the public eye, Mr. Verma became a household name with
his last assignment, especially when he called on the public to send
suggestions to give women better legal and police protection against violence.
Mr.
Verma served as India’s chief justice for 10 months, starting on March 25,
1997, until his retirement in January 1998. He is remembered for presiding over
the landmark Supreme Court ruling that determined that sexual harassment at the
workplace violates a woman’s right to equality laid guidelines to prevent it.
Soli
Sorabjee, former attorney general of India, who is a recipient of the Padma
Vibhushan, described Mr. Verma as an “eminent jurist who had done monumental
work” in bringing out the report to strengthen laws against sexual assault.
Mr.
Sorabjee said that the government had displayed both “insensitivity and ignorance”
in not giving Mr. Verma the Padma Vibhushan, the second-highest honor. “This is
a man who has only worked for the national cause,” he said.
Ms.
Verma also questioned why the award had not been conferred during the long
career of her father, whom she described as a person who had never appeased any
political party.
“He
used to say that he would never be a judge that they can handle,” she said.
T.S.R.
Subramanian, who retired in 1998 as cabinet secretary, the top post in the
Indian bureaucracy, said that why the government had not given Mr. Verma a
higher award or presented any award to him during his lifetime were matters of
conjecturing. Decisions about civilian awards in India are made by the Home
Ministry and then vetted by the prime minister.
“These
are questions there can be no definite answers,” he said. “But the crux of the
matter is that they probably felt slighted because it was the Padma Bhushan and
not the Padma Vibhushan.”
Mr.
Subramaniam, who compared the two awards to “the difference between an
associate professor and assistant professor,” also said that over the years
others too had declined to accept or returned government awards for various
reasons.
The
Times of India reported that Ustad Vilayat Khan, a sitar maestro, turned down the Padma Vibhushan because he didn’t
find the selection committee competent to judge his music.
In
1990, Nikhil Chakravarty, a journalist turned the Padma Bhushan award down
because he did not want to be identified with the establishment. And in 2007,
Khushwant Singh, a prominent author, returned the same award to protest against
the military attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar ordered by Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi in 1984 to capture Sikh radicals.
Ms.
Verma’s family also found the government’s manner of conferring the award to be
insensitive, especially its failure to properly communicate its decision to
them. “My mother could have been extended at least that courtesy,” she said.
“We don’t even know who nominated him.”
They
only learned about the Padma Bhushan when they started receiving calls on Jan.
25 from legal luminaries, several of whom told the family not to accept the
award.
“They
felt that it was an insult to his dignity,” said Ms. Verma. “I don’t know why
they said that.”
Harish
Salve, a prominent Supreme Court advocate, said he was “disappointed” that Mr.
Verma had not received a higher award and he described the manner and process
of selection as “opaque,” leading to “considerable heartburn.”
“This
was an accident waiting to happen,” he said.
Betwa
Sharma is a freelance journalist based in New Delhi. You can follow her on
Twitter @betwasharma
@ The New York Times
*
[Journalists with the Times and Bloomberg News have encountered
visa problems since those organizations published articles about wealth and corruption among Communist Party
leaders. The huge wealth acquired by “princelings” — relatives of elite
government figures — is considered a particularly sensitive issue by the
government.]
By William Wan
BEIJING — China forced a New York Times reporter to leave the country
Thursday, the latest in a series of government actions targeting journalists.
Austin
Ramzy, who previously worked for six years in China for Time
magazine, has not been given a journalist visa since he moved to the newspaper
last year.With his temporary visa expiring, he boarded a flight to Taipei,
Taiwan, on Thursday afternoon.
Ramzy’s forced departure will result in the first full-time Times
correspondent in memory being stationed on Taiwan, an island China considers a rebellious province to be reunified with
the mainland, by force if necessary.
Journalists with the Times and Bloomberg News have encountered
visa problems since those organizations published articles about wealth and corruption among Communist Party
leaders. The huge wealth acquired by “princelings” — relatives of elite
government figures — is considered a particularly sensitive issue by the
government.
Last month, as visas were due to expire for journalists at the
Times, Bloomberg News and other media organizations, the government refused to
process their applications until the last moment. The government relented
after a personal appeal by Vice President Biden to
China’s president.
Ramzy will continue to apply for a visa while reporting in Taiwan,
Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said.
In Washington, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the
administration is “deeply concerned” about the restrictions journalists face in
China.
“These restrictions and treatment are not consistent with freedom
of the press — and stand in stark contrast with U.S. treatment of Chinese and
other foreign journalists,” Carney said in a statement.
At a news conference Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman,
Qin Gang, said Ramzy was not being expelled or forced to leave. He
characterized the departure as bureaucratic in nature and accused Ramzy of
violating Chinese regulations because he had continued to travel to China on
his unexpired Time magazine visa while waiting for a new one.
The Times said the government had not canceled Ramzy’s old visa or
raised its use as an issue until recently.
The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China issued a statement
condemning Qin’s accusations. “Suggestions by Chinese officials that Mr. Ramzy
did not correctly comply with Chinese visa regulations are disingenuous; the
regulations are unclear and have not been applied to other journalists in
similar situations to that of Ramzy,” the organization said. “It is difficult
to avoid the conclusion that the authorities are punishing the New York Times
for articles it published concerning [former] Premier Wen Jiabao and his
family. Such behavior falls well short of international standards.”
The Times and Bloomberg News have not been able to obtain visas
for journalists hired for positions in China during the past two years. Both
companies have only been able to renew visas for employees already in China.
The bureau chief for the Times, Philip Pan, has not been given a
journalist visa for China despite trying for almost two years. Last year,
reporter Chris Buckley was expelled after leaving
Reuters to work for the Times.
Asked about the visa delays Monday, foreign ministry spokesman Qin
said, “The issuance of visas and residency permits is a matter that only China
as a sovereign nation can determine.”
Thursday morning, Ramzy wrote on Twitter: “Heading out shortly and
wanted to say thanks for all the kind thoughts. Sad to be leaving Beijing. Hope
I can return soon.”
