The modern thinking Indian

The prevalence of dowry in today's society is an open fact; most people see it in operation either in their own marriage, or in the marriage of their family members; or you see it on operation in the case of acquaintances. So as an example, I have seen dowry in operation in the case of a family friend where her in-laws insisted on a car as a part of the marriage (and even specified the type of car that was requested). They had accepted that this was a price to be paid for getting their daughter married (and one should fault them equally for being so desperate to get their daughter married). Of course, in all cases of dowry, the boy's side is always evaluating the value they can get for their boy and have no qualms in demanding the same.
A lot of this dowry expectation is now baked into society, and there do no seem to be any easy solutions (people giving dowry expect that this is the price they need to pay to get their daughter married, and those demanding dowry do not care that such expectations are illegal in law). To make the scale more even, the Government of India has introduced a number of laws that seek to even the scales, and empower women. However, in trying to even the scale, the laws give a lot of power to women, and in some cases, there has been misuse. There have been many reported cases where the threat of usage of such laws (and consequent police action) is used as a level to force settlements; it has been pointed out in court cases and by many pro-male organizations. And when the Chief Justice of India points this out, you can be sure that this is a deep matter of concern:

Dealing a blow to women's rights activists who have been stringently defending the Section 498A provision of the Indian Penal Code, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan on Saturday said that in some cases this section — that deals with matrimonial cruelty — was being `grossly misused'. Elaborating on false cases being filed in recent times, the CJI said that relatives not involved with a matrimonial dispute were unfairly implicated. "In some cases, 498A is grossly misused,'' he said. Balakrishnan was speaking at a seminar, `Marriage laws -- issues and challenges', organised by the National Commission for Women.
The IPC section allows for immediate arrest of the husband and in-laws by the police on the basis of a woman's complaint and has been controversial.

The various laws that were supposed to empower women, even though trying to balance the scales, do not maintain the old adage of all people being equal before the law, and that everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Unless the law allows for a better investigation and penalties for misuse, misuse will continue.

Labels: Discrimination, Dowry, Investigation, Judicial, Law, Police, Reform, Responsibility, Review, Welfare, Women

The Jammu and Kashmir issue remains complicated. The state was signed into the Indian Union in difficult circumstances, at a time when Pakistani invaders wanted to conquer the state for eventual integration into Pakistan. At the time, the Maharajah of the state finally changed his stance from trying to be independent and signed the instrument of Accession and the state officially became a part of the Indian Union. The State however had a status that was separate from almost any other state in the Union (some states have special status that prevent outsiders from being able to buy land and so on, but no other state has the level of autonomy that this state has), and which is something that continues to irritate many Indians. The basic question remains as to why the state has been granted the special level of autonomy ? It is proclaimed that it is so because it has a special character, but the basic doubt remains as to whether this is because it is the only Muslim majority state in the Indian Union. However, this is an endless debate, and just like many other issues, it is very doubtful as to whether these provisions will ever be repealed.
The last 1 year has seen many strange things happening in the Valley. The Congress was in command, with Ghulam Nabi Azad being the Chief Minister (as part of the agreement with the PDP of the Mufti where the Chief Minister's post revolves between the PDP and the Congress 50:50). However, like similar arrangements in many other parts of the country, this one also had its strains, with the PDP not particularly satisfied once it had to hand over the Chief Ministership to the Congress (and the PDP never liked Ghulam Nabi Azad). And then the Amarnath issue blew up.
At some time in the past, the High Court had ordered the Government to improve the facilities for devotees visiting the Amarnath shrine in Kashmir, and eventually the J & K Government under him made a cabinet decision in that regard by transferring some amount of land to the Amarnath committee for preparing temporary structures; however, this decision caused a major upheaval in the valley. Separatist sentiment got invoked, and even the PDP essentially backed away and Azad also resigned. However, once the transfer of land was put on hold, residents of the Jammu area launched a major agitation. For a long time, the residents of Jammu have felt like second class citizens. With the Kashmir valley being a political concern due to its Muslim majority, Jammu has always felt that it has been treated as an unequal partner. It was the cancellation of the transfer of land that somehow made these sentiments burst out (there must have been a lot of incitement, but there was a genuine display of anger by people as well), and an agitation that showed no way out for the Congress Government forced it to bend towards the Jammu agitators and transfer the land to the Committee.
In this environment, it was felt that elections would not be a good idea, what with separatist sentiment having been very vocal in the previous months, but the elections surprised everyone. Inspite of calls by the Hurriyat Conference and the separatists, people turned out to vote in large numbers. It is speculated that this voting should not be seen as an under-cutting of the sentiment towards freedom, but more about local governance issues. I believe that we should see this as a right step, since elections are meant to show that the will of the people is paramount in electing politicians who can govern, and the election of the National Conference young leader (and a former Central External Affairs Minster of State) Omar Abdullah is a step in the right direction. Even though the NC is tainted with having helped cause the rise in azaadi sentiment by having rigged the elections in 1987, it is a party that has always seen the future of Kashmir with India. If Omar Abdullah delivers good governance, it will go a long way in destroying the separatist sentiment.

Labels: Congress, Democracy, Discrimination, Election, Governance, Kashmir, NC, Problems, Responsibility, Separatist, Terrorism

The drama over Raj Thackeray is reaching a new high. Raj Thackeray, once he split from the Shiv Sena had to make a separate image for himself. So, one of the ways to do this was to try to appeal to the parochial nature of people; blame outsiders for whatever is the economic poor condition and try to inflame their sentiments. He has managed to be somewhat successful in this quest, inflaming sentiments and overall leading to a situation where immigrants from North India have been attacked inside Mumbai and other parts of the state of Maharashtra. In the past, this led to panic and the temporary stoppage of many industrial units with many of their workers running away.
And how does the Chief Minister handle this whole situation. The Shiv Sena has long been a thorn in the side of the Congress in Maharashtra, with their more pro-Marathi position and higher propensity to appeal to populist sentiment. The Congress cannot afford take such positions, since it needs to appeal to all sections of people, and cannot afford to antagonize the voters of North Indian origin. And of course, taking a more extremist position in Maharashtra would expose them to a backlash elsewhere; and their chief Sonia Gandhi would be targeted for such positioning; so if you get a person all ready to be more extremist than the Shiv Sena, you can imagine the scenario of a Congress Chief Minister salivating over the prospect of the Sena's divided vote.
What this has resulted in is the Congress treating Raj Thackeray with kid gloves; they come out with empty soundbeats about 'The law will take its own course', 'We will protect everyone and not let violence happen', and so on. And yet, they allow the lumpen elements of the MNS to attack and do violence in broad daylight, they do token arrest of Raj Thackeray, keep him in absolute comfort and let him out by the next day (first time, they let him out within a few hours, and the next time overnight). The police officers claim that they have nothing against Raj Thackeray. And they can see the campaign working, the Shiv Sena is now unsure of how to behave and is trying to take credit for the campaign of the MNS. Read this report of the treatment of Raj:

Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leader Raj Thackeray need not worry about being arrested during Diwali, at least in the case filed by the Kalyan railway police. A Kalyan sessions court on Friday extended its interim protection to Thackeray till the next date of hearing, which falls on November 11. Sessions judge K K Tantrapale, however, emphasised that one of the conditions for the interim protection was that Thackeray will have to refrain from giving provocative and inflammatory speeches.
The judge questioned whether the state would be able to ensure the smooth functioning of the court if Thackeray was ordered to remain present in court. ‘Is the state machinery ready to provide adequate bandobast in the court premises,’ the judge asked the prosecutor. The judge further told the prosecutor that on Tuesday MNS activists had managed to forcibly enter the court premises and shouted slogans and created a commotion. Salian assured the court that the police would put in place adequate security.

This whole situation has seen a woeful lack of an attempt by the State Government to try and prevent the violence, and the whole atmosphere of intimidation that is equally bad. Even after large scale condemnation by various parties (including allies of the Congress), there does not seem to be any clear attempt to show Raj Thackeray the violations of law that he has committed. Instead, after seeing the repeated
statements of Raj (followed by direct action of his partymen), I am reminded of the way that the militants expelled most of the pandits from the Kashmir Valley. It is like a 2 step process, where Raj does not directly state violence, but leaves nothing else to be desired, and then his partymen carry out the actual violence.

Labels: Community, Discrimination, Empowerment, Law, Morality, Politics, Protest, Punishment, Security, Separatist

The current turmoil in Jammu shows no sign of letting up. Part of the turmoil has been scripted, with the BJP and other parties such as the Shiv Sena also using this as an opportunity to demonstrate against both the State Government (previously headed by a Congress Chief Minister and now by the representative of the Central Congress Government), and against the Central Government. However, as of now, the agitation seems to have caught on a rage of its own, and the turmoil over there is threatening the peace in the region.
What is the background of this agitation ? Some time back, the State Governor (as head of the Amarnath Yatra Board) proposed that some land be transferred to the Yatra Board so as to facilitate the building of some pre-fabricated structures for the benefit of pilgrims. The conditions over there are not very easy, and building such facilities would make a lot of sense. However, once this decision was ratified by the State Government, the crisis started. There were agitations in Srinagar against this move, with many calling this a move to do some population shifts. Soon, the situation began to be seen as an anti-Hindu move, and Islamists started to take advantage, marking the resurgence of pro-Independence and pro-Pakistan slogans.
After this agitation threatened to shut down the Valley, the State Government shifted stands, and decided to reverse the transfer of land, portraying a Congress Government as again buckling down to pressure and taking a decision that was against the interest of Hindus. Historically, Jammu has always suffered in the state - Jammu and Kashmir has always been composed of 3 major regions, Jammu, Ladakh and the Valley. Jammu is hindu-majority, Ladakh is Buddhist, and the valley is muslim majority. In all these years, there has been a feeling that because of the need to keep the sensitivities of the only muslim majority state in the country, Jammu has always suffered second-grade treatment. It seems that the move to make this issue as a major issue in Jammu (and many other parts of India) is able to use this feeling.
What can be done now ? It's very tricky. The Government in its current state will not be able to again reverse itself and grant the land to the Amarnath Board, and it will do all it can to please with the BJP and the other parties to withdraw the agitation in Jammu.

Labels: Anger, BJP, Congress, Discrimination, Morality, Muslim, Politics

The incidence of dowry in the country is a fairly high chance. Over a period of time, it has evolved from something that was supposed to be a gift given to the bride (and maybe the only thing given to the daughter of the house from the family property) to something that is seen as the right of the groom's family. The belief is that if the son is skilled or from a good family, or of the right caste, then it is the right of the girl's family to open their wallets and give umpteen amounts for the marriage. There are people who dispute the amount of dowry prevalent in today's society, but open the newspapers or see TV, and you will society temporarily idolizing the girl who stood up to the dowry seekers, or you will read more grisly tales of brides being subjected to torture or being killed due to problems with the dowry being paid. In many cases, it is not cash, but the demand is for a vehicle, or even more subtly, a loan (never to be returned), to help the boy do better in a business or some other need. I know a case where a boy's grandparents demanded a car at the last moment (within 10 days of the marriage), and the poor parents felt that they had no option other than to give in and mobilize the funds to buy and give the car.
So, there are a set of laws to even the scale; these laws would not actually pass the test of being totally lawful since they do weigh more in favor of the girl. Many would argue that this is right, since society is totally in favor of the demands by the groom. However, as always happens when there are a set of laws that are more in favor of one section, the misuse of these laws happen. So, for all the times when the dowry laws help a tortured or suppressed girl, there are numerous other cases where the same law is used to threaten the family of a groom where there has been no incidence of dowry. For a case where there has been marital discord, the threatened use of dowry can turn the tables, since the groom's family have learned to fear the use of dowry laws. The allegation of dowry can bring about unwanted media attention including vilification, closer attention by cops (maybe some days in jail as well), and a significant pressure level to settle the case.
Hence, over a period of time, there has been a lot of focus by many self-help groups to plead against the misuse of these laws and bring it to the notice of the government (not only the anti-dowry laws, but the recent domestic violence act that also has some harsh measures). Even many courts have pointed out the misuse of these laws in some cases and called for greater oversight to prevent misuse of these laws:

Following complaints about the misuse of dowry laws by women, the Centre has decided to look into the issue and will hold a consultation programme to get views and suggestions from NGOs and activists working for men. Acting on complaints about the misuse of dowry laws, the Union Ministry for Women and Child Development would organise a consultation programme where men from different walks of life would be invited to express themselves on June 25.
"The ministry has received complaints from men about the urgent need to amend Section 498(A) of the dowry law claiming that many women misuse the law to their benefit. After the consultation, the Ministry will examine how far this claim is right before deciding on any thing," Union Minister for Women and Child Development Renuka Chowdhary said.

Nobody doubts the need for laws to act against dowry misuse as well as warn people against the potential problems they face if they demand dowry and ill-treat women because of that; however, at the same time, a harsh law has a strong potential for misuse and there is an urgent need for reform. The main question right now is about whether there will be a proper review and necessary changes be brought in ?

Labels: Discrimination, Dowry, Law, Morality, Policy, Punishment, Reform, Welfare, Women

It is a known fact of life that there are many communities in India that are backward; many of them get benefits on the basis of caste such as reservations in jobs and education. There is some debate on a policy of reservation, but the prime justification is that these castes have been suppressed as part of social and religious practices; there is also a whole host of politics involved in this whole affair.
It is this problem of politics that causes most problems; for some time now, the Congress has realized that it has been losing the support of Muslims, and this is not something that the Congress can easily accept. In order to regain power in the states and center, it needs to bring together a coalition of many parts of society such as the Dalits (except in Uttar Pradesh where Mayawati has got their support), forward castes such as the Brahmins, and the Muslims. Hence, a concerted plan to take measures that would be seen as benefiting the Muslim community; it is these that are now causing it problems.
The Government asked to get numbers of Muslims in the armed forces (something that was vigorously opposed); it wanted to get banks to apportion a certain amount of loans for the minorities (something even banks were unsure of in terms of implementation); the Andhra Pradesh Government tried to bring in reservation for Muslims (in spite of the Court rejecting it more than once). These policies, especially ones dealing with promising reservation to the backward section in the Muslim community have even come under fire from Muslim leaders. Islam as a religion has strict policies against any form of discrimination, and proclaim the equality of all before Allah, and to say that there are caste like discriminations in the community goes against the very concept.
So, the Government has now come under some severe questioning from the High Court:

The Central government came in for some searing criticism by Delhi HC on Monday with respect to implementation of Sachar Committee recommendations for welfare of Muslims. "You are trying to please one community. Poverty is the common enemy. You should fight against poverty rather than saying that you would fight against poverty for one community only," the bench observed during the hearing.
The bench wondered why the government's benevolence was targeted at one community alone, "You are saying that more money be spent for one minority community. Should it not cut across caste and religion? Does the Sachar committee say that facilities are available to other communities?" the HC demanded.

It is further likely as the election comes closer, the Government will move closer to trying to provide for pleasing the Muslim community, and will keep on facing both political opposition and in the Courts. In addition, the Constitution of India forbids any sort of religious discrimination. What the Government needs to do is to take less political pleasing but more effective steps such as increase education facilities, promote role models, try and increase integration, and stop treating them as a vote base to be milked.

Labels: Congress, Discrimination, Education, Muslim, Reform, Reservations

In yet another rally on the 3rd of May, Raj Thackeray continued on his North Indian campaign; even though he was apparently counselled by the police and by the state Human Rights Commission, Thackeray refused to be mellowed down. Read examples of what he said:

He said north Indians wanted to take over the state and their ‘chhat pujas’ were meant to be a show of strength. "I declare here today that no other day except Maharashtra Day will be celebrated in Maharashtra," he told the cheering crowds. "Arrest me for this if you can," he dared the police. He told MNS leaders to shed their complacence and advised his supporters to "take action" whenever they felt necessary. "Don’t wait for instructions," he said.
He warned that north Indians who did not speak Marathi and did not respect Marathi culture would be driven away. Thackeray stated that so far, all Presidents of India who hailed from the south, had chosen not to deliver their public addresses in Hindi.
"They stuck to English, or their own native languages. That’s why they survived," he said.

One would consider these as idle threats, except for the fact that his party members have resorted to threats and violence against North Indians in Mumbai and surrounding regions in the past. And for all this talk, that can be compared with the Kashmiri terrorists expelling Pandits, or to a lower extent with figures such as Hitler, what has happened to him ? Has there been any action taken against him ? Has he been held culpable for violence that has happened ?
No ! The Maharashtra CM, Vilasrao Deshmukh, for reasons that are strictly political in nature, has refused to take any action against him that is of a non-verbal nature. In fact, both of them were the prime movers of a drama whereby the police arrested him, took him to a magistrate, and then he was released within an hour. And even the police did this only after many weeks had passed and violence had already been instigated in his name.
Does the Congress really think it will benefit ? The support of North Indians in many areas of Maharashtra is getting more important politically, and the Congress is sure to be facing negative feedback in the politically important states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. In the past, the parties supporting the Congress in the center have raised this issue, but have been content with verbal assurances by the Congress, even though the Congress has taken on an air of impotency on this issue.

Labels: Congress, Discrimination, Governance, India, Law, Police, Politics, Punishment, Security, Separatist

In a shocking incident that portrays how parents have a quest for male children, a couple abandoned their girl child under the pretext of claiming that their child had been switched with another baby, and that their actual child was a boy. They even demanded a DNA test, and when the DNA test proved that the lady was the mother of the girl child, they refused to accept the DNA test. In the end, the police arrested them for deserting the girl child:

MUMBAI: A couple from Dharavi's Rajiv Gandhi Nagar slum was arrested on Friday for abandoning an infant girl at the civic-run Sion Hospital. The parents, Rajmani and Sheela Jaiswal, had earlier alleged that their baby boy had been swapped for a girl child after delivery in December. They left the child behind when Sheela was discharged from the hospital on Wednesday.
They had approached the Shahunagar police station and had demanded a DNA test to confirm parentage. The DNA report, submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory in Kalina, had confirmed that the DNA of the mother and child matched. The unlettered couple, however, remains unconvinced. ''We don't trust the DNA report given by the police or hospital. We want the DNA test to be conducted in Delhi,'' said Salam Kazi from voluntary organisation Al-Hind, which is supporting the family and promises to provide them a lawyer if need be.

This is shocking. The quest for a male child has caused the parents to abandon their own flesh and blood. In the end, even though the child deserves to live with her parents, given that the parents are even refusing to acknowledge her, one can only wonder as to how they would have treated her later. Such a child would suffer major discrimination, with a bad quality of life.

Labels: Child, Discrimination, Family, Morality, Responsibility

When the Government decided to go around the Supreme Court ruling that disallowed reservation for SC/ST's in private unaided educational institutions, the Congress would never have visualized the can of worms that got opened. In a sign of intra-party power plays (or the desperation of a neglected man to make his mark), the education minister used the powers in the new law to propose reservations for OBC's in educational institutions. And of course, given the state of our polity and the political implications of OBC support, there is not a single party in the country that would go against this proposal. The proposal however horrified a number of students, who were aghast at the idea of a massive increase in the number of reserved seats in educational institutions, including the 'elite' ones such as AIIMS, IIT's, and IIM's.
Given that any number of agitations were not going to stop the Government, pushed to the backfront by the pressure of their allies, eager to see these quotas implemented. The case naturally went directly to the Supreme Court, which initially itself pushed the Government on the backfront by staying the implementation of the law, and asked a number of hard questions to which the Congress did not have many answers. The Government tried hard to defuse a growing upper caste anger / backlash by promising that seats would be increased so that current general seats would not be affected, and institutions would be given additional funding so that they would increase infrastructure accordingly. The Congress knows that they would not be able to harness any of the OBC seat anyway, these are promised to the regional parties that bank on the OBC vote.
And finally the Supreme Court has delivered its judgment, a fair amount of time after the law was proposed. The Supreme Court has decided against a direct confrontation with parliament by not blocking the law, and giving Parliament the right to make laws regarding affirmative action. However, it laid down some parameters that make things different for the Congress; first by ensuring that the principle of creamy layer (people already empowered and not needing a further boost) to be removed (a good thing, since it ensures that OBC's in cities do not get all the seats as opposed to the backward castes who can use the help of reservation); further, in a principle that is being debated to some extent, the majority of the Court observed that a person who is a graduate does not need a boost up (thus effectively ruling out reservations in post-graduate courses such as IIM's and IIT's); finally the court made observations regarding the utility of reviewing the lists of castes needing this support every 5 years (a observation that every party will ignore).
Overall, the Supreme Court ruling is controversial, not making anybody happy. However, the court has decided that it will not challenge the supreme principle of Parliament (otherwise there would have been a direct confrontation), but has set many constraints.

Labels: Congress, Court, Discrimination, Education, Law, Minority, Parliament, Politics, Reservations

Not in the way that you would think, where people would leave the Shiv Sena of Bal and Uddhav Thackeray and join Raj's Nav Nirman Movement, but another byproduct of the lack of protest by the Shiv Sena against the anti-North Indian movement of Raj. In fact, Uddhav almost seemed to be trying to coopt the movement, with statements that, while not explicitly threatening North Indians, saying the message with less violence. However, the talk of jobs for native Marathis first and the lack of any denunciation of Raj's message sent a signal to the North Indians - the Shiv Sena essentially will not hesitate to adopt Raj's message if it seems to be generating popular acclaim.
From time to time, you would get a reminder that the Shiv Sena existed outside Maharashtra, particularly when there would be a demonstration by the Delhi branch against some statement by other parties, or when a Valentine's day celebration needed to be broken up violently. But now it seems that the leaders of these North Indian branches are finding the environment a bit hard to handle.

The Shiv Sena on Wednesday split, with the outfit's North Indian leaders resigning en-masse protesting its "outrageous conduct" towards non-Marathis in Maharashtra and announcing they would form a separate party.
"Shiv Sena is no different from Khalistan and Jammu and Kashmir militant groups which are trying to create a rift between people along regional lines. The main aim of these forces is to split our country," Shiv Sena's North India chief Jai Bhagwan Goyal told reporters in New Delhi on Wednesday.

Seems like finally the Shiv Sena had to make a compromise. It's base is in Maharashtra, and it cannot allow an expelled member like Raj try and take away its thunder, and if that means that its North Indian faction splits, so be it. However, it seems like the Shiv Sena is headed towards overall failure - it was the more extremist among the political parties, but now Raj is threatening to take that position. The NCP of Sharad Pawar has bona fide Marathi leaders and has a centrist position that attracts voters, leaving the Shiv Sena with a diminishing base.
The other party that is badly hit of course is the Congress since they tried to play upto Raj to diminish the Shiv Sena, but the lack of action against Raj by the Congress leadership will cause a backlash against the Congress. Mere words will not be enough.

Labels: Congress, Discrimination, Politics, Separatist

We are in an age of globalization, with Indians traveling all over the world. The Indian Government routinely takes it up when they see any country trying to put restrictions on Indian citizens working over there (as an example, witness the (though so far unsuccessful) attempts of the Government to get a reversal of the new flawed work permit system for medicos in the UK). It is taken for granted that this is our country, and one can go and live anywhere in the country. There are some exceptions to this, such as the inability of outsiders to buy land in Kashmir, Himachal, etc; but these were special exceptions to prevent these small places from getting swamped by outsiders and retain their character.
To argue a similar thing for a leading metro of the country, on the other hand, is incredible. What Raj Thackeray is doing is almost equivalent to sedition, when he argues that outsiders essentially have no place in Mumbai. Mumbai is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in India, a place that is sought to be converted by the Government into a leading financial center of Asia. Arguing that outsiders are not welcome, and provoking attacks on them is not just criminal, but is going against the whole oneness of the country, and is equivalent to sedition. Mumbai has developed, and continues to develop, because of the movement of talent and people to that city.
The sad part in all this is that even Raj Thackeray knows what he is speaking is gibberish, and due to political reasons. The Shiv Sena itself is one among the leading players in the state, and the political chances of a radical offshoot of the Shiv Sena (headed by a junior politician such as Raj) are very low. The only way to generate enthusiasm for one's party is by taking an extremist position, and trying to appeal to people who feel somewhat threatened by the influx of outsiders.
However, such sentiment needs to be met quickly, and not by treating it as a case of letting off steam. This is not a mass movement that needs to let off steam, this is a cold calculated position that has been taken in order to accrue political advantage, and the quicker that the state takes action, the better:

Raj Thackeray's supporters on Monday continued to carry out sporadic attacks on migrants on Mumbai's streets even as the state government sought to dispel concerns that it was not making a serious effort to quell the violence.
At Worli, taxis owned by Uttar Bharatiyas were stoned and their drivers attacked. In Dadar, hawkers were roughed up and warned against doing business in the area. The conflict even spread to other parts of the state as MNS workers burnt effigies of Raj Thackeray's detractors in Nashik, Beed and Nagpur. The government, under pressure to arrest Raj Thackeray and use tough measures to prevent the conflict from snowballing, sought to defuse the situation by booking him in a case of criminal intimidation.

It seems like the Government does not want to be seen as taking tough action and is hence giving Raj Thackeray a political lease by not cracking down. However, if this violence and action continue, it can have a ripple effect due to corresponding reactions in other parts of the country. The Government cannot afford to play politics with this case, it needs to take action. There will not be many people who will be offended by any crackdown and prosecution of Thackeray.

Labels: Community, Congress, Discrimination, Governance, Law, Politics, Punishment, Racism, Separatist

Sometimes good intentions can lead to ill-effects as well. The condition of women in India overall needs a great deal of improvement. Dowry deaths, harrassement, female infant killing, eve-teasing and molestation, all of these happen to a large extent in our country, much more than we as a society should tolerate. To change society, there are a number of educational and empowerment measures that should be taken, but giving legal protection to women is also necessary. And hence the need for some strict anti-dowry laws and to protect women against domestic violence.
This is where problems start arising. Owing to the fact that in many of these situation, the oppressed women find it hard to find proof, the laws have been slanted in their favor and the burden of proof has been made much lower. And therein lies the scope for misuse. Given the slant of these laws, it is very easy for a lady to misuse such laws. So, among the many genuine cases of dowry harrasement, there will be cases where innocent people have also been caught.
Misuse can take many ways. If a couple if separating in a bitter way, charging your husband and his family members with dowry demands or harassement can lead to them undergoing severe problems with the police and the law (not to talk of the media that can condemn them without a trial). If, god forbid, a married women dies accidentally within a few years of marriage, the husband and his family can be in for severe trouble, and have to show proof that there was no harassement.
This law is a double-edged sword, being used against both the guilty and the innocent. What is the way out ? For some time now, various courts have been finding a section of the cases as false and asking for more investigation and more safe-guards before acting against the husband's family. And it seems finally that the Government has started listening:

The government has decided to amend the Domestic Violence Act and incorporate certain changes in it to ensure that it is not misused.
Besides, the Women and Child Development Ministry would also organise a conference to incorporate men's perspectives in the Act to give it a holistic view. The proposal is in the process of finalisation, sources said.

One can only hope that this is a genuine effort and not an exercise in futility, or a way to show that concerns about the even-handedness of the law are being addressed. And this still does not address the issues about the other laws such as the anti-dowry laws that have also been mis-used in the past. In order to ameliorate the condition of women, the existence of laws is necessary, but the laws need to re-calibrated so as to prevent misuse.

Labels: Court, Discrimination, Dowry, Empowerment, Family, Law

It is quite clear that Taslima Nasreen is a person from whom most politicians want to stay away from. So, while the Prime Minister feels for a terrorist's family suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack in Britain, he is absolutely quiet about the hounding of a writer all over India. This whole attitude is what leads to hardening of majority opinion against the kind of secularism practised in India.
I consider myself a moderate Hindu, not very religious, but aware to a large extent about what happens all around. And one keeps on watching what the Government does when faced with a ticklish issue, and invariably the Government keeps on failing to remain even-handed when dealing with the same issues but across different scenarios.
So, do people remember the case of M F Hussain? He is the most famous painter from India, but he has been massively criticized by many for the paintings he has done of Hindu goddesses in the nude. He was threatened by right-wing Hindu organizations, and there was an instant uproar at the threats, with the Government and many sections of civil society reacting sharply at such threats (my opinion of MF Hussain however changed when he withdrew his movie, Meenaxi - A Tale of 3 cities after there were some protests by fundamentalist Muslim organizations. This sudden capitulation to fundamentalism was not protested or criticized).
And back to la affair Taslima Nasreen. Her works are controversial, and she is essentially a refugee from Bangladesh (there is a strong chance that she will be killed if she goes back to Bangladesh). The Indian Government has never claimed that she will not be allowed into India, and has issued her a visa regularly. If she is a person under threat by fundamentalists, then she deserves to be protected.
And what does the Government do ? First, the Left Front essentially pushes her out of Kolkata under the pressure of religious Fundamentalists, then ties itself in knots when questioned about this action. And of course, the usual clutch of critics do not say much when it comes to either the Left or such actions. And now that the author has herself admitted that the Left pushed her out, it is a black mark on the Left and CPM:

Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen on Monday said that she had not decided on her own to leave Kolkata but chose to remain silent about her controversial departure. "Why should I take a decision on my own? It did come to my mind that someone would come and kill me. Many like my writings, many others don't," she told a Bengali TV news channel.
"I want to return to Kolkata. I have not received any green signal as yet. I wonder from where the green signal will come", she told the channel in a telephonic interview from Delhi.

Given how the CPM is unlikely to do anything to imperil its Muslim support, it is unlikely that she will get a call from anybody in the CPM Government that she can come back. As it is, the Congress Government in the center is unable to decide what to do. Ideally, they would like her to go back to Europe, but that does not seem likely. Pushing her out of the country would make the Congress come under too much fire.
And one wonders about the impact this has on the majority community. Given the highly politicized society that we have now, if there is a perception that the Government (essentially, everybody else except for the BJP) is pandering to minority fundamentalists, then there is an equal reaction against such thoughts. Almost all the media coverage that I have read till now in mainstream magazines and newspapers also points out this contradiction on the part of the Congress, Left, left-leaning intellectuals, and the like. Such an attitude only reinforces the feeling that the Government will cave in whenever it is pushed by the thought of losing minority vote; at the same time, there is absolutely nothing in this position that can provide some support to moderate opinion (moderate opinion in turn gets marginalized). It's a never ending spiral, and one can be quite sure that in the next campaign, there will be more political push about the Congress pandering to minority fundamentalism and atleast a section of people will be convinced.

Labels: BJP, Congress, Discrimination, Governance, Law, Left, Minority, Muslim, Politics, Responsibility, Security

What happens when a Government is so taken up by populism that it won't listen to reason ? Well, now is a good time to find out. The Andhra Pradesh Government of Y. Rajsekhar Reddy has been trying to implement a separate reservation quota for Muslims in state colleges. Now reservation vs. merit has been a tricky subject currently, with plenty of impassioned speech for and against the subject. However, most debaters seem to agree that trying to implement reservations with a religious agenda is just not on; it smacks too much of a populist move (not bad by itself if it works for public good), it goes against the concept of the state not discriminating between against religions (sacrosanct in the Indian system), it militates against the concept of targeted reservations where reservations are only meant for those people who have been denied or suppressed for a historically long time (and you just cannot say that about the Muslim community in Andhra Pradesh) and is against the concept of judicial review where the ultimate correctness of a Government action is viewed against the intention of the constitution by the courts (and in this case, this particular stand is being reviewed by the Supreme Court).
So what did the Andhra Government do ? 2 years back, it passed an ordinance whereby a 5 % reservation was introduced for the entire Muslim community in Andhra Pradesh. Most people considered this an obvious attempt to curry favour with the Muslim community since the Government knew what was going to happen (it would not pass court approval with the High Court very clearly ruling against providing reservation on a religious basis). So the state filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, although it knows that the Supreme Court is very very likely to rule against such an ordinance and declare it ultra vires of the Constitution.
Then in July this year, the Andhra Pradesh Congress Government struck again, passing another ordinance giving 4 % (and not 5%) reservation in Professional colleges for Muslims. This is when the Supreme Court is already hearing the earlier case. And the Government must have felt to be very clever, after it all reduced the figure to 4% so as to not exceed the 50% quota limit introduced by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indira Sawhney case. Now, this latest quota has been challenged in the Supreme Court again:

The Supreme Court would hear on September 24, a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of an Ordinance granting four per cent reservation to Muslims in professional colleges by the Andhra Pradesh government.
The petition filed by T Murlidhar Rao and K Sriteja has challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court order declining to stay the Ordinance issued by the state government on July 6, 2007, under which it provided four per cent reservations to several sub sects within the Muslim community by treating them as backward classes. The High Court refused to stay the ordinance after the state government submitted that the issue relating to reservation for OBCs was pending before the apex court and hence no order be passed till the matter was adjudicated by the Constitution Bench.

The State Government submitted before the High Court that since a matter related to OBC reservation in professional educational institutions was pending before the Supreme Court, the Andhra High Court should not intervene, and the court bought into this argument. The fact of the matter is that this is different, since this pertains to reservation on religious lines, and is a much more serious manner. But will the Congress listen ? It needs to be seen as implementing the Sachar committee report and doing something symbolic for the Muslim community, and this trend is hard to reverse.

Labels: Congress, Court, Development, Discrimination, Education, Governance, Judicial, Law, Muslim, Politics, Reservations

For quite some time now, the Indian Supreme Court has been taking the stand that if a man offers a pledge of marriage to a women, and then has sex with her, and then moves away from his pledge of marriage, he can be convicted of rape. This was always a surprise, because even if you accept that in a relationship in this country, with its societal emphasis of marriage for a women, consensual sex cannot be equated with marriage. Even with a relationship of unequals, as long as the act of physical relations was voluntary, to call it a rape would seem illogical. After all, the scope for misuse is tremendous, relationships can break up after some period of cohabitation. The existing understanding seemed to be heavily biased against men. Well, it seems that the Supreme Court has thought again about this stand, and wants to evaluate it on a case by case basis:

A man having sex with a girl after obtaining her consent on the promise of a marriage does not necessarily constitute rape even if he retracts on his pledge, the Supreme Court has ruled. Such retraction by the accused would amount to rape only if the consent was obtained by coercion or threat, a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain said while upholding an appeal filed by the accused Pradeep Kumar.
The apex court maintained that there was no straitjacket formula for determining whether consent given by the girl was voluntary or given under a misconception of fact as it has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances and surrounding factors which led to the alleged consensual sex.

This new interpretation also treats women more fairly. The earlier interpretation would assume that just because a lady was promised marriage, she would agree to have sex. This assumes that they don't have the wisdom to decide on their own whether to have a sexual relationship, just for the sake of the physical intimacy rather than as a prelude to a marriage.

Labels: Court, Discrimination, Law, Morality, Reform

There is this excellent article by Jug Suraiya in the Times of India that took on the Taslima Nasreen episode, namely the attack on her (including by elected representatives of the MIM), and subsequent silence by most of our liberal class. Called 'Taslima and the soft underbelly of liberalism', do read the article:

Where have all the liberals gone, now that Taslima Nasreen, the outspoken Bangladeshi novelist living in exile in India, has come under attack from Islamic fundamentalists? Barkha Dutt and a few other media people have questioned the scant protest the incident has provoked among the country's liberalati who are, rightly, very vocal in condemning any flexing of Hindu fundamentalist muscle.
This is not an isolated case. Time and again, acts of violence and intimidation by Hindu zealots have been pilloried while similar instances of Islamic bigotry and intolerance have been received with an embarrassed silence and an averting of eyes on the part of self-professed champions of freedom of expression.
All this, of course, is gleeful grist to Hindu fundamentalists who point to this blatant example of double-standards to show up the hypocrisy of what they call 'pseudo secularism'. And they're right. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it comes from the majority or a minority community. So what's the liberal justification of its selective righteousness in the face of religious fanaticism?

Jug Suraiya writes on comedy, but he must have been moved enough to write this. And this is not an isolated problem. There was a vast under-current of shock when there was the furore over the Danish cartoons, and when a UP Minister (mind you, an important politician in the most important state of the country) spoke about an award to whoever gets the head of the Danish cartoonist, there was some media coverage; but no major criticism on the incitement to murder and no police action. Imagine if some Hindu (you know who, the Bajrang Dal or the VHP) put a price on the head of M F Hussain over the nude statues of Hindu gods, then imagine the furore there will be.
But when this happens in the case of Islam, there are very few people who speak up. In previous occasions, it has been people like Shabana Azmi and Javed Akhtar who have spoken up to denounce this, but none of the customary liberal apologists such as the Left parties and the intellectuals. Maybe they don't realize this, but they lose an important amount of credibility when this happens.
And not to talk about election stuff. How much do you want to bet that the BJP will not try to use this, creating CD's of the release of Madani in Kerala and his courting by the various parties, and also this current threat. To top it all, the Andhra police released the politicians involved very quickly, and then filed a case against Taslima over the charge of insulting religious feelings.
This puts very clearly, the attempt of Y S Reddy (Andhra Chief Minister) to not do anything against Muslim interest. This will no doubt backfire on him. The MIM retains a hard core Muslim loyalty, and this gambit might lose his some Hindu votes. But then thinking ahead is not the strong point of the Congress. The biggest losers among all this are the liberals who have been pointed out as bigots by even mainline newspapers.

Labels: BJP, Community, Congress, Discrimination, Governance, Law, Left, Minority, Muslim, Politics, Protest, Responsibility, Security

In a major blow to the Congress hopes of securing a vacation of the stay order on the reservation for OBC's in educational institutions, the Court has refused to vacate the stay. This is a continuing drama, given that a few months back, when the Supreme Court had heard this case, it had make its objections clear. There were 2 fundamental grounds for objections as laid down by the court:
1. There is no data to back up the decision to use a 27% reservation. It seems more like that the Government did not want to cross the 50% limit set in the Indira Sawhney case, and hence it used the difference between 50% and current reservation levels of 22.5%. One can be pretty confident that this was the reasoning used by the Congress. The last caste based census was conducted by the British in 1931, which was 75 years ago, and there is no guarantee that data from that was collected accurately; in addition, to use such data for current purposes would be useless because of the time gap.
2. In addition, the Government refused to set aside reservation for the creamy layer. The Court have made it clear from the beginning that they do not approve of the rich, upper sections of the reserved classes availing of quota, since they have equal opportunity as anybody else. This is something that the Government finally conceded to after so many months of refusal; primarily in order to try and get the court to remove the stay. However, it is difficult to remove the creamy layer as all the politicians will automatically get excluded and this would not be something that they would agree to.
The reservation game has been a pet project of Arjun Singh (the same one accused of harassing his daughter-in-law for dowry) in order to try and bring about a place for himself in the party. However, this does not seem to have worked, and has instead landed the Congress in a soup. Predictably, for any electoral benefits, there are a whole host of caste-based parties waiting to claim the benefits; the Congress, because it tries to preserve its pan-society appeal, will not try to win votes on the basis of this reservation to avoid pushing the forward castes against it. It's stuck both ways.
Recently, in the Gujjar agitation, we saw how a society, attracted by the promise of reserved jobs, will try to declare itself as a backward caste, and at the same time, a caste already claiming the benefits (the Meenas) will do what they can to try and prevent their share of the pie from reducing. Instead of trying to get away from caste based politics and development, we are doing the opposite.

Labels: Caste, Congress, Court, Development, Discrimination, Education, Governance, Politics, Reservations

Imagine that you are located near the border, living in Punjab or Jammu & Kashmir. You have an idea of who the militants / mafia / terrorists are, although you have never assisted them in their work. One day, you think that you need some weapons to defend yourself and hence you go to the terrorists, ask them to lend you some weapons. They agree, and send you three assault rifles of the sort commonly used by terrorists and some grenades. You take your pick, and send the remaining back. Later when police call you, you realize that this could be something wrong, and you destroy the evidence. Remember, all this is illegal, with the case of actually keeping weapons banned under the Arms Act (minimum sentence of 5 years). Now, if you were a commoner, innocent in your mind, you would still have been prosecuted, with the chance of being included in the conspiracy and being racked up on terrorism charges. Sounds pretty legal so far. And now pretend that you are not a commoner, but a film star, but have done everything else the same. What should the sentence be, and should it be any different?

And this is exactly the case with Sanjay Dutt. he has been convicted under the Arms Act, and with the minimum sentence being 5 years, he has got 6 years. And once this sentencing has been done, there has been a high-profile campaign raised against this sentence, with people calling it unfair, that he has suffered enough during the time that the case was ongoing, and so on. Hogwash ! While I may sympathize with him, I cannot but feel that a country is the poorer if it treats people differently based on their social position and celebrity status. He broke the law, and got the punishment prescribed under the law. In fact, other convicts have protested at the better treatment that he is getting, after being out on bail for so long, and not even being sent back to jail after his conviction, but only after his sentencing.
Now, he has close connections with the Congress Party; after all his father was a minister and an MP for a long time, his sister is a sitting MP, and it is okay to plead for his betterment, and so on. At the same time, a party in governance is not expected to plead for differential treatment for him just because of his connections or because he is a celebrity. In such a case, the remarks by Kapil Sibal are totally unwarranted:

"We may be concerned or saddened. But any political party cannot do anything in such a case where the law has to take its own course," party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi replied to repeated questions about Sibal's support for the jailed actor.
His comments came after the Union Science and Technology Minister reiterated that the "Congress should stand by Dutt in this hour of crisis because of the long association his father had with the party and also because his sister is a sitting party MP."

Such statements are tantamount to asking for preferential treatment. However, the Congress would be careful about being too closely identified with the 'sentence is too harsh' lobby, since that would be a Public Relations disaster for the Congress; with the media and opponents criticizing it for not caring about the victims of the bomb blast, and for doing differential treatment based on his celebrity status.

Labels: Congress, Court, Discrimination, Law, Responsibility, Terrorism

Sometimes the Indian legal system does things which make you wonder. Over the last few years, there have been a series of judgments that have changed the concept of age of marriage and age of consent of sex. My generic understanding, and I would think that of the public is the following:
A female cannot get married until the age of 18, and a male cannot get married until the age of 21. Linked, and yet somewhat separate is the age of consent for having willing sex, which is 18 for both. So a boy of 19 can have a sexual relationship and not yet get married. The corollary to that is the age restrictions, which is that a boy or girl under the age of 18 is considered to be not of the age of consent, and hence not qualified to agree to sex. Put another way, if a boy or girl under the age of 18 has sex, then the law would believe that even if they had agreed, because it is considered that such agreement could have been under an influence and hence invalid, a rape has occurred.
This is also a concept that a lot of parents will agree with, because except for those sections where child marriage is considered natural, parents would want their child to develop into an adult, have a certain amount of education, and then get into a romantic or sexual relationship with or without marriage.
However, over a period of time, this concept has been slowly eroded in court decisions, where the move seems to be that if a person has willingly agreed for a relationship, then the court should also consider those views. So, an example, read about this judgment:

It is not an offence for a girl under 18 to fall in love or desire to marry her beloved, a city court recently held while acquitting a man charged with kidnapping and raping a minor.
Additional sessions judge Kamini Lau held: "...The 17-year-old prosecutrix (the girl) has a right to protect her feelings from the onslaught of her parents and the society. If she had run away to save herself from such an onslaught with her love, this in the view of the court is no offence."

At a certain level, this case should seem to be fine, after all, if a couple in love run away and get married, then the parents will try all measures including levelling rape and other charges so as to penalize the boy and get their girl back. However, at a broader level, the force of such judgments will eventually change the logic currently used and allow all such relationships, including undesirable ones, to flourish.
An example is a case where a family pushes their 16 year old girl to marry a 22 year old boy, because they feel that she is now of age, and anyhow she does not have a future other than to be in a happy marriage. In such cases, if the girl agrees in court that she loved the boy and married him (under any influence), then these precedents can be quoted. It defeats the efforts that are being made to ensure that the girl has a chance to reach adulthood, and be able to take her own decisions.

Labels: Child, Community, Court, Discrimination, Empowerment, Family, Governance, Law, Reform, Welfare

I was reading this article in the TOI today, and I read this article about a man being convicted of rape. Now rape is a very serious crime, and especially in Indian society where a girl's rape means that she suffers grave dishonour (inflicted by society) in addition to the attack on her self-respect and confidence. And rape is also seen as the subjugation of a women. It is a matter of such great shame that it is hidden many times with the lady left to deal with the emotional trauma on her own. The number of reported rapes per year are in the tens of thousands, and needs to be controlled. So I read the story as a case of a person having committed this attack being punished. Then as I read further on, things started getting troubling:

The Supreme Court, which has always treated the testimony of rape victims as sacrosanct, has gone a step forward in convicting a rapist solely on a girl’s statement even when medical evidence showed no intercourse or any injury to her.
‘Though the report of the gynaecologist pertaining to medical examination of the victim does not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence, her oral testimony, which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy, has to be accepted,’’ said Justice Panta, writing the judgement for the bench. The judgement reflects the reigning viewpoint that in the Indian context, where rape carries a huge stigma, no woman would like to slap a fake charge.
This view is the reason why the presumption of innocence, which is the defining feature of administration of justice in the country, does not extend to rape cases where the onus of proving his innocence is squarely upon the accused.

This decision was very troubling. Rape is a serious crime and needs to be punished, conviction levels need to be brought up, and potential molestors and attackers need to be shown that the law will have no mercy on them.
However, to put the onus of proof on the accused is a major problem. The cornerstone of justice is the presumption of innocence, until proved guilty, and this precedent setting judgment has ended up shaking this entire edifice. I do not know the details of this specific case, and whether the accused was guilty, but to convict a person just on another person's testimony is very troubling.
It will get even more troubling when this rule is extended to minors such that a testimony by a young child could be enough to send a person to jail for a long time. There is too much of a threat of mis-carriage of justice in this approach.
The court may be right in its belief that no women would like to take the stigma of rape, but the fact remains that one wonders whether this will be true 100% of the time. I guess not; just like any misguided person or evil person, it is possible that an adult women can, under the pursuit of a vendetta, accuse her enemy of rape and present a set of circumstantial evidence that will convict the other person.
It would also seem possible for the conviction to be based on the police force, in the sense that the rape happened in inadequate light, and while the rape happened, the victim is not able to clearly identify the accused, except for the fact that the police bringing forth a person and telling her that her attacker is the one.
What is needed is to improve the rate of conviction through old fashioned police work and forensic science.

Labels: Court, Discrimination, Investigation, Law, Responsibility