An Indian Perspective

How patriarchy encourages corruption

2011-08-18T13:32:00.006+05:30

Over the past several months, India has been rocked by anti corruption protests. People are angry with the humongous levels of corruption existing in every level of governance. It is a fact of life here. Even for accessing basic rights, such as acquiring a passport, drivers license, ration card or even a birth/death certificate, requires us to part with some amount of our hard earned money. Corrupt officers keep piling up money, and there exists a chain whereby each officer is required to pay up some amount of the money so collected to their superior. In return, the superior promises not to transfer or otherwise harass the junior officer. The chain ends at the higher political offices in each state.

Different people have suggested different solutions for ending corruption. Ramdev says that the corrupt must suffer the ultimate punishment - death. Besides the unconstitutionality and barbarity of the suggestion, the fact that murder carries a potential death sentence does not deter murderers seems to have been lost on him.

Anna Hazare and Co. is fighting for creation of a stronger ombudsman (Lokpal) with powers to investigate and prosecute corruption at very high levels. This suggestion too has its flaws - what if the Lokpal itself is corrupt ? Are we creating another Frankenstein monster, with draconian powers that will have no checks and balances on itself, and act like a super Government ?

Aruna Roy and others at the NAC have suggested breaking Lokpal into 5 bodies. Her suggestion is drastically different from the government's Lokpal Bill and the Jan Lokpal Bill. “Vesting jurisdiction over the length and breadth of the government machinery in one institution will concentrate too much power in the institution, while the volume of work will make it difficult to carry out its tasks”, she said. Personally I find her suggestion quite agreeable, provided it can be ensured that each of those bodies will be independent of government control.

Government's chief economic adviser Kaushik Basu has suggested legalizing certain forms of bribe giving. He feels that giving bribe to access a resource, which would otherwise be a matter of right, should be legalized. This will make sure, that after the act of giving bribe has been committed, the interests of the bribe giver and the bribe taker will be orthogonal to each other. Bribe giver may then approach the police for action against the bribe taker. This will drastically reduce the incidents of corrupt officers demanding bribe (i call it extortion), as the immunity over the act of bribing extends only to the bribe giver and not the taker.

For most part, public seems to be angry at corruption and the culture of impunity around it. Most of them are not familiar with the intricate details of each of these proposals or the potential consequences of adopting them.

One more aspect that seems to have been completely ignored around this debate, is the widespread acceptance of corrupt behavior in the Indian society. We think of corruption as an 'external' problem - something that concerns the behavior of public servants. We don't think for a millisecond, how our actions may be creating the perfect environment for corruption to thrive in the society.

I would like to target the most basic structure of the Indian society - the family. The understanding of the concept of the family varies from person to person, and it is usually clouded by their religious and cultural views. The only type of family that most Indians seem to understand is a man, his wife and their children (patriarchy). The man has a superior status within his family. Women are not only kept subservient in terms of decision-making, but also in terms of food they eat. Even pregnant women eat food after all others have finished meal, seriously jeopardizing their fetus' health - one of the major causes of child malnutrition.

Due to the inferior status of the woman, it is expected that she will bring around dowry at marriage. In some castes, negotiations take place over the amount of dowry. Personally, I have some friends who say that while they don't believe in dowry, they will have to ask for it because their parents would want so. Their mothers' family had paid dowry to their fathers' family and the tradition must continue.

Thus, even the most basic unit of the Indian society - the family itself, is corrupt! If one can beat/burn their wives over dowry, what prevents them from denying basic rights to someone else, for lack of a bribe?

The basic idea behind dowry and bribe is the same - excessive greed and lack of morals.

According to me, first and foremost we need to fix greed in ourselves. Youngsters should challenge the older generation over dowry. The easiest way to defeat patriarchy and eliminate dowry, is love marriages. Any pair (or more) of individuals who share the bond of love, should be allowed to marry.

The other thing that needs to change is how we deal with our housekeepers and other such 'helps'. It is obscenely cruel that we spend more sums of money on eating outside than what we pay them for the entire month. We call them 'servants' reminiscent of the slavery system, where the slaves were required to 'serve' their masters.

Slavery and patriarchy are inter-related, as the status of the 'servants' is even below that of the household women. In ancient societies, a rich man would have a wife and many servants, mostly female, who also played the role of sex slaves.

If you can't deal with your 'servants' in a dignified way, how can you expect the babu to do so with you ? If nothing prevents you from you shouting at, or abusing your household help, what prevents you from doing so at the aam aadmi, the common citizen.

It is this greed and arrogance that is the root cause of the culture of corruption. It is this greed and arrogance that we must shed, if we truly want the anti corruption struggle to succeed.

Jai Hind!

Ramdev and all the drama!

2011-06-05T11:45:00.011+05:30

I am amazed at the level of anti corruption agitation going on in the country. The middle class has a reputation of being self centered, self obsessed, uncaring, corrupt, and completely disinterested in the political affairs of the country. However, with the kind of scandals that rocked the country over the past one year, the middle class has been shaken from its slumber and forced to go out in the streets against the government apathy, and often complicity, in not being able to tackle corruption.

Anna Hazare's anti corruption movement was broad based, supported by the secular civil society and centered around a rational demand - i.e. establishing a Jan Lokpal, whose office would be able to investigate and prosecute corruption amongst the high and mighty. There was some legit criticism to the movement and its demands, inasmuch as the risks associated with the concentration of power, and who gets to be in the Lokpal (politicians are the only people who can claim to be elected even though the middle class despises them). However, all that criticism aside, nobody questioned the impeccable personal integrity of Anna Hazare and that the ultimate aim of the movement was to weed out against corruption. His fast received saturation coverage in the national media, and some in the foreign media even called it "India's Egypt moment". The government obviously relented and proceeded to establish a committee with 50% civil society members, which shall oversee the drafting and enactment of the Jan Lokpal Bill - a unique first in Indian democracy.

So far so good.

Now Ramdev comes along. Sensing the mood of the country, he throws himself into the anti corruption bandwagon, but - here is the bad part - with questionable motivations and ridiculous demands.

While the Jan Lokpal committee is still working on the draft bill, Ramdev has declared an "indefinite fast unto death". His demands? Declaring black money stashed outside to be a national asset, death penalty to the corrupt, and prohibition of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes!

A friend of mine shared this Tehelka article with me, and people with a mature mind may read it and understand how ridiculous this 'Baba' sounds!

First of all - he claims that by bringing back the black money to India, we will become rich! 1 rupee will become equal to 50 dollars!!

No wonder he is uneducated!

The black money stashed outside of India represents the opportunity cost missed had the money been used at a proper time. By bringing it back here, we are just bringing back the currency notes (whether USD, GBP or INR - it's essentially a piece of paper). The industries that could have been set up here long time ago, will still take time to set up. Having 100bn$ to spend or $1 tr to spend doesn't change the fact that India won't be able to become a power surplus nation for at least another decade!

Believing that bringing the black money back to India will solve our nation's problems reflects poorly on the Baba's intellect and understanding of modern economics.

Second - what exactly does the country stand to gain by hanging the corrupt ? The backwardness of the institution of capital punishment being kept aside, it makes no economic sense to hang the corrupt. Death penalty is considered abhorrent by most of the civilized world, and India would open itself to sanctions if it were to violate the human rights of its citizens so brazenly. Death for corruption would make India look like the most regressive nation in the world, and undoubtedly it would be struck down by the Supreme Court if enacted into law.

Third - while I agree that high currency notes assists the corrupt to easily transport money into foreign lands, we mustn't forget that due to high rates of inflation, the value of money decreases. By the time we are able to get rid of Rs 500 notes, its value would have gone to the Rs 100 of today.

The demands made by Ramdev are all superficial to the problem of corruption, and do not strike at the root cause, unlike the Jan Lokpal.

But what does Ramdev care about it? He is just enjoying the free publicity that he is receiving 24X7 on all of the daily news networks. He is using and abusing the good work done by the secular civil society in tackling corruption, by bringing forth his religio fanatic politics. As opposed to Anna Hazare who is a man of austerity, Ramdev owns and controls a yoga mega empire and has even bought a Scottish island. He is a power hungry megalomaniac with an ulterior, yet increasingly evident agenda of converting India into a right wing, theocratic Hindu fundamentalist nation, devoid of any personal freedoms that we take for granted right now. For that, he is willing trample on the human rights of people who do not 'conform' to the notions of morality of the majority by ordering for them capital punishment (or other harsh penalties), such as but not limited to the 'crimes' of adultery, cow slaughter, homosexuality, consumption of alcohol, pre marital sex, etc. He is a dangerous reactionary who wants terrorists and rapists to suffer the death penalty, without for a minute trying to understand the long term consequences of such actions.

Despite all this, I feel he has a right to promote his views, unless he violates any law of the land. His personal liberties are protected by the Magna Carta, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Indian Constitution as well, even though he wishes to destroy the very same document that protects his freedoms. In such a scenario, the Government's action against his protest was highly despicable and even borderline illegal. It smacks of the Emergency era excesses and does nothing more than add fuel to the fire.

It might backfire and turn the Indian middle class further to the right.

As such, I am afraid that he will emerge stronger after having played all this drama.

I am afraid I might witness the rise of a dangerous fanatic of the likes of Adolf Hitler in my lifetime!

I am afraid......... I am properly scared!

A case to watch out for

2010-12-07T22:40:00.006+05:30

While the death penalty in itself is legal in India, the legality of 'mandatory death sentence' is still being debated. As per Indian law, there are two crimes which carry a mandatory death sentence.

1. Murder by a convict undergoing life imprisonment (IPC S.303).
2. Second conviction on drug offenses (Sec-31A NDPS Act).

In 1983, The Supreme Court of India overturned IPC S.303, deeming it to be unconstitutional [1]. Interestingly the NDPS Act was amended to provide for mandatory death only in 1989. However, due to the fact that no harm had been caused (i.e. no one was sentenced to die under the enhanced provisions), there was no cause of action for a legal challenge.

All that changed when in 2008, 2 people were sentenced to execution by courts in Mumbai and Ahmedabad respectively. Now an NGO has challenged the death penalty provisions of the NDPS Act in the Bombay High Court [2].

There are two issues that the court must consider.

1) Does mandatory death penalty violate the Constitution? - The Bombay High Court cannot overlook the 1983 Supreme Court judgment which struck down a similar law. The precedent is strong and fairly straightforward. No legislation can deprive a judge the power to impose a punishment lesser than death. In addition to the 1983 ruling, this law also runs counter to the 1980 ruling that death penalty be imposed only in "rarest of the rare" cases with proper discretion exercised by the judges. Clearly, not every second conviction for drug offenses can be termed "rarest of the rare".

As far as I remember the case of the individual convicted by the Mumbai court, he is a Kashmiri man, who was charged under this section twice for basically the same offense. After being arrested, he cooperated with the police and helped them find another huge consignment of drugs, who then slapped a second case against him. So going by that retard logic (of the police and the judge who convicted him), being caught with a single consignment of (say) 400 kg of heroin gets you a life sentence, but being caught with 2 consignments of 200 kg each can get you executed! This is clearly double jeopardy!!

I am absolutely convinced that the mandatory death penalty provision of this law will be struck down, and the 2 individuals on death row under this law will obtain relief at least to the effect of being heard again on the quantum of their punishment.

2) Does death penalty for a non violent crime violate the Constitution? - It is possible that the High Court judges might not be inclined to rule on this question. Otherwise, as per my opinion, it would be very difficult for them to defend the retention of capital punishment for drug related offenses.

The Union has argued that capital punishment for drug trafficking by law itself is a rare phenomenon. Citing the examples of neighboring countries, where death penalty can be imposed for possession of mere 2gm-25gm of heroin, in India death sentence can be invoked only if a person is caught with more than 1000gms of heroin in a repeat offense [3].

If the court is bold enough to rule against the constitutionality of this practice, then it would have ramifications for other laws as well, which allow for death penalty for crimes not involving murder (such as abetting the suicide of a child or an insane person). A positive ruling from the court could further limit the scope for capital offenses in India, and move the country one step closer to complete abolition!

That would be great!!

Death penalty should be abolished.... except for gays???

2010-11-19T19:35:00.007+05:30

Time and again I have stressed how much I am personally disgusted by the institution of capital punishment.

This sort of barbarism is practiced by fewer and fewer countries year after year, most of which are not liberal democracies. The United States, Japan, Indonesia and India are the only remaining democracies that still vest the State machinery with this abhorrent power to murder people.

Of late, many UN resolutions have sought to bring an end to this practice. These resolutions have twice been affirmed (in 2007 and 2008), after having achieved thumping majority. [1]

Thus it was a matter of utter shock, when this year, a coalition of mainly African and Islamic countries succeeded in overturning an existing resolution that protects LGBT persons, amongst other vulnerable sections, from "extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions". [2]

So it is not okay to arrest, try, sentence and then execute a criminal (say a murderer), but it is okay to summarily apprehend and kill gays??

What branch of logic do these countries subscribe to??

Now, a look at the countries that voted in favor of this amendment.

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

It is not a matter of any surprise that most of these countries are human rights hellholes. But there are a few disappointments.

South Africa is the lone champion of democracy in a broken continent. It has one of the most progressive Constitutions in the world. South Africa also prohibits death penalty for all crimes. Yet unfortunately they voted to support 'African unity', rather than for the principles on which their modern nation is built.

Another major disappointment was Indonesia, which in my opinion is the only real Muslim majority democracy. They are secular too. So in that perspective, their vote was unfortunate.

It is a matter of concern that 75 countries still criminalize consensual same sex relations, and 5 of them consider it to be a capital offense.

I still hope that there will be a day, when every single human being, irrespective of any differentiating factor, is accorded with the same rights and privileges and treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else. I still hope to see such a day in my lifetime!

Arundhati Roy, again!!

2010-10-26T19:58:00.012+05:30

Though I am a self confessed liberal, I must make it clear that I am no fan of Arundhati Roy. In my opinion she is not a defender of human rights, rather merely an attention seeking person. If she were truly a rights activist, then rather than morally supporting the savagery and barbarism of the Maoists, she would have condemned them in the same tenor in which she condemns State atrocities.

She is well known for being outrageously provocative and offensive. Multiple times she has condemned Indian democracy (or the lack of it) in a language that other liberals rarely use. While there is little doubt that Indian democracy has many flaws, I find it worth mentioning that if we weren't a democracy, she would have been imprisoned, or worse executed, a long time ago!

Her recent statements advocating freedom for Kashmir at a forum in Delhi seem to have caught the attention of the media and the masses alike. Such forums are quite common in Kashmir, and have earlier taken place in Delhi as well. Her position as a supporter of Kashmiri freedom is well known.

However given the media eyes this time, the right wing has found an issue to hop on. BJP is calling for her arrest and trial, for making secessionist statements. Even the Central Government has condemned her (a rare event) and is seeking legal advice to see if she can be prosecuted under sedition laws.

In my opinion, Roy is guilty - not of sedition of course, but of stupidity! She is an eminent writer, a world famous personality, and despite my disagreeing personal views, a supporter of human rights in the eyes of many. Why does then she have to, time and again, use ultra left language? In my opinion, ultra left does a great disservice to the left wing movement because it actually sways people towards the right, pretty much the way ultra right drifts people towards the left.

By using such offensive, almost abusive language, she is not encouraging human rights. Rather she is strengthening right-fanatics, who use her speeches as an ammo to further their twisted agenda of creating a dictatorial, Hindu fundamentalist India. She is provoking disgust and contempt from the masses, not only against herself, but also those who genuinely believe in human rights, and wish to create a fairer and a more equal India.

I wished she could choose her words more wisely, and pardon me ultra leftists, more diplomatically!

However, to the BJP and other extremists of India, I would like to say - try to look at her arguments on the Kashmir issue objectively rather than offensively. Can you say that India's record in Kashmir is unblemished? Wouldn't you agree that India has lost its right to govern over Kashmir, given the kind of atrocities and rights violations that it has committed? How would you feel if you were a Kashmiri?

The solution to the Kashmir issue is far too complex for me to be able to comment on, but one thing I am sure about is that India has no God-given divine right to do whatever it wants to do in Kashmir. They are people too!

Kashmir is too important an issue for people to take confrontational positions on. It deserves serious public debate, and raises several fundamental questions, such as right to nationhood, right against injustices, and right to decide one's own future.

Let us use the media attention generated by the Delhi forum to start an honest debate - both at political as well as the social level.

However if the government decides to bow down to the fundamentalist pressure and arrest her, it would show that our nation hasn't yet matured. It would be criminal!

UPA vs NDA - Part I

2010-06-26T05:22:00.012+05:30

The age of a single party (Congress) dominance over the Indian political landscape is now truly over. Ever since I learnt what is a Prime Minister, what is democracy, what the Constitution means, etc, I have never seen anything but a coalition government.

During the transition years from single party's democratic dominance of a multi party India to the coalition system (with well defined blocks), there was a lot of experimentation amongst various parties, and governments fell rather quickly. BJP's Atal Bihari Vajpayee's first term in office was a record low at just 13 days. However, now we can safely say that all parties in India have realized that the coalition system of governance is a democratic reality - and is not a hindrance, but a much needed boost for our democracy.

The following are broadly the coalitions that operate in the Indian political system.

1) UPA (United Progressive Alliance) led by the Congress party. Currently in power. Prime Minister is Manmohan Singh. Chairperson is Sonia Gandhi. It is a coalition of mainly centrist parties.

2) NDA (National Democratic Alliance) led by the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Due to two consecutive defeats, this alliance is much weaker now. NDA's prime ministerial candidate was L K Advani in the past 2 elections. Now, since his retirement, the post is open for grabs, but I see good chances of Sushma Swaraj (Leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha) becoming the first woman PM candidate for the BJP. This is a coalition of mainly right wing parties.

3) So-called third front - it was a miserable attempt by the Communist parties to cobble together a national alternative to the UPA and NDA, by aligning themselves with caste based and religion based parties (speaks volumes about Communist hypocrisy). There is no doubt that the people of India nipped them in the bud, because first and foremost, these parties weren't even in agreement over who their PM candidate was!!

Then there are parties which come under neither of the above.

For my following discussion, I am going to underline the key differences between UPA and NDA. Since this discussion could encompass into multiple domains, I am going to restrict myself to the domain I am most familiar with - human rights. Eventually I will try to research into other policy differences between the UPA and the NDA, and write blog posts to cover them.

1) POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) - The NDA in 2002 organized a special joint session of the Parliament to enact POTA, a mindless law that resulted in severe human rights abuses (suddenly confession before the police became admissible as evidence). Since at that point in time I was young and not as mature in my views as I am now, I had supported this bill then. UPA made it a point in their 2004 election manifesto that repeal of POTA would be their topmost priority. And they kept their promise. POTA was repealed and UAPA was amended instead (minus most of the anti human rights provisions), to give more teeth to India's anti terror efforts.

2) Death penalty - Broadly, the opinions of both UPA and NDA seem to be more or less the same on this issue. Death penalty should be retained and practiced only for the rarest of the rare crimes involving extreme brutality. However, NDA supports expeditious disposal of mercy petitions involving terror cases, while UPA is unwilling to do that. So far UPA had resisted calls to hang Afzal Guru (who I blogged about earlier), but now the UPA has turned the ball in the President's court.

3) Freedom of information laws - NDA first passed the Freedom of Information Act in 2002. However, the law was famously criticized for being dilute, and providing too many exceptions. Consequently it never came into effective force. Later, the UPA passed the Right to Information Act in 2005, which was a landmark law, stronger than similar such laws in even some Western countries, such as Canada (can't give you the link since the article seems to be have expired). However, there have been some voices from within the UPA and pressure from the bureaucracy to dilute some provisions of the law, which due to fierce opposition from rights activists, and Sonia Gandhi personally, have never seen light of the day.

4) Welfare laws - While BJP gets most of its votes from the middle classes, the poor form the largest vote bank for the Congress. Reflective of that, Congress enacted several welfare laws with more in the pipeline - something which the BJP led NDA failed to do. UPA-I passed the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, while the UPA-II passed the Right to Education Act a few months back. Next in the pipeline is the Right to Food Act. These laws not only involve giving a rights based approach to the society's problems, they also create mandatory quality provisions and a system of oversight. It has been estimated that the RtE Act will cost India around $8 billion over the next few years. These laws would have been a total failure, if it were not for the Right to Information Act (this is not to say though that misappropriation of funds under these laws is not taking place).

5) Communal Violence - While the NDA refused to sack BJP's Narendra Modi, who to say the very least, is accused of being a "Nero", sleeping while his state was burning. The Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) had recently questioned Narendra Modi for over 9 hours over his role in the 2002 genocidal riots in Gujarat, a state which he still rules, where as per official records 750+ Muslims and 250+ Hindus died. While Congress too has had its hands soaked in blood (remember 1984?), UPA has slowly been making attempts to make communal rioting a thing of the past. UPA's Sikh Prime Minister Singh had said sorry to the country's Sikh community in the Parliament, for the atrocities committed against them in 1984. More importantly, UPA is preparing a bill to tackle with mass scale communal violence.

6) Social issues - Both coalitions groups can never ignore the fact that India still lives in its villages, where the society is mostly traditional and conservative. But on some issues, UPA has starting to take a positive stance. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was passed in 2005, which even allowed women to stay indefinitely in their husband's / boyfriend's homes by claiming it as shared household, even if they didn't have a legal claim over it. The law also for the first time recognized live in relationships. A law was also passed to protect senior citizens and provide for their maintenance. In 2009, after the Delhi High Court ruled against Section 377 (a British import which institutionalized homophobia in India), the UPA took the progressive stance of not appealing the judgment. The draft surrogacy law (prepared by the ICMR under the express direction of the Health Ministry, which is yet to obtain Cabinet's approval) also recognizes the parental right of all people - single, married couples, and unmarried couples (perhaps same sex couples included) by seeking to have a child through surrogacy. The UPA also modified the passport forms to recognize the third gender (transgenders). To promote the welfare of lower castes and minority groups, the UPA is contemplating creating an Equal Opportunities Commission (yet to take shape). Where was the NDA on all this? Nowhere I suppose.

7) Prevention of state abuse - While the NDA had passed draconian laws such as POTA, UPA in 2008, amended the Cr.P.C (Criminal Procedure Code) divesting the police from the powers of arrest for crimes punishable with less than 7 years in prison, barring exceptional circumstances. This radical progressive change was opposed by the lawyer groups (who are virtually minting money by charging high fees from clients seeking bail, while the poor continue to languish as undertrials) and by several state governments. This amendment was never notified, and a new amendment has been moved by the UPA-II which is a watered down version of the earlier one. The UPA cabinet has also approved a Prevention of Torture Bill, which will impose stiff punishments for the extra judicial methods used by the police, quite often against the poor and the powerless. On the issue of repeal / reform of the AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Act), as yet not much forward movement has been made by the UPA, although I am personally hoping that UPA would be more sincere on this than the NDA.

8) Religious personal laws - While India is a secular state, the Constitution allows for non secular personal laws (marriage, divorce, custody of children, inheritance and maintenance, etc) to co-exist with their secular variants. NDA has always supported Uniform Civil Code (UCC), primarily with the aim to reform Muslim social laws, which at present are very backward in India, even more so than countries like Iran, where for instance if a married man wants to marry another woman, he needs to prove that he is financially capable of supporting her. On the other hand, UPA has left the most backward Muslim laws untouched, while it has further reformed the more progressive Hindu laws. As of 2006, Hindu women (married or otherwise) have absolutely equal rights to inheritance as their male counterparts. As a side effect, unfortunately, this has led to a spike in honour killings.

9) Freedom of speech - Strangely, UPA seems to be more backward on this than the NDA. While the NDA brought in telecom reforms, and barring a few exceptions (Tehelka), did not interfere with the functioning of the media, UPA has continuously tried to gag media. Okay, that might be an overstatement. But, say anything about Sonia Gandhi - and the Congress party will threaten to sue you for defamation. Want to show some superstitious activity on national television? Get a notice. Are you showing women topless (FTV)? You are banned for 10 days! UPA even tried to bring in a bill which could have impacted media freedom (esp at the hands of a dictatorial regime), but after a national outcry - particularly by the media companies, this proposal was withdrawn.

This conclude my analysis of where do UPA and NDA stand on various issues relating to human rights. According to me the score UPA vs NDA is 6.5 to 1.5. NDA gets 1 point for freedom of speech and 0.5 point for trying to bring in UCC, whereas UPA gets points for all of the above except freedom of speech and the death penalty and I subtracted 0.5 point for not doing anything about the UCC.

And it is for this reason, that I would continue supporting the ruling UPA. Go UPA go!!

Don't kill this man - part 2

2010-06-23T22:08:00.004+05:30

Those who have followed my blog since the beginning, would remember well that my very first blog post was titled "Don't kill this man". Practically nothing disgusts me more than injustices committed by the State, and within that I hate the institution of death penalty the most. If you haven't read my first post, I would highly recommend it. [1]

Of the countries that still retain and practice the death penalty, perhaps only USA, Japan, India and Indonesia are secular democracies. In most other countries, death penalty is applicable for purely harmless acts as well. For example, in North Korea you if you make an international phone call, you risk being shot dead before a stadium full of 150,000 people [2]. Don't ever visit Saudi Arabia if you practice astrology, because they will sentence you to beheading even if you were practicing "sorcery" in your home country, where it is perfectly legal [3]. Are you gay? Sorry, you must be thrown off the cliff if you are in Saudi Arabia [4], or be hanged publicly if you are in Iran [5]. Don't ever dare to commit heresy, blasphemy or apostasy against Islam in an Islamic country. The punishment most severe and torturous is reserved for adultery and prostitution. Death by stoning is sanctioned for such 'crimes', and the stones are carefully chosen - they should not be so big so as to cause instantaneous death, and should not be so small that they don't lead to death at all.

When it comes to India, most people seem to be self congratulatory that India is not so "uncivilized". Making international calls, practicing astrology, being gay or lesbian, heresy and apostasy are all perfectly legal here. Blasphemy that does not "hurt a community's feelings" or "encourage hate" is also legal. Adultery and prostitution are hardly considered criminal acts anymore, and sex workers are politically well organized in the states of Delhi, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka [6][7].

So then what is the problem?

The problem is that even though India prefers to call itself the largest democracy of the world, it is common knowledge how unfair the "system" is. India says that its criminal justice system is free and fair, but in reality it is neither. Today's headlines was dominated by the news that the Home Ministry has requested the President to reject the mercy petition of Mohammad Afzal Guru, condemned for allegedly playing a role in the 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament.

Afzal Guru's trial is in itself a mockery of the principles of criminal justice and the Indian Constitution. On December 12, 2001 PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned of an imminent terror strike. The next day, it happened! 5 men entered into the Parliament complex, exploding bombs and shooting at random. While surprisingly no politician was hurt even a bit, several security men died. The nation was shocked. There were cries for revenge. Army was mobilized over the next few months, and risks of a nuclear subcontinental war remained high.

The cases was "cracked" within a few days with the arrest of S A R Geelani, a professor of Arabic at the Delhi University, former surrendered Kashmiri militant Afzal Guru, his cousin Shaukat Hussain Guru, and Shaukat’s wife Afsan Guru. India's notoriously slow judiciary convicted all the four within 1 year from the attack, giving 5 years to Afsan Guru and death to the other three. Upon appeal, Afsan and Geelani were acquitted, Shaukat's death sentence was modified to 10 years in prison, while Afzal's death sentence was upheld.

Time and again, various human rights groups from India, Kashmir and elsewhere have expressed serious reservations about the fairness of the trial in this particular case. For starters, Afzal Guru did not have a lawyer at the court of first instance, i.e. the sessions court. He was appointed a lawyer by the court (who was not from the list of four that Afzal had asked the judge for).

The biggest travesty of justice in this case is that the lawyer arranged by the court was highly biased. He did not visit Guru even once during the trial! He did not challenge anything during the procedure of recording of evidence, and thus damaged Guru's chances of seeking an acquittal even on appeal (as the appeal courts use the same evidence to arrive at a decision).

While much of the evidence put forward by the Delhi Police was rejected by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, with severe strictures against them for faking evidence, no action was directed against them by either. Delhi Police too did not conduct any internal inquiry on the charges proven against them in the courts. The very fact that Geelani's and Afsan's convictions were thrown out on appeal indicates that - a) Delhi Police conducted a shady investigation and faked evidence, b) the proceedings at the trial court were highly flawed.

In any civilized democracy, a retrial would have immediately been ordered once it became clear in the court that the police had faked arrest memos, telephone conversations, and had illegally detained people. The Supreme Court had even rejected Afzal Guru's confession as being "unreliable".

Yet instead of removing doubts over the fairness of the trial, the Supreme Court operated on a lynch mob mentality, provoked by the slander campaign run against him in the media, which served as a media trial. The apex court wrote that the collective conscience of the society requires for Afzal Guru's life to be extinguished. To them it did not matter that Guru's conviction was based on purely circumstantial evidence. What mattered more, was the public image built around Afzal Guru, that he was a dangerous terrorist, who should be killed without any delay. The Supreme Court also did not order any investigation into the allegations made by Afzal Guru, on the role played by the STF (apparently the STF had asked Guru to escort Mohammad, one of the gunmen who was killed, to Delhi and arrange for his stay there).

With such serious concerns having been raised at the quality of his defense and the fairness of the trial proceedings, rather than hanging Afzal Guru, India should arrange for an open and fair retrial. Nothing prevents the judiciary from arriving at the same conclusion, but to take away an innocent person's life on mere hearsay and lynch mentality, would be the most damaging. It would not only leave a permanent scar on Guru' family and friends, but also on the Indian Constitution itself.

PS: For more information, please refer to [8], [9] and [10]. I too at one point in time used to think that unnecessary noises are being raised against his conviction, which do not deem any consideration, but upon researching a little independently I am increasingly convinced that Afzal Guru's trial violated all domestic and international norms.

(Dis)honourable killings

2010-05-13T19:29:00.005+05:30

In the 1950s all Western 'pundits' thought that India was a crazy idea! You heard me right. They used to think that India is an 'artificially created country' which would easily disintegrate into many smaller nations within a decade. How could a country exist with such a mindboggling diversity??

Despite obvious pressures from some small ethnic groups for independence, this prophesy was never fulfilled. The Indian Constitution - which was a result of 3 years of hard work - encapsulates some of the contradictions of India. It establishes a multi tier governance system, and allows high degree of autonomy to various ethnic groups, especially in matters of social customs, language and culture. [1]

It is because of this diversity, that actress Shabana Azmi refers to India as a country which lives in "several different centuries at the same time". It is because of this diversity, that India, despite having a very forward looking Constitution, has refrained from implementing the words of its founding fathers, in the most socially backward regions of India.

However, things change with time. India is not what it was 60 years ago. Economic liberalization and globalization has allowed a gigantic increase in personal disposable incomes. Very high rates of population growth in the 1980s means that 50% of the population now is below 25. An explosive growth in media, including print, TV and internet has made the young ones most aware of the world around them. This cocktail of factors has substantially changed the Indian society as we know it today - making it considerably more open than it was 20, or even 10 years ago!

But what about areas that still live in backward times? 16th century? 10th century?

Well naturally, society in those areas is facing pressures from all sides. The young and the rebellious want personal freedoms. Uneducated and ill-educated elders want to deny them that privilege. As a result, the conditions there have turned deadly.

Take Haryana for instance. Haryana's 2000 year old traditions do not allow marriage between almost any 2 people. Marrying outside your caste is out of the question. Even within your own caste, you can't marry someone of the same gotra (sub-caste) or from the same village. Dare break these laws, and you can be sentenced to death, by these illegal khap panchayats (caste councils).

Quite obviously, these ridiculous rules mean little to the Generation X and Y, which have grown up on MTV, FTV and Channel V.

But the terror of the Khaps is so dominant, that no politician in Haryana dares to speak against them. Such councils also command support in parts of western Uttar Pradesh and parts of northern Rajasthan. Deeds similar to those of the Khaps are also practiced by certain Sikh castes in Punjab.

Speaking personally, one of my (Haryanvi) uncles does believe in honour killings. He is not a blood relative though.

In such a situation, an official court in Haryana sentenced 5 men to death and 1 to life in connection with a 2007 honour killing. All the condemned are relatives of the girl, who married a boy from the same sub-caste. Both were killed. The boy's mother still lives in the fear of the Khaps, and faces social boycott, for having spoken out against the Khap menace. Over a dozen police have been deployed by the state to protect her and her family.

While I obviously disagree with the death penalty, but that aside the message from the Karnal sessions judge seems to have been - you executed 2 people who brought 'dishonour' to your community, but in doing so you have brought dishonour to our Constitution, and thus I am sentencing you to the same punishment - execution.

Unfortunately, rather than change their view of thinking, the Khaps have risen up in revolt. Revolt not against the Indian state, but against the Indian Constitution itself!

They are demanding a legal ban on marriages between people of the same gotra and different castes. Due to compulsions of electoral politics, not a single political leader in Haryana is speaking out against them!

If Haryana were a separate country, they might have had their wishes fulfilled within the bat of an eyelid. But unfortunately for them, Haryana is still a part of the Republic of India.

The fact of the matter is, that their wishes will never become true. Here is why:

1) Haryana makes up only 2.5% of India's population. Even adding up Punjab, parts of Rajasthan and parts of west UP would make it 10-12%. Rest of India would never agree to such a backward law.

2) The official state policy in all those states (and in fact the entire country), is to encourage inter-caste marriages. UP's Dalit Chief Minister encourages inter-caste and inter-religion marriages with cash prizes. So does Haryana. And many other Indian states.

3) Even assuming that the state authorities in Haryana decide to radically shift their policy - from encouraging to banning such marriages - they need to keep in mind, that the Hindu Marriage Act is a central law, and that laws passed by the Parliament have supremacy over laws passed by the states on concurrent matters.

4) The only way Haryana can ban such marriages, is if Parliament approves such an exception for that state. Considering that most of the rest of India does not share their barbaric beliefs, and considering that low-castes form a very strong voting bloc, it is very unlikely that such an exception would be allowed.

5) For a moment assuming that the Parliament allows Haryana to amend the Hindu Marriage Act (within its state jurisdiction), the courts can still find it unconstitutional.

6) Supposing if the courts do find these amendments constitutionally valid, any inter-caste or intra-gotra couple can still marry under the Special Marriage Act. [2]

7) In the rare circumstance that Haryana is allowed (by the Parliament and the courts) to repeal the Special Marriage Act as well, any couple in love can go outside of Haryana, get their marriage solemnized, and then return and have their marriage recognized back.

8) And finally, it would be impossible for Haryana to impose actual criminal penalties against such 'forbidden marriages'. While non-secular personal laws are allowed, criminal laws have to be secular (as per the Constitution). One mustn't forget that the Constitution does not allow violation of personal liberties or discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, religion or sex, as was made clear by the Delhi High Court judgment that decriminalized homosexuality.

According to me, the Khaps are fighting a losing battle. Unless they want Haryana to secede (which the Indian Constitution again does not allow), their dreams will remain just that - dreams.

As for those Indians who do not believe in the Khap terror and/or in their ridiculous customs, you need not worry too much. India has seen far worse things. Proving all skeptics wrong, India has not only survived, but thrived over the past 60 years. We will overcome this menace as well, although it could take some time. Thousand year old customs don't die off so soon.

How Kasab attacked the very foundations of India itself!

2010-05-07T20:36:00.009+05:30

Many Indians, and even foreigners were shocked at seeing the events of 26/11/2008 unfold. 10 Pakistani nationals, trained to be terrorists by Lashkar-e-Taiba group, attacked the financial capital of India. They wreaked havoc in Mumbai over the next 3 days. Many people died in one of the worst incidents of urban violence in this century. This was an act of war!

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on your perspective), one young boy failed in his mission. He was caught alive by the police. The policeman who caught him and didn't let go of him, was shot several times by Ajmal Amir Kasab, and was martyred!

Kasab's capture was the lone achievement of the Indian security forces, who were otherwise proven to have ridiculously failed in protecting citizens' lives.

Of course what Kasab did was a crime against humanity, and there is no attempt on my part to downplay the significance of his crimes. I am however, trying to look at his crimes from another angle, in this blog post. I am looking at the aspect which has been ignored in this debate. I am concerned about the impact of his crimes on the Indian psyche - in particular, on the question of the death penalty.

One must congratulate the successive Indian Governments and appreciate the fact that they have shown incredible restraint on the use of the death penalty. As per official statistics, India has executed only 55 people since 1947. That is disputed because other documents obtained through the Right to Information Act seem to suggest that over a thousand people were put to death in the decade 1951-60 itself. The Central Government is not very sure of the correct figures, since records from the decades immediately after independence were not very well preserved, and not all cases made it up to the higher courts.

But nobody can dispute the fact that despite enjoying overwhelming support, death penalty has been on a decline in India. Perhaps deliberately, Indian bureaucracy has shown reluctance in approving executions and even appointing executioners. As of now, this country of over 1 billion people does not have even a single hangman, and has executed only 1 person in the past 15 years. This happens to be the lowest execution rate from amongst the countries which retain capital punishment. Killers of Rajiv Gandhi (1991) and attackers of Parliament (2001) remain on death row, and are unlikely to be executed any time soon.

I believe that there are 2 reasons why India is drifting away from capital punishment - one, is the global movement spearheaded by NGOs like Amnesty. Second reason, in my opinion, is the emphasis of the Indian origin religions (such as Hinduism and Buddhism) on forgiveness.

There is never enough appreciation of the fact that Hinduism prescribes neither death by stoning, nor death by burning at the stake, or hanging, drawing and quartering. Death penalty has been practiced by Hindu kings, but it was rarely seen as an act of revenge. While the Islamic jurisprudence is strict on offenders (murderers can only be spared the death penalty if their victims' family agrees), Hinduism places more importance on reforming the sinner. Hindu mythology talks about the famous story of Sage Valmiki who was once a dreaded dacoit and murderer. One day when Sage Narad visited Valiya Bheel (as Valmiki was known then) on the orders of his father Lord Brahma, he was able to convince him to shed the path of sin and turn to righteousness. Quite similarly, Lord Gautam Buddha visited Angulimaal (the dreaded dacoit-murderer who would cut off 1 finger from each of his victims, and then make a necklace out of it), reformed him and then changed his life forever. [1]

The Indian Government last tested the waters on the issue of death penalty in 2004, when the then President Abdul Kalam approved the hanging of Dhanonjoy Chatterjee. Dhanonjoy was convicted of rape and murder of a 14 year old girl, and since the Supreme Court believed the murder was quite brutal, it awarded him the sentence of death. I believe the only reason why Dhanonjoy's hanging was allowed, was because the government wanted to determine if it could execute the more dreaded terrorists. The reaction to the execution was on the whole positive, but the voices of dissent were far too many to be ignored. Many people gathered outside the jail to oppose the execution, and multiple ambulances and police vans were parked outside the home of Dhanonjoy's family 24X7 as the nervous government wanted to avoid any negative reaction (particularly since suicide had been threatened). [2][3]

After 2004, for a while it seemed as if the country was moving steadfastly against capital punishment. The UPA Government had even refused to expedite the hanging of the Parliament attack convict Mohd. Afzal Guru (presumably, to avoid negative reaction in Kashmir). The Supreme Court has been continuously narrowing the interpretation of "rarest of the rare" cases, where it is legal for a convict to be put to death. The deliberate bureaucratic apathy to the death row convicts has meant that most have been effectively commuted to life. And even the public opinion was changing, and moving against the death penalty.

However, all that changed with the Mumbai attacks.

The sheer brutality of Mumbai attacks has convinced millions of Indians, that while it may be acceptable for ordinary criminals to receive the life sentence instead of death for crimes such as murder, on the other hand terrorists are to be treated on a different footing. Not only should they have an option of receiving the highest punishment, but also must have their entire legal process (appeals) and bureaucratic process (mercy pleas) expedited. It has turned the tide so strongly in favour of the death penalty in India, that any enlightened future government would not find it easy to do away with this provision of criminal law. The attacks which were reported live on television, shook public conscience to such an extent, that people find it okay to even think that Kasab should have been stripped of his normal civil rights of free and fair trial, right to legal representation, right to appeals and right to mercy pleas, and that he should have been hanged immediately after the attacks. Many want him to be stoned to death, killed with a bullet dipped in pig's blood, hanged publicly at the Gateway of India monument, or tortured to death.

It seems that Mumbai attacks has let loose the animal out off us. It makes us look like our country is full of ignorant bigots. We are giving the impression to the world that we are an uncivilized culture, unworthy of being called a liberal democracy. It highlights our ugly, revengeful, blood thirsty face, which is way too different from the compassionate, forgiving values that our ancient ancestors and also our father of the Nation taught us.

It is for this reason, that I loathe Kasab even more.

The impact of civilizing isolated tribes

2010-04-17T21:13:00.008+05:30

I toured Andamans Islands last week. Must say, the Islands are heaven on Earth (or atleast the Indian portion of Earth).

Originally Andaman and Nicobar Islands were dominated by various indigenous tribespeople, who had migrated millenia ago from Africa. Now, at least Andamans is distinctly Indian. You can easily find churches, mosques, temples and gurudwaras often side by side. Road traffic is as bad there as anywhere else in India. Hindi is well understood, though the settlers are mainly Tamilians, Telugus, Oriyas and Bengalis. The Veer Savarkar airport sucks (just like most other Indian airports). The Nano car can be seen there (though Sumo is the most common). In other words, if you were to suddenly find yourself transported to an A&N market, you wouldn't even notice that you are more than 1000 kilometres away from the mainland.

Even though settlers clearly outnumber the indigenous tribals now, the tribals do exist in pretty big numbers in Nicobar. The Nicobarese tribals have "embraced civilization" (borrowing from the language used at the Navy museum) and as a result their population is stable at several tens of thousands. Due to the fact that a large number of tribals live there, Nicobar is off limits to the casual tourist. You need to apply for a permit.

Andamans though is a different story. Indians don't require any permit, and the restricted area permit is available to foreigners on arrival at the airport. The number of tribals has reduced drastically and some tribes have vanished (you heard it right - they are EXTINCT). There are many different tribal groups all over Andamans and the numbers of all of them has always been in a downfall since the British military expeditions.

One might wonder why these tribals are still threatened after Indian independence. The answer lies in their biology as well as sociology. Because of the fact that they have been living isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years, their immune systems are not resistant to common diseases that mainlanders bring with them. Add to the fact that they tend to rely on their own local medicinal knowledge (which obviously has no cure for measles, since that is a new disease for them) rather than on the current scientific knowledge in this field.

The impact of civilizational contact with the indigenous Jarawa tribespeople has been nothing short of catastrophic. It makes me so sad and angry!

Originally the Jarawas were very hostile people. Up until the 1990s they would raid settler villages, plunder and kill, and then leave back for the forests. There was no point in talking to them because nobody knew the Jarawa language. So the government and the settlers tried to buy peace! Literally!

The Jarawas who didn't wear anything, were gifted with clothes, food, booze, tobacco, and other such items. Government parties would sail to the Jarawa seas, leave the gifts, wait for the Jarawas to arrive, and then quickly leave (make sure they were seen).

Eventually the Jarawas relented.

Fast forward to 15 years later. The Jarawas suffer regular measles outbreaks. Their numbers are not very inspiring - only 400 or so left. Many of them are addicted to tobacco and alcohol (which probably they didn't even know were harmful when they accepted these items as gifts). On the GT Road that passes through the Jarawa territory, they can be seen begging for gifts. Even our own driver gifted them paan (I don't know if that was laced with tobacco or not). These are all clear violations of the Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation, 1956 and also anti begging laws.

No attempt has been made to even understand the Jarawa language, forget about the impact of their newfound love for gifts that they receive from the settlers. They don't even know that in real life, one has to pay for these items. You can hear many stories of the Jarawas showing themselves at village shops and demanding expensive items (the government ends up making payments for whatever items they "buy"). What will happen now if you stop gifting them all this stuff? The government is just too happy maintaining status quo so long as the Jarawas don't turn to violence again. That the Jarawa society has collapsed and their forest dwelling society has now degraded to a begging lifestyle creates no shock or sorrow in the hearts of the government babus.

Some reparative steps have been taken though. Extensions to this road have been prohibited by a Supreme Court directive. The government also regulates traffic on the road. You can pass through the road only at specific times in a day (which I think is crazy and useless, and also highly incovenient for settlers and tourists).

The impact of introducing civilization on the Jarawa tribespeople is all too known. Here is what I think can be done in order to contain the damage:

1) Prohibit liquor, tobacco and other intoxicating substances in A&N territory (or at least ban travellers from carrying these substances while passing through Jarawa territory).

2) Rather than regulating traffic at the entry and exit points on the road, ensure that travellers have no contact with the Jarawas. No gifts and photography is allowed as per the law, ensure that these regulations are being followed. If needed, send police patrol parties alongside other vehicles to monitor their activities.

3) Use the help of anthropologists to help understand Jarawa language, culture and religion and assess the impact of gifts on their social system.

4) If you do want to civilize and integrated Jarawas, do so wholeheartedly and fully now. Opening hospitals in the Jarawa land would help. Do not treat them like a dependent population. Treat them with respect and equal rights.

While the clock cannot be turned back on the Jarawas, thankfully the government in its right mind has abandoned attempts to civilize the Sentinelese (another Andamans tribe), although only after suffering casualties. Sentinelese, like Jarawas of the yesteryears, are extremely hostile to those who come into contact with them. Even an airforce chopper sent in to examine the impact of the South Asian tsunami on their tribe, came under fire. Fishermen are prohibitted by law from straying near the Sentinel territory, and those who violate the law are often not even left alive to be prosecuted by the State. In short the 50-400 odd Sentinelese are a de-facto autonomous state on the North Sentinel Island. The experience of civilizing the Jarawas is just too enormous to allow for another misadventure.

Top Five Myths about Maoism

2010-04-06T19:42:00.006+05:30

Unfortunately, many people in India seem to justify and idolize Maoists as revolutionaries. They tend to ignore the cruel face, the dark underbelly of these rebels.

Through this blog, I am trying to expose some of the myths regarding Maoism.

Maoists follow Gandhi

Sorry what?? According to Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy, Maoists are "Gandhians with guns".

This paranoid lady has a right to have her opinion. She supports Maoists, well her problem. She decides to meet them in the jungles,... well again I am not bothered as long as her actions aren't harming our internal security directly.

But with these kinds of comments she has clearly proven how delusional she is. To quote writer Talveen Singh, Roy's comments (with regard to Mumbai attacks) were "the latest of her series of hysterical diatribes against India and all things Indian".

So Mrs. Roy, can you tell us if Gandhi supports killing of dogs (or humans for that matter)?? [1][2][3]

Does Gandhi approve of sexual violence? [4][5][6]

Does Gandhi approve of attacking and killing election officials? [7][8][9]

Does Gandhi approve of blowing up schools? [10][11]

Does Gandhi approve of blowing up railway tracks, hijacking passenger trains and also derailing them with the intention to kill people? [12][13]

In my opinion, comparing these people to a saint like Gandhi is at least a tad bit offensive.

Maoists are fighting against upper caste domination

..... by killing lower caste and the tribes people??

How?? Can somebody explain it to me, like I am a 6 year old??

The incidents speak for themselves. [14][15][16][17], etc etc etc etc.

Maoists enjoy popular support

Then I suppose all these oppressed people must be supporting Maoists, is it?? [18][19]

The Maoists claim to be representing the tribals. While I loathe the concept of the Salwa Judum (which is a militia to fight against another militia), I cannot fathom why so many tribal groups joined the SJ against the maoists, if the maoists were in fact so good to them??

Maoists are fighting for the human rights of the adivasis (tribals)

This must be the biggest joke of the century!!

Come on. Do you really think destroying their schools would advance their human rights?? Cash strapped Indian Government has worked hard to ensure that more and more children are attending schools. The number of out of school children has declined from 20 million in 2003 to 8 million now. A majority of these 8 million are children caught in this war between the government and the Maoists.

Why don't the Maoists leave these children alone?? Why do they blow up the much needed railway tracks and roads?? How do they think that women in labour pains can be transported to the hospitals?? Bullock carts??

The sad reality is that they want the people under their grip to remain uneducated and underdeveloped in the name of 'preserving tribal way of life', so that they can have a free run!!

Had they been the leaders of a certain religious group, they would have easily been the most condemned group all over India. But thankfully for them, many of them are atheists and hence above criticism.

Maoists have the support of the intelligentsia

Well that depends on how you define the term 'intelligentsia'. If you think that Arundhati Roy is intelligent, you are free to. But what bizarre logic does she subscribe to, which makes her link the happenings in Kashmir with Mumbai attacks??

What is happening in Kashmir is beyond doubt very contentious. A majority of the Kashmiri communities (most Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Shia Muslims) support a merger with India over Pakistan. However, a majority of Kashmir's population (most Sunni Muslims) support a merger with Pakistan over India. The story of Kashmir is definitely a heartbreaking one. In 1947, when Kashmir's Hindu king wanted his country to remain sovereign, Pakistan sent in its militias. Then again, in early 1990s during the height of discontent against India, Pakistan sent in its jihadi missionaries. 5000 minorities and pro India Muslims were slaughtered. As a result 0.5 million Kashmiri Pandits left Kashmir and became internal refugees elsewhere.

Of course that doesn't justify India's extreme actions in Kashmir (including killings of innocent civilians), but we always hear a one side version of the story both in India, as well as abroad. Only the government is held responsible, and not the terrorists. Not a single tear is shed for the Hindu victims, as that would go against the global ultra left movement (which in a nutshell, condemns governments, and the majority community.... irrespective of the country).

Coming back to the main issue, I mentioned this point only to expose Roy's lack of intelligence. Let us suppose that India has been extraordinary cruel to Kashmir. Let us suppose that Kashmir is hell on Earth and not a single Kashmiri is ready for reconciliation. Even in such a scenario, please do not forget that the people who attacked Mumbai on 26 Nov 2008, were in fact, all Pakistanis. Not a single Kashmiri.

So why on Earth would Pakistanis attack us?? Are we oppressing ordinary Pakistanis also?? Have we made their lives hell just as we have made Kashmir a 'living hell'??

Only a bizarre logic would connect Kashmir's supposed suppression to the terrorist events in India.

And therefore, a person who subscribes to this bizarre logic, can not in any way be called 'intelligent'.

It is only foolish anarchists like Arundhati Roy who find it fashionable to romanticize these rebels and call them 'comrades', 'Gandhians', 'libertarians' and 'revolutionaries', in turn encouraging them to kill even more. Most of the sane, civilized world can however, only express our sorrows to the victims of this unending violence.

We would want the government to be truly just and compassionate to the problems of the tribals, once they are done tackling these bandits.

Poor Balakrishnan!

2010-03-29T22:46:00.004+05:30

I really have a soft spot for our current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - Justice Balakrishnan. My disagreements with him kept aside (esp on the need for SC judges to be transparent), I really can't understand why people hate him so much.

The elite upper middle and upper class oppose his rulings on the legality of quotas (whether OBC quota, or the provisional backing to quota for backward Muslim groups in AP). I mean, come on guys!! What has he done that you curse him so much! He is the first Dalit CJ and that tends to make people think that he has a 'Dalit agenda'. It is so sad that people without even going into the arguments that he makes, presumptively declare him to be biased and then curse him using some of the worst adjectives ever imaginable. That is totally uncalled for. He is our CJ goddammit. Have some respect!

The Hindu groups are protesting his references to Radha and Krishna as a 'live-in' couple. What is so wrong with that?? Radha and Krishna were indeed a live in couple (though more so in a spiritual context than a sexual one). Balakrishnan is merely stating the facts. He has not cooked up this hypothesis himself.

Even the so-called liberal and the feminist groups have a problem with him. Care to ask what has he done to offend them?? Well apparently he has said the following:

Due regard must be given to their personal autonomy since in some cases the victim may choose to marry the perpetrator or choose to give birth to a child conceived through forced intercourse.

Sorry, what??

The thing is that due to the way the society operates in India, in many a rape cases (esp from the rural backward areas) a rape victim might think that her interests are best served if she marries her rapist. That line of thinking is unfortunate, no doubt about that. But it is also a reality.

But what exactly did Balakrishnan say??

Well read the below key words again.

Due regard must be given to ... personal autonomy ...

What is your problem people?? If a woman has the right to visit a bar, she sure has a right to decide whom to marry. Why this paternalistic notion that she should not be anywhere near her molester??

Some people have called this an unfortunate remark because now rapists might offer bribes to their rape victims, in an effort to get lesser punishment.

I reckon that that could happen. But nothing is preventing courts from awarding civil damages. You can order the rapist to periodically deposit an agreed amount in his victim's bank amount every month. You can put him on a probation. You can ask him to do a fixed number of hours of social service. You don't necessarily have to throw an offender (whose victim has apparently forgiven him due to xyz reasons) behind bars, especially when your prisons are overcrowded and when it could take years of court hearings to actually get a conviction (or an acquittal).

People need to think from the point of the view of the woman who has been wronged (raped). She does not necessarily want her abuser in jail. She has her very basic needs (roti, kapda and makaan). She does not want to get raped a second time (in the courts; by defending lawyers). She wants to stay low and does not want any media attention.

In short, she is just an ordinary woman living her life, without a feminist agenda. Radical feminists need to understand that and not make her a guinea pig by forcing an agenda down her throat. Don't play power politics on her back. Don't try to lecture her about what is good for her and what is bad. She is the best JUDGE! Let her lead her life the way she CHOOSES to.

This country is going to the cats, dogs, chickens...

2009-07-26T22:15:00.007+05:30

On July 2, 2009, the High Court of New Delhi created history of sorts when it overturned a 148 year old law which criminalized what it referred to as an act of "unnatural sex". Over the past century, various courts had interpreted the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code differently. Initially it was used only to prosecute coitus per anus (anal intercourse), but later coitus per os (oral sex) and mutual masturbation were also included within the definition of the said act.

The court has held the law as a violation of several articles of our Constitution - Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (right to non discrimination) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty). The court has virtually rejected every argument put up by the religious anti-gay groups as well as the government . The judges have said that, "There is almost unanimous medical and psychiatric opinion that homosexuality is not a disease or a disorder and is just another expression of human sexuality". The court has also rubbished the public morality argument put forward in favour of retention of the law, saying "Popular morality, as distinct from a constitutional morality derived from constitutional values, is based on shifting and subjecting notions of right and wrong. If there is any type of 'morality' that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be 'constitutional' morality and not public morality".

The court has also extended constitutional protections of equality and non discrimination to the LGBT population by holding that, "The purpose underlying the fundamental right against sex discrimination is to prevent behaviour that treats people differently for reason of not being in conformity with generalization concerning 'normal' or 'natural' gender roles..... We hold that sexual orientation is a ground analogous to sex and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted by Article 15". The court also made a fascinating observation about the concept of fundamental rights in general, "Fundamental human rights belong to individuals simply by virtue of their humanity... A Bill of Rights does not 'confer' fundamental human rights. It confirms their existence and accords them protection".

Quite surprisingly, this judgment has done the unthinkable - uniting all religious activists! Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain and Buddhist leaders have variously called homosexuality as "unnatural", "un Manly", "un Godly", "un Indian", "sin" etc and have asked the government to appeal against the verdict.

A Hindu astrologer Sushil Kumar Kaushal has appealed to the Supreme Court and has said primarily two things - "even animals don't indulge in gay sex", and "tomorrow people might start demanding sex with animals". Baba Ramdev has also appealed calling homosexuality as a disease which can be cured by yoga.

Well the first argument of Sushil Kumar is clearly wrong. There exists tonnes and tonnes of documentation regarding existence of homosexuality in animals. Now we are certainly not arresting gay animals, are we??

Baba Ramdev's understanding of homosexuality is also rather juvenile. Medical practitioners all over the world working in the fields of pyschiatry and psychology have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease. Even so, let us assume jor a second that it is a disease. If so, then tell me, which country criminalizes diseases??

Coming to Sushil Kumar's second argument now. Gays will protest a comparison with zoophilia (bestiality) by saying that "animals can't consent to sex". Similarly, a minor's consent is not a legally valid consent and hence an act of homosexuality is differed from an act of bestiality or paedophilia on that count.

There is, however, one more counter to Suresh's second argument. Gay sex is seen as unnatural by many, because of the "inappropriate usage of human organs". Similarly bestiality is a non-conformist sexual behaviour which involves crossing the species barrier and is therefore seen as unnatural (in the biblical times, "natural" meant "customary" and "unnatural" meant "uncustomary"). Lets not take sides over whether an act of gay sex is unnatural or not. Rather, lets ask ourselves, "are we all behaving in a truly natural way?".

If we truly look at the definition of the "natural", I think we all are "unnatural". Starting with clothes to ear rings, cars, aeroplanes,... everything is unnatural. Marriage itself is an unnatural construct imposed by the society, invented to maintain a certain sense of order amongst its members. It is often argued, that non vegetarianism is unnatural. The human body is simply not suited to eat cats, dogs, chickens, etc.

I can hold an opinion that eating cats, dogs, chickens etc is just another form of perverted behavior as is having sex with them. Probably even worse, since the former involves rearing the animals in a closed cage right from their birth to their death! (Nature didn't intend us to captivate the animals, did it?? If you have the balls, why not go hunt them in the wild yourself??) But to make a law out of my beliefs, violating the fundamental rights of millions of people, would be an act of injustice and inhumanity (by the way, the concepts of justice and equality are also unnatural -- in the real natural world, it is "survival of the fittest")

The truth of the matter is, that the entire human civilization is "unnatural". Homosexual relations as a sexual / psychological orientation are just about as unnatural as heterosexual relations (marriages) are. And about religious people opposing homosexuality, well weren't they the same people burning the heretics, widows, witches, and raping and killing - all in the name of God?

I had only dreamt of the day when religions of the world could unite and stop fighting. Seeing that happening now, and realizing how dangerous this union can actually be, I am only able to conclude - this country is going to the cats, dogs, and chickens!!

Why I am an agnostic..

2009-05-01T02:58:00.009+05:30

I was born to a Hindu family in New Delhi, India. I don't consider that as an achievement. Brahmaji didn't ask me if I wished to be born in a Hindu family or a Muslim family, to an Indian couple or a British couple, or like. For that matter, I don't even remember being asked if I wished to be born!!!

Therefore, I don't see why I should believe in Hinduism over all other religions. I don't really see why I should copy my belief system from either my father or my mother. I'd rather be agnostic and tolerate all points of views, than be a demonistic theist and believe that God is going to be really cruel on those who reject him.

Man is an intelligent species, and has since earliest known history, been very curious. He was mystified by many of the unexplainable natural phenomenon around him. He couldn't understand, why would sun always rise from the East? Why would stars form constellations? Why would the wind blow? Why would the lightning strike?

He had no answers to them at all.

But he had to satisfy his thirst. His desperation for answers. So he invented them. Sun became a God, who would travel in chariot above the skies and spread light. Stars and constellations were explained as Godly patterns too. Wind became another God, while lightning became the chief weapon of the king of Gods.

These mythological imaginations were very good for a long time, for man to explain things. But as civilization expanded, as tribes came into contact with other tribes, the concept of God became even more sophisticated, and - pardon me - cruel.

Greek Mythology talks of the famous cosmic war between Titan Gods, and their descendants - the Olympian Gods. The younger Olympian Gods replaced the Titans, and punished their males for their defeat. Atlas was asked to "lift" the Earth, while the more dangerous Kronos was banished to the Tartarus.

If I hadn't told you that this was from the Greek Mythology, you would have probably thought that this is some American fiction, such as the Star Wars series. It doesn't matter that the Greeks actually believed that this war was real.

The Greek religion is now defunct, and instead there are a plethora of other religions practiced by the various human beings of this planet. All the religions have one thing in common - the concept of divine punishment. (No, not the concept of God --- Buddhists don't believe in God)

The concept of divine punishment is an extraordinary one. It has been successfully used over the millenia, to control populations. It has controlled our actions, our desires, and even our thoughts. People were grown into a belief, that their religion was the only true religion, and that it was their religious duty, to establish the supremacy of their faith, even if that requires for them to kill other people. (Unfortunately, this mindset still exists in certain pockets of this otherwise beautiful Earth)

But before the concept of divine punishment could be established, people had to be explained - how they were created, what was the purpose of their creation, and what would happen after their death. Here, God came in handy. It was very convenient to play a messenger to the God, and then expect the people around you to treat you with respect and dignity. These days, we say that "religion has become commercialized". It was worse back then. At that time, it was simply a brute struggle for power.

Atheism / agnosticism, as an ideology was rejected. It could simply not explain things. Even the then scientists, had to agree with the teachings of the Church.

It was only in 1859 AD, that a radical idea, known as "the theory of evolution" was proposed, by a brave Englishman Charles Darwin. It was only 2 centuries after the Church sanctioned persecution of Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei, that this English naturalist dared to question the centuries long held view. In fact, so radical were his ideas, that it was illegal to teach his theory in Philadelphia schools till mid 20th century.

So, what does Charles Darwin have to say?

He simply says, that God (or any other "intelligent being") did not create us. We are the product of natural selection and evolution, of over 4 billion Earth-years!! In that sense, we are not any much different, from a chimpanzee or a whale.

We have all evolved from essentially a single, extremely non-complex, life form.

His ideas, which were backed with solid proofs, totally challenged the then Christian view. In fact, just recently, the Vatican held a conference, looking for ways to integrate Darwinian theory with the clergical teachings. That suggests, that after 150 years, they are still finding it difficult to accept, that human beings are just one of the branches, in the tree formed by random evolution processes.

Darwin only was able to prove that God did not create us. He could not say, whether God existed or not. In fact, no scientist has, as yet, been able to prove or disprove, God's existence.

Many people believe, that we may never be able to conclusively prove things either way, since God (if it exists) isn't bound by our scientific laws, which we believe to be the closest possible approximation of the natural laws.

So, after several thousands of years since the earliest religions, we are finally at a stage, where we can ask ourselves, "did Man create God?". We know for sure that it isn't the other way round. But what could be true, is that God created a basic Universe with all its natural laws, and then left it on its own, taking a non-interventionist stance.

Hmm...

So, if we are to dig deeper, how shall we proceed? Should we go back to the religions, to explain this mystery? Well, I don't think so. And I have a reason for that. Take any religion. Its teachings will, more often than not, contradict itself (besides with teachings of other religions). Given the years of darkness that they have kept us in, these ideologies, in my mind, have lost their credibility.

So then, if scientific laws can not be used to argue for or against God's existence, if religions can not be used to argue for or against God's existence, then what is the other way left?

Well, if I knew of one, I'd have got the Nobel Prize by now!!

Now I come back to my religious belief. I am an agnostic, simply, because I don't know whether God exists or not.

I am not into blind faith, and therefore would never fully agree with any religion, including Hinduism. I don't mind if people want to keep following their religions, but frankly speaking, I don't find religions anymore believable, than fairytales for children!

I personally "want" a God to exist. The idea of a God-less universe is really scary! But that doesn't mean, I would form my beliefs, on the basis of my wishful thinking. I hope my readers too, won't believe in something just because they want to believe in it! They should be able to convince at least themselves, that what they believe in, is indeed absolutely right.

Indian Election 2009 - Varun Gandhi

2009-04-27T18:39:00.020+05:30

Indian election 2009 is the largest ever exercise of democratic franchise on this planet. We, Indians are justifiably proud of our status as the world's largest democracy. We are proud that we have been somehow able to maintain our liberties and secular status, despite being one of the most corrupt and inefficiently governed nation. We may have had pogroms against Dalits, Muslims, Sikhs and lately Christians, but that doesn't prevent us from having a Dalit Chief Justice, Muslim Vice President, Sikh Prime Minister and a Catholic woman as the head of the ruling coalition.

Freedom House calls India a "free country", although we are just on the border there [1]. The Democracy Index published by the Economist places India at the 35th position in the league of democracies, and classifies us a "flawed democracy" [2]. Our democracy with all its flaws has still been placed higher than countries like Brazil, Israel, and of course Russia, China, and Pakistan. However, it is not appropriate for us to keep tattering that we are the world's largest democracy, every time someone tries to lecture us.

The preceding few weeks have been pretty bad on the human rights front. Kashmir's government had vowed that they would revoke the infamous and brutal law Armed Forces Special Powers Act [3], and yet the Union Home Minister has defended the law [4]. The Parliament had passed amendments to Criminal Procedure Code to divest the police off arrest powers for simple offenses [5], and yet the stubborn Central Government has refused to notify the amendment which has already received Presidential assent [6]. BJP is raking up its anti Muslim rhetoric, even as Election Commission seems to have been biased. Tamils are dying by the thousands in Sri Lanka with full blessings of the Centre [7]. And finally, the Indian Government thinks casteism is not racism [8]!!

I would devote the rest of the post to the Varun Gandhi issue and the questions it throws up on the age old debate of "free speech" vs "responsible speech". Let me make things very clear here. Free speech isn't responsible speech. No. Not at all. In fact, free speech isn't even meant to be responsible speech!! Speech is absolutely meant to offend.

In countries where free speech is criminalized, democracy can never be successful. In free countries, a balance is usually made. For example, possession of child pornography can not be justified by invoking the free speech provision.

So, how do we ascertain when does speech become no more protected? Usually, speech is criminalized only when it is either defamatory in nature, or when it leads to crimes. Defamation is often treated as a civil offense. Speech which involves crime, or which causes crimes, is treated as a criminal offense.

I am usually biased against the BJP, but I really don't see how BJP's MP-candidate from Philbit Varun Gandhi was arrested under the tough National Security Act, for mere threatening to cut off the hand that attacks Hindus?? He has shown to the world that he is a militant Hindu activist. Fine. But why arrest him??

I have always believed that a liberal democracy has to be tolerant of illiberal attitudes. The illiberals want to diminish our freedoms, including our freedom of speech. Wouldn't it be a great paradox, if we, in order to deter the fascists, ourselves go by fascist ways?? "National Security Act"??? It seems that the liberals of this country have already conceded defeat to the illiberals!!

Even the Election Commission has clearly gone beyond its Constitutional obligations. It suggested BJP to drop Varun Gandhi's candidature, thus playing the role of the prosecutor, the judge and the jury [9]. They said that that Varun Gandhi's speech is even more offensive than what was aired on TV [10]. Well,.. I am not entirely convinced. Why are they censoring that part of the speech, and not releasing it in full, so that us commoners could know what's going on? By the way, is it just me who thinks EC was biased in favour of RJD's Laloo Yadav, by not taking action against his speech, where he calls for "a roller to be moved over Varun Gandhi" [11], while completely ignoring Gandhi's assertions that the CDs were fake [12]. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that Varun Gandhi's speech, actually lead to any communal violence.

There are many things that are criminalized in this country, and are protected in most Western countries. Burning a piece of cloth... err.. the national flag, for one. One can be sent to behind bars for upto 3 years for such an "anti national act" [13]. The law on public obscenity too, is very unclear, and highly misused. In fact, it borders towards being unconstitutional!!

I already had a poster saying, "don't criticize Saudi Arabia" and "don't support gay rights, for this is India", in an earlier blog. If people can't even be receptive of this mere differences of opinion, then may I daresay, India is full of educated illiterates!!

Why should a set of Random Functions control my thoughts??

2009-02-25T22:44:00.007+05:30

Readers of my earlier blogs will remember, that in my last blog I had passionately appealed for equality and fundamental human freedoms, devoid of all prejudices of caste, creed, religion, sex or sexual orientation. I had also for a free exchange of information and ideas.

I had a debate with a friend on some of these issues. He agreed to my views on some of the issues that I raised, while he didn't agree on many others.

I will keep his identity a secret, but let me tell you first that he is a staunch nationalist. We debated for a while, and I asked him to "broaden your horizons". He was however adamant in his views. He suggested that "all gay people should leave India", although he couldn't provide any reasoning for the same. He couldn't even justify how his claims over India were more genuine than the claims of sexual minorities or of the people who drink alcohol.

Our political ideology is a sum-total of various parameters of our life. Our place of birth, time of birth (not speaking of in an astrological sense), sex, parents' political beliefs, parents' religion, caste / ethnicity, schooling, language, peer group, exposure to media, travel to foreign lands, and other life experiences altogether define the person that we are, of which a characteristic property is our socio-religio-political beliefs.

I don't define myself as a Hindu or even an Indian. I don't believe in the ideologies of religion, culture, or nationality. For that matter, I don't even believe in humanity!

What I believe in, is science and what I value, is respect for all life forms.

Why should the fact that I am born to Hindu parents in a Hindi speaking Punjabi family in North India, define my political thoughts?? I didn't have any control over the fact, that in the year 1986 AD, Delhi happened to be included within the 'boundaries' of a 'country' known as the Republic of India?? Why should the factors, that I didn't have any control over, act as a glass ceiling to what I am supposed to think!!

I didn't choose to be born this way. For that matter I could have been born as a fish!! Had I been any luckier, I could have been born as Bill Gates!! I could have been born as Pakistani Christian, or a Chinese Muslim, or an American Bahai, or a South African Jew, or as an Egyptian atheist. Each of these cases, howsoever likely, are definite possibilities.

So if I were a Pakistani Christian, should I think that Pakistan's rights over Kashmir are more justified than that of India's, or should I be thinking that a majority of Pakistanis are going to hell??

This is the most basic problem of society. We never think, beyond what we are 'supposed to think'. We never challenge the 'accepted ideologies'. We never do anything 'unconventional'. We never talk about 'social taboos'.

We are never daring enough!!

It is precisely this line of thought, which kept most of the world trapped in the Dark Ages, for several several centuries.

Right now, we are way past the Enlightenment Age. Most of us, are in the Information Age, and have the latest scientific discoveries and inventions delivered to our doorsteps!!

Why do still we think that God created the world in 7 days?? Why do we still think that Adam and Eve were the first human beings to dwell this planet?? Why do we still think that Jews and homosexuals, are going to burn in hell?? Why do we still think, that 'my God is greater than all others', or that 'my religion is the best'??

Well!!, Hinduism is a 5000 year old religion. It has to be the greatest!! Right??

Wrong!!

The history of Hinduism, or for that matter any organized religion, is contained in just the last few seconds of the last day of the last month of the 'cosmic calendar' of our Universe!!

We have all originated from the same common ancestor - a bacteria. The Earth as a planet had borne life, since at least 4 billion years before the first humans were born. We are just one of the branches, in the great Darwinian tree of evolution. Our Sun is just one of the billion trillion stars, thought to be a part of this Universe. Many of the other Earths, revolving around other Suns, could contain far more sophisticated life, than our own human civilization!!

I know my views could be attacked by someone, who could argue, "Fine that you don't love your religion or your country, because they were factors beyond your control. Why do you love your parents then??"

I don't.

Don't get me wrong. I DO love my parents.

What I meant was, that I don't love my parents JUST BECAUSE they gave me birth!!

My parents are some of the most fantastic people that I could ever know. I am far more open with them, than I can ever be with the closest of my friends. They are some of the most rational people, and even though we disagree on several issues, ranging from which party to vote for, to the issues of religion, we respect each others' thoughts and know how to agree to disagree and yet love each other.

In fact, that is the level of tolerance which predates even my birth. My mother and father, both doctors by profession, belong to some of the least known sects of Hinduism, and both don't agree on almost anything. My father was in fact, an atheist during his youthful years, before he returned to religion.

Worshipping the same God, with quite opposing sets of beliefs, I believe, had the effect of making me more rational than I could have been, had my parents belonged to the same sect.

Surely, both can't be right in their own way. Someone's got to be wrong somewhere. But then, who is the unlucky one? If my father is unlucky, does it mean that my mother is worshipping God the right way? What if both are actually unlucky.

I chose to develop an independent thought, question what was told to me, disagree openly with my parents' opinion, etc. We accept and understand, that we are all, very different people. For what its worth I'd like to mention, that there are far more ways to arrange the DNA strands, than the actual number of humans ever to have walked on this planet!!

All I ask from my blog readers, is to develop a rational mind, free of any artificial limitations, such as religion, culture, or nation. Let us not forget that the concepts of religion, culture, or nation, are not even nearly as old as human beings themselves.

We are a wonderful product of nature. We are a highly intelligent, organic machine, which can think higher than even the skies!! So let us not artificially imprison our thoughts with a set of completely unknown random functions, and return to an another spell of Dark Ages. We are more evolved than the vegetables are. Let us not mock the millions of years of human evolution, by wasting our lives and thoughts away!!

Let us "live-and-let-live".

Is the Delhi High Court emerging as a liberal bastion in post globalized India?

2009-02-21T20:38:00.019+05:30

India of today, is fundamentally different from my grandfather's India, my father's India, or even the India that was 10 years ago.

An unprecedented balance of payment crisis emerged in the early 1991 India. It was aggravated by liquidity crisis experienced in mid January 1991 and another in late June 1991. On both occasions, the foreign exchange reserves dropped significantly and the government had to resort to measures, such as using its stocks of gold to obtain foreign exchange. Having resorted to these measures, the government was able to avoid a default in terms of meeting its debt service obligations and financing of imports. Subsequently, the government embarked upon a comprehensive program of economic reforms. These reforms would change the way India would work, live and think for years to come. [1]

In this blog, I would explore how our economic reforms, have prompted changes in the society and in the attitudes of judges.

Case 1: Judges let women bartend

Delhi, being the capital of India, and supposedly a liberal city, didn't allow women to serve alcohol. The 1914 law, which dates back to the colonial era, based its reasoning on the assumption that women are an inferior sex, and can't protect themselves from unruly customers.

The law went unchallenged for decades after independence. Not perhaps, because the judges were themselves seen as conservative people, but because women themselves would justify the ban. Women never felt that this law amounted to sex based discrimination, illegal under Article 14 of the Constitution. [2]

However in post globalized society, the urban educated women couldn't take this piece of sexist, paternalistic legislation any longer. Several aspiring female bartenders, along with the Hotel Association of India, challenged this law before the Delhi High Court.

They were not disappointed.

Justices Mukul Mudgal and HR Malhotra agreed that this law violated their rights to equality, and choose their own profession. [3]

"It is undeniable that women have excelled in the hospitality industry not only in this country but worldwide," the judgement said.

"And the feminine touch indeed lends grace and elegance to the hospitality industry, which grace and elegance is not inherently suited to the male disposition," it added.

But before the ban could be withdrawn, it was back in the courts. Several independent people, supported by the Delhi Government challenged the High Court's decision at the Supreme Court.

The Delhi Government argued that Delhi is a "rogue city" and that its men can't "hold their drinks". [4]

It supported its argument by citing the case of Jessica Lall, a model and a bartender, who was shot dead in 1999 by a group of men after she refused them drinks.

"I think it is silly - this is a government which can't basically enforce law and order and wants to create gender division by saying that Delhi men can't hold their drinks. It defeats logic and intelligence", lifestyle commentator Suhel Seth said.

The Supreme Court agreed that this law was discrimination, and upheld the Delhi High Court's ruling, in a decision which was reported worldwide. [5]

This decision of the Supreme Court was later followed up by other courts in the country. Justice D. V. Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court quashed rule 9 of the Karnataka Excise Act 1965, which imposed similar restrictions on women in that state. [6]

Needless to say, the Karnataka government decided not to appeal.

Case 2: Nudity isn't obscenity, it's just art!

Maqbool Fida Hussain, the celebrated Indian painter, has often come under the target of fudamentalist Hindu groups, who have hijacked Hinduism and created an Indian version of the Taliban.

His crime: Being a Muslim, how dare he paint imaginary creatures in the nude!

Except that those imaginary creatures are part of a religious belief in a certain country. For some people, this country is a 'living deity' (Bharat Mata), blasphemy of whose, according to them, is a higher crime than raping and killing thousands of innocent Muslims in the fields of Gujarat.

Welcome to India!

It wasn't just the Bharat Mata that offended the Hindu zealots. They also protested against nude paintings of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, made by the nonagenarian painter.

Ironically such paintings, are already a part of India's ancient traditions. The temples of Khajuraho, amongst others, as well as the Kamasutra, have graphic depictions of sex.

While the more extremist variety of protesters sent the poor painter death threats, the lesser ones chose to threaten him by abuse of the process of law. The colonial era, ambigious, Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code was the basis of their legal complaints. [7]

The complaints were filed in different cities all over the country, making the painter run from pillar to post, defending himself before several law courts.

Taking pity on the eminent artist, the Supreme Court of India transferred all the cases against him, to a court in New Delhi. [8]

Inspired by his legal success, Hussain filed a plea before the Delhi High Court judge S. K. Kaul, requesting him to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him.

The learned judge obliged Hussain.

"Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed in contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art", Justice Kaul wrote in his judgment, quoting renowned artist Pablo Picasso. [8]

The judge also writes, "Democracy has wider moral implications than mere majoritarianism. A crude view of democracy gives a distorted picture. A real democracy is one in which the exercise of the power of the many is conditional on respect for the rights of the few... In real democracy the dissenter must feel at home and ought not to be nervously looking over his shoulder fearing captivity or bodily harm or economic and social sanctions for his unconventional or critical views. There should be freedom for the thought we hate. Freedom of speech has no meaning if there is no freedom after speech. The reality of democracy is to be measured by the extent of freedom and accomodation it extends."

The judge concluded by saying, "I have penned down this judgment with this favourent hope that it is a prologue to a broader thinking and greater tolerance for the creative field. A painter at 90 deserves to be in his home – painting his canvass!"

This famous judgment prompted Shashi Tharoor, former UN Under Secretary General, to write two Sunday columns in the Times of India. [9] [10]

Needless to say, the Supreme Court threw out the appeals by the "moral brigade" against Hussain. [11]

What else could they have done!

Case 3: You may now kiss the bride!

India's ancient culture has always been filled with graphic details of the art of lovemaking. Kissing was an important part of that. In the Kamasutra, the scholar Vatsayana devotes a chapter on the art of kissing. He painstakingly details some 30 types of kisses - straight, bent, turned, press, nominal and throbbing are some among them. [12]

In September of 2008, while a 28 year old man and his 23 year old wife, were waiting for their lawyer to get them a marriage license at a Dwarka metro station, the police arrested the duo on charges of obscenity.

The case was filed under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (the old, colonial-era law as i previously mentioned). Bail was granted from the police station itself. The police, were however, determined to press obscenity charges.

The duo were "sitting in an objectionable position near a metro (railway station) pillar and kissing due to which passersby were feeling bad", as per the police chargesheet.

If convicted, both offenders could face a prison term for up to 3 months, or a fine, or both. [13]

It wouldn't be the first time people would be charged with obscenity for kissing. In 2005, an Israeli couple were fined Rs 1000 (about $22), for kissing after getting married in a Hindu ceremony. The priests were offended in the traditional, culturally-rich state of Rajasthan. [14]

But Justice S. Muralidhar quashed the proceedings. [15]

He expressed shock at the police action, saying "it is inconceivable how... an expression of love by a young married couple would attract an offence of obscenity and trigger the coercive process of law"

His judgment created cheers in India, even though some people were disappointed in that, only kissing by married couples was ruled as being not obscene.

Nevertheless, at least the first step in this direction has been taken. The judge concerned had the case of a married couple at his disposal. Maybe some day, another judge might rule that public kissing by unmarried couples is legal too.

The moral brigade would definitely be red-faced!!

Case 4: Depictions of smoking can't be banned

Smoking is a very harmful habit, and nobody (not even smokers) disagree with the assertion, that it must be discouraged. Smoking is a serious health risk, and can lead to different types of cancers and even heart attack!

With this reasoning, Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has launched an anti smoking drive all over India. Recent surveys have revealed alarming facts. Nearly 17% of students under 15 were found to be tobacco users. [16]

However in his zeal against smoking, he passed a ridiculous order in 2005 which was far beyond his statutory powers that the Parliament has trusted him with. Health Nazist as he is also known, he banned depictions of smoking in cinema, including non advertising, non glamorizing depictions.

That order briefly created a controversy within the cabinet, as the I&B Ministry was caught up in the middle. However, the I&B ministry quickly refuted any impression of a rift with the Health Ministry, and thus the ban was firmly in place. [17]

The movie industry was up in arms against the Centre for this unjustifiable encroachment on their artistic freedom. Their argument was simple: if smoking is legal, how can its depiction be illegal?? For that matter, rape and murder are NOT legal in India, yet their depictions are.

Director Mahesh Bhatt challenged this order before a Delhi High Court bench. While Justice Mukul Mudgal agreed with the petitioner, Justice Sanjiv Khanna felt that the government was within its right to ban smoking scenes, and referred the issue to the Chief Justice's court. [18]

Justice S. K. Kaul was called upon to play the "umpire judge" and standing upto his liberal reputation, he, quashed the Health Ministry order. [19]

"Directors of films should not have multifarious authorities breathing down their necks when indulging in a creative act", honourable Justice Kaul held.

The judge quoted a famous philosopher John Stuart Mill, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." [20]

There is still confusion over the Health Minister's reaction to the verdict. Some reports say that he is planning to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, while some say, he has rescinded from his position.

Nevertheless, he has been told in clear-cut terms, that freedom of speech is non-negotiable.

Case 5: Gay Pride!

2008 was the year when homosexuality suddenly came 'out of the closet' and entered the 'public domain' in India. It was the year of first gay pride marches, as also Bollywood movies Dostana and Fashion.

But 2008 was also the year, of a major public dispute between the Home Ministry and the Health Ministry. The bone of contention is a petition filed by gay rights activists (from the Naz Foundation), challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the same old piece of crap (you guessed it right... the Indian Penal Code) because it criminalizes 'unnatural sex', which is usually interpreted to mean, coitus per os (oral sex) and coitus per anus (anal sex). [21]

It is on old British era law, which does not differentiate between 'consent' or 'force', 'adult' or 'child', 'private' or 'public'. Conviction for any such sexual act, can lead to anything between a fine to life. While in theory it can be used to punish fellatio between a straight couple too, but in practice only gays are known to be harassed under this piece of legislation.

How ironic that the land of Kamasutra has forgotten about its glorious and tolerant past, including religious depictions of homosexuality. [22]

Such relations invite ridicule, contempt, hate and even violence in modern day India. Adding insult to injury is the law, which defines such relations as a criminal offense.

Vikram Seth, author; Swami Agnivesh; Soli Sorabjee, former Attorney-General; Aditi Desai, sociologist; Nitin Desai, former UN Under-Secretary General; Captain Lakshmi Sahgal, freedom fighter, Padma Vibhushan; Siddharth Dube, author, and many others [23], wrote an open letter in 2006.

"To the Government of India, Members of the Judiciary, and All Citizens,

To build a truly democratic and plural India, we must collectively fight against laws and policies that abuse human rights and limit fundamental freedoms.

This is why we, concerned Indian citizens and people of Indian origin, support the overturning of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law dating to 1861, which punitively criminalizes romantic love and private, consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex.

In independent India, as earlier, this archaic and brutal law has served no good purpose. It has been used to systematically persecute, blackmail, arrest and terrorize sexual minorities. It has spawned public intolerance and abuse, forcing tens of millions of gay and bisexual men and women to live in fear and secrecy, at tragic cost to themselves and their families. It is especially disgraceful that Section 377 has on several recent occasions been used by homophobic officials to suppress the work of legitimate HIV-prevention groups, leaving gay and bisexual men in India even more defenceless against HIV infection".

The full letter is available here.

Amartya Sen, the famous Nobel laureate, added, "...Even though I do not, as a general rule, sign joint letters, I would like, in this case, to add my voice to those of Vikram Seth and his cosignatories. The criminalization of gay behaviour goes not only against fundamental human rights, as the open letter points out, but it also works sharply against the enhancement of human freedoms in terms of which the progress of human civilization can be judged..."

The Central Government is sharply divided over continued criminalization of homosexuality. While the home ministry thinks that homosexuality is immoral, the health ministry's affidavit (through NACO) recommends decriminalization, because the law hampers HIV work. [24]

So much so, that the dispute between the ministries, lead to the Prime Minister intervening in the case, and the Cabinet deciding that they "will accept what the court decides". [25]

Even as the hearings were going on, gay and human rights activists marched into the streets of Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta, demanding their right to love who they wanted to. They not only evoked a positive reaction from the Labour Minister, but also the High Court ruled that gays do have a right to march. [26] [27]

The Delhi High Court, has since then, given a patient hearing to the cause of gay rights, and has made some sensible remarks. "If you belong to the 'untouchable' category, you suffer a disadvantage in every aspect of life. The effect of criminalisation (of homosexuality) is like treating you as a member of a scheduled caste", said Chief Justice Shah. [28]

The court also rejected government's attempts to produce religious texts as an argument in the case, and demanded any "scientific evidence to show that gay sex causes harm" (which is non existing). [29]

The hearings in the case are now complete, and the judges have reserved their verdict. It is important to realize the significance of Chief Justice Shah's statement. Criminalizing of homosexuality, is indeed akin to the ancient practice of untouchability, because recent scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is decided pre-natally, and is affected by several factors (such as number of older brothers). [30] [31]

Finally,

The whole notion of Indian society and culture has changed in the past 20 years, and one decision pending, this is also reflected in the mindset of our judges. Our courts have uniformly upheld our constitutional rights, and the Delhi High Court is a shining example of that simple fact. But we can not always be dependent on the courts to enforce our rights, and we must remain ever vigilant to any possible trespass in our private autonomy by the State. Scars of the Emergency haven't yet healed, and therefore we must be wary of overt nationalist, fascist, and divisive politics. History tends to repeat itself, and it would be foolish of us, to not learn from the past!!

I thank and congratulate those of you, who have bothered to read through the whole blog. :-)

Don't kill this man!!

2009-02-20T20:26:00.017+05:30

The 12th century Sephardic legal scholar, Moses Maimonides, famously wrote, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death." He argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." [1]

Despite the emergence of nation-states and improvements in policing, many countries retain the death penalty. It is not only dictatorial regimes like China and Iran, but also democracies of USA, Japan and India, which execute people for various offenses.

In India, the death penalty was the default punishment for murder, up until the 1970s. However, a 1983 ruling by the Indian Supreme Court, mandated that the death penalty be awarded only in the "rarest of the rare" cases. What constitutes "rarest of the rare" is still left to the discretion of the judges (jury trials were abolished in India in 1960), and usually means murder preceded by torture or rape. Such acts of violence are punishable with "hanging till death" in the Republic of India. [2]

On December 29 2006, the residents of Noida, along with all other citizens of India, were shocked as the police recovered one after another, the remains of dead children and women, from a municipal water tank behind house D-5, Sector 31 at Nithari. The house belonged to a rich businessman Moninder Singh Pandher, who used to live there with his housekeeper Surender Kohli. The infamous residence was labelled "the house of horrors", and the government sacked some low ranking police officials, as the allegations of "inaction" surfaced. [3]

The case was quickly transferred to the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) by a nervous state government who wanted to wash its hands "off the case". The CBI conducted brain mapping and narco analysis test on both suspects, and formal chargesheets were filed later.

Rimpa Haldar, a 14 year old girl, who was just one of the 19 victims of this ghastly crime, was raped and murdered. The court of special CBI judge Rama Jain was to try the duo for the crime. CBI counsel argued that Kohli was a rare combination of a man affected by paedophilia, and necrophilia, and had no chance of reform. He is a threat to the society and should be sentenced to die, the CBI argued. [4]

However CBI couldn't produce any much evidence against Pandher, who as the owner of the house, was away when the incidents took place. "This is borne out from the documents, statement of witnesses and mobile phone records."

“Investigation has revealed that JCB organized an annual conference of its dealers in Gold Coast Australia from February 1 to 4 of 2005,” the chargesheet says. “On January 30, 2005 accused Moninder Singh Pandher left IGI Airport New Delhi by flight no.SQ 407 for Australia and reached there on 31.1.2005.” [5]

According to the CBI, Pandher left Australia on February 14 and reached IGI Airport, New Delhi, only the next day — almost a week after Rimpa disappeared. “The above journey has also been confirmed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, New Delhi vide its letter dated 16.4.2007. The immigration stamps affixed on his passport at IGI Airport and Australia also establish his departure and arrival at the places mentioned above,” the CBI said.

Nevertheless, the CBI did prosecute Pandher for immoral trafficking, bribery, etc.

It is often said that "kanoon andha hota hai". Blind Justice is the theory that the law should be viewed objectively. Completely ignoring the fact that the prosecutors didn't charge Pandher with having committed the murder, the special CBI court of Rama Jain convicted him of murder and also sentenced him to die.

Not the fact that Rama Jain didn't believe in the CBI. She accepted the CBI's theory that Pandher wasn't even in the country when the murder took place.

So what bizarre logic makes Rama Jain think that Pandher is guilty of murder??

Frankly speaking, it was Judge Jain's personal belief. "Pandher must have known about the murders", "How is it that the person living in the house (D 5, Sector 31) did not know about these happenings?"

Quite understandably, most of the Indian media didn't take up the possibility that Pandher might be an innocent man, whose only guilt was that he lead an immoral life (call girls visting often). Saying such a thing over national television would be tantamount to loss of TRPs, which our hyper competitive media companies can not afford.

This case reflects two big underbellies of India. One, is that the media isn't always fair. Two, is that judges can get swayed in by personal sentiments and public opinion. It is clear that Judge Jain ignored one of the most basic principles of Justice - "Blind Justice". She has ignored established law, that in order to convict a free man, requires that his guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It might seem that in doing so, she has actually violated the law herself.

While it would seem, that Pandher is being made a sacrificial goat, for a blood thirsty India, it comes that voices of sanity still do exist. Retired Justice R S Sodhi, of the Delhi High Court, now a lawyer, who has himself sent to the gallows quite a many convicts, including the murderer of Priyadarshini Mattoo, has expressed shock at this judgment.

“This judgement is nothing short of judicial abuse. You cannot send people to the gallows on the basis of public opinion. One has to judge him or her in accordance with legal provisions. One must also abide by the principles of the rule of law, which, I think, has been given a go by in the present case" says Sodhi. [6]

To the accusations that Pandher led an immoral life, lawyer Sodhi says, "sleeping with women cannot be held a criminal offence. That is the only thing reportedly established during trial". He adds, "There is no evidence that can directly link Pandher to the conspiracy and a mere suggestion that Pandher would have been in the know of these horrific crimes was not enough to invite a conviction, let alone a death penalty".

Now Sodhi has agreed to defend Pandher at the Allahabad High Court. He can not be executed unless his death sentence is upheld all the way upto the Supreme Court. Given that no "real case" exists against him (sleeping with call girls is hardly a crime), he may walk free soon.

If that happens, then this could become a classic case in the point, for death penalty abolitionists, like myself.