Over the last few days we have been hearing about the union cabinet's decision to have reservation in Lokpal. This is in my view shows the desperation in union government. They are trying to put as many obstacles in the path of an effective Lokpal as they can. When they have realized that citizens are largely in agreement with the "Team Anna" proposal for an effective Lokpal, they now want to play the age old divide and rule game.
This is completely absurd and I almost feel like saying that let the post of the prime minister of this country and the entire union cabinet be reserved for backward classes. That way perhaps there would not be a need for any other demands for backward class reservations in every walk of life that we face.
The truth of our country is that anyone with power in hands becomes the victimizer and one without the victim. It is far from true that the so called backward classes are victims and the forward classes are the ones who exploit. I doubt if the government officials including IAS officers who are from the reserved category are any better than the ones from the general category when it comes to corruption in their ranks.
This is very mischievous on the part of the government to introduce 50% reservation in the Lokpal. A body they should have the best of the best people in its ranks to defend our public finances from being squandered, and to prevent exploitation of the citizens by corrupt officials is being destroyed, to gain political mileage, and to divide the people, who are are in favour of an effective Lokpal.
This is going to be one long struggle for sure for us.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Anna Hazare Gets His Message Through
What a day! Do I need to say more? The parliament has unanimously resolved for in principal support of Anna Hazare’s three demands on Lokayukt in states, lower bureaucracy and citizens charter. The Lokpal movement had brought the citizens together in support of a corruption free India. This issue was raised predominantly by the urban population and some would say it was dominated by the middle class. I would say not the middle class necessarily but yes the more politically aware citizens were the majority in support of this movement. There were no truckloads filled audiences invited to Ramlila Maidan, the rallies also more or less had spontaneous support. For once people were out in large numbers for a constructive purpose.
Now one might argue that this wasn’t really a victory that “India Against Corruption” and the so called Team Anna were initially demanding. Their bill was never tabled in the parliament. But I for one had never believed that this was really the aim of Team Anna in the first place. It was never possible for the initial demand they were making to be accepted. The parliament was always going to be one to make laws. This was a demand raised in sheer sense of betrayal they had felt when the government’s version of Lokapal bill was revealed. It came to light then that the government is capable of being completely insensitive to public grievance on corruption. Possibly survival instincts of the supporters of corruption in the government had kicked in and they brought about a completely worthless legislation. Their aim in my view always was that the ruling party and ultimately the Parliament take the process of creating an anti-corruption ombudsman seriously. It was a proposal that had first come out in 1969, and had since been repeatedly discussed, but could never transform into a law. Anna has achieved that purpose. He has got his message through.
Over the years our politicians have conformed to the image of being both thick skinned and deaf. I would make an argument that before being corrupt, what they were corruptible and they are corrupt today because the special interest groups (read big businesses) have worked the system to their advantage. This is what causes the multi crore or rather multi lakhs of crores worth of scams that we come to hear about these days. So the politicians had two constituencies the vote banks(read rural poor and marginalized sections of society) and the super rich who would sponsor their political and personal lives. During Anna’s Lokpal movement they have become aware of a third constituency that of the politically aware citizens of our country who are concerned about the issues of governance faced by us, and they have finally responded.
Cutting across political lines they have accepted that corruption that has been troubling the nation for so long has reached a saturation point. By accepting Anna’s three demands they have shown that they are sensitive to genuine demands of the people. They have also shown that they can act with utmost maturity and conduct the proceedings of the house with dignity. This was a welcome sight. I would like to see more of these dignified debates in the parliament and not the walkouts and shouting and storming the well of the house that we witness all too often in the Parliament. I wish this does not become just a one of case but becomes a precedent on how the parliament should function on issues of national importance.
Now one might argue that this wasn’t really a victory that “India Against Corruption” and the so called Team Anna were initially demanding. Their bill was never tabled in the parliament. But I for one had never believed that this was really the aim of Team Anna in the first place. It was never possible for the initial demand they were making to be accepted. The parliament was always going to be one to make laws. This was a demand raised in sheer sense of betrayal they had felt when the government’s version of Lokapal bill was revealed. It came to light then that the government is capable of being completely insensitive to public grievance on corruption. Possibly survival instincts of the supporters of corruption in the government had kicked in and they brought about a completely worthless legislation. Their aim in my view always was that the ruling party and ultimately the Parliament take the process of creating an anti-corruption ombudsman seriously. It was a proposal that had first come out in 1969, and had since been repeatedly discussed, but could never transform into a law. Anna has achieved that purpose. He has got his message through.
Over the years our politicians have conformed to the image of being both thick skinned and deaf. I would make an argument that before being corrupt, what they were corruptible and they are corrupt today because the special interest groups (read big businesses) have worked the system to their advantage. This is what causes the multi crore or rather multi lakhs of crores worth of scams that we come to hear about these days. So the politicians had two constituencies the vote banks(read rural poor and marginalized sections of society) and the super rich who would sponsor their political and personal lives. During Anna’s Lokpal movement they have become aware of a third constituency that of the politically aware citizens of our country who are concerned about the issues of governance faced by us, and they have finally responded.
Cutting across political lines they have accepted that corruption that has been troubling the nation for so long has reached a saturation point. By accepting Anna’s three demands they have shown that they are sensitive to genuine demands of the people. They have also shown that they can act with utmost maturity and conduct the proceedings of the house with dignity. This was a welcome sight. I would like to see more of these dignified debates in the parliament and not the walkouts and shouting and storming the well of the house that we witness all too often in the Parliament. I wish this does not become just a one of case but becomes a precedent on how the parliament should function on issues of national importance.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Lokpal Movement - Time to Chose Sides
The more I observe the events of the past week around Anna Hazare unfold the more I am convinced that the arguments being made about unconstitutionality of the movement, about wrongness of the method of protest and demands raised, about this being a middle class movement and not really a grass root movement of real India, about the parliament being supreme, about law making being delayed, about governance being affected, about a foreign government being involved and so, on seem to fall flat on their face.
Citizens of our country have lived with bad governance for too long. We have let corruption become a part of our DNA. We have for long time patiently tolerated corrupt administration. Some have renamed bribes as a convenience charge or a tip, some use it as means of getting ahead of competition, others call it compulsion. The government does not even use the term graft and calls it leakages. We have for too long eroded our conscience and have been too pragmatic in our lives to have allowed this monster to grow as big as it is today. It needs to be reaffirmed now that the time for taking sides is here.
Anna has galvanized the people of our nation for a just cause. There is a specific objective that people have this time, the leadership of this movement has the right credentials and there is a momentum in this movement which is unprecedented in recent history. It is time to choose sides. No longer can the political class hold on to unreasonable control of the public institutions of India. Every system works if the people who run the system make it work. But the political leadership has allowed our institutions to corrode and one wonders if this is what the founding fathers of our constitution would have envisaged for these institutions to function.
The three pillars of the constitution namely the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are meant to remain independent and not encroach on each other’s function and independent they are but efficient they are not. All three pillars have been affected by institutional corruption and they have failed to correct themselves for several decades now. The most responsibility of governance lies with the executive branch but not only are they the most lacking, it appears they are also the ones who are most against a strong Lokpal. This public outcry today is to move the executive, to force them to bring a strong Lokpal bill to the parliament. They will resist but for how long is the question? Can they continue to ignore the public anger against corruption? Can they use arguments about process and procedures to deny people their right?
All processes and procedures, the parliament and the government are meant to serve the people. Can the same procedures be used to deny people what they deserve? One can disagree with many of the points in the Lokpal bill which “India Against Corruption” has brought forward. What was expected is not that the entire bill should have been accepted as is? What was expected is that an honest attempt should have been made to make a strong independent Lokpal. An honest attempt should have been made by the political class to clean them self.
This is time for them to act now. It is time for them to choose sides now. They have to decide whether they will continue to protect their corrupt brethren or will they for once realize that status quo is no longer acceptable to people. They have to choose sides now and reaffirm their loyalty to their electors. Once they are on the side of the right then they can debate on what is the best way to implement the right. But they have to choose the right now. The time to choose has come.
Citizens of our country have lived with bad governance for too long. We have let corruption become a part of our DNA. We have for long time patiently tolerated corrupt administration. Some have renamed bribes as a convenience charge or a tip, some use it as means of getting ahead of competition, others call it compulsion. The government does not even use the term graft and calls it leakages. We have for too long eroded our conscience and have been too pragmatic in our lives to have allowed this monster to grow as big as it is today. It needs to be reaffirmed now that the time for taking sides is here.
Anna has galvanized the people of our nation for a just cause. There is a specific objective that people have this time, the leadership of this movement has the right credentials and there is a momentum in this movement which is unprecedented in recent history. It is time to choose sides. No longer can the political class hold on to unreasonable control of the public institutions of India. Every system works if the people who run the system make it work. But the political leadership has allowed our institutions to corrode and one wonders if this is what the founding fathers of our constitution would have envisaged for these institutions to function.
The three pillars of the constitution namely the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are meant to remain independent and not encroach on each other’s function and independent they are but efficient they are not. All three pillars have been affected by institutional corruption and they have failed to correct themselves for several decades now. The most responsibility of governance lies with the executive branch but not only are they the most lacking, it appears they are also the ones who are most against a strong Lokpal. This public outcry today is to move the executive, to force them to bring a strong Lokpal bill to the parliament. They will resist but for how long is the question? Can they continue to ignore the public anger against corruption? Can they use arguments about process and procedures to deny people their right?
All processes and procedures, the parliament and the government are meant to serve the people. Can the same procedures be used to deny people what they deserve? One can disagree with many of the points in the Lokpal bill which “India Against Corruption” has brought forward. What was expected is not that the entire bill should have been accepted as is? What was expected is that an honest attempt should have been made to make a strong independent Lokpal. An honest attempt should have been made by the political class to clean them self.
This is time for them to act now. It is time for them to choose sides now. They have to decide whether they will continue to protect their corrupt brethren or will they for once realize that status quo is no longer acceptable to people. They have to choose sides now and reaffirm their loyalty to their electors. Once they are on the side of the right then they can debate on what is the best way to implement the right. But they have to choose the right now. The time to choose has come.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
THE FOURTH PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY AND THE ANNA MOVEMENT
It is common belief that the fourth estate of a democracy is a free and independent Media. Media’s purpose is clearly that of a mirror that reflects the state of affairs in the nation. It shows us who we are, where we are currently and where we are headed. It reveals and makes transparent the inner workings of the other three pillars of democracy namely the Judiciary, Legislature and the Executive. It on a daily basis or in case of 24x7 news channels minute by minute makes the people aware of the current affairs in the country. So while the legislature is a reflection of the representative nature of our democracy the media is what enables a participatory democracy on a daily basis.
All four pillars of democracy are meant to be independent. Independence and freedom of the media is ensured by the fundamental right to freedom of speech for every individual. That the media is indeed the fourth pillar of democracy is established even more whenever a popular movement rises in the country. This is when the media both thrives on and feeds into the popular movement. This is when the real power of media is revealed and the independence of the media becomes most important.
The present movement for the Lokpal bill is a culmination of years of reporting on corruption issues by the media. There was never a grand design that a movement like this had to be created. While India Against Corruption NGO did organize Anna's protest but it is beyond them to organize the entire media campaign in favour of this movement. This movement evolved over the years because of the failings of the executive that was revealed by the media to the socially aware population of our country. For long the political class has assumed that their decisions would go unquestioned by apolitical people once they have been elected to the legislature. They have thrived on ill informed voters who have brought them to power over and over again on petty issues. They have played politics on petty issues like cast, subsidies, religion, regional identity, and so on and avoided being answerable to voters on bigger issues like corruption, defense, terror and others.
Media savvy population of the country is a new breed of voters who not only want to elect representatives every five years, but also want to participate in the daily workings of our country by staying abreast with the major issues and demanding transparency and action by the executive and legislatures on those issues. Anna Hazare has all but been a catalyst of this movement. The movement was already on for several years now. Anna Hazare has only highlighted the most important issue for the people of our country, and brought that latent public discontent to media’s attention, and through the media, to the attention of the political class. The ruling political party is bearing the brunt of this discontent but this is a message for all representatives that they need to be responsive to peoples concerns even in a non election year. That the political class has resisted this movement as best as it could, shows the culpability of the political class in corruption.
The same politicians who talk about how the Lokpal would undermine the independence of public institutions forget that it is they who have over the years destroyed the independence of our institutions. The Police, CBI, civil service, anti corruption watchdogs like the CVC etc, have all been undermined by political interference. The bogey of independence of the three pillars of democracy that the government purports to be safeguarding in their bill falls flat on its face when one looks at the history of interference by the executive in the workings of our institutions. The cash for vote’s scam, corporate lobbying, MPs asking questions in the parliament for money, the political horse trading that is all but common in our country are examples of how the independence of legislature are undermined. Promise of appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts after retirement to plum assignments in government committees can very well be used by the executive for interfering with the functioning of the judiciary.
The People of this country through the fourth pillar of our democracy are conveying to the politicians that it is time for them to curtail their own powers when it comes to investigation of corrupt amongst them. It may very well have been possible for them to be self correcting, but they have failed to do so over several decades. They have lost that opportunity. This has allowed corruption to grow deep roots and spread its tentacles to every walk of life. Stronger measures are needed and the people believe that an independent and strong Lokpal with investigative machinery under it but with a limited mandate to deal with only public corruption is a must for our country. All politicians and the government in particular should listen to the people and not try to weather this movement. It can be predicted that the more they resist or the more they try to delay the bigger this social movement will become. It is not a question of whether the government relents; it is a question of when the government relents.
All four pillars of democracy are meant to be independent. Independence and freedom of the media is ensured by the fundamental right to freedom of speech for every individual. That the media is indeed the fourth pillar of democracy is established even more whenever a popular movement rises in the country. This is when the media both thrives on and feeds into the popular movement. This is when the real power of media is revealed and the independence of the media becomes most important.
The present movement for the Lokpal bill is a culmination of years of reporting on corruption issues by the media. There was never a grand design that a movement like this had to be created. While India Against Corruption NGO did organize Anna's protest but it is beyond them to organize the entire media campaign in favour of this movement. This movement evolved over the years because of the failings of the executive that was revealed by the media to the socially aware population of our country. For long the political class has assumed that their decisions would go unquestioned by apolitical people once they have been elected to the legislature. They have thrived on ill informed voters who have brought them to power over and over again on petty issues. They have played politics on petty issues like cast, subsidies, religion, regional identity, and so on and avoided being answerable to voters on bigger issues like corruption, defense, terror and others.
Media savvy population of the country is a new breed of voters who not only want to elect representatives every five years, but also want to participate in the daily workings of our country by staying abreast with the major issues and demanding transparency and action by the executive and legislatures on those issues. Anna Hazare has all but been a catalyst of this movement. The movement was already on for several years now. Anna Hazare has only highlighted the most important issue for the people of our country, and brought that latent public discontent to media’s attention, and through the media, to the attention of the political class. The ruling political party is bearing the brunt of this discontent but this is a message for all representatives that they need to be responsive to peoples concerns even in a non election year. That the political class has resisted this movement as best as it could, shows the culpability of the political class in corruption.
The same politicians who talk about how the Lokpal would undermine the independence of public institutions forget that it is they who have over the years destroyed the independence of our institutions. The Police, CBI, civil service, anti corruption watchdogs like the CVC etc, have all been undermined by political interference. The bogey of independence of the three pillars of democracy that the government purports to be safeguarding in their bill falls flat on its face when one looks at the history of interference by the executive in the workings of our institutions. The cash for vote’s scam, corporate lobbying, MPs asking questions in the parliament for money, the political horse trading that is all but common in our country are examples of how the independence of legislature are undermined. Promise of appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts after retirement to plum assignments in government committees can very well be used by the executive for interfering with the functioning of the judiciary.
The People of this country through the fourth pillar of our democracy are conveying to the politicians that it is time for them to curtail their own powers when it comes to investigation of corrupt amongst them. It may very well have been possible for them to be self correcting, but they have failed to do so over several decades. They have lost that opportunity. This has allowed corruption to grow deep roots and spread its tentacles to every walk of life. Stronger measures are needed and the people believe that an independent and strong Lokpal with investigative machinery under it but with a limited mandate to deal with only public corruption is a must for our country. All politicians and the government in particular should listen to the people and not try to weather this movement. It can be predicted that the more they resist or the more they try to delay the bigger this social movement will become. It is not a question of whether the government relents; it is a question of when the government relents.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
ANNA
So let me recap what happened on 16th of August, 2011. Anna Hazare refused to accept police conditions for his protest in JP Park. Police imposes section 144. Police arrests him and his associates from his residence early morning. They take him to Tihar jail and then he is released by late evening. But Anna refuses to leave the jail till he gets a permission to protest.
This short description of the events of today can very well go into history books if they finally result in the kind of change in our governance which all of us have desired for so long. Else it will be just another routine political protest that the ruling government of the day has been able to tide over and we are back to square one.
I have long believed that corruption whether big or small is the single biggest hurdle in recognition of our true potential as a nation. Lot of intellectual arguments can be made as to what the right “democratic” and “parliamentary” method should have been for bringing about a change. About who has the right to make laws in a democracy and why an elected government should bow down to unelected and self appointed “civil society”. But when you are talking of masses then no matter how intelligent the masses are it is not a time for intellectual debates. These arguments have happened in past and will continue in future but today the question is should the government bow down to Anna or not. Is Anna blackmailing an elected government?
Here is my argument. Supposing the government does bow down. Will it be the first time the government in the center has bowed down from its stated position under pressure? Let me jog your memory a bit. Hasn’t the government of the day in our country bowed down in past, to corporate lobbying, to foreign governments in international negotiations, to terrorists while negotiating hostage release, to our enemy countries in defeat or near defeat in war, to its minority allies to keep the government in power, to political horse trading to retain power, to Pakistan sponsored terrorism by climbing down from previous position of no talks till all stops to constructive dialog; and the list goes on. Well the government in the center has a history of bowing down to people and groups of much less credibility than Anna Hazare. Why such reluctance now?
I would say that in present situation it would only be democratic for a democratically elected government to not remain rigid and to climb down from its stated position once again in history; to perhaps, create history.
They should climb down from their stated position, and accept, that the Lokpal bill they have presented in Parliament does not do enough to address the real issues of corruption. It is also perhaps time for the black sheep in the political hierarchy to step aside and let the white sheep take center stage or for the gray ones to turn white. It is time for the government of the day to choose between black and white and get rid of this menace once and for all. It is a golden moment for Manmohan Singh or who ever it is in the present government who claims to be Mr Clean to really prove than he can really take leadership at this hour, and give the nation what it deserves; a corruption free and productive governance. A strong independent authority to bring justice to victims of corruption would be the first step in that direction. It can be seen, that the nation believes so.
This short description of the events of today can very well go into history books if they finally result in the kind of change in our governance which all of us have desired for so long. Else it will be just another routine political protest that the ruling government of the day has been able to tide over and we are back to square one.
I have long believed that corruption whether big or small is the single biggest hurdle in recognition of our true potential as a nation. Lot of intellectual arguments can be made as to what the right “democratic” and “parliamentary” method should have been for bringing about a change. About who has the right to make laws in a democracy and why an elected government should bow down to unelected and self appointed “civil society”. But when you are talking of masses then no matter how intelligent the masses are it is not a time for intellectual debates. These arguments have happened in past and will continue in future but today the question is should the government bow down to Anna or not. Is Anna blackmailing an elected government?
Here is my argument. Supposing the government does bow down. Will it be the first time the government in the center has bowed down from its stated position under pressure? Let me jog your memory a bit. Hasn’t the government of the day in our country bowed down in past, to corporate lobbying, to foreign governments in international negotiations, to terrorists while negotiating hostage release, to our enemy countries in defeat or near defeat in war, to its minority allies to keep the government in power, to political horse trading to retain power, to Pakistan sponsored terrorism by climbing down from previous position of no talks till all stops to constructive dialog; and the list goes on. Well the government in the center has a history of bowing down to people and groups of much less credibility than Anna Hazare. Why such reluctance now?
I would say that in present situation it would only be democratic for a democratically elected government to not remain rigid and to climb down from its stated position once again in history; to perhaps, create history.
They should climb down from their stated position, and accept, that the Lokpal bill they have presented in Parliament does not do enough to address the real issues of corruption. It is also perhaps time for the black sheep in the political hierarchy to step aside and let the white sheep take center stage or for the gray ones to turn white. It is time for the government of the day to choose between black and white and get rid of this menace once and for all. It is a golden moment for Manmohan Singh or who ever it is in the present government who claims to be Mr Clean to really prove than he can really take leadership at this hour, and give the nation what it deserves; a corruption free and productive governance. A strong independent authority to bring justice to victims of corruption would be the first step in that direction. It can be seen, that the nation believes so.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill
I have followed several television debates, and newspaper articles on the new proposed Prevention of Communal & Targeted Violence Act(PCTV) and have heard arguments from both sides. But I have not heard anyone making a balanced analysis that mentions both the flaws and the benefits of the new bill.
An argument being put forward by many of the proponents of this bill(including the drafting committee) claiming this bill is not discriminatory is that "Hindus" will also be protected in Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of them being a minority community there (of course they don't mention it is subject to J&K assembly accepting this bill). The argument being made by some opponents is that it is essentially an appeasement of Muslims. Here is my take on this bill.
Anyone who reads the draft bill is greeted with the statement that states "It extends to the whole of India. Provided that the Central Government may, with the consent of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, extend the Act to that State". There in front of us is the reality of our country, where we have given so much autonomy to a minority community simply for being a majority in a particular state and yet the secessionist and divisive elements prevail in J&K. The moderates demand more autonomy and the extremists demand secession. Positive discrimination alone did not ensure communal harmony.
This forms my prime argument about the inherent flaw in this bill. The flaw is that of division of population in front of law and the definition of the victim "group". My argument is that any amount of special rights to a group for being a victim group will not bring justice finally for the individual. Simply because this is an intractable problem, there is no right division. There is no right definition of a “group” victim or victimizer. In fact if this bill read in exclusion of the definition that this act uses for “group”, and the word group is used in a more general term as understood in common language then this act would be an excellent act and nobody in his right mind would disagree with most of the things mentioned here. In fact the definition of “communal and targeted violence” in this act is coloured by the definition of “group”. The victims of the “group” seem to be the real victims and the other victims are second class citizens when it comes to delivery of justice as per this law.
Let me mention what I have always believed about any division based on groups. I would say when you have to divide, divide down to the individual, not to any particular group. So when you have to protect anyone by law, protect the rights of an individual, irrespective of what group, or subgroup he or she may belong to as per a certain definition of a group.
So I don't quite agree with the definition of group (minority) as per this bill, and special protection for that group. Special privileges for Schedule Cast and Tribes in our country were provided to ensure they are protected and have opportunities of growth. 60 years of positive discrimination has not been enough to bring the SC/ST “group” equal rights and respect.
The current framework has only served to institutionalize that discrimination and bring it in the DNA of our country. The so called reservations have only led to more demands from other groups and subgroups for reservations favouring them. The so called general category has become more antagonized against the SC/ST/OBC because of reduced opportunities for them. The recent cut off of 100% in Delhi University which created such an outcry is of course only in general category.
I fear that further divisions of our society are being created in this anti-riots bill. Every citizen should be equal in the eyes of the law. When you define minority for special privileges, how to you define them? Do you define them only in terms of the religious and linguistic minority in a particular state by population? What if there is a Christian family living in a Muslim dominated ghetto in Nagaland. Who is the minority here the Christian family or their Muslim neighbours? Also why does the bill treat all Schedule Cast as one group, there are majority and minority religions in the SC and ST categories too. What if a majority Christian ST group commits violence against a minority Jain ST group? Where is protection for this “group” under the provisions of this law?
We are a secular country that means citizens are equal in front of the law no matter which religion they belong to. Religion is a private affair for the individual and should have no legal bearing in a secular country, except that every individual has a right to pursue his religious beliefs. The constitution does not say that every specially defined “group” has a right to pursue his religious beliefs. The keyword is "individuals" or “citizens”. This bill has simplified its definition of minority group by using the population in the entire state as a whole. This may be simple to define in a law, but does it address all acts of violence by one “association” on another “association”( the law uses “association” in place of the general term of group which we use in common language).
It is fair to assume the greatest culprits have been the public servants who have been derelict in their duty and have taken sides in a communal violence. That means the law should have restricted itself to sever punishment for such dereliction of duty and should make it mandatory for them to take immediate actions as per law to protect the victims of violence. That would have been enough to ensure that the administration does not become a party to the riots. But creating provisions which discriminate against an individual simply because as per the law he belongs to a majority group is not fair. We as a nation have to evolve and grow over this group and sub-group mentality.
If we have to divide, divide down to the individual and protect every individual's right, by treating him or her equal to any other individual, in the eyes of the law. That is the foremost fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, every individual is equal before law. I am not a constitutional law expert but my intuitive understanding of right to equality under the constitution is that PCTV act in its present form infringes upon a citizens right to equality before the law. Barring special provisions for advancement of women, children, socially or educationally backward and SC/ST the state cannot create laws that are discriminatory.
Lastly I would like to argue that bringing this divisive draft bill in public domain at a time when public opinion is against the government on the Lokpal bill, is highly suspect, and may very well have been intended to deflect attention.
An argument being put forward by many of the proponents of this bill(including the drafting committee) claiming this bill is not discriminatory is that "Hindus" will also be protected in Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of them being a minority community there (of course they don't mention it is subject to J&K assembly accepting this bill). The argument being made by some opponents is that it is essentially an appeasement of Muslims. Here is my take on this bill.
Anyone who reads the draft bill is greeted with the statement that states "It extends to the whole of India. Provided that the Central Government may, with the consent of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, extend the Act to that State". There in front of us is the reality of our country, where we have given so much autonomy to a minority community simply for being a majority in a particular state and yet the secessionist and divisive elements prevail in J&K. The moderates demand more autonomy and the extremists demand secession. Positive discrimination alone did not ensure communal harmony.
This forms my prime argument about the inherent flaw in this bill. The flaw is that of division of population in front of law and the definition of the victim "group". My argument is that any amount of special rights to a group for being a victim group will not bring justice finally for the individual. Simply because this is an intractable problem, there is no right division. There is no right definition of a “group” victim or victimizer. In fact if this bill read in exclusion of the definition that this act uses for “group”, and the word group is used in a more general term as understood in common language then this act would be an excellent act and nobody in his right mind would disagree with most of the things mentioned here. In fact the definition of “communal and targeted violence” in this act is coloured by the definition of “group”. The victims of the “group” seem to be the real victims and the other victims are second class citizens when it comes to delivery of justice as per this law.
Let me mention what I have always believed about any division based on groups. I would say when you have to divide, divide down to the individual, not to any particular group. So when you have to protect anyone by law, protect the rights of an individual, irrespective of what group, or subgroup he or she may belong to as per a certain definition of a group.
So I don't quite agree with the definition of group (minority) as per this bill, and special protection for that group. Special privileges for Schedule Cast and Tribes in our country were provided to ensure they are protected and have opportunities of growth. 60 years of positive discrimination has not been enough to bring the SC/ST “group” equal rights and respect.
The current framework has only served to institutionalize that discrimination and bring it in the DNA of our country. The so called reservations have only led to more demands from other groups and subgroups for reservations favouring them. The so called general category has become more antagonized against the SC/ST/OBC because of reduced opportunities for them. The recent cut off of 100% in Delhi University which created such an outcry is of course only in general category.
I fear that further divisions of our society are being created in this anti-riots bill. Every citizen should be equal in the eyes of the law. When you define minority for special privileges, how to you define them? Do you define them only in terms of the religious and linguistic minority in a particular state by population? What if there is a Christian family living in a Muslim dominated ghetto in Nagaland. Who is the minority here the Christian family or their Muslim neighbours? Also why does the bill treat all Schedule Cast as one group, there are majority and minority religions in the SC and ST categories too. What if a majority Christian ST group commits violence against a minority Jain ST group? Where is protection for this “group” under the provisions of this law?
We are a secular country that means citizens are equal in front of the law no matter which religion they belong to. Religion is a private affair for the individual and should have no legal bearing in a secular country, except that every individual has a right to pursue his religious beliefs. The constitution does not say that every specially defined “group” has a right to pursue his religious beliefs. The keyword is "individuals" or “citizens”. This bill has simplified its definition of minority group by using the population in the entire state as a whole. This may be simple to define in a law, but does it address all acts of violence by one “association” on another “association”( the law uses “association” in place of the general term of group which we use in common language).
It is fair to assume the greatest culprits have been the public servants who have been derelict in their duty and have taken sides in a communal violence. That means the law should have restricted itself to sever punishment for such dereliction of duty and should make it mandatory for them to take immediate actions as per law to protect the victims of violence. That would have been enough to ensure that the administration does not become a party to the riots. But creating provisions which discriminate against an individual simply because as per the law he belongs to a majority group is not fair. We as a nation have to evolve and grow over this group and sub-group mentality.
If we have to divide, divide down to the individual and protect every individual's right, by treating him or her equal to any other individual, in the eyes of the law. That is the foremost fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, every individual is equal before law. I am not a constitutional law expert but my intuitive understanding of right to equality under the constitution is that PCTV act in its present form infringes upon a citizens right to equality before the law. Barring special provisions for advancement of women, children, socially or educationally backward and SC/ST the state cannot create laws that are discriminatory.
Lastly I would like to argue that bringing this divisive draft bill in public domain at a time when public opinion is against the government on the Lokpal bill, is highly suspect, and may very well have been intended to deflect attention.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Independence
An excellent article I read in NY Times about debate in US about independence of Nuclear Regulatory commission. It talks about the standard problems that a regulatory agency of any industry/finance/environment faces. It the agency is not independent it is essentially a rubber stamping agency and a stepping stone for executives who want lucrative careers in the industry which it is meant to regulate. People get in do the bidding for their future employers and move out via the revolving door that exists. We need such debate in our country too.
Click here to view the article.
Click here to view the article.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Flag hoisting in Lal Chauk
While addressing the alienation felt by local population in the Srinagar valley is more important than hoisting the flag, and I am no fan of BJP. But for some reason I do have sympathy for the BJP, on this "agitation of nationalism" that they are organizing. Of course, only as long as they can keep their agitation peaceful.
These are some of the reasons why it does not seem completely mindless to me:
1) The people by themselves do not always agitate, neither separatists nor in this case the BJP workers. The leaders insight them to do so. This is, in a way, a signal to the separatist leaders, Kashmiri leaders, and others that two can play the game. So review your strategy.
2) For too long the nationalism in J&K has been hostage to threats from separatists from the valley. A counter voice is needed in the valley, if they are not to dominate the discourse. Though it needs to be peaceful, it needs to be a political voice, not official administrative voice alone.
3) Flag hoisting should not be limited to the government official functions in J&K. The nationalistic people in J&K need to use the symbolic occasions to let their presence known.
4) It is perhaps not so easy for the locals alone to politically raise the nationalistic voice. A national party is in a position to do so with the political force that is needed.
5) Umar Abdullah has lately been quite belligerent in his autonomy demand. Every time he is not able to control the failing of his own government, he demands more autonomy for state government. Some kind of political message in J&K from the regions of Laddakh and Jammu that we want more integration not less is needed. BJP wants to create base in these regions.
6) Stopping someone from raising the national flag is illegal. National flag is raised for the express purpose of symbolism; that in this country there will be respect for the unity and integrity of the nation. Unless we decide that we are willing to accept secession of the valley, we should not stop the people of India to raise flag in the valley.
7) Police excesses should not be tolerated but law and order is a local subject. The government of J&K is responsible for the local police excesses. Nationalism is a separate issue and police excess is a different issue. These should not be linked.
8)The question of life of dignity for the refugees who had to flee the valley for fear of violence should be raised in the same breath as the sentiments of the separatists.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Every Institution Is Compromised
Year 2010 will perhaps go down in history of India as the year of scams. Especially in the past few of months we have lived through an avalanche of revelation of large scale corruption. Indian media which thrives on revealing corruption, in our system of governance has been our window into this underbelly of Indian democracy. That Indian politicians and government departments are corrupt is no longer news. Investigative journalists have been able to dig up corruption in almost every institution in this country. Elected representatives, Judiciary, Police, Military, Financial Institutions, you name an institution whose independent and efficient functioning is necessary for a democratic nation to thrive economically, has once more been revealed to be compromised.
Economic progress has not exactly made us a better nation in any aspect other than personal income. As these scams reveal, some who have amassed disproportionate personal fortune have done it not only because of their constructive, professional skills but also their pragmatic corruptibility. The shortest route to personal progress has been taken by everyone who has had position of power and the opportunity which comes with it. Economic liberalization was meant to free the country from these very inefficiencies of licence raj and the corruption which came with it. For years Indian school children were taught that India is not poor its people are poor. Now people have become rich by getting control of that very national riches through corrupt means. Not by creating wealth but by controlling resources.
It seems as the country has gotten richer, the size of the scams that are eventually unearthed has gone over the roof. At a time when scams worth thousands of crores are eventually showing up; a bribery scandal where eight bankers have taken a bribe of a little over one crore is too small to be called a systemic problem. This is said to be a case where individuals have failed, not the system. Leaders of the financial industry are reassuring us that this is the case through the very media that exposed this scandal. A scam for us has to be in thousands of crores to classify as a systemic problem to be fixed. An individual in high position may have taken Rs 25 lacks to sanction loans but this is not a system problem we are assured. The loans themselves are not NPAs so nothing to fear.
Different media organizations were playing these stories differently. Some were shouting from roof tops, some were measured. Everyone was claiming to be the first to reveal a scam. Many were chasing new scams not yet unearthed. Then came the real shocker. The institution which is at the forefront of revealing these scams, the last bastion of Indian democracy, the so called free press, the plethora of television and print media which have been protected from FDI to protect national interest, which prides itself to be “independent”, has also been compromised. In a country where unassuming male youth were “fixed” during the emergency and the media cried foul, where defense deals were “fixed“ and the media cried foul, cricket matches were “fixed” and the medial cried foul it seams today the media itself has been well and truly “fixed”.
Niira Radia’s tapped phone conversations have in one sweep covered whoever was still claiming to be spotless. It seams while she was going around fixing the politicians, and ministers, and the powerful editors of Indian “free press”, she was on the payroll of leaders of corporate governance, the Tatas. She was being paid by both the Mr. Clean and the Mr Patchy. The industrialist, and the businessman. That corporate India is not averse to being pragmatic in doing business in India is well known. But these revelations have given a new meaning to the words “corporate communication”.
For each and every prior corruption scandal that broke in this country we have relied on the media to reveal and to shame the corrupt. Who, I must admit, are hard to be shamed. But after Niira Radia tapes, the media, baring a few has largely been silent. To use a cliché, this silence is deafening. Is this shame that has silenced the media? Or is this an understanding, that any one group which points a finger at the other will be pointing three to oneself? There are some who have started speaking about this silence. Arun Shourie was on air on 28th Nov, with his take on this episode. Sunlight is the best disinfectant he says. Only the media can clean itself by criticizing itself and by analyzing this incident. Does all the intellectual capacity of analysis really rest with the corporate communication groups? Do our editors always need notes from CCGs before they can publish analysis of corporate news?
While the professionals lick their wounds, it is left to the amateurs to fill the void. It is perhaps time for the editors who were sidelined for not toeing the popular line to rid us of the eclipse which has come upon us and disinfect their own professional environment. The buck finally stops with them.
Economic progress has not exactly made us a better nation in any aspect other than personal income. As these scams reveal, some who have amassed disproportionate personal fortune have done it not only because of their constructive, professional skills but also their pragmatic corruptibility. The shortest route to personal progress has been taken by everyone who has had position of power and the opportunity which comes with it. Economic liberalization was meant to free the country from these very inefficiencies of licence raj and the corruption which came with it. For years Indian school children were taught that India is not poor its people are poor. Now people have become rich by getting control of that very national riches through corrupt means. Not by creating wealth but by controlling resources.
It seems as the country has gotten richer, the size of the scams that are eventually unearthed has gone over the roof. At a time when scams worth thousands of crores are eventually showing up; a bribery scandal where eight bankers have taken a bribe of a little over one crore is too small to be called a systemic problem. This is said to be a case where individuals have failed, not the system. Leaders of the financial industry are reassuring us that this is the case through the very media that exposed this scandal. A scam for us has to be in thousands of crores to classify as a systemic problem to be fixed. An individual in high position may have taken Rs 25 lacks to sanction loans but this is not a system problem we are assured. The loans themselves are not NPAs so nothing to fear.
Different media organizations were playing these stories differently. Some were shouting from roof tops, some were measured. Everyone was claiming to be the first to reveal a scam. Many were chasing new scams not yet unearthed. Then came the real shocker. The institution which is at the forefront of revealing these scams, the last bastion of Indian democracy, the so called free press, the plethora of television and print media which have been protected from FDI to protect national interest, which prides itself to be “independent”, has also been compromised. In a country where unassuming male youth were “fixed” during the emergency and the media cried foul, where defense deals were “fixed“ and the media cried foul, cricket matches were “fixed” and the medial cried foul it seams today the media itself has been well and truly “fixed”.
Niira Radia’s tapped phone conversations have in one sweep covered whoever was still claiming to be spotless. It seams while she was going around fixing the politicians, and ministers, and the powerful editors of Indian “free press”, she was on the payroll of leaders of corporate governance, the Tatas. She was being paid by both the Mr. Clean and the Mr Patchy. The industrialist, and the businessman. That corporate India is not averse to being pragmatic in doing business in India is well known. But these revelations have given a new meaning to the words “corporate communication”.
For each and every prior corruption scandal that broke in this country we have relied on the media to reveal and to shame the corrupt. Who, I must admit, are hard to be shamed. But after Niira Radia tapes, the media, baring a few has largely been silent. To use a cliché, this silence is deafening. Is this shame that has silenced the media? Or is this an understanding, that any one group which points a finger at the other will be pointing three to oneself? There are some who have started speaking about this silence. Arun Shourie was on air on 28th Nov, with his take on this episode. Sunlight is the best disinfectant he says. Only the media can clean itself by criticizing itself and by analyzing this incident. Does all the intellectual capacity of analysis really rest with the corporate communication groups? Do our editors always need notes from CCGs before they can publish analysis of corporate news?
While the professionals lick their wounds, it is left to the amateurs to fill the void. It is perhaps time for the editors who were sidelined for not toeing the popular line to rid us of the eclipse which has come upon us and disinfect their own professional environment. The buck finally stops with them.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Kashmir and India in Western Eyes
The following post is a letter I wrote to the BBC commenting on a news report I saw about Kashmir just before the state elections in J&K in November 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While watching BBC World News I saw a report about a protest by separatist leader Yaseen Malik's supporters in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The report mentioned that there were protests because of Malik's arrest. There was no mention of the reason of arrest. That is an important fact missed.
It was not mentioned what kind of protests occurred, peaceful or rioting, how many people were protesting in what parts of J&K. My concern is not about things that were missed but things that were added.
There was also a seemingly factual comment mentioned at the end of the report stating that many people in J&K wish independence from a "Hindu" India or a merger with "Muslim" Pakistan.
While the fact about a "Muslim" Pakistan is certainly true. But the concept "Hindu India" is not quite true. "Hindu" is a name given by outsiders for the religion of a majority Indians and accepted by them. "India" is a name given by outsiders for the country and accepted by the people of the country. But "Hindu India" is a factual error and suggests that "Hinduism" is a national religion of India. I would say mentioning it adds a certain slant to the reporting, that should have been avoided.
I would like to see BBC reporting about the facts that India is a multicultural, multi-religious, multi-linguistic country, which is the truth. Would adding that description also add a slant to the reporting?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While watching BBC World News I saw a report about a protest by separatist leader Yaseen Malik's supporters in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The report mentioned that there were protests because of Malik's arrest. There was no mention of the reason of arrest. That is an important fact missed.
It was not mentioned what kind of protests occurred, peaceful or rioting, how many people were protesting in what parts of J&K. My concern is not about things that were missed but things that were added.
There was also a seemingly factual comment mentioned at the end of the report stating that many people in J&K wish independence from a "Hindu" India or a merger with "Muslim" Pakistan.
While the fact about a "Muslim" Pakistan is certainly true. But the concept "Hindu India" is not quite true. "Hindu" is a name given by outsiders for the religion of a majority Indians and accepted by them. "India" is a name given by outsiders for the country and accepted by the people of the country. But "Hindu India" is a factual error and suggests that "Hinduism" is a national religion of India. I would say mentioning it adds a certain slant to the reporting, that should have been avoided.
I would like to see BBC reporting about the facts that India is a multicultural, multi-religious, multi-linguistic country, which is the truth. Would adding that description also add a slant to the reporting?
Saturday, 21 March 2009
Kashmir - An Ideological Dispute
Kashmir is not so much a territorial dispute as it is a remnant of the ideological differences about partition of India on religious lines. Pakistan’s justification of claim over Kashmir is that it has a majority Muslim population, and hence after partition of India it should have merged with Pakistan based on the two nation theory that was radically preached by Jinnah. India’s claim on Jammu and Kashmir comes from looking at the state and its people from a different prism.
As per 2001 census the population of Jammu and Kashmir is approximately 10 million, which is about half of Bombay and it suburbs or the National Capital Region of India and amounts to 0.98% of the population of India. Kashmir is multicultural, multi linguistic and diverse in all aspects of human civilization. Religion is only one of those aspects. Population of Jammu and Kashmir has a diverse ethnicity , language and culture. There are three major regions in the present Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir; Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Jammu extends the culture of neighbouring Punjab and has a majority Hindu population. Ladakh is the largest of three and has a majority Buddhist population with cultural links with neighbouring Tibet. The vale of Kashmir is overwhelmingly (95%) Muslim and is the most populous region of three. The Sufi Islam practiced in the vale is tolerant of the differences that exist in the region and this tolerance had allowed a minority of Kashmiri Hindus to live in peace with their Muslim neighbours for nearly a thousand years. That was so, until they were evicted from the vale by Islamic militants during the beginning of insurgency in 1989. People of Kashmir valley have a shared heritage and culture which is in a sense different from the other regions of the state. [3]
The difference in ideology that made Pakistan separate from India is also the reason for it to seek Jammu and Kashmir as its own. The ideology of unity and diversity that governs India also makes it consider that Jammu and Kashmir has a common destiny with the rest of India. The majority of the population being Muslim does not make Jammu and Kashmir in anyway unsuitable for sharing its destiny with the rest of India rather it makes it an essential ingredient of the multicultural pot purée that is India. Jammu and Kashmir symbolises the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of India.
Apart from a cultural claim that India has over Jammu and Kashmir, it also has a legal claim over it because of the instrument of accession signed by the erstwhile ruler of Jammu and Kashmir in favour of joining the Indian union. The circumstance under which the instrument was signed is quite well known. Pakistan with the interest of owing territory in former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir imposed an economic blockade on it. It sent tribal invaders along with regular army personnel, armed with Pakistani army weapons to Jammu and Kashmir. [1] Following the invasion, Maharaja Hari Singh sent a distress call to Delhi for assistance in flushing out the invaders. When Delhi set the condition of Maharaja signing the accession treaty, the Maharaja obliged. In October 1947 Indian Army was airlifted to Srinagar to protect the capital and flush out the invaders. The point to which the invader could be pushed before a UN brokered ceasefire was brought into effect, became a ceasefire line between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir.
After the cease fire in 1949 Pakistan has made several attempts to alter the ceasefire line with force. In 1965 expecting a weakened India after its 1962 war with China, General Ayub Khan the military dictator of Pakistan made a failed attempt to claim territory in Jammu and Kashmir by force. First sending covert infiltrators into the state and later involving the regular Pakistani military. [4] In the war in 1971 which was fought over Bangladesh, Pakistan opened a front in western India. Following the surrender of Pakistani Army in East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir became the current Line of Control between India and Pakistan in that state.
In the 1980’s America under Reagan administration followed a policy of covertly supporting Pakistani and Afghan religious militants to bleed Soviet army in Afghanistan. Pakistan under the leadership of military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq more than obliged with the American plan to pursue its own interests in Afghanistan. [6] Since the successful US covert operation in Afghanistan Pakistan became an active military ally of US and received military assistance in the form of modern weapons and training for its military personnel. General Zia introduced hard line Sharia Islamic law in Pakistan and religious fundamentalism has been on a rise in Pakistan ever since his reign. The Reagan administration also failed to prevent Pakistan from acquiring technology for developing a nuclear bomb. [6]
Emboldened by the success of its operations in Afghanistan and acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the Pakistani army naturally saw the effectiveness of using the same forces to make India bleed in Kashmir. Ever since the creation of Bangladesh which Pakistani army considers a humiliation at the hands of Indians, it has sought revenge. The armed insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir began in 1989 with the support of Pakistani army and helped by the sheer mismanagement of public discontent by Indian administrators. It began as a rebellion by Kashmiri youth trained in the Pakistan in the use of arms of the same variety that was supplied to Afghan militants by US. With time it transformed into a terror campaign fed by men preached in religious fundamentalism from Pakistan and Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Over the last 20 years Pakistan has fuelled the terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir with impunity. Calling Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory has become a justification of armed aggression by Pakistan, whether overt or covert. The Kargil misadventure in 1999 is a case in point. After 50 years of its first armed aggression in Jammu and Kashmir and creation of a cease fire line, Pakistani army tried to alter the Line of Control one more time by means of capturing strategic mountain heights in the Kargil and Drass sectors of Jammu and Kashmir, starting what is known as the Kargil war. The Indian army because of a glaring intelligence failure and failure in vigilance of this region had to flush out Pakistani invaders at the cost of nearly 600 lives of its men. [5]
Reaching a situation of stalemate in Jammu and Kashmir the terrorists and their handlers have spread their activities to other parts of the country including recruiting cadre from disgruntled youth and criminals from the rest of India also. The pattern remains the same. The terrorist elements are brought to Pakistan and trained in terror training camps operating there, and sent back to India to carry out violent acts under instruction from handlers in Pakistan; always maintaining a level of ambiguity to deflect any direct claim of involvement of the Pakistan government of the day. Some of the biggest attacks that were carried about by these elements were the Kandahar plane hijacking in 2000, the Akshar Dham temple attack, the Parliament attack in 2002, bomb blasts in various Indian cities like Jaipur, Delhi, Bangalore, Bombay and Ahmedabad, including high profile attacks in Bombay like the suburban train explosions in 2006 and the attacks in several iconic building in South Bombay by armed terrorists in November 2008. The mastermind of 1992 serial bomb blasts in Bombay is also believed to be hiding in Pakistan, although Pakistan continues to deny this.
The increase in terror attacks against civilian population by the Islamic terrorists has lead to the leading nations of the world pressing on Pakistan to curb the activities of these groups. The US which holds a particular leverage over Pakistan has pressed upon it to act. Indian threat of retaliation is a reason for US persuasion of Pakistan but it is clear from the public statements from officials and ministers from both US and UK that they would sooner or later fall in the trap of linking the Kashmir “dispute” with the terror acts being conducted from Pakistan. Pakistan would continue the sabre rattling and justify the aggression in Kashmir by the claim it makes on the territory.
The role that western nations and China have played in Pakistan is based to their own self preserving interests. Both the west and China have helped Pakistan make a considerable military strength to be able to challenge India. The interest of China is quite clear. It wants to keep India engaged with Pakistan considering that it has hostile claim on parts of India too. China also illegally occupies parts of Jammu and Kashmir . Enemy’s enemy makes a friend. West on the other has used Pakistan for its military goals in Afghanistan in particular and South Asia in general. Perhaps the remnants of their hostility towards Russia with India’s continued engagement with that country and also India’s independence in world affairs makes them continue to use Pakistan and Kashmir is a tool for controlling the Indian elephant. The west sees India’s independent views on issues of international concern as a problem. China has opposed expansion of permanent members in the UN Security Council which directly affects India’s say in matters of international concern. The relative weakness of Indian military and economy allows west and China to continue their policies without much resistance from India.
India’s problems in Kashmir are costing it dear in terms of its own security, both internal and external. India as yet does not have fully mature and efficient security establishment in place. The Indian Police is plagued by inefficiency and corruption. This is a fact which, any ordinary Indian citizen would have experienced in any part of the country. The trouble in North Eastern part of the country and the Maoist insurgency in tribal regions of the country are serious security concerns. A hostile and militarily strong Pakistan has done enough harm to India’s security. The impunity with which it continues to sponsor Islamic terror needs to be stopped. The Pakistani military does not need submarines, missiles, advanced tanks and fighter jets to fight the terrorists it is purported to be fighting in its tribal regions. It is imperative on India to press upon the leading nations of the world to check the military growth of Pakistan. But before Indian administrators will be effective in that, they need to demonstrate an ability to rescue its own Police from the present state of affairs. It is a matter purely in control of the elected representatives of the country. India needs to get its own house in order before it can persuade others to respect its security. Perhaps one might even suggest that internal security and justice to its citizens is a bigger priority for India than external threats. If the internal strife cannot be exploited by other hostile nations then India will be in a better position to negotiate with them.
Coming back to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, the previous assertion of internal security and justice is applicable here as well. Religious harmony is of utmost importance for India to live up to its ideology. Corruption and heavy handedness on part of the security forces is of a bigger concern in Jammu and Kashmir than anywhere else in the country. [2] This is so because of the sheer number of security forces present in the state and the security laws in force there. Allegation of illegal detentions and civilian death whether deliberate or accidental do not help the army’s cause in Kashmir. [2] A combination of getting our own house in order and pressing upon the world to demilitarize Pakistan is needed for the security in Jammu and Kashmir. Given that the support of Pakistan to terrorist organizations acting against India is out in the open for quite some time now, it is essential for India to press upon other nations not to strengthen the military of Pakistan with arms sales and training. Recent statements made by the government of India in this regard are a welcome step. This needs to be reiterated in international forums and during bilateral discussions with China, United States and other European countries.
Turing the LOC into a permanent border to end the claims and counter claims on the region by India and Pakistan is a valid proposition. If the partition of India was acceptable solution for preventing a civil war, then an acceptance of the Line of Control as International border for perpetual peace is an argument worth making. What is needed is acceptance of this reality by Indians including Kashmiris and the Pakistanis, just as the people of the subcontinent have accepted the partition of India in 1947. It is in the hands of present and future administrator of India to prove that the ideology on which the Nation was build will last the test of time and a better integration of the people of Kashmir in national mainstream will take place. To quote Nehru “Let us lay the foundations well and the rest will inevitably follow.”
References:
[1] Nehru: The Years of Power by Vincent Sheean, Random House, 1960
[2] "Everyone Lives in Fear" - Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir by Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Right Watch Report, September 2006
[3] The mosaic of Jammu and Kashmir by Balraj Puri, Frontline Magazine Volume 18 - Issue 09, Apr. 28 - May 11, 2001
[4] Kashmir - Research Paper 04/28 by Paul Bowers, House of Commons Library, 30 March 2004 (http://www.parliament.uk)
[5] Dispatches from Kargil by Shrinjoy Choudhary
[6] Failed States – The Abuse of Power and The Assault on Democracy by Noam Chomsky, Penguin Books, 2006
As per 2001 census the population of Jammu and Kashmir is approximately 10 million, which is about half of Bombay and it suburbs or the National Capital Region of India and amounts to 0.98% of the population of India. Kashmir is multicultural, multi linguistic and diverse in all aspects of human civilization. Religion is only one of those aspects. Population of Jammu and Kashmir has a diverse ethnicity , language and culture. There are three major regions in the present Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir; Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Jammu extends the culture of neighbouring Punjab and has a majority Hindu population. Ladakh is the largest of three and has a majority Buddhist population with cultural links with neighbouring Tibet. The vale of Kashmir is overwhelmingly (95%) Muslim and is the most populous region of three. The Sufi Islam practiced in the vale is tolerant of the differences that exist in the region and this tolerance had allowed a minority of Kashmiri Hindus to live in peace with their Muslim neighbours for nearly a thousand years. That was so, until they were evicted from the vale by Islamic militants during the beginning of insurgency in 1989. People of Kashmir valley have a shared heritage and culture which is in a sense different from the other regions of the state. [3]
The difference in ideology that made Pakistan separate from India is also the reason for it to seek Jammu and Kashmir as its own. The ideology of unity and diversity that governs India also makes it consider that Jammu and Kashmir has a common destiny with the rest of India. The majority of the population being Muslim does not make Jammu and Kashmir in anyway unsuitable for sharing its destiny with the rest of India rather it makes it an essential ingredient of the multicultural pot purée that is India. Jammu and Kashmir symbolises the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of India.
Apart from a cultural claim that India has over Jammu and Kashmir, it also has a legal claim over it because of the instrument of accession signed by the erstwhile ruler of Jammu and Kashmir in favour of joining the Indian union. The circumstance under which the instrument was signed is quite well known. Pakistan with the interest of owing territory in former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir imposed an economic blockade on it. It sent tribal invaders along with regular army personnel, armed with Pakistani army weapons to Jammu and Kashmir. [1] Following the invasion, Maharaja Hari Singh sent a distress call to Delhi for assistance in flushing out the invaders. When Delhi set the condition of Maharaja signing the accession treaty, the Maharaja obliged. In October 1947 Indian Army was airlifted to Srinagar to protect the capital and flush out the invaders. The point to which the invader could be pushed before a UN brokered ceasefire was brought into effect, became a ceasefire line between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir.
After the cease fire in 1949 Pakistan has made several attempts to alter the ceasefire line with force. In 1965 expecting a weakened India after its 1962 war with China, General Ayub Khan the military dictator of Pakistan made a failed attempt to claim territory in Jammu and Kashmir by force. First sending covert infiltrators into the state and later involving the regular Pakistani military. [4] In the war in 1971 which was fought over Bangladesh, Pakistan opened a front in western India. Following the surrender of Pakistani Army in East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir became the current Line of Control between India and Pakistan in that state.
In the 1980’s America under Reagan administration followed a policy of covertly supporting Pakistani and Afghan religious militants to bleed Soviet army in Afghanistan. Pakistan under the leadership of military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq more than obliged with the American plan to pursue its own interests in Afghanistan. [6] Since the successful US covert operation in Afghanistan Pakistan became an active military ally of US and received military assistance in the form of modern weapons and training for its military personnel. General Zia introduced hard line Sharia Islamic law in Pakistan and religious fundamentalism has been on a rise in Pakistan ever since his reign. The Reagan administration also failed to prevent Pakistan from acquiring technology for developing a nuclear bomb. [6]
Emboldened by the success of its operations in Afghanistan and acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the Pakistani army naturally saw the effectiveness of using the same forces to make India bleed in Kashmir. Ever since the creation of Bangladesh which Pakistani army considers a humiliation at the hands of Indians, it has sought revenge. The armed insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir began in 1989 with the support of Pakistani army and helped by the sheer mismanagement of public discontent by Indian administrators. It began as a rebellion by Kashmiri youth trained in the Pakistan in the use of arms of the same variety that was supplied to Afghan militants by US. With time it transformed into a terror campaign fed by men preached in religious fundamentalism from Pakistan and Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Over the last 20 years Pakistan has fuelled the terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir with impunity. Calling Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory has become a justification of armed aggression by Pakistan, whether overt or covert. The Kargil misadventure in 1999 is a case in point. After 50 years of its first armed aggression in Jammu and Kashmir and creation of a cease fire line, Pakistani army tried to alter the Line of Control one more time by means of capturing strategic mountain heights in the Kargil and Drass sectors of Jammu and Kashmir, starting what is known as the Kargil war. The Indian army because of a glaring intelligence failure and failure in vigilance of this region had to flush out Pakistani invaders at the cost of nearly 600 lives of its men. [5]
Reaching a situation of stalemate in Jammu and Kashmir the terrorists and their handlers have spread their activities to other parts of the country including recruiting cadre from disgruntled youth and criminals from the rest of India also. The pattern remains the same. The terrorist elements are brought to Pakistan and trained in terror training camps operating there, and sent back to India to carry out violent acts under instruction from handlers in Pakistan; always maintaining a level of ambiguity to deflect any direct claim of involvement of the Pakistan government of the day. Some of the biggest attacks that were carried about by these elements were the Kandahar plane hijacking in 2000, the Akshar Dham temple attack, the Parliament attack in 2002, bomb blasts in various Indian cities like Jaipur, Delhi, Bangalore, Bombay and Ahmedabad, including high profile attacks in Bombay like the suburban train explosions in 2006 and the attacks in several iconic building in South Bombay by armed terrorists in November 2008. The mastermind of 1992 serial bomb blasts in Bombay is also believed to be hiding in Pakistan, although Pakistan continues to deny this.
The increase in terror attacks against civilian population by the Islamic terrorists has lead to the leading nations of the world pressing on Pakistan to curb the activities of these groups. The US which holds a particular leverage over Pakistan has pressed upon it to act. Indian threat of retaliation is a reason for US persuasion of Pakistan but it is clear from the public statements from officials and ministers from both US and UK that they would sooner or later fall in the trap of linking the Kashmir “dispute” with the terror acts being conducted from Pakistan. Pakistan would continue the sabre rattling and justify the aggression in Kashmir by the claim it makes on the territory.
The role that western nations and China have played in Pakistan is based to their own self preserving interests. Both the west and China have helped Pakistan make a considerable military strength to be able to challenge India. The interest of China is quite clear. It wants to keep India engaged with Pakistan considering that it has hostile claim on parts of India too. China also illegally occupies parts of Jammu and Kashmir . Enemy’s enemy makes a friend. West on the other has used Pakistan for its military goals in Afghanistan in particular and South Asia in general. Perhaps the remnants of their hostility towards Russia with India’s continued engagement with that country and also India’s independence in world affairs makes them continue to use Pakistan and Kashmir is a tool for controlling the Indian elephant. The west sees India’s independent views on issues of international concern as a problem. China has opposed expansion of permanent members in the UN Security Council which directly affects India’s say in matters of international concern. The relative weakness of Indian military and economy allows west and China to continue their policies without much resistance from India.
India’s problems in Kashmir are costing it dear in terms of its own security, both internal and external. India as yet does not have fully mature and efficient security establishment in place. The Indian Police is plagued by inefficiency and corruption. This is a fact which, any ordinary Indian citizen would have experienced in any part of the country. The trouble in North Eastern part of the country and the Maoist insurgency in tribal regions of the country are serious security concerns. A hostile and militarily strong Pakistan has done enough harm to India’s security. The impunity with which it continues to sponsor Islamic terror needs to be stopped. The Pakistani military does not need submarines, missiles, advanced tanks and fighter jets to fight the terrorists it is purported to be fighting in its tribal regions. It is imperative on India to press upon the leading nations of the world to check the military growth of Pakistan. But before Indian administrators will be effective in that, they need to demonstrate an ability to rescue its own Police from the present state of affairs. It is a matter purely in control of the elected representatives of the country. India needs to get its own house in order before it can persuade others to respect its security. Perhaps one might even suggest that internal security and justice to its citizens is a bigger priority for India than external threats. If the internal strife cannot be exploited by other hostile nations then India will be in a better position to negotiate with them.
Coming back to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, the previous assertion of internal security and justice is applicable here as well. Religious harmony is of utmost importance for India to live up to its ideology. Corruption and heavy handedness on part of the security forces is of a bigger concern in Jammu and Kashmir than anywhere else in the country. [2] This is so because of the sheer number of security forces present in the state and the security laws in force there. Allegation of illegal detentions and civilian death whether deliberate or accidental do not help the army’s cause in Kashmir. [2] A combination of getting our own house in order and pressing upon the world to demilitarize Pakistan is needed for the security in Jammu and Kashmir. Given that the support of Pakistan to terrorist organizations acting against India is out in the open for quite some time now, it is essential for India to press upon other nations not to strengthen the military of Pakistan with arms sales and training. Recent statements made by the government of India in this regard are a welcome step. This needs to be reiterated in international forums and during bilateral discussions with China, United States and other European countries.
Turing the LOC into a permanent border to end the claims and counter claims on the region by India and Pakistan is a valid proposition. If the partition of India was acceptable solution for preventing a civil war, then an acceptance of the Line of Control as International border for perpetual peace is an argument worth making. What is needed is acceptance of this reality by Indians including Kashmiris and the Pakistanis, just as the people of the subcontinent have accepted the partition of India in 1947. It is in the hands of present and future administrator of India to prove that the ideology on which the Nation was build will last the test of time and a better integration of the people of Kashmir in national mainstream will take place. To quote Nehru “Let us lay the foundations well and the rest will inevitably follow.”
References:
[1] Nehru: The Years of Power by Vincent Sheean, Random House, 1960
[2] "Everyone Lives in Fear" - Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir by Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Right Watch Report, September 2006
[3] The mosaic of Jammu and Kashmir by Balraj Puri, Frontline Magazine Volume 18 - Issue 09, Apr. 28 - May 11, 2001
[4] Kashmir - Research Paper 04/28 by Paul Bowers, House of Commons Library, 30 March 2004 (http://www.parliament.uk)
[5] Dispatches from Kargil by Shrinjoy Choudhary
[6] Failed States – The Abuse of Power and The Assault on Democracy by Noam Chomsky, Penguin Books, 2006
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Silent Protest
This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against the Chinese rule. In March 1959 the people of Tibet finally revolted against the Chinese army following events which were termed as ‘Rape of Tibet’ by the Hindustan Times. The Chinese had invaded Tibet in 1950 to establish political and military control of the region. In 1959 it undertook to conquer the entire Tibetan territory. At that point of time Beijing then known as Peking had a feudal suzerainty over Tibet, but Tibet depended on India for most of its communication and trade links with the rest of the world. India never had any claim in Tibet apart from a historical right to trade with the region. Communist China annexed Tibet with military might and the rest of the world watched. There were protests by India but with no avail [1]. In 1959 following the failed uprising the Dalai Lama made a dramatic escape to India dressed in Chinese army uniform. The young spiritual leader of Tibet was given asylum in India and he formed a Tibetan government in exile. Ever since the failed revolt of 1959 Tibetans have been silently protesting against the occupation. 50 years have gone by and much has changed in the world. For almost 30 years now the Dalai Lama has changed his demand of full independence of Tibet to that of a ‘meaningful autonomy’. Essentially Tibetans want nothing but freedom to preserve their culture, environment and religion in Tibet.
Tibet has a highly developed culture. Buddhism spread to the rest of East Asia from Tibet and it has been a high learning center of Buddhism in the world. The people of the country are economically and politically poor because of the harsh climate, but spiritually it has always been rich. Communist china has subverted that freedom. There isn’t much political freedom in the regions which can be termed as heartland of China, expectation of such a freedom in Tibet is an illusion, under the current political system there. India’s position on the topic of Tibet is termed ‘overly cautious’ by the Dalai Lama.
Over the years the Dalai Lama has transformed from the Spiritual leader of Tibet to high moral leader of the world. His words should not be taken lightly by any government in New Delhi. The overly optimistic view that government of India had about its ability to keep friendly relations with China in the 50’s resulted in a surprise attack by China in 1962. The principles of Panchsheel were broken by China with this war. None of the principles have been followed by China ever since. The principles were:
(1) Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty;
(2) nonaggression; (3) noninterference in each other's internal affairs; (4) equality and mutual advantage; (5) peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation.
The overly cautious attitude that we have about not meddling in China’s affairs has enabled it to continue to subvert the people of Tibet and at the same time continue to hurt India in other matters of its security. China has maintained its claim on parts of India, continues to occupy parts of Kashmir, and continues to support Pakistan militarily.
There were recent revelations by an ex CIA officer about suspicion of China being responsible for the transfer of Nuclear know how to Pakistan, including that of China conducting the first nuclear bomb test on behalf of Pakistan within China.
While we compromise on the Tibetan cause in a hope to keep friendly relations with China, the Chinese have lost no opportunity in acting in ways counterproductive to India’s interests in the world. The recent Chinese protest against expansion of UNSC is a slap in the face. One can’t help but compare with how India went to all lengths to get the world to recognize China and award it a permanent membership in UNSC in the 1950s.
India need not ignite or fan the fire of protest in Tibet. But what India can do is allow the Tibetans forced to live in exile in India to be more vocal of their demand without being too worried about the Chinese response. By silencing their protests we are helping Beijing subvert the people of Tibet. We should facilitate a resolution of the Tibet issue. We should be taking up the cause of Tibetans in bilateral discussions with China and in international forums more openly. Their protests need not be silent any more. Their demands should be allowed to be more vocal. We believe in a multicultural, multi religious, multi ethnic democracy at home. We have created a system in our nation to give equal right to all citizens in India. We have an interest in the political freedom of people in all the neighbouring countries. That is directly related to our future security. A regime that subverts the freedom of its people is a threat to its neighbours too. A transformation in Tibet can bring a transformation in China as a whole that would be beneficial for the rest of Asia as well.
Tibet has a highly developed culture. Buddhism spread to the rest of East Asia from Tibet and it has been a high learning center of Buddhism in the world. The people of the country are economically and politically poor because of the harsh climate, but spiritually it has always been rich. Communist china has subverted that freedom. There isn’t much political freedom in the regions which can be termed as heartland of China, expectation of such a freedom in Tibet is an illusion, under the current political system there. India’s position on the topic of Tibet is termed ‘overly cautious’ by the Dalai Lama.
Over the years the Dalai Lama has transformed from the Spiritual leader of Tibet to high moral leader of the world. His words should not be taken lightly by any government in New Delhi. The overly optimistic view that government of India had about its ability to keep friendly relations with China in the 50’s resulted in a surprise attack by China in 1962. The principles of Panchsheel were broken by China with this war. None of the principles have been followed by China ever since. The principles were:
(1) Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty;
(2) nonaggression; (3) noninterference in each other's internal affairs; (4) equality and mutual advantage; (5) peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation.
The overly cautious attitude that we have about not meddling in China’s affairs has enabled it to continue to subvert the people of Tibet and at the same time continue to hurt India in other matters of its security. China has maintained its claim on parts of India, continues to occupy parts of Kashmir, and continues to support Pakistan militarily.
There were recent revelations by an ex CIA officer about suspicion of China being responsible for the transfer of Nuclear know how to Pakistan, including that of China conducting the first nuclear bomb test on behalf of Pakistan within China.
While we compromise on the Tibetan cause in a hope to keep friendly relations with China, the Chinese have lost no opportunity in acting in ways counterproductive to India’s interests in the world. The recent Chinese protest against expansion of UNSC is a slap in the face. One can’t help but compare with how India went to all lengths to get the world to recognize China and award it a permanent membership in UNSC in the 1950s.
India need not ignite or fan the fire of protest in Tibet. But what India can do is allow the Tibetans forced to live in exile in India to be more vocal of their demand without being too worried about the Chinese response. By silencing their protests we are helping Beijing subvert the people of Tibet. We should facilitate a resolution of the Tibet issue. We should be taking up the cause of Tibetans in bilateral discussions with China and in international forums more openly. Their protests need not be silent any more. Their demands should be allowed to be more vocal. We believe in a multicultural, multi religious, multi ethnic democracy at home. We have created a system in our nation to give equal right to all citizens in India. We have an interest in the political freedom of people in all the neighbouring countries. That is directly related to our future security. A regime that subverts the freedom of its people is a threat to its neighbours too. A transformation in Tibet can bring a transformation in China as a whole that would be beneficial for the rest of Asia as well.
References:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
A Choice to Make
The general elections in India are just round the corner. Soon we will be electing member of parliaments from 543 constituencies in India. In the previous election a fate of more than 5000 aspirants was decided by nearly 380 million of voters. There are close to 300 million who did not vote. Election commission has over the years reformed the parliamentary elections keeping pace with changing times. Introduction of electronic voting machines, enforcement of moral code of conduct, introduction of voter ID cards are the most visible form of these reforms. Nation as a whole is more aware of the importance of voting because of the various public information campaigns launched by Private Businesses, NGOs and also Election Commission.
One reads about the court litigation ongoing about the right of negative voting for citizens in newspapers. I read a few years ago about section 49-O of The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 [1] of India. Like many young middle income professionals of today I have never voted. How can I be so assertive about the term many? That is matter of personal experience. Friends and colleagues of mine including me have an apathy of current politics. Not that we do not believe in the democratic system and the benefits of a liberal society. But there is hardly any drive to attract us to vote for a cause. Anyone who is aware of the happening in the country from media cannot help but believe that the elected representatives of the country are not the best citizens the country has to offer. When the choice is between two equally incompetent people in the eyes of the voter, then there isn’t much that attracts him to go and cast a vote. In these circumstances the idea of going to a poling station and registering a no vote, which is in effect a rejection of all the candidates standing for elections in that constituency, sounds like a welcome proposition. One might argue how constructive such a negative vote. I wouldn’t term it destructive but it is disruptive for sure. If enough voters register a no vote then it will be a wakeup call to the political parties to realize that the candidates they have fielded are being viewed as incompetent by a large number of people in the constituency.
Ticket distribution time is a time of fanfare for national and regional parties. Politicians old and new, lobby for the tickets. The upper echelons of the party decide the fate of the aspirants vying to obtaining a party ticket to contest from a constituency. The ability to win one might assume is of course the single biggest determining factor on who gets the tickets. The means used for registering a win would be the smallest determining factor. This can be assumed. I need not present facts. The end result is what we see in the parliament with the 100+ MPs with criminal record and the disruptions in the parliament, the corruption charges, the media sting operations, the nepotism in politics, the undermining of government institutions like the Police, pubic universities and government administrative departments shows that individual verifiable facts about incompetence of candidates are not needed. The end result cannot but be because of the low quality of the candidates in the first place.
People who are either famous or notorious are seen as winning candidates by parties because they can attract voters. Well they surely attract voters with shallow interests or the ones with fear on their minds. But it dissuades a lot of thinking voters who are disillusioned by the choices they have at offer. Perhaps a choice of a disruptive negative vote is what can revive the democracy by bringing a larger number of voters to the ballot box.
The parliamentary democracy that India has favours a voting system where people should be more concerned about the quality of the candidate contesting election in their constituency rather than the candidate proposed by the party as it prime ministerial candidate. If we choose the right person from our constituency then the choice of the PM in the centre will also be correct. Political parties should no longer be allowed to erode the quality of the parliament as a whole by encouraging all kinds of candidates with criminal records and corruption charges to stand in elections. Just because they can win by using all means, and provide a valuable seat to enable them to form a government, should not be allowed to be the determining factor for choice of a candidate. Such a government cannot do much good to the country no matter how competent the central cabinet might be and no matter how well intentioned their national manifesto might be. This is because on the ground level foundation is been corroded by incompetent MPs who can switch party loyalty for self preserving interests at the flip of a silver coin.
If the political parties can be shown that the public at large holds this view about the competence of the candidates by a very visible negative vote at the ballot box then I am sure they will be forced to introspect on the choice of candidates. It will also encourage well minded people to stand as independent candidates. One need not be too intelligent, nor an excellent orator, nor an experienced politician to do justice to the office of a member of parliament. But a person with proven public disservice needs to be disqualified, if not by the party and the court then by the people.
References:
[1] http://www.indian-elections.com/facts-figures.html
One reads about the court litigation ongoing about the right of negative voting for citizens in newspapers. I read a few years ago about section 49-O of The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 [1] of India. Like many young middle income professionals of today I have never voted. How can I be so assertive about the term many? That is matter of personal experience. Friends and colleagues of mine including me have an apathy of current politics. Not that we do not believe in the democratic system and the benefits of a liberal society. But there is hardly any drive to attract us to vote for a cause. Anyone who is aware of the happening in the country from media cannot help but believe that the elected representatives of the country are not the best citizens the country has to offer. When the choice is between two equally incompetent people in the eyes of the voter, then there isn’t much that attracts him to go and cast a vote. In these circumstances the idea of going to a poling station and registering a no vote, which is in effect a rejection of all the candidates standing for elections in that constituency, sounds like a welcome proposition. One might argue how constructive such a negative vote. I wouldn’t term it destructive but it is disruptive for sure. If enough voters register a no vote then it will be a wakeup call to the political parties to realize that the candidates they have fielded are being viewed as incompetent by a large number of people in the constituency.
Ticket distribution time is a time of fanfare for national and regional parties. Politicians old and new, lobby for the tickets. The upper echelons of the party decide the fate of the aspirants vying to obtaining a party ticket to contest from a constituency. The ability to win one might assume is of course the single biggest determining factor on who gets the tickets. The means used for registering a win would be the smallest determining factor. This can be assumed. I need not present facts. The end result is what we see in the parliament with the 100+ MPs with criminal record and the disruptions in the parliament, the corruption charges, the media sting operations, the nepotism in politics, the undermining of government institutions like the Police, pubic universities and government administrative departments shows that individual verifiable facts about incompetence of candidates are not needed. The end result cannot but be because of the low quality of the candidates in the first place.
People who are either famous or notorious are seen as winning candidates by parties because they can attract voters. Well they surely attract voters with shallow interests or the ones with fear on their minds. But it dissuades a lot of thinking voters who are disillusioned by the choices they have at offer. Perhaps a choice of a disruptive negative vote is what can revive the democracy by bringing a larger number of voters to the ballot box.
The parliamentary democracy that India has favours a voting system where people should be more concerned about the quality of the candidate contesting election in their constituency rather than the candidate proposed by the party as it prime ministerial candidate. If we choose the right person from our constituency then the choice of the PM in the centre will also be correct. Political parties should no longer be allowed to erode the quality of the parliament as a whole by encouraging all kinds of candidates with criminal records and corruption charges to stand in elections. Just because they can win by using all means, and provide a valuable seat to enable them to form a government, should not be allowed to be the determining factor for choice of a candidate. Such a government cannot do much good to the country no matter how competent the central cabinet might be and no matter how well intentioned their national manifesto might be. This is because on the ground level foundation is been corroded by incompetent MPs who can switch party loyalty for self preserving interests at the flip of a silver coin.
If the political parties can be shown that the public at large holds this view about the competence of the candidates by a very visible negative vote at the ballot box then I am sure they will be forced to introspect on the choice of candidates. It will also encourage well minded people to stand as independent candidates. One need not be too intelligent, nor an excellent orator, nor an experienced politician to do justice to the office of a member of parliament. But a person with proven public disservice needs to be disqualified, if not by the party and the court then by the people.
References:
[1] http://www.indian-elections.com/facts-figures.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)