Ban hits wild cats too

As the beef traders’ strike continues, lions, tigers and other carnivores(who eat meat) in Mumbai zoos now get chicken as their primary feed. Keepers worry about the animals losing strength
Palash, the largest tiger at the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai, still paces his cage for the hour leading up to dinner and still pounces on his meal when his handlers lift the gate to his feeding room. But lately what the 440-pound feline finds is not his usual 15 pounds of raw beef, fresh from the slaughter. Instead, he and the park’s eight other Bengal tigers, three lions, 14 leopards and three vultures are subsisting almost exclusively on decidedly lighter fare: chicken.

The change in diet has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with India’s particular mix of politics and religion.

The Maharashtra State Government, led by the country’s governing Hindu nationalist party, recently banned the possession and sale of beef, imposing religious dietary restrictions on Hindus and non-Hindus alike. Violators can be punished by up to five years in prison.

The law has been sought by Hindu right-wingers, who helped bring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party come to power last year. Their ability to get the ban passed is seen by many as a sign of their growing power in the BJP-led governments in important States.

Fear of losing business

The new rules caused grumbling(murmur) from Mumbai’s cosmopolitan, sometimes beef-eating, elite(selected as a best) — a group that includes some Hindus who were sore over the sudden disappearance of steaks in restaurants. Others were unsettled by the rising culture wars between the Hindu right and those who oppose its agenda, including minorities. In this case, that group includes the State’s mostly Muslim cattle traders and meat retailers, who fear the ban will damage their businesses.

The beef traders are now weeks into a strike over the ban, refusing to supply shops with even buffalo meat, which is still legal.

And that is where the animals at the national park come in.

Until recently, the animals at the park had feasted on a mixed diet of fresh beef, water buffalo, and chicken. But the ban pulled beef from the menu, and the strike, at least for now, has put fresh buffalo out of reach for these wild cats.

The animal handlers, who seem baffled(puzzled,confuse) by the attention in the Indian news media since the ban, give mixed reviews on the switch to white meat. Babu Vishnukote, one of the feeders at the zoo, says the animals are devouring(eat) the chicken, which he sees as a good sign. But Shailesh Bhagwan Deore, who oversees the care of the animals kept in captivity at the park, fears the leaner diet might eventually deplete(consume) the animals’ strength. In fresh beef, the animals get the taste of blood, Mr. Deore said. They enjoy that.

Growing power of the right?

The fight, of course, is not over what the park’s animals are eating; they will be able to tear into freshly slaughtered buffalo meat as soon as the striking traders begin supplying it again. Underlying the debate is unease among some liberal Indians who are worried that the ban shows the growing power of the Hindu right in the country. Neerja Chowdhury, a journalist and political analyst, said the passage of the ban seemed to indicate a kind of quid pro quo between Mr. Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, a Hindu nationalist organisation that backed his recent attempts at land reform despite its reservations over them.

Mr. Modi is walking a tightrope because he himself is trying to come across as somebody who is pursuing inclusive politics, Ms. Chowdhury added. The general is taking one view, but the foot soldiers are taking a different view.

The protection of cows is a volatile subject in India, where the animals are revered by the majority-Hindu population. In a recent interview, activist Noorjehan Safia Niaz railed against the law, which she says unfairly affects poorer members of the country’s Christian, Muslim and Dalit communities who are reliant on beef because it is generally cheaper than chicken (and mutton). The decision to ban beef is a communal one targeted at the marginalised Muslims and Dalits, said Ms. Niaz, adding that the decision was tantamount(equal) to the government entering our kitchens and asking us what to eat. It is an extremely personal attack, she said.

It is the members of the Qureshi community, traditional butchers, who have been severely hit by the ban. Others affected even more in the short-run are the workers engaged with the beef business. These workers, labourers and assistants work on a hand-to-mouth basis, earning Rs. 350-400 per day. — © New York Times News Service

Read more »

The West and its flawed anti-IS strategy

If the West genuinely wants to fight terror and promote a peaceful future in the troubled West Asia region, it will have to confront its selective silence and dual standard on the serious challenges that threaten the region today.
If there are any doubts about a global double standard when it comes to West Asia, then the reaction to the bombing of Yemen by Saudi Arabia and its partners will put them to rest. Here is a situation, where fighter jets of a Saudi-led coalition(alliance) are pounding(attack) the capital of another country, Sana'a, without seeking any international mandate, and there is absolute silence from those who should object.

Leaders in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin have not appealed to the United Nations nor have they asked for an end to the bombing of civilians in an effort to stop the advance of rebels. Despite the question of sovereignty(independence,autonomous) — of more than 100 air raids in which dozens of civilians have died in the capital, human rights violations and even the basic worry of these raids helping al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in Yemen — there has been not one word of censure from them. In fact, Washington is backing the strikes, France and the United Kingdom are giving them “all possible” technical help, and Egypt, Turkey and even Pakistan plan to help with the “ground offensive” to back the Yemeni President, Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, against Houthi rebels.

For Western introspection

For those who say this is a justified attack to support a legitimate ruler, stop, think and rewind to 2012-2013, when the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, faced the most difficult pressure from armed Free Syrian Army fighters and Jabhat Al-Nasrah rebels (IS took control later). What would have been the Western reaction had Iran sent jets into Aleppo, Homs and Hama to back its ally, Mr. Assad? Wouldn’t these countries have set up a counter-attack within 24 hours, or at least convened(meet formally) the UN Security Council for a Right to Protect (R2P) mandate to do so?

The rank duality in dealing with the situation in Yemen is not just the subject of some hand-wringing; it is the single largest reason why the war against IS and even its successor organisations will be unwinnable for these countries. Despite 3,000 air strikes by a United States-led coalition of 62 countries that began operations last August to counter IS, IS continues to control more than an estimated 55,000 square kilometres of area in Iraq and Syria. That IS is an evil terror group displaying unprecedented brutality is undoubtable. That it is a threat to every country in the world should be obvious from the way the group has targeted every nationality: beheading American, British, Japanese and Egyptian citizens alike, burning alive a Jordanian national, and broadcasting its terror worldwide in the most bestial way. It poses the biggest threat to the next generation as well, recruiting a record number of child soldiers, and training children as young as five to kill. If the coalition, which represents nearly a third of the world, which has the resolve, the firepower, and the experience of fighting terror groups in every part of the world, is unable to counter such a group, deep and searching questions must be asked about why that is.

Down to logistics

To begin with, there is a basic problem of logistics. Despite the most sophisticated drones and surveillance of the region, an air strike on an IS target is ineffective without an accompanying ground force in place. Even if the U.S. and its coalition are able to strengthen Iraqi armed forces to conduct ground operations, it is meaningless until they are also able to enlist Syrian armed forces to launch a pincer-like action on the group that straddles(spread) both countries. Without the ground forces, all victories over IS territory are, essentially, pyrrhic(destructive). This was evident in the Syrian town of Kobane along the Turkish border where the U.S. Alliance drove IS out in September 2014 after two weeks of sustained bombing and 600 strikes. As journalists were allowed into the city, their cameras bore out the tragic truth: all that was left of IS-controlled areas was a vast wasteland. The reason that the U.S. coalition has been unable to engage the Syrian regime(rule) for help on the ground is of course the reason why it ignored the rise of IS in the first place. The West’s preoccupation with the removal of Mr. Assad and the funding and arming of the groups that opposed him since 2011 led to complete surprise at the rapidity with which IS fighters have taken over Syrian and Iraqi towns. In October last year, U.S. President Barack Obama finally conceded that underestimating IS’s rise had been a major “intelligence failure.” But it was more than that. It was the determined effort to ensure that “Assad must go” that led the Western and West Asian countries ranged against Mr. Assad to ignore his warnings about the nature of the fighters his army was battling. As a result, and in another example of the double standard, the 62-member coalition now routinely bombs areas that it wanted to stop Mr. Assad’s forces from bombing.

Misreading the Arab Spring

The other flaw with the West’s strategy is the pursuance of regime change, focussed on one leader as the single purpose of its wars in West Asia. Recent history should have taught the U.S., the U.K. and others that the removal of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi haven’t been the end of the conflict; they have merely marked the beginning of a more diabolical and deadly version of the conflict. Hanging Saddam and lynching Qadhafi hasn’t led to peace in Iraq and Libya, nor would the possible ouster of Mr. Assad do that. Instead, it has led to an erosion of what were once “secular” regimes, where minorities and women enjoyed a higher position than they do in other countries of the Arab world.

Another blunder(mistake) has been the misreading of the “Arab Spring” by the West. While many of the crowds that poured into Arab capitals, from Tunis to Damascus and Sana'a, demanded democracy and positive change, many just wanted regime change. Democracy is better effected through the ballot box than it is through the crowding of main squares, which is a powerful image, but a misleading representation of the “people’s will”. “We no longer refer to it as the Arab Spring,” admitted a senior NATO military official at the “Brussels Forum” conference last week, where trans-Atlantic discussions on IS were held. “It is now seen as the Arab uprising instead,” he concluded. Interestingly, the countries in the West that rejoiced at the thought of democracy in the countries of the so-called Spring missed the most significant point: all the countries that saw their leadership change — Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen — were republics, whereas none of the eight monarchies — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the Emirates, Jordan and Morocco — were destabilised.

This skew, particularly towards the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, who are more focussed on fighting the “Shi’a crescent” of Iranian influence in the region, has led to another problem. The West has turned a blind eye, and even assisted these countries in the funding, training and arming of Sunni extremist groups to carry out attacks in Syria. They have been doing this by trying to draw a fine line between the groups they support — including the Free Syrian Army and Jabhat Al-Nasrah — and with IS. Anyone who sees the distinctions between the groups has to only read the account of the American journalist, Theo Padnos (now Peter Theo Curtis), who was taken hostage in Syria in 2012 and finally released by al-Qaeda in August 2014 in a deal brokered by Qatar. Padnos was handed over from one group to another in Syria, and found few differences between them. When he asked why his well-armed captors trained in Jordan by U.S. marines were holding an American hostage despite promises they would only target Assad’s regime, they answered: “Yes, we lied.” If it is naivety that allows the U.S., France, and the U.K. to continue to enlist their Arab allies in the war on terror and hope they will cut off finances and oil revenues to al-Qaeda and IS, despite evidence that they play both sides of the war, it is a very costly innocence that the world has paid for.

Joining IS

Finally, there is a need for introspection inside Europe, the U.S., and even Australia, which have seen growing numbers of their citizens get through Turkey to join IS. While the brutality of the Assad regime and economic distress in the region have been blamed for the thousands of Arab youth taking up arms for IS, what explains the hundreds of citizens joining it from the U.K., France and the U.S.? According to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, 3,400 of the 20,000 IS foreign fighters are from Western countries. Why are British and French girls becoming jihadi brides, schoolboys and young doctors learning to kill, and teenage Americans travelling all the way just to join IS ranks? Could it be that in the early years of a push for regime change and sanctions against Syria, Western governments themselves promoted the propaganda against Mr. Assad’s government, allowing many of their Muslim citizens to think they had not just religious but national sanction to join the war?

Significantly, some of the West’s actions are now being rethought. While concluding another round of P5+1 talks with Iran in the Swiss town of Lausanne last week, the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, suggested that the U.S. is now open to talks with Mr. Assad if need be. “If he is ready to have a serious negotiation about the implementation of Geneva I (2012 agreement), of course,” he said. “What we’re pushing for is to get him to come and do that,” he added, in an interview to CBS.

But talks will only solve part of the problem in West Asia. If the West genuinely wants to fight terror and promote a peaceful future for the region, it will also have to confront its selective silence and dual standard on the serious challenges that threaten the region today.

Read more »

Safe food,from farm to plate

Food safety is critical for public health as food-borne diseases affect people’s well-being,strain(extend) health-care systems, and adversely impact national economies, tourism and trade
How often do we ask ourselves if the food we are eating is safe? Do we know if it is free of bacteria, viruses, parasites, chemicals, other contaminates(make something harmful), additives and adulterants which can cause over 200 diseases ranging from diarrhoea to cancer? Every year, diarrhoea caused by contaminated food and water kills 2.2 million people, including 1.9 million children, globally. Unsafe food and water kills an estimated 7,00,000 children in the World Health Organization’s South-East Asia Region every year. Access to safe food remains a challenge in the region. Whether as individuals, families, farmers, contributors to and handlers of the food chain or policymakers, we need to make food safety our priority.

Food safety is critical for public health as food-borne diseases affect people’s health and well-being. Unsafe food creates a vicious(cruel) cycle of disease and malnutrition, particularly affecting infants, young children, the elderly and the sick. Food-borne diseases impede(obstacle,block) socio-economic development by straining health care systems and adversely impacting national economies, tourism and trade.

Multisectoral collaboration

Since food passes through multiple hands from the farm to reach our plates, ensuring food safety requires multisectoral collaboration. The approach needs to be preventive — to improve food safety and quality through application of good farming practices by using agro chemicals or veterinary drugs only in the prescribed amount. Good storage, transportation, retail and restaurant practices are equally important to make food safe.

Street foods are emerging as an important source of food for a large proportion of the population in urban and peri-urban settings. Street food as a source of food-borne diseases therefore assumes public health significance.

Also, new threats to food safety are constantly emerging — the impact of climate change on food production, distribution and consumption; emerging biological and environmental contamination of the food chain, new technologies, new and emerging pathogens; antimicrobial resistance.

Countries need to have a comprehensive food safety policy, legislation and national food safety programmes encompassing all the sectors and aspects for food safety.

Though most countries in the region have food safety policies, enforcement remains a challenge. Food quality and safety standards are usually strictly followed for exportable food commodities, but not always enforced for food destined for the domestic market. Food safety and quality should be ensured through stringent(tight) control and inspection mechanisms for export as well as the domestic market.

Adulteration of food is another problem as informal food production and distribution systems are deeply entrenched(fix firmly) at the community level in the region. Contamination of mustard oil with argemone oil in 1998 and contamination of imported milk and infant formula with melamine in 2008 are among the few events that raised food safety concerns among consumers and policymakers in the region and globally.

Five keys to good safety

The most pertinent(to the point) of all the measures is creating awareness among individuals to ensure that their food is safe. In this context, ‘five keys’ to food safety need to be promoted — maintain cleanliness, separate raw and cooked food, cook thoroughly, keep food at correct temperature and use safe water and raw materials.

As food supply becomes increasingly globalised, there is an urgent requirement to strengthen food safety systems in and between all countries. Establishment of a network for food safety authorities in partnership with countries can help promote the exchange of food safety information and improve collaboration among food safety authorities at national and international levels.

There is also need to help countries prevent, detect and respond to food-borne disease outbreaks using the Codex Alimentarius, a collection of international food standards, guidelines and codes of practice covering all the main foods and processes.

In addition, food safety should be adequately incorporated in national disaster-management programmes and emergencies. Access to safe water and quality food is a major problem during flooding, earthquakes and other natural disasters. There is a likelihood of food in the affected areas getting contaminated and causing outbreaks of food-borne disease.

As part of its Regional Food Safety Strategy, countries in the region need to initiate, develop and sustain multisectoral approaches and measures for promotion of food safety among all population groups. Some countries have taken novel and notable initiatives such as the mobile food courts in Bangladesh, the establishment of a Food Standard and Safety Authority in India, and certification of street food vendors with a “Clean Food, Good Taste” logo in Thailand. This year’s World Health Day theme focuses on food safety. Food safety must be an essential component of national health, food, agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, water, sanitation and environment-related programmes. Food safety is a shared responsibility. Let us work together to make our food safe and to contribute to better health of people.

Read more »

The ‘greatness’ of a ‘landmark’ judgment

The supporting props offered for the striking down of Section 66A diminish(less) the arrogance of government and reinstate(restore) the ‘genuine’ rule of law.
Reading the judgment, one is tempted to ask this question: Is it a landmark judgment or just a great one? To appreciate the difference between “great” and “landmark”, it is necessary to begin with some very fine distinctions. A great judgment is one that restores the constitutional values of a polity from the waywardness into which it may have fallen, while a landmark judgment is one which opens up new directions in our constitutional thinking and, in the process, adds new dimensions to what are regarded as established constitutional principles. If “great” restores the centrality of constitutional values, “landmark” revitalises(regenerate) them. For many commentators, the judgment — striking down as unconstitutional Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000 — by the Supreme Court Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman in the Shreya Singhal case, is seen as a landmark judgment. It is regarded as heralding(announce) the birth of new free speech jurisprudence and restoring the public space for dissent(objection) in India.

A distinction

With respect to the judgment’s comments on free speech, I plan here to go against the current. It is a great judgment, not a landmark one. These are my reasons. I see the analytical distinction made in the judgment of three forms of free speech and expression, i.e., discussion, advocacy and incitement, as preliminary to a fine distinction being worked out but one which was not done. The distinction is inadequately executed since it does not provide for the societal dynamics of each form. Hence, the distinction, while a good starting point, does not protect free speech enough since it allows for situations where the “discussion” entered into by one can be used by another to “incite” simply by quoting the discussion and saying “this is what he has said”. Repeating a discussion, in another context, is enough to bring the wrath(anger) of the mob(a disorderly crowded of people) on the unsuspecting person’s head. Writer Perumal Murugan had to face such ire(anger) in January 2015 in Tamil Nadu because of a novel he wrote as did T.J. Joseph, a lecturer in Kerala, who had his hand cut off in 2010 for a question he had set in an examination.

Second, the judgment does not make the important distinction between “speech” and “expression” and, therefore, while it elaborates on the need to protect speech and the written word, it has little to say on expression especially in its many forms of photographs, paintings, films, cartoons, etc. So, while a Facebook post gets protection, a painting does not. The third infirmity is the judgment’s acceptance of the distinction between the print and digital media, or rather between the old mainstream and the new social media. It appears to accept this distinction on quantitative grounds, i.e., how many people can be reached and how fast, rather than on qualitative grounds, i.e., what is being said. This is an untenable(unreasonable) distinction especially in the digital age when we have e-papers, e-books, e-lectures, etc. These few areas of weakness should not, however, detract(take away) from the judgment’s significant contribution to free speech especially in these dark times of censorship. It is without doubt a great judgment and will soon become the touchstone for new free speech jurisprudence in India. The hecklers(Someone who tries to embarrass you with gibes and questions and objections) will be in retreat.

As landmark judgment

I do consider it a landmark judgment, however, but for its other sections and not those specifically relating to free speech. The implications of these sections are that they give powerful legal weapons to those fighting the tyranny(dictatorship) of the state.

There are three manoeuvres(plan) performed by the Honourable Justices that have produced this splendid outcome. The first is their dismissal of the assurances given by government on the ground that the law cannot be based on the assurances of any regime(government) in power. The law cannot be based on even the bona fide intentions of a government and has to exist independent of these intentions. The second is the role the judgment performs in educating the public about the government’s mind by placing the key aspects of the government’s submission in the public domain. And the third relates to their observation that vagueness(not clear) in the formulation of laws produces a tyranny of power. This has “chilling” (their word) consequences(result) for civil liberties.

When the Additional Solicitor General sought to assure the court that even if certain portions of the law — 66A — were vague, the government, being committed to free speech, would not use the section to curb free speech. The Justices wrote in response: “Governments may come and Governments may go but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government even if carried out faithfully would not bind any successor government. It must, therefore, be held that Section 66A must be judged on its own merits without any reference to how well it may be administered” (paragraph 92). Assurance from the government is not enough. The law must stand on its own. Similarly, when the Additional Solicitor General asked that parts of Section 66A be saved under the Doctrine(philosophy) of Severability, the Honourable Judges held “that no part of Section 66A is severable and the provision as a whole must be declared unconstitutional” (paragraph 96). By dismissing both requests of the government, the Court achieved two major outcomes. It established the fact that the law must be delinked from the agency and intentions of the government. It must be read independently of the intentions of those who administer it. And, second, the court distanced itself from the common perception that it normally acts in a government-friendly manner. The court is friendly only to the Constitution.

As public educator

On its role as a public educator, the Court chose to place at great length the written submission of the Additional Solicitor General with the following words: “It was argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General that a relaxed standard of reasonableness of restriction (emphasis mine) should apply regard being had to the fact that the medium of speech being the Internet differs from other mediums on several grounds. To appreciate the width and scope of his submissions we are setting out his written submission verbatim” (paragraph 27). This is a brilliant strategy to educate an engaged public on the nature of the government’s arguments. Hence, we learn that [point (ii)] “the recipient of free speech and expression used in a print media can only be literate persons while internet can be accessed by literate and illiterate both since one click is needed to download an objectionable post or video” or [point (v)] “by the medium of internet, rumours having a serious potential of creating a serious social disorder can be spread to trillions of people without any check which is not possible in case of other mediums”.

Such pop sociology continues through the 11 points made by the government. If we overlook the “trillions” of people whom the government is concerned about, the word comes again twice in point 11, then we can focus on the empirical claims made with respect to literacy, rumour, and privacy. These are in fact only the opinions of the Additional Solicitor General since no evidence using social science is given for them. Yet, they are offered as the empirical(experimental) basis for censorship and prosecution under Section 66A. Opinions cannot be the basis of laws. The Honourable Justices, by presenting the submission verbatim, wanted us to see the poor quality of the government’s arguments. Such a cavalier(careless) attitude must be punctured at least a trillion times.

Vagueness of words

But it is in the discussion on the vagueness of words used in Section 66A(b) i.e., inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, etc., that the Court is at its legal best. It takes each word, examines its dictionary meaning, offers judgments from Indian and American legal history to establish its precise meaning, and then shows why these words in Section 66A have been casually introduced into the law. In a brilliant section on vagueness and overbreadth, the learned Justices state that “In point of fact, Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net. Such is the reach of the Section and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total” (paragraph 83). It is this vagueness of operative words that must be disallowed because of its “chilling effect on free speech”. Vague words are vehicles for state tyranny. For freedom, precision is required. This section on the vagueness of words in our laws, especially in government orders, can now be cited by civil libertarians to strike down badly framed laws in lower courts.

All three manoeuvres, I expect, will infuse a new strength in the litigant’s fight for citizenship rights. It will make those who draft laws cautious and increase parliamentary scrutiny(examine) of articles and clauses. It will make law officers realise that their submissions will be subject to public scrutiny. And, finally, it will, I hope, also change the habit of the court, which is normally soft on government. As the custodian of the Constitution, the court has to fight tyranny. The judgment has struck a powerful blow for limiting government. This is what makes it a landmark judgment.

Read more »

Growth for a few,loss for many

Land-grabs for urban infrastructure and real estate are being promoted to bring investment and employment for a few, at the cost of lives and livelihoods of many
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley claims that the Land Ordinance 2014 was promulgated(published) to bring 13 Acts within the purview of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, before the six- month deadline to include them ran out on December 31, 2014. Despite controversy, the latest Amendment Bill approved by the Lok Sabha, and currently facing a logjam(stoppage) in the Rajya Sabha, makes minor modifications to the Ordinance. Both replace acquisition for ‘private company’ with ‘private entity,’ that includes a “proprietorship, partnership, company, corporation, non-profit organisation or other entity under any law for the time being in force.” Exemptions from social impact assessments (SIAs) for all projects and consent(agree) provisions for private companies (80 per cent of land owners) and Public-Private Partnerships (70 per cent) include projects undertaken by the state and private entities for: i) national security; ii) industrial corridors; iii) rural infrastructure; iv) ‘affordable’ housing and housing for the poor and; v) infrastructure and social infrastructure projects including PPPs where the land vests with the state. These projects run the entire gamut(complete range) of contemporary public and private infrastructure, industrialisation and urbanisation projects aspiring land and resources in the country.

Worse, the provisions dangerously reassert the power of the hand that gives compensation. They represent an ambitious assertion of sovereignty(free government) by the state over citizens, recuse the state of nominal accountability through removal of SIAs, and render citizens ‘subjects’ liable for compensation, no more. To add insult to injury, any complaints by aggrieved parties on the state’s failure to follow due process now require the prior consent of the state, an ingenious twist to the principle of ‘prior informed consent’ — and a move more regressive than the colonial 1894 Land Acquisition Act.

Manufacturing in India has stagnated(stand) for over two decades at around 15 per cent of the GDP. The case of SEZs is illustrative — of the 377 notified SEZs in the country, only 196 are operational (where operational indicates at least one functioning unit). According to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, over 63 per cent of the land acquired for SEZs is lying vacant. While slack global markets may have to do with the slow pace of investment in SEZs despite tax concessions (the Minimum Alternate Tax notwithstanding), this still does not explain where productive investment is to come from in infrastructure corridors and new smart city urban enclaves. The 2013 law allowed for land lying unused for five years after acquisition to be reverted to either the original owners or the state, but the Amendment bill extends this period to years specified for the project and exempts years spent in litigation.

‘Make in India’ seems a pipe dream anticipating jobs in trickle-down effects of infrastructure investment; latest figures record a decline in the overall rate of investment. The Amendment Bill is a foil for land-and-resource acquisition by global and domestic finance and real estate investors that thrive(expand,flourish,grow) on growing land markets and the appreciation of the price of land and property.

The growing real estate economy

A recent report by Cushman & Wakefield ranks India 20th among the current top 20 real estate investment markets globally, with an investment of $3.4 billion in 2012. A study by Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics further predicts that India will become the world’s third largest construction market by 2025, adding 11.5 million homes a year. In 2011-12, the shares of real estate and construction together accounted for 19 per cent of the Indian economy, growing from 14.7 per cent in 2000-01. More remarkably, in 2009-10, the construction sector formed the second largest employer of workers in India, employing 11 per cent of the workforce after agriculture (36 per cent). The rising price of land has made real estate a high return investment. Today, there are many private builders, and their operations range from small-scale projects in towns or ‘rururban’ areas to regional and national projects. Regional and national developers also cater to a variety of commercial and retail real estate and infrastructure-related construction, the latter often through group or subsidiary companies.

Indian real estate remains regulated. Global finance is unable to directly invest in housing, commercial and retail real estate per se, but invests in them through infrastructure projects like ‘smart cities’ and ‘industrial corridors.’ Smaller-scale, regional, state and district level developers and brokers are abundant(plentiful,ample) in India, and fly-by-night operators join their ranks. It is in this mix of operators and urbanisation projects backed by policy and investment that we find the growing consolidation(solid mass) of a Real Estate Economy in India.

Growing differential rent from ‘conversion’ of agricultural land to real estate is also reconfiguring the political economy of land in urban peripheries. Thus, with appreciation of land prices as infrastructure and development projects are announced, some farmers ‘give up’ land without resistance for immediate returns, as agriculture is less profitable or valuable. Growing agrarian(agriculture) distress caused by market-led agrarian reforms that entrench bigger and deeper land markets, environmental stresses and the consequent indebtedness of farmers is adding to the pull away from agriculture.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, in 2007-11, the area of cultivable land in India shrank by 7,90,000 hectares, largely attributed to diversion for non-agricultural purposes like construction, industries and other development activities. Landless agricultural workers likely swell(increase) the ranks of construction and other migrant workers in dismal(depressing) conditions, although official data for this is hard to come by. As more and more land gets diverted to real estate from agriculture, there is concomitant pauperisation of especially small and marginal farmers, who are unable to buy more land. With little by way of productive job creation and growing loss of agrarian livelihoods, where will this dispossessed population go? And what about the fundamental questions of food security and participatory development?

If only agribusiness is to produce food for all with the help of global finance, the policy emphasis on urbanisation and deeper land markets is nothing but a capitalist attempt to take over large sections of the domestic agrarian political economy, with impoverished workers adding to the low-wage reserve workforce that capitalist profits thrive on.

As global capital looks for ways to recover from its crises and domestic capital for greater expansion, industrial corridors, housing, urbanisation and infrastructure projects offer attractive avenues of return. Land-grabs for urban infrastructure and real estate facilitated through the state and markets are being promoted to bring investment, employment and growth for a few, at the cost of dispossession of lives, livelihoods and environments for many.

The lessons from conflicts(fight,clash) over land and resources in Nandigram, Raigad, Goa or Chhattisgarh offer little to the ruling establishment. Global and domestic capital seek to assert sovereignty over India’s land and resources through the state — the Amendment Bill 2015 attempts to deliver. Will the Modi sarkar unleash a fresh set of conflicts over land and resources that marred the SEZ model and beat it to a point of failure? The proposed land acquisition framework is likely to face deeper contestation(argument) in villages and towns across India.

Read more »

For a renaissance in Indian S&T

The apathy(absence of emotion or enthusiasm) of successive Central governments towards science and technology continues in numerous(many) ways. The premier national scientific agencies have been made to languish(become weak), and no effort has been made either to formulate a national S&T policy
No one would doubt that science and technology (S&T) are an intrinsic(essential,internal) part of the socio-politico-economic fabric of our society, yet the cold fact is that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government has paid scant(less) attention to science in particular, which has been the basis of all technologies that have transformed lives through history. This is not to say that the United Progressive Alliance government did better. Let me look at the new government’s apathy towards S&T, exemplified in these ways:

No direction

Three of the leading scientific agencies in the country have been without a head for various periods. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has been without a regular director-general since January 2014; he/she would also hold the position of Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has been without a director-general since March 1, 2015; he/she would also be the Secretary, Department of Health Research. And, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been without a director-general — he/she would also be the scientific adviser to the Defence Minister — since January 14, 2015, when the person-in-charge was removed. Between them, these organisations oversee 120 out of some 280 national S&T institutions. Till recently, another leading scientific agency, the Department of Science and Technology (DST), was also without a head for quite some time. The post of Secretary, DST, was filled only recently.

In addition, several premier research and development (R&D) laboratories function without a regular director, examples being the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute in New Delhi.

There is more. The last Union Budget speech had virtually no reference to science. Personally, I am aware of the erosion(degradation) of excellence built painstakingly(hard working) over the years in laboratories such as the Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB) in Hyderabad. Its library can no longer subscribe to even Current Contents leave alone other scientific journals as there is no money. I know that the ICMR cannot even pay appropriate travel allowance to those attending its meetings. I have not seen such situations arise in my scientific career spanning over six decades. The resource crunch that S&T labs face today is something unknown and is painful.

For a viable policy

No effort has been made to formulate a national S&T policy, especially when the country needs a framework and a statement on such a policy. It also needs a document that would clearly and unambiguously(clearly) state a workable way to implement this policy.

Once this is done, one must then identify our unqualified successes in the fields of science and technology since Independence and give their reasons so that one knows what one has to build upon, and also identify our failures and their reasons. We can then know what needs to be taken care of in future.

At this point, I would like to give the example of Israel and highlight the quality and worldwide impact of basic scientific research done there. As an independent nation, Israel has existed for about the same period as India has. Unlike India, it has had to start from scratch. It did not inherit natural resources like India did. There is just one reservoir(artificial lake) of fresh water, the Sea of Galilee. Its entire population is much smaller than the population of even the smallest of our four largest metropolitan cities. Yet, its output of all basic research outpaces that done in most of our 280 national research institutions. One only needs to analyse the citations of the scientific work done in the two countries and follow the worldwide technological impact of Israel’s work to understand what I am trying to highlight.

There must be a recognition of the differences between science and technology. For this, one can refer to Science and Technology Policy in the 1980s and Beyond, 1984.

The use of validated, indigenous(native), traditional knowledge hardly needs emphasis. For example, traditional knowledge in the area of water conservation has been well documented by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in Delhi. Where used, as in Rajasthan, the excellent results are there for all to see. Yet, in contrast, is the way in which our numerous, tribal, plant-based, traditional medical formulations, for which substantial social validation exists, have not even been documented. An example of social validation in this area is the regulation of conception in the Nicobar Islands.

New links

The documents must also recognise and identify new linkages that science has come to establish with areas such as economics, sociology, politics and law; deal with the new ethical questions that have arisen as a consequence(result) of advances in science and technology, and work out strategies which ensure that they are dealt with appropriately in the Indian context.

We must also ensure that the cultivation of a scientific temper does not exist merely on paper but finds life and expression in practice. All actions that the government takes or supported by the people must be in line with scientific temper.

We must take a stand on those clauses of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) which have a scientific component and which are not in India’s interests. This would involve utilising existing provisions in these agreements to our advantage and passing appropriate pieces of national legislation and seeking changes to specific provisions at the international level.

There must be a definitive but liberal policy on providing venture capital for start-ups in new areas of technology. This must be through government-funded agencies such as the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India and the Industrial Development Bank of India.

The mechanism governing the release of genetically engineered organisms is unsatisfactory and ineffective. Similarly, infertility clinics have mushroomed in the last decade and may be responsible for an infructuous(not fruitful) expenditure of several thousand crores of rupees every year, besides creating ethical problems. I advocate appropriate and workable regulatory mechanisms in these two areas.

There must be an emphasis on national security which would include sustainable development and a factoring in of interests in conservation, food, ecology, social security (including health), and defence.

A forecasting system which would enable one to project socio-economic-political scenarios against the background of developments in science and technology on a continuing basis is a must.

Basic research

Working out a policy for basic research where all worthwhile ideas that would allow India to become a leader in basic research should be pursued with vigour(strength,energy). Second or third-rate research that is repetitive or a trivial follow-up of leads provided elsewhere in the world must be discouraged. This will ensure that the quality-to-quantity ratio in the country in respect of basic research goes up by at least two-orders of magnitude in the next two decades.

Areas that relate to technology where the country would lay special emphasis in the next two decades must be identified. These could be in space technology, energy (especially renewable sources of energy, and increasing efficiency in the use and conservation of energy), new materials, biotechnology (including marine biotechnology), information technology, microelectronics, computers, nanotechnologies, artificial intelligence, automation and robotics, meteorology(science of weather), and disaster prevention and management.

An incident in the past comes to mind. In 1982, the first robot in the country was produced by a private science society, the Hyderabad Science Society, which was founded in 1948; it received rave reviews and was met with applause when first demonstrated to the public. However, the society, which has an excellent record of public service, has faced problems, some of which affect its survival. Such a situation would never have been allowed to happen or even arisen in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea, leave alone Japan, the United Kingdom or the United States.

Finally, our national science academies must be made socially accountable. I hope all these points will help usher(guide) in ‘Achche Din’ for Indian science and technology and make eminent(high,superior) sense to our political masters.

Read more »

Jaat reservation

We need to question the equation of reservation with the redressal(amend) of caste inequality not because reservation is no longer needed but because it is no longer enough
The learned judges of the Supreme Court who quashed(avoid,declare invalid) the Central government’s notification granting Other Backward Classes (OBC) status to the Jat community in nine States seem to have had an easy job. The court reached the obvious conclusion given that the impugned(questionable) notification was passed the day before the announcement of the 2014 general election, that it was opposed by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), and that the government’s legally dubious(doubtful) overruling of the NCBC was not backed by compelling(powerful) evidence. But while the operative part of the judgment is beyond reproach, its comments on caste and reservations are cause for concern.

Prejudice against reservation

Though they are neither quite obiter dicta nor simply wrong, the court’s opinions reinforce(strengthen), rather than question, the misleading half-truths of common sense. Towards the end of their judgment, Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton F. Nariman expand on their ratio to make two assertions(statement). In paragraph 53, they argue that while “caste may be a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination of backwardness of a social group”, such determination must not be made “solely on the basis of caste”, and that identifying the “most deserving” groups “must necessarily be a matter of continuous evolution,” requiring the state to look beyond caste. This is followed in paragraph 54 with the declaration that backwardness cannot be a matter of perception, and then the baffling(confuse) assertion that it cannot be determined by “social, economic and educational indicators” either. Taken in conjunction with the striking example of transgenders as a group deserving special consideration (paragraph 53), these assertions are likely to fuel the dominant prejudice against reservation.

The powerful upper caste prejudice against reservations that pervades(spread) the public sphere is based on three equations or conflations(combine), all of which are encouraged by this court judgment.

The first is the equation of a specific case such as that of reservation for Jats — which the court has rightly rejected — with the case for reservation as such. The second is the equation of the larger issue of redressal of caste inequalities with a single policy — that of reservation. The third is the equation of reservation with a welfare programme, and it is the most pernicious(harmful) and complicated of the three.

Perception and social contract

In the upper caste imagination, reservation is indelibly(cant be removed) branded as a welfare programme giving handouts to a set of caste-marked “beneficiaries”. From this perspective, those who receive this benefit — the “reserved category” — are deviant(unnatural) exceptions who fall outside the normal or ‘general category’ of caste-less citizens which constitutes the nation. It is this caste-less nation that gives reservation to certain castes to compensate for the “historical wrongs” done to them in the distant past, and to help them overcome their backwardness. Only when reservation is understood in this way can we make sense of objections such as: How long will reservations continue? Why is caste and not economic need the criterion? And of forms of protest, such as a symbolic polishing of shoes and sweeping of streets by youth wearing stethoscopes or lab coats that reservation provokes from the upper castes.

From such a vantage point, it is impossible to see that the true origins of reservation lie in a promise of good faith that forms the core of the social contract on which our nation is founded. Reservation is a pre-Independence policy inaugurated by the Government of India Act of 1935, which created the schedules listing so-called Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The policy itself is the outcome of the Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar, in which the latter was forced to withdraw the claim by untouchable castes to a separate electorate in return for guaranteed representation in the legislature and the broad assurance that the nation, represented by Gandhi and the Congress, would do everything in its power to end untouchability and caste discrimination. Thus, reservation is a fundamentally political promise made in acknowledgement of the fact that caste literally excludes sizeable communities from Indian society. Since independence is demanded in the name of the Indian nation, and since the modern nation is supposed to be an egalitarian(who favours social equality) form of community, the Poona Pact is a compromise whereby the untouchables agree to forego their demand for a nation (electorate) of their own and be part of the larger nation in spite of their caste exclusion. In short, reservation is intended to be the response, from a nationalist movement led by the upper castes, to the bitter truth in Ambedkar’s poignant statement: “Gandhiji, I have no homeland.”

Beyond welfare

From this perspective, reservation cannot be equated to this or that welfare benefit, since it is intended to be something incomparably larger — the promise of full citizenship. The degree to which this promise is fulfilled automatically decides the duration of the policy. Reservation should cease to exist from the day that discrimination(unfair), oppression and gross inequalities based on caste cease to exist, because all castes would then have full citizenship. Note that such a policy is not about “historical wrongs” in the dim past, but about contemporary forms of caste inequality, and that replacing caste with economic criteria misses the whole point of caste discrimination that exists in varied forms across all classes. Wider acceptance of this interpretation of reservation is blocked not only by the natural antipathy of the upper castes, but also by two other difficulties.

The first stems from the need to convert the abstract promise of full citizenship into concrete reality, a conversion that inevitably requires specific entitlements to be created for specific castes. This in turn encourages already prejudiced observers to equate the policy with material benefits unjustly awarded to an undeserving interest group freeriding on the populist compulsions of electoral politics. The second difficulty has to do with the deep intermeshing of the social and economic dimensions of caste discrimination and the related conundrum(puzzle) of evaluating the empirical and legal similarities and differences among the SCs, the STs and the OBCs.

For a rethink

To cut a long and complex story short, the key issue here is that of framing and contextualisation. It is certainly true that the reservation policy as it exists today is deeply flawed and in need of radical rethinking. But this rethinking needs to be framed against the vital need — more urgent today than ever before — to confront the ugly reality of continuing caste discrimination, oppression and exclusion all along the hierarchy. We need to question the equation of reservation with the redressal of caste inequality not because reservation is no longer needed but because it is no longer enough — we need to do much more to tackle the resilient mutations of caste prejudice. And we must react to the misuse of reservation (as in the Jat case) as we would to malpractice in any other vital area of public policy. For example, the proper response to corruption in defence procurement cannot be to dismantle(break) the defence sector itself.

Two days after it reported the Jat judgment, this daily had a report (March 19, 2015) with the heading, “Caste determines spending on food, choice of work: NSSO,” but few readers would have made the connection. The problem with caste today is that most of the people who matter don’t get it because they think they don’t have it.

Read more »

Defying RTI, undermining democracy

For two years, national political parties have defied the RTI Act that they themselves passed. They have not sought legal remedy(amend,repair) either by appealing against the CIC order declaring them to be Public Authorities. If lawmakers defy(refuse) the law in this fashion, it sets a bad precedent(common law). Political parties should be more accountable if they break the law, not less
Six national parties in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Indian National Congress (INC), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPM and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), have refused to comply with the Central Information Commission (CIC) order of 2013 declaring them as Public Authorities. On March 16, 2015, the CIC passed another order which in effect said that it was helpless in the matter and would not impose penalty or enforce compliance of its 2013 order. Earlier, it had issued summons on three occasions to the parties concerned to present their arguments, all of which were ignored. The new order says that penalty can only be imposed on the Public Information Officer (PIO) and since the political parties have not appointed them, no action can be taken.

The contention(argument) and reality

For two years, these national parties have defied a law which they themselves passed. Nor have they sought legal remedy by appealing in court against the earlier CIC Order declaring them to be Public Authorities. If such a situation is allowed to continue, it raises questions. For instance if a non-governmental organisation (NGO), company or individual defies the law, there are legal consequences(result). But if lawmakers and political parties defy the law, what are the consequences? Let us recall that political parties come to power based on the people’s mandate and then run governments. They in turn control people’s money, collected in the form of taxes and natural resources. Parties are a vital part of democracy and are trustees of people’s resources. Therefore, they should be more responsible and accountable if they break the law, not less.

Before we go into the legal technicalities, we need to look at the spirit behind these issues. Political parties contend that they are not under the ambit(range) of the Right to Information (RTI) and hence do not need to comply with the CIC order. They have a right to that opinion. However, there are some laws that citizens may feel are unjust. For instance, the cyber law [a section of which has since been struck down by the Supreme Court] that is usually used against any citizen who puts out material that someone powerful considers to be offensive. Or the anti-sedition law. Can a citizen defy such a law and get away with it? He or she could be arrested immediately. The only remedy for him or her is to go to court. So, are we about to create a situation where political parties can defy the law and get away with it, without even bothering(worry) to challenge the CIC order in court? Democracy cannot thrive(grow) when lawmakers break the law. Public respect for political parties is already at an all-time low and such actions by them will only strengthen this further. Faith in law and order, and where the weak and the powerful are supposed to be treated equal is also very low. This further undermines democracy. Meanwhile, the new government has not yet appointed a CIC nearly a year after coming to power. This is an effective way of scuttling(move Quickly) the RTI Act.

Remedies

Coming to the specific issue, there are at least two opposing views. One says that the CIC is indeed helpless to enforce compliance of its order as there is a lacuna(gap,missing part) in the law. The other point of view is that the CIC can impose penalties on party office-bearers in the absence of a PIO. Earlier Supreme Court judgments have said that when legal powers are given, it is implied that the power to enforce it is also given. Else, the Act itself ends up becoming meaningless. The matter is very likely going to end up in court and with a judgment that will have far-reaching consequences.

There are a few possible remedies. One is for political parties to be more responsible and follow the CIC order or have the courage to challenge it in court. No individual party is willing to challenge the order since it would go against public opinion. Another remedy is to amend the Act to clarify the consequences of defying a CIC order and arm the CIC with explicit(expressed) powers. A third is for the court to give a judgment. It will be very difficult for Parliament to pass an amendment to exempt only political parties from the RTI while retaining other organisations under it. It would be struck down as being unconstitutional as an earlier judgment in fact did to an amendment to the Representation of the People Act (RP) Act which exempt candidates from disclosing their assets.

Why scrutiny(examine)?

If the CIC cannot enforce its orders it means that the RTI Act is effectively null and void. But the real issue is not only about whether the CIC can or cannot enforce its orders. It is also about whether political parties should be under the RTI. People also ask whether companies and NGOs should come under the RTI. The spirit behind the Act is that organisations that use or control public resources need to be accountable to the public and open to scrutiny(examine). The tortuous(complex), legal red herrings that parties use — which includes the fundamental right of freedom of association — do not in anyway alter the fact that they control crores of tax money when in power. No other category of organisations has that power. Applying this, the political parties definitely need to be under the RTI. Companies and NGOs do not have the power that parties have and often enough do not even use taxpayer money. But they should also accept being under the RTI in keeping with the spirit of a modern, open, democratic society.

About transparency

If we dig deeper, the real question is this: what are parties afraid of? Their apparent objection that minutes of internal meetings of a political party — that discuss party strategy or suitability of candidates for ticket distribution for example — cannot be made public, are excuses. It can easily be dealt with by suitable exemptions which are in any case available under the existing RTI Act. The real fear is exposure of their finances, as some admit in private. Their declared income does not disclose the source of about 75 per cent of their donations. Their undisclosed sources of income is anybody’s guess. Parties are fighting to keep this a secret, fighting for their very survival as they see it. This is a short-sighted view as the recent Delhi elections have shown. Perhaps, voters are changing and appreciate transparency more than big money campaigns. If party election strategists can understand this or if entrenched(fix firmly), vested(unconditional) interests within parties can be removed, change is possible. This can only do good to the party in the long run.

We are at a critical point in our democracy. Today, money plays an important role in winning elections. If that changes, then people become more important than money. Let us make no mistake about what is at stake here: real democracy where political parties are not mere vote gathering machines, but are vibrant, democratic organisations that are truly representative of the people, by the people and, most importantly, for the people.

Read more »

Freedom of speech

With its judgment to strike down a legal provision for violating freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has paved(made up) the way for thoughtful jurisprudence(law) in the age of the Internet
While describing Sec.124A of the IPC (sedition) as the “prince among the political sections designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”, Mahatma Gandhi offered us an ironic way of thinking about liberty-curbing laws through the metaphor of illegal tyrants(dictatorship). On that count, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shreya Singhal versus Union of India case, striking down Sec.66A of the Information Technology Act can be seen as a welcome end to a short-lived but terribly tyrannical reign of a petty despot.

Over the past few years, Sec.66A has been used in a range of infamous instances, ranging from the Shaheen Dhada case (a young woman was arrested for an innocuous(harmless) Facebook post) to the most recent incident of the arrest of a Class XI student for posting comments on his Facebook page that he attributed to Azam Khan, a Samajwadi Party Minister in Uttar Pradesh. As is perhaps appropriate for a law that struck at the very heart of Web 2.0 and social media, the challenge to its constitutional validity was brought by a 21-year-old law student, with other individuals and organisations subsequently joining the case. The proceedings before Justices Rohinton Nariman and G. Chelameswar were keenly followed and reported by many people on social media, and it is safe to say that the judgment was one of the most keenly anticipated decisions in recent times. The Supreme Court has not failed us in its role as the constitutional guardian against capricious(changeable) laws that threaten our fundamental rights.

Three forms of speech

In a carefully reasoned decision, the court has struck down Sec. 66A in its entirety on grounds of vagueness(unclearness), overreach, and the chilling effects it has on online speech. It also reads down Sec.79 (intermediary liability), holding that intermediaries are liable to take down content only upon receipt of actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government. It, however, upholds Sec. 69A and the rules under the IT Act (blocking of websites) on the grounds that there are internal safeguards and reasonable procedures available within Sec.69A.

The court begins by distinguishing between three forms of speech: discussion, advocacy and incitement, and holds that mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in. The court finds that not only does Sec. 66A interfere with the right of the public to receive and disseminate(difference of opinions) information, the provision fails to distinguish between discussion, advocacy and incitement. It then goes on to discuss what standards constitute ‘reasonable restriction’. In the current case, the government had argued that we need to apply a more relaxed standard of reasonableness of restriction, with regard being kept for the fact that the medium of speech being the Internet, it differs from other media on several grounds. While the courts agree that the Internet may be treated separately from other communication media and that there could be separate laws that only deal with online speech, these laws still have to pass the test of reasonableness in Art.19(2).

Citing an important and often ignored free speech judgment, the Ram Manohar Lohia case (1960), the court holds that any restriction that has to be made in the interests of public order must have a reasonable relation to the object to be achieved, that is, public order. The relation should be one which has a proximate connection or nexus with public order, and not a far-fetched, hypothetical or remote relation. It then examines each of the grounds under Art.19(2) to find that 66A failed to establish a proximate connection to public order, incitement, defamation, and so on.

Finally, the court strikes down 66A on the grounds of ‘vagueness and over breadth’. According to the court, it is a vague law that impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc(unplanned) and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. This effectively summarises how Sec.66A has been misused in recent years. It also finds that 66A has a chilling effect on online speech because it overreaches and is “cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net. Such is the reach of the Section and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total”.

The reason that the court finds it to be vague and overreaching is the absence of any distinction between different forms of speech, and in seeking to prevent speech that it thinks would cause ‘annoyance’, or is ‘grossly offensive’, it also takes within its sweep protected speech. The court implicitly acknowledges that the right to critique and the right to dissent are a substantive part of the freedom of speech and expression, and merely an individual’s or even a group’s annoyance with the speech of another cannot be the basis for curbing legitimate speech. The court is cognisant(aware) of a creeping intolerance within the political climate, and illustrates this in the following manner “A certain section of a particular community may be grossly offended or annoyed by communications over the Internet by “liberal views” — such as the emancipation(Freeing someone from the control of another person or from legal or political restrictions) of women or the abolition of the caste system or whether certain members of a non-proselytising religion should be allowed to bring persons within their fold who are otherwise outside the fold”.

Free speech in the 21st century

It is important to note that this is the first judgment in decades in which the Supreme Court has struck down a legal provision for violating freedom of speech, and in doing so, it simultaneously builds upon a rich body of free speech cases in India and paves the way for a jurisprudence of free speech in the 21st century, the era of the Internet and social media. It explicitly acknowledges that the Internet has radically democratised communication that allows for people to participate in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ and this ecology of communication has to be safeguarded from any inhibition by arbitrary laws. One wishes the court had paid closer attention to the arbitrary(absolute) manner that the blocking rules work, but that is a gentle disagreement in light of its significant achievement on the substantive questions. It should also be noted that the judgment is the outcome of a new kind of political activism around free speech, which saw activists, lawyers, bloggers and social media coming together in a markedly different way from the segmented modes in which free speech battles have taken place in the past.

If this judgment heralds(announce) the coming into being of Free Speech Ver.2.0, we can’t wait for future updates. While we celebrate the judgment, it is important to remember that cases under Sec.66A have rarely ever been filed in isolation, and they are often accompanied by charges under sedition and hate speech laws (Sec.153A and 295A of the IPC). Further, even when the Supreme Court lays down good principles in its interpretation of substantive laws, these constitutional protections are undone by the flimsy(weak) criminal justice systems, which allow for mala fide complaints to be filed and acted upon in a manner that makes the procedure and the process the real punishment. If we are to truly create an ecology in which people can exercise speech fearlessly, it is crucial that we acknowledge that we are living under what Gopalkrishna Gandhi describes as an ‘unpromulgated state of fear’, and this judgment is a significant if only first step towards a braver, freer and more tolerant democracy.

Read more »

Nuclear negotiations at a delicate stage

Despite domestic hurdles(problem) in the current round of U.S.-Iran negotiations on Iran’s nuclear capability, the end result will depend on how many centrifuges(separator) can sustain nuclear development in Iran without the country being subjected to crippling(disabled,unhealthy) sanctions
The agreeable weather in Lausanne, Switzerland, may have helped, but an agreement may still elude(escape) the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in the current round of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear capability. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some Republican Senators, who called into question the ability of U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver on his part of the deal even if an agreement is reached, could share the responsibility for the impasse.

Mr. Netanyahu appeared at the U.S. Congress in response to an invitation extended to him by the Republicans in January without the knowledge of the White House to issue a dire(critical) warning. Mr. Netanyahu presented an alarming picture: “This deal will not be a farewell to arms. It will be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East is criss-crossed by nuclear tripwires. A region, where small skirmishes(fight) can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox(a dangerous state of affairs),” he said.

Taking a cue from Mr. Netanyahu, the Republicans went over the head of the President to send a message to the Iranians, alerting them to the possibility of the Congress rejecting any recommendation from Mr. Obama to lift sanctions. The letter sent by 47 Republicans on March 9, 2015, and addressed to the Iranians, contended that while the President could reach an agreement with Iran, he had no authority to reward them with a relaxation of sanctions.

Sticking points

For Mr. Obama, who refuses to acknowledge that he is handicapped by his loss of the House and the Senate, the unprecedented move by the Republican Party came as nothing less than a shocking challenge. He compared the Republican Senators to the reactionary members of Iran’s government and accused them of joining an unusual coalition(alliance) with the enemies. Mr. Zarif, called the Republican move a “propaganda ploy”. He also did not mince(less) words about Mr. Netanyahu’s intervention(interference), perhaps helping in his re-election.

The interim deal forged in November 2013, named Joint Plan of Action, which needs to be shaped into binding commitments by July 2015 came after more than 10 years of Iran playing a cat-and-mouse game with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Iranian tactic had always been to express readiness to cooperate fully with the IAEA, secure applause from the gallery and then leave their questions unanswered. Every time the IAEA reported to its Governors on Iran, there were many satisfactory answers, but some unanswered ones, which needed elucidation(clarification). The IAEA could neither certify that Iran was not on a nuclear weapons path, nor could it give it a clean chit. Even after the issue went to the UN Security Council, the ambiguity(confusion) remained. The IAEA continues its investigations to resolve the questions about past activities, even as the political dialogue continues.

After extending the Joint Plan of Action twice, the P5 and Germany, backed by the sanctions, have been engaged in shaping a comprehensive resolution. At the core of the proposed agreement is a set of restrictions on enrichment of uranium beyond the requirements of generating power. Although the UN resolutions ban any kind of enrichment, the agreement envisages(imagine) minimum enrichment for a specified period. This would entail a sizeable reduction in the estimated 19,000 centrifuges already in operation in Iran. The nature and number of centrifuges, the period for which restrictions would be imposed and the question of one of the Iranian reactors at Arak, which was allegedly producing plutonium, are some of the major points on which agreement is yet to be reached.

Republicans and Obama

For the Americans, the alternative to an agreement is war and that is the reason why Mr. Obama accused the Republicans of rushing to war, as advocated by Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Obama had exercised great restraint in the long negotiations, keeping in mind the objective of ensuring that Iran did not make nuclear weapons.

He did not rule out enrichment of uranium, even though the Security Council had demanded it. As long as Iran did not cross the threshold(entrance), a certain amount of enrichment under safeguards would be admissible. Mercifully, even Mr. Netanyahu did not demand zero enrichment.

The possibility of a comprehensive agreement with Iran is particularly objectionable to the Republicans because of reports that Mr. Obama had given an assurance to the authorities in Iran even before he became President that he would be more generous with Iran than former U.S. President George Bush. The promised concession was specifically on the issue of a permissible amount of enrichment even during the period of restrictions. Iran, on its part, has maintained that the limited amount of plutonium produced at some of its reactors cannot be used for weapons without a reprocessing plant and that Iran has no intention to acquire reprocessing capability. Mr. Obama, it appears, is inclined to accept terms that would allow Iran to enrich uranium as long as it kept nuclear weapons out of reach for Iran.

The negotiations have completed 13 rounds after the Joint Plan of Action was approved and indications are that a comprehensive agreement is within reach. The new Republican position has cast a shadow on the current round even though Iran itself has dismissed it as being inconsequential. Iran points out that its leader, Ali Khamenei, has gone to the extent of issuing a fatwa against nuclear weapons, which is the strongest guarantee that Iran has not embarked on the nuclear weapons path.

Separately, discussions have already begun in New York among the permanent members to prepare the ground for removal of UN sanctions if an agreement is reached in Geneva. The sanctions unilaterally imposed by the U.S. and the European Union (EU) in the energy and banking sectors, and which have hurt Iran even more, are also under discussion. These measures are aimed at countering the threat posed by the Republicans to block the lifting of sanctions authorised by the Congress.

Indian angle

In the earlier years in Vienna, Iran had banked on the chorus of support it received from the nonaligned countries for its right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But when it got the sense that the nonaligned support was a double-edged weapon, it found that direct negotiations with the P5 and Germany could be more beneficial. For its part, India was always apprehensive about an Iranian bomb. On one occasion, Iran issued a démarche in Delhi when the Indian delegation in Vienna refused to endorse a set of amendments to the IAEA resolution, which went beyond the Indian position. Our vote in favour of referring the entire matter to the Security Council angered the Iranians even more as it was perceived to be under American pressure.

India would naturally be relieved if there is an agreement, which will prevent war on the one hand and the emergence of a nuclear weapon power in its neighbourhood on the other.

It is still touch and go in the Lausanne negotiations. An altogether new element is the way the Republicans and Mr. Obama are appealing directly to the Iranians. “This moment may not come again soon,” Mr. Obama said in his message to the people of Iran on the occasion of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. “I believe that our nations have a historic opportunity to resolve this issue peacefully — an opportunity we should not miss.” The end result will depend on how many centrifuges can sustain the development of nuclear technology in Iran without being subjected to crippling sanctions. Unless that magic figure emanates(give out) soon, the spring in Lausanne may well end without a flowering of peace.

Read more »

Birth of islam

If Islam is to move away from its current suicidal trajectory, the first thing that needs to be done is to get rid of the idea of one-size-fits-all Islam
As the global civil war tearing the Islamic world apart intensifies(deepen), there’s understandably deep pessimism(bad feeling) over the future of Islam. Will it survive this self-inflicted existential crisis at all? And, if so, in what form? Will it be in the twisted form symbolised by the Islamic State (IS)? Or is this crisis the harbinger(announce) of a new awakening? The proverbial darkness before dawn? Will a new Islam rise from the ashes of the old?

There is a saying among Muslims, Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad, (Islam is reborn after every Karbala), alluding(touch) to Islam’s resurgence after the devastating defeat of Imam Hussein’s ragtag army in the battlefield of Karbala. After all, Christianity went through a particularly dark and bloody phase before it discovered Enlightenment. So, why not Islam?

Signs of introspection

On the face of it, such optimism sounds almost like wild fantasy in these gloomy times when jihadis seem to be the only show in town. Indeed, obituaries(notice of death) of liberal Islam are being routinely written. The Economist carried an article recently suggesting that liberals might have already lost the battle. But it also made an important point — that there are belated signs of introspection among Muslims in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings.

Pointing out that hitherto(till now) Muslims had “not taken kindly” to Western “hectoring” to do more to counter jihadist ideology, it noted that “they are starting to debate the role that Islamist ideology plays in extremism.” Most importantly, the traditionally conservative Muslim political and clerical Establishment had broken its silence with Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar mosque — the oldest seat of sunni Islamic learning — proposing a radical overhaul of Islamic teaching; and Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, calling for a “religious revolution” to purge Islam of extremist tendencies.

“The Islamic world is being torn(divided), it is being destroyed, it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands,” he lamented(express sadly). The test, of course, will lie in whether he will be willing to review Egyptian textbooks which, according to a report of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, present the same interpretation of jihad that is preached by violent jihadis.

Meanwhile, on the Muslim “street,” the mood music appears to be changing generally. A trend that the community complains of has been ignored amid(among) the sexier narrative of Muslim youth “flocking” to join the IS. According to independent observers, anecdotal evidence suggests that “the centre ground has started to shift back,” as one British commentator put it.

“Now if you speak to liberal Muslims, you hear optimism: the centre ground has started to shift back. Voices are speaking up who, until recently, were cowed by fundamentalist preachers, fear of family disgrace, even violence,” wrote The Times columnist Janice Turner.

Canadian feminist-activist Irshad Manji, a hate figure for many Muslims because of her attacks on fundamentalist Islam, says that these days she gets “more love bombs, if I can put it that way, from young Muslims.”

“They are hungry — this new generation is hungry for debate and discussion. I think that if we all understood that, there would be less of a need for them to become defensive and less of a need for us, all of us, to be fearful,” she told an interviewer.

The problem is that this change has come a little too late — perhaps 10 years too late — and seems more like a panic reaction to the growing IS threat. Moreover, the debate is focussed on defeating extremist groups rather than the ideology that gave birth to them. Also, it is not enough to say that the Islam that extremists preach is a distortion of “true” Islam — unless there’s an agreement on what is “true” Islam. Is it the Islam that recognises religious freedom and urges(force) its followers to respect other faiths? Or is it the Islam that allows Saudi Arabia, its de facto custodian, to sentence to death any Muslim who renounces their faith? Is “true’’ Islam represented by Wahhabism, the hang-‘em-flog-‘em Saudi creed, and the template for jihadis? Or the more gentle Islam practised in South Asia? And who decides which brand of Islam is more authentic? As the leading American specialist in Islamic and Jewish studies, Gordon D. Newby, points out, “The often asked question, ‘Who speaks for Islam?’ remains an enduring(long-suffering) and important question.”

Any discussion on the future of Islam must factor in two things: one is that more Muslims today live in multicultural, open and democratic societies — mostly in the West — with very different notions of individual freedoms and human rights than the tribal cultural values that shaped early Islam and to which the Establishment Islam continues to cling on to. Secondly, the concept of a monolithic global umma, undifferentiated by factors such as race, culture, gender and personal lifestyle choices, is a myth. It is a stereotype that, ironically, has been promoted both by Islam’s critics and its advocates to suit their own different interests.

Take, for example, Muslims born and brought up in the West. Let alone other Muslims, they have little in common with their own parents’ generation. The fact is that second and third generation American and European Muslims reject many of the so-called “Islamic” practices that interfere with their personal freedoms and don’t fit in with the dominant values of the free and societies they live in.

If Islam is to move away from its current suicidal trajectory, the first thing to do is to get rid of the idea of one-size-fits-all Islam. Well-known Turkish writer and publisher Levent Gultekin believes the problem is not Islam but “our inability to understand the religion in the context of the 21st century.”

“Unless we find a way out, we will destroy ourselves,” he told Al-Monitor, a Washington-based media site devoted to West Asian/Islamic affairs.

He made a distinction between strictly religious Islamic principles and secular concepts such as honesty, justice, equality and freedom which, he said, were “universal and the basis of virtually all religions, including Islam.” The way forward for Muslim societies was to embrace secularism so that religious issues “cease to act as a focal point for society.”

“What Christianity experienced in the West in the 17th and 18th centuries, Islam and Muslims shall experience now and in the future,” he said.

Contest between approaches

American Muslim scholar Asma Afsaruddin sees the crisis in Islam as a consequence(result) of the “intra-Muslim dialectics” played out between “absolutists’’ and liberals suggesting that the latter(last mentioned) are very much in the fight contrary to the sense that they have given up. What we are witnessing is a contest between two different approaches to “the central issues of our time” — one based on “whether the past is conceived as a frozen, mythic entity available for wholesale replication today,” and the other “offering a repertoire(a collection of work or skill) of enduring universal values and possible courses of actions, mediated by contemporary contingencies(possible event).”

Ultimately, the future of Islam as a religion fit for the 21st century hinges on the liberal worldview gaining ground among Muslims, Professor Afsaruddin wrote in an essay, concluding with the optimistic prediction that “this will happen because that is the more historically credible and morally compelling alternative.”

Some would question whether a “new” Islam would be Islam at all. Like the old communists, who denounced the European New Left as heresy, they would dismiss a reformed Islam as a travesty(farce comedy,parody) arguing that it’s immutable. But that is a bridge we will cross when we come to it. The question for now is: are we getting there at all?

Read more »

Know your english

“Wow! Nice T-shirt! Did you buy it when you went shopping yesterday?”

“That’s right! I bought several yesterday.”

“You bought several T-shirts? Really? I thought you hated going shopping.”

“I do! But believe it or not, I splurged on shoes and clothes yesterday.”

“Splurged? Does it mean you spent a lot of money on clothes and shoes?”

“That’s exactly what it means. The word ‘splurge’ is normally used to mean to spend freely. When you splurge on something, you spend extravagantly. You buy yourself something that is pretty expensive.”

“I see. Can I say, many Indians splurge on jewellery?”

“You certainly can! Nowadays, young couples splurge on trips to foreign countries.”

“Yes, that’s true. If I had money, I'd splurge on a car!”

“One can also say ‘splurge out’. I’m planning to splurge out on a motorcycle.”

“Splurge out on a motorcycle? Is something wrong? You’re usually very careful when it comes to money. Today, you’re ready to splurge on things that you ...”

“Let’s just say I’m in the mood to splurge. I made a killing in the stock market last week.”

“What are you talking about? You made a killing?”

“When you say that you made a killing, you mean you made tons of money in a very short period of time. In other words, you ...”

“You made a huge profit on something. My uncle made a killing when he sold his old house in Nagpur.”

“Looks like your favourite star’s movie didn’t make a killing at the box office.”

“That’s not surprising at all. Saw the movie a couple of days ago, and I found it absolutely boring. It’s the story of a rich man who decides to adopt a child because he has no issues. The child ...”

“The word ‘issue’ is frequently used ...”

“I know that it’s frequently used to mean ‘child’. In the movie, the father has no children. He has no issues, and he decides ...”

“When used to refer to a child, ‘issue’ is an uncountable noun. You don’t say, he has no issues, but issue.”

“But a lot of people say ‘issues’ to refer to children.”

“It’s wrong. For most native speakers, this use of the word ‘issue’ is limited to legal contexts. In everyday conversation, they prefer to use ‘child’ or ‘children’.”

“I see. How about this example? The king died without an issue.”

“It should be ‘without issue’. The king died without issue. You can be very specific as well. The old king died without male issue.”

“Talking about kings and children, how do you pronounce h..e..i..r? I’ve heard ...”

“There is a tendency among some people to pronounce it like the word ‘hair’. The correct pronunciation, however, is ‘air’. Raj knew that he was the heir to the family fortune.”

“The young man claimed he was the heir to the throne.”

“Good example. Unlike ‘issue’, we can use ‘heir’ in the plural. The old man’s heirs were disappointed because he had left all his money to charity.”

“Sensible thing to do, I guess.”

******

Read more »

Polluted air where we breathe

Technical solutions alone will not be sufficient to control air pollution in Indian cities; we need a change in the institutional setup
In 2006, Al Gore broke down the complicated issue of climate change in “An Inconvenient(awkward) Truth” to make it understandable to the public. In a similar manner, a month back, “Under the Dome” — a documentary on air pollution in China — highlighted the known linkages between pollutants and human health. Even though the documentary is in Chinese, the message is global. It is especially relevant for Indian cities where air pollution is going from bad to worse, and where there is a lack of understanding of where this pollution is coming from and what we must to do about it.

According to the World Health Organization, 25-30 cities in the top 100 most polluted cities in the world are from India. The Global Burden of Disease assessments for 2010 estimated that 6,27,000 premature deaths in India can be attributed to outdoor air pollution. Of the pollution-related risks, a substantial increase was observed in the cases of ischemic heart disease (which can lead to heart attacks), cerebro-vascular disease (which can lead to strokes), chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, lower respiratory infections, and cancers (in trachea, lungs, and bronchitis). These estimates do not include acute impacts such as asthma attacks, eye irritations and other respiratory ailments. We still do not know and have not quantified the long-term health impacts of air pollution on vulnerable(weak) populations such as children and the elderly. The pollutant with the most impact on health is Particulate Matter. Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micron-meter is especially harmful as they are small enough to settle inside our lungs and cause long-term health problems. Other pollutants are Sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Carbon monoxide, and ozone.

According to the 2011 census, by 2030, with a majority of the population classified as urban, the expected growth and demand in industrial, transportation, and domestic sectors will consequently result in an increase in problems of air pollution, which will spread from the big cities to secondary and tertiary cities. In the early 2000s, Delhi mandated a policy to convert auto-rickshaws, taxis and buses from diesel to Compressed Natural Gas. The benefits from this switch lasted for 3-4 years, but as the number of vehicles kept increasing, pollution levels from the transport sector were once again high. Such a large-scale conversion or any such intervention to target air pollution was not attempted again in any other city.

Inadequate urban planning

Air pollution is a complicated issue and is most often a symptom of inadequate urban planning. Lack of power supply leads to the use of diesel generator sets; lack of buses to support the public transport demand leads to higher use of personal vehicles; lack of infrastructure to promote walking and cycling leads to more motorised transport; lack of road maintenance and traffic management by allowing on-road parking leads to congestion(over crows
Ds); lack of a sufficient waste management system leads to garbage being left behind and often burnt in residential areas; and lack of paved(made up) or covered roads leads to re-suspension of dust when vehicles are passing by. The fact that air pollution is an externality from multiple sectors means that it needs to be addressed by multiple ministries that are willing to coordinate with one another. Technical solutions alone, like introducing CNG or changing standards for vehicles and industries, will not be sufficient to control air pollution in Indian cities. We need a change in the institutional setup in ways that will allow department and ministries to work together.

As citizens, it is our right to know the quality of air that we breathe, the severity of pollution in the air, and where this pollution is coming from. There are multiple sources and there is little that one can do as an individual that would make an impact on reducing emissions. Only when the government takes the lead to address this seriously, by mandating policies in the context of wider social and economic development, will we have any real change towards improving the quality of air. This will not be easy as it is a complicated issue, but we need to start somewhere. Getting a sense of how bad the air is through regular monitoring, and allowing citizens to demand action, is the first step. And we must take that step.

Read more »