The modern thinking Indian

The case of Varun Gandhi and his detention by the Mayawati Government is reaching a critical point. As a lot of people may be aware, Varun Gandhi, in a speech made some time back, sought to inflame people by speaking against the Muslim community. It is difficult to justify what he is stated to have said, since his speech was supposed to have been very provocative (and I am sure that people will point out that other people have made equally provocative or more provocative speeches and got off lightly, but that is a separate matter). He was condemned by wide sections of the press and political parties, and the Election Commission took note of what he had said (but did not have powers to do much about a speech).
However, what happened next was the troubling part. An FIR was lodged against him, and he was taken in custody. Next, the Mayawati Government stated that it would lodge a case under the National Security Act (meant to be used against terrorists or habitual dangerous criminals) against Varun. And soon enough, the UP Government filed a case against him, using the violence that happened when Varun was being lodged in the jail after surrender.
The NSA is an Act with strict provisions, such as "Under the provisions of the NSA, a person cannot get bail atleast for six months"; if this had happened, Varun would have had to remain in jail till elections are over. However, there is a right to appeal in the Supreme Court, and also the state advisory panel takes a decision on the persons against whom the NSA has been filed. In both cases, the Mayawati Government has not been able to justify the harsh measure used for what is basically a 'hate speech' (not to reduce the significance of what Varun had said, but there are criminals and terrorists against whom the NSA has not been applied). Here is an excerpt of what the state advisory panel stated:

The Mayawati government in Uttar Pradesh did not apply its mind and violated cannons of natural justice in invoking National Security Act on BJP leader Varun Gandhi raising a question of bias, says the state advisory board which struck down the NSA against him. The Board said "there was non-application of mind and breach of rules of natural justice" by the authorities which raises a question of "bias" and "legal malafides" for invoking NSA against the 29-year-old BJP leader who was not supplied with the copy of the order and material, including the CD of the alleged hate speeches which were the basis for taking stringent action.

The board further points out that the District Magistrate, the competent authority to pass the NSA order, based these orders on 2 FIR's that were not filed by anybody else but the DM (to re-state, the DM filed 2 FIR's, and then used these 2 FIR's to show as evidence to pass the NSA orders).
Most people have no doubt that the reason that the DM passed the NSA order was so that the Mayawati Government, in order to shore up its secular credentials, could show that it was aggressive in protecting the interests of minorities. While I cannot condone the speech by Varun, it is equally hard to agree when somebody twists laws and justice for furthering their own agenda and scoring political points.

Labels: BJP, Court, Crime, Election, Mayawati, Minority, Police, Politics, Punishment, Secular

Probably a major under-statement, given the events so far over the 2 separate agitations that has taken place in 2007, and 2008. Crores worth of public property has been destroyed, the railways has lost massively both because of destruction of railways lines and equipment and due to large scale cancellation of trains. Tourism in the region will take a knock (especially with the bombs of just a few weeks back in Jaipur) with advisories already having been issued and coverage of these protests in the international media; and normal people have been put to massive hardships. But, this is not the end. As long as the politics of reservation will keep on getting patronized by various Governments, they will face such kind of issues. For example, who would have believed that the North East could see such a problem:

SHILLONG: As protests of the Gujjars, who are demanding ST status, spread to fresh areas, the community living in the North-East will also take up the cudgels and launch an agitation in support of the cause.
Representatives of the community from the entire region met in Guwahati on Friday to chalk out a programme to join the protests.

There is no good solution. If the Government bows down to these demands and grants them the ST status (it makes no logic to give the Gujjar community an ST tag, the only reason is that the Jats have been granted OBC, and hence the Gujjar community sees the ST as a way to get more benefit of reservations, and hence these pressure tactics of violence). If they do get such benefits, then other communities will also want to avail of similar benefits, and this is a very slippery slope to go down. Already, both the Central and Rajasthan government have come under fire for letting the agitations causing so much disturbance.
The courts also know this, and from time to time, they have asked the Governments about whether there is plan to take empowered communities out of the net so that only the truly backward get such benefits, but any political party will find it suicidal to remove reservations for any benefit. And yet, parties continue on this policy, well knowing that any benefit is only transient, and other parties will also try to garner the same benefit. As an example of Governments trying to provide reservations even when courts have ruled against this, here is an example of the Tamil Nadu Government providing reservations on the basis of religion:

The Tamil Nadu government on Friday issued orders to "ensure" that Muslims and Christians got 3.5% reservation each in government services to overcome some 'practical problems' faced by the two communities in availing the benefit.

The Andhra Pradesh Government attempts in this regard have been periodically rejected by courts, yet here is another State Government trying the same.

Labels: BJP, Caste, Congress, Empowerment, Law, Minority, Muslim, Parliament, Politics, Railways, Reservations, Responsibility, Security

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

Maharashtra Chief Minister must be hoping and hoping that the problem posed by Raj Thackeray goes away in some way. He is stuck in a major problem, with the Mumbai for Marathis campaign a force that he does not want to try and put down in order to avoid making Raj seem like a martyr; at the same time, he is a Congress Chief Minister who cannot be seen to be pandering to regional forces and putting the Congress in a position where political parties from all over the country can beat upon it.
And this need for a balancing act is causing the compromise that he has effected; the police talks tough, but files an FIR and does a major drama in terms of arresting him in a way that he can be bailed out very quickly. Further, they try to stop him by issuing a gag order:

A sessions court on Thursday stayed the extension of the gag order imposed on Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray by the city police. Thackeray had filed a revision application before the sessions court on Wednesday, challenging the extension of the February 11 police order prohibiting him from holding rallies, public meetings and addressing the media.
The order was passed by the police in the wake of the MNS chief's provocative statements against members of the north-Indian community which resulted in incidents of violence across the state.

This is a very strange situation. The Government is shying away from using the normal legal and police process against Raj Thackeray (who is after all the leader of a political party); he can be prosecuted for incitement to violence, for preaching a form of sedition (the country's constitution guarantees the right to not be discriminated against based on sex or race or origin). The Maharashtra Government is equally guilty of not acting to protect the people of North Indian origin whose property has been destroyed or damaged, or to stop the outflux of people from the concerned cities.
And since the Congress is hyper-sensitive about political matters and election issues, one wonders whether it has thought about the impact of this issue on the remaining North Indian voters in Mumbai who form sizeable proportions, as well as in other states where this can be taken up as an issue.

Labels: Congress, Governance, Law, Minority, Politics, Responsibility, Security

Well, the Gujrat elections have come and gone, and in the process delivered a mighty blow to the grand old decayed party of India, also known as the Congress party. From the start, the Congress (ans almost the entire media) has declared that the Gujrat election will be the one surprise that will hasten the end of the BJP; what with the development slogan being false, by trying to pit the caste factions against each other; by trying to scare the people about Modi being a person who can get people killed without any worry. They in fact have been lulled into setting themselves up for this shock, believing the media that the election is theirs for the taking, that the BJP defectors will cause immense losses to the BJP. In the end, there was the ultimate weapon of the dynasty with Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi entering the fray and seeking to make it a Modi vs. Sonia battle.
Well, this one was comprehensively beaten. Just like the UP elections, it is pretty clear that the dynasty are not capable of fetching votes for the Congress; they can only do it if they build up strong local leaders who can bring up an organization. And yet, it is impossible for the Congress to either agree that their dependence on the dynasty is a failed endeavor, or that having a state leader strong enough to win the state is impossible. The Congress High Command lives in the perpetual thought that only of each state has multiple leaders consistently fighting each other will none of them be in the position of challenging the central leadership. However, no one in the Congress will say this to the Madam:

With the elections having gone horribly wrong for Congress, questions are sure to be asked if the party leadership erred in allowing the contest to be framed as a Sonia versus Modi affair. The post-facto wisdom may appear correct because the humiliation has taken the sheen off the party’s mascot, exposing the limits of the dynasty’s charisma. But the risk was unavoidable considering the complete electoral irrelevance of party’s bigwigs as well as the fact that its leaders in Gujarat are not a factor outside their districts.
Screaming from under the Congress rubble in Gujarat and its bare leadership cupboard is the party’s abject dependence on an individual. As a party strategist, using the room for an honest assessment with the polls out of the way, said, "Never before had the Congress appeared so desperately dependent on her."

And of course it is now open season on the strategy. The media is all over the disasters in the Congress strategy, what with the direct attack on Modi, the reliance on BJP rebels, the pushing of a campaign to portray Modi's development efforts as false; and most of all, the Congress keeping on relying on the wrong set of advisors. Now if the Himachal election also throws the Congress out, it will be a disaster for the Congress, and will cause shake-out to the extent of the Congress president of that state; nothing can touch Sonia Gandhi.

Labels: BJP, Congress, Election, Minority

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

The Governor of Karnataka, Rameshwar Thakur, must be a most worried man. In this time and age, it is clearly understood that the Governor is the man of the Central Government, and hence in this case, the Governor would be seen to be acting in the best interest of the Congress. However, past judgments by the Supreme Court have severely bound the hands and feet of the Governor in terms of biased or arbitrary action. In fact, Karnataka is the home of the SC's Bommai Judgment where the Supreme Court started setting ground rules for what the Governor can do and cannot do in cases of political uncertainity. This was then followed by the judgment in the Bihar case that singed the Congress Government, cost them a pliant Governor and also earned them black marks from the President who was for the first time castigated by the Supreme Court for non-application of mind.
Till a couple of days back, the Congress seemed to be in a superior position, with Deve Gowda refusing to support the BJP. The Congress could then work on willing JD(S) members, and eventually get enough numbers to escape the anti-defection act. The wily farmer saw this coming, realized that he was standing on the edge of political insignificance, and quickly swallowed his pride and went back to the BJP. And now that the MLA's supporting the Congress's white hope have fled in the pursuit of power in the hands of the BJP, the Congress is left with little options.

Marked by a day of frenzied political activity, the BJP-JD(S) leaders fulfilled the formality of mustering 129 MLAs, more than the 113 required to form the government, and paraded the MLAs before governor Rameshwar Thakur for a head count on Monday.
The Congress, which triggered off the political activity in Karnataka on October 7 by submitting the letters of its MLAs seeking dissolution of the assembly, is awaiting word from the high command to act. Its strategy will be to foil BJP-JD(S) government from being formed. But whether this will be done before the government formation or if Yeddyurappa gets an opportunity to seek a vote of confidence on the floor of the House is to be seen.

One things is for sure, if the Governor does not accept the letters from the MLA's representing a current majority of the assembly, this battle will head for the Courts, and given current thinking, the Courts are likely to crack the whip hard. It's more likely that the Governor will give in and let the BJP form the Government.

Labels: BJP, Congress, Court, Judicial, Minority, Parliament, Politics

There is hope for the Congress Government as yet. It currently seems to be between a rock and a hard place; if they back down from the nuclear deal under Left pressure, then the Government will have a serious loss of face with future agreements being disputed and maybe rolled back under other such pressures. In addition, internationally the Primer Minister will have a monumental loss of face in the sense that a Treaty, negotiated for a period of 2 years and seemingly which meets the needs of the Government is being held up. In addition, it will tell the Left that the Government will eventually give in with the right amount of pressure. On the other hand, if the Government does decide to go ahead with the nuclear deal, it is very likely that the Left will carry out its threat to withdraw support and leave the Government in a very fragile political environment.
And maybe not. The CPM is divided into 2 sections, with a section representing the central leadership, people in the politburo who don't face Lok Sabha elections (most likely because they would not get elected given their stands on various issues) and the Governments in West Bengal and Kerala who have to face public pressure and ensure that they are seen on the side of development. So far, it has been under-stated that there are differences of opinion between the Central and State leadership, but they have mostly papered over.
However, it seems like the dam is opening up; the collapse of the Central Government will have a major ripple effect on West Bengal (a state that the Communist parties just cannot cannot afford to lose given their 30 year old grip on the state). Currently the Government is seen as pliable, and the opposition in West Bengal is seen as divided; but if the Central Government starts to act tough and aligns with Manta Banerjee in the state, it would give the CPM a strong sense of worry (especially because it is starting to see how development, even though necessary has its own pain). So, maybe some amount of realism from the state side is pushing the West Bengal Chief Minister to make this statement regarding the need for nuclear energy:

West Bengal CM Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee created a flutter on Monday by stressing the importance of nuclear power at a time when his party, CPM, is locked in a battle with the Centre over the Indo-US nuclear deal and party bigwigs, like politburo member Sitaram Yechury, are publicly arguing that nuclear power isn't critical and perhaps not even desirable.
Within hours of the CM's remarks, his comrades in Delhi went on an overdrive to paper over the apparent difference between two senior politburo members - Bhattacharjee and Yechury - on nuclear power.

The Chief Minister of Bengal is no paper-weight, he is the leader of the major state for the Left parties and if he starts pushing his weight, he can cause a major disturbance in the current stand of the Left party.

Labels: Congress, Development, Image, India, Left, Minority, Nuclear, Politics

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

We all know the extent to which the politicians of the country are dependent on trying to woo their sections of voters. They would like society to be comprised of solid blocs of castes, and religious groups so that they can make policies to pander to these groups and aim to get their votes. No matter that this leads to them doing things against common sense, and against even court orders. Examples of this is the entire reservation drama, the Congress aim to woo Muslims in Andhra Pradesh by reservations despite court disapproval, and the BJP Government in Gujarat hesitating to crack down on people enforcing discrimination despite court orders to do the right thing.
This policy is exemplified by the response of states over the Supreme Court asking the states to bring in laws to make registration of marriages compulsory. And why had the court tried to bring in such a policy? Simple. There are a number of cases where women are fighting for their rights in marriage, for child support, for maintenance. In India, in a significant section of society, women normally are in a situation where they are stay at home, dependent on their husbands for financial support. In most cases, this is because this is the way society is constructed with the responsibilities being delineated in such a way.
Now what happens? With marriages not being registered, there are many cases when the husband could deny that the marriage happened, or make the girl fight for trying to prove such a thing happened. In addition, there are many cases where men commit polygamy, and a lesser number of cases where the girl commits polyandry. There is no perfect solution, but a simpler way to make this happen less is when all marriages are properly registered. In fact, that is the norm in a number of countries where the marriage has to be registered.
So what stops the government in India, whether the central government or state governments, to make registration of marriages compulsory. The Government believes that there is an influential section of the Muslim community, hardliners and the clergy, and to avoid rubbing them the wrong way, the Government will not push for compulsory registration of marriages. Even though the Government knows that poor Muslim women suffer from the inability to prove that the marriage happened in case of a dispute, and it would really help them if they had proof of the marriage.

State governments have been chary of compliance with the court's directive on registration of marriages for the fear of offending representatives of Muslims who have resisted the extension of law to their personal matters — that is, matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance etc.
The court, moved by the plight of women fighting for their rights under marriage — like maintenance and custody of children, had last year asked the governments to amend the law or frame rules for compulsory registration of marriages and notify them within three months.

And of course, no such thing happened. The Governments have refused to bring any such laws and notify them for fear of alienating the Muslim community. Such a measure would help the community overall, but would provoke elements of the clergy to protest interference and hence the lack of movement on this issue. The issue is just politics, not any welfare.

Labels: Community, Court, Empowerment, Family, Governance, Law, Minority, Muslim, Politics, Reform, Responsibility, Welfare

In India, the concept of a Uniform Civil Code is a very controversial subject. Even though it is not mandated as per the Constitution, it is a Directive Principle to try and bring this about (as per discussions in the Constituent Assembly where it was thought that the aim should be that people of different religions will eventually converge towards a common law). So, in India, it is currently seen as impossible to try and bring about a common civil code for all. Civil code is the one dealing with family matters, with disputes, maintenance, marriage, divorce and so all. Each religion has their own traditions.
However, there have been many social movements in the past to deal with improvements in traditions, especially with respect to the Hindu religion. So, for example, reprehensible practices such as sati (which is actually not even a civil case, but a criminal case), the caste system and discrimination against the lower castes are all illegal, and not sanctioned in any way by the Government.
A 'uniform' civil code is in many a misnomer, one could instead call the steps to have equal rights for all as a common civil code, something that is agreeable to citizens, no matter what the religion. However, realistically, given the state of parliament right now and politics, no such movement could hope to succeed.
In some ways, especially when it comes to things such as adoption laws, rights of women in marriage and in divorce, it is difficult to justify differential treatment based on marriage. The courts are going a long way in this, with the lower courts and the Supreme Court stepping in from time to time to try and correct laws that end up reducing some of the rights that a women should have in a humane way. One example of this was the Shah Bano judgement which the Rajiv Gandhi government over-ruled through a constitution amendment in 1986 after tremendous pressure.
And then I read this article, and even though it was concerning the Muslim community, it was still something that seemed fairly shocking:

In a move to emphasise primacy of Sharia, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board has sought a review of SC orders which have progressively enhanced safeguards for Muslim women in divorce, marriage and maintenance cases on the grounds that they conflict with Islamic law.
The Board's decision to set up a 11-member 'social reform committee' is born out of its concern over some recent SC judgments. Members point to SC's interpretation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, in the Daniel Latifi and Others vs Union of India case in September 2001. The apex court has held the former husband alone as responsible for the woman's maintenance. But this seems to have drawn a conservative response from the board which maintains that such a ruling was not in keeping with Sharia laws. A more recent case is of Iqbal Bano in June 2007 where SC set aside an Allahabad court judgment and ruled that a Muslim woman who had been deserted could avail maintenance under section 125 of CrPC irrespective of provisions of the 1986 Act.

This is a very uncomfortable situation. The Board is recommending essentially that some hard-won rights that have been won by women should be kept aside because they conflict with Sharia. Now, it is not easy to condemn the practises of a religion, but many of the interpretation made by the Islamic clergy regarding the rights of women are retrogade, and not deserving the rights that they should have.
In fact, for a modern democracy, it would seem very impossible to have the case of 2 women having very different rights because of their religion. It should be within the rights of any women (or any man for that matter) to invoke the recent judgments and not have to defer to the clergy, After all, this is the same clergy that recently ruled that girls should not have mixed schools, but should study in different schools that are girls-only.
Once we move into this mindset of having religious courts in play, we start going down a slippery path. At some point, any religious practitioner will then be able to easily question the right of the courts or parliament to pass a law that affects them.
This sorts of reminds me of the situation of that lady in Malaysia who was stuck in a legal mire. She was a Muslim, and wanted to marry a Christian. But, she was unable to do so. She was not allowed as per religious law to either convert, or to marry outside her religion. Strange, is it not.

Labels: Community, Court, Discrimination, Family, India, Law, Minority, Muslim, Parliament, Reform

The Government is really going the whole hog in terms of providing reservations, including in areas not mandated by the constitution. In a petition before the Supreme Court, it has hauled up the Government for mandating reservation in catering contracts allocated by Indian Railways. If you don't really believe this, read this reference:

The Centre’s policy of providing reservation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and minorities in commercial contracts has come under Supreme Court scanner. The apex court has asked the Centre to explain why preferential treatment was being accorded to such groups in awarding catering tenders of the Indian Railways. The court also directed continuation of its interim order. It had restrained the railway authorities from finalising the tenders.
“Article 16 provides for reservation in public employment. Article 15 (5) deals with policy of reservation in education. Similarly, the state is empowered to come up with special provision for the advancement for SCs, STs and OBCs,” the SC noted. “But does awarding of commercial contracts fall within any of the above-mentioned articles?” it asked. “Under which constitutional provision, you (Centre) are giving preferential treatment to minorities in commercial matters?” the court sought to know from the country’s top law official.

These are a series of cases in which the Government's political impulses are being challenged by the top court of the country. If this case continues, doubtless there will be more politicians who will come in and either ask the court to stay off, or ask the court to stay away from operational matters. So a little background in civics. The legislature (parliament) makes laws, the executive (government) is involved in operational details and essentially running the country as per these laws, and the courts (with the Supreme Court at the head) is the decision maker in terms of whether these policies and laws meet the test of being indeed lawful. These tests are done on the basis of using the constitution as a benchmark, as the basis for decisions. So, it is absolutely not necessary that just because the government makes a policy or parliament makes a law, it is absolute. Only a just law is a correct law, and like most countries governed by the constitution, we have the courts as the final decision making body (we need to have a final decision making body).
Now, in this case, the government set out a policy where it decided that a portion of the contracts should be decided on the basis of the caste of the groups applying for catering. In commercial contracts, that too put out by the government, there needs to be absolute clarity, with all entities involved being sure that they have an equal chance as per their abilities, and the current reservation policy is a clear violation of the honesty required in such contracts.
Secondly, from time to time, the courts have always held that reservations, even where held valid, should be held valid only when the creamy layer have been excluded. The creamy layer is the section of people in the caste who are of a significant socio-economic status (such as with quality of education, income, etc) that they don't need reservation to uplift them. Does anybody have any doubt that people applying for railways catering contracts don't already have the required social class and money with them that they don't need any special permission.
My guess is that in this case as well, the government will have no clear reason or statute of law that it can quote for having this policy, and eventually the policy will be declared illegal, along with some more stinging remarks at the political reasons behind such a policy. This policy, especially for something like the railways that is more prominent in smaller states and semi-urban areas, was meant more to be advertised as a political measure, notwithstanding the fact that it was actually discriminatory.

Labels: Caste, Congress, Court, Discrimination, Governance, India, Law, Minority, Politics, Reform, Reservations

India, an exporter of terrorism to the world? That would be an incredible cross for the country to bear, and yet recent events have brought that question much closer to everybody's mind. There does not seem to be much doubt that the recent terrorists attempts in England were the work primarily of Indian Muslims from Bangalore, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's attempted confession of shock at this and his degree of concern over the condition of the families of those caught.
The trail of events seem to lead to the fact that a fair amount of the inculcation into jehadist and terrorist thought had been already there in the minds of the people already arrested. The fact that they were fully indoctrinated during their stay in England does not clear us of the need to ensure that this country does not come under the shadow of international terrorism. India already has too many home grown terrorists of all religions and types (ULFA, Maoists, Kashmiri, Naga, Sikh, etc).
However, and this is a very delicate issue, the type of mass death and destruction that can happen due to the terrorists taking inspiration from a hardline interpretation of Islam is much greater than any other that the country has seen. Kashmiri terrorists of the JKLF type are strong believers in the concept of liberating Kashmir from Indian control, but it is only when the more hardline Islamic inspired terrorism of the Lashkar and its like took control that we saw many more attacks all over the country, especially the ones aimed at creating discord between communities (attacks on temples and mosques).
There are many such organizations in the country that are inspired by a so-called Wahabi path of Islam which believes that non-believers eventually need to be conquered and all nations need to be under one God, Allah. An example of a terrorist organization is the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) that was banned, but even when it was being banned, Laloo Prasad Yadav was in support.
Even now, the Government will be very careful about a crackdown on the areas where such hardline thoughts are being preached, primarily the madrasas. This is rotten justice. If somebody is preaching separatism or jehad or terrorism, measures need to be taken to shut it down and bring such a person to justice, but due to politics, the Government will not take such actions. A case in comparison is the situation in Assam where there is widespread pressure on the Government to take quick and hard action against ULFA, with no concerns about it being an organization comprising primarily Hindus.
If we have to prevent the radicalization of the minority community (and we have already seen an example of how bad that can be in Punjab), then we need to take the required measures to ensure that there is no atmosphere where such breeding can happen, where people can preach jehad or terrorism or separatism and get away under the guise of being a minority.

Labels: Community, Discrimination, Governance, Image, India, Law, Minority, Muslim, Security, Separatist, Terrorism

The private sector in India is one of the least caste or religious conscious sectors. The private sector, at least bigger businesses and not lala companies, are in the business of making money and want the best of talent and could not care less if the first appelation is Mr. or Ms., cannot care less if the last name is a Gupta or a Ahmed or a Yadav or a Das or any other name. I have first hand experience in that, having been on the interviewing and selection board for candidates, and I have never heard any discussion about the sex or religion or caste of employees. Now there can be many naysayers who complain that smaller companies are more discriminatory, or that the number of applicants is itself skewed in terms of ratios of these different castes such that equally qualified SC/ST candidates are harder to find.
These are all spurious reasons. Businesses are in it to make money, and for that, they need the best of talent. In addition, with anti-discriminatory laws so harsh, it does not seem possible that companies can have policies percolating down to the rank and file that promote discrimination. Now, I am sure that it is true that there are lesser candidates of SC/ST who apply, but that is a failure of the education system. We have had reservation of 22.5% for SC/ST candidates since after independence, and we should be generating enough candidates to make their percentage. The main problem is that the Government has not effectively tackled the discrimination that happens in our rural areas where such discrimination against SC/ST in terms of facilities do happen. I have seen numerous villages where SC's are on the outside, and to change things requires more education and strict application of non-discriminatory policies; which is something that the Government in most states as well as the central Government have failed to do. However, it is not a solution to insist on reservation in non-public companies as the minister Ram Vilas Paswan and earlier Meira Kumar were insisting on:

A day after industry leaders conveyed their opposition to job reservation to the PMO, union minister Ram Vilas Paswan said nothing short of a legislation would guarantee work for SCs/STs in the private sector. Saying India was firmly on the road of globalisation, he suggested that the private sector should begin by recruiting SCs/STs in class III and IV category jobs besides imparting training to class I and II employees.
His reaction came a day after the industry chambers led by their respective presidents and former presidents met Principal Secretary to Prime Minister T K A Nair opposed any legislation on job quota in the private sector.

Industry has a social commitment, but this social commitment falls in the nature of enriching its surroundings, its employees, the neighboring environment, the shareholders, and in general, increasing the wealth of the nation. A key way to do that is to marshal its resources in the best possible way. Forcing reservation on the industry, with its attendant problems regarding reservations in promotions (a merit-based system currently), backlogs causing increasing pressure due to need to fill backlogs tends to cause an incredible amount of pressure.
Whenever there is a discussion around reservation, it always falls to the following argument, 'what is the problem in reserving jobs for SC/ST's since they are equally qualified'? This is a circular argument, since if they are equally qualified, then why would they need reservation, and if they are not qualified in sufficient percentage, then industry should not be forced to take them. As always, the Government really has no answers as to why they cannot take the required long term measures that will really benefit SC/ST's and OBC's: namely, crack down on the educational system so that they get equal and great education, and ensure that any form of discrimination is investigated and punished if found true.
Instead, there is going to be a greater push for reservation in private sector, something that the courts will surely overturn if it is passed by parliament.

Labels: Caste, Congress, Court, Development, Discrimination, Empowerment, Governance, India, Minority, Parliament, Politics, Reform, Reservations

The Congress government in Andhra Pradesh is at it again. After being rebuffed by the courts earlier in an attempt to implement a separate reservation quota for Muslims, they are trying again. The constitution is clear, reservations were only considered due to the centuries of discrimination against the Scheduled Castes and Tribes resulting in their being very repressed, and reservation could be one of the measures to bring them up. Because no one wants to be seen as removing reservation, it is likely to be with us for a very long time.
However, what causes a problem is when the reservations are seen as a pure political tool, and this is what the Congress is guilty of. The reservations for OBC's were also first implemented by V P Singh as a move to checkmate his ambitious deputy Devi Lal, and have been sought to be extended in the education area by Arjun Singh as a measure by the wily thakur to get a support base for himself. However, the Congress, being a broad based party has always suffered from not being able to fully tom-tom its reservation agenda due to fear of alienating other castes (as seen freshly in the Gujjar-Meena issue). In this case as well, the Congress will end up with egg on its face.

The Andhra Pradesh government’s decision to promulgate an ordinance on 4% Muslim quota, despite it having been struck down twice, is seen as part of Congress strategy to gamble on a clutch of double-edged issues to consolidate its support base for bigger battles ahead.
The Congress leadership is anticipating judicial intervention even though the state has repackaged religious reservation on Mandal lines, as passed by the AP cabinet on Wednesday. The insistence on Muslim quota, despite serious apprehensions, may confound observers but a senior AP leader said it was meant to prove its commitment to the community’s welfare. Having won the points with Muslims with three attempts, the state is unlikely to push it further in case of a fresh judicial roadblock.

This is pure politics , and nothing else. In order to show the Muslim community that the Congress is the one that is concerned about their welfare, the political party will try to do something that they know is not going to succeed. But as usual, these are short-term measures.
In order to get actual development of the Muslim community, the Government (Congress in this case) needs to take actual measures that result in development, such as providing good education, helping the artisans who are affected by rapid industrialization, providing good role models, and so on. The basic problem with reservations is that it provides a good handle to the political community to claim that they are working for the benefit of disadvantaged communities without having to do any actual work.
In addition, this move to separate the Muslim community based on reservation benefit available or not is deplorable. Hinduism has tolerated in the past severe discrimination among its adherents on the basis of caste, but Islam has severe strictures against any discrimination among its adherents, and the state should not try and implement some. It is time that the Muslim community saw through such pretenses and favor people who actually work for their benefit.
But the Congress will continue on this line, it needs to line up support for the AP next elections in 2009, and with its relations with the Telangana Rashtra Samiti on a nadir, it needs more measures; apparently just working for people and improving their lot is not enough.

Labels: Caste, Community, Congress, Development, Discrimination, Election, Governance, India, Minority, Muslim, Politics, Reform, Reservations, Welfare

I read this news in the morning, and it seemed incredible. The Punjab Government of the Akali Party and BJP has given permission for the prosecution of the head of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.

On Wednesday, the Punjab government, acting on a court directive, gave the formal go-ahead for the arrest and prosecution of the Dera Chief, who had invited the ire of the Sikh community for allegedly attiring like Guru Gobind Singh. Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal gave his Government's firm commitment to maintain law and order in the wake of Wednesday night's developments.

This was extremely strange. For those who have forgotten as to what criminal activity was committed by the leader of the sect, here is the answer. He had committed the sin of dressing like the 10th and last guru of the Guru Gobind Singh and distributing 'amrit' (nectar) like the Guru used to do.
For this activity of the head of the sect, there was violence and large-scale tension in the air. The coalition partner, BJP, had actually called on the government to ensure law and order, and peace at all costs. In between, there was escalation when Sikh hardliners pushed hard on the Akal takht to take some action. There was involvement from other religious and social leaders like Swami Agnivesh to try and cool tensions, but there does not seem to be anything that can be done to reverse what has been done.
The Government seems to have buckled down to the hardliners; and there is actually a sub-story. There have been numerous reports of how the younger generation of sikhs have refused to follow all the traditions, including not cutting hair. There is a feeling that the separate culture of Sikhism is getting lost, with numerous sects also coming up and being patronised in rural areas, especially by the section who are not well-off or looked upto.
In such cases, the current issue gives a good way to exploit the situation for hardliners with 2 benefits; get a name of being the true defender of the faith, as well as cut to size a very popular sect. However, this is going against the ethos of this majestic religion as well as the country.
To imagine that dressing up like the last Guru could cause any harm to the religion, or be dis-respectful to the last Guru. We are not like Saudi Arabia, or Iran or Pakistan, where showing disrespect to the religion or prophet is punishable by death. In fact, in this case, just by dressing up like the guru does not make it a crime of showing dis-respect. That is normally the case when you vilify the religion through deeds or words. If you want to see how to cause disrespect to a religion, there is no need to look too far away. One look at Hinduism, where countless people have shown immense disrespect to the religion, and yet it thrives. There is a current dispute about the painter M.F.Hussain painting nude images of Hindu goddesses, and there are numerous people ready to spring to his defense.
In this entire dispute about the Sikhism versus the Dera Sacha Sauda, I have not seen similar defense of the sect head. He is entitled to wear what he wants, to give amrit to whoever he wants. Take action if he does something that shows up Sikhism to ridicule or says something against the Gurus, but the current dispute is for no reason.

Labels: Community, Court, Discrimination, Governance, India, Law, Minority, Police, Politics

This presidential election has just got murkier. In India, presidential elections (like the elections to the speaker's post), are seen as political contests between the ruling combination and the opposition. And so it was in this particular election, where there was a massive tug-of-war, not between the Congress and the BJP, but between the ruling party (Congress) and its supporters, the left combine. It is known thoroughly that the left views itself as the conscience of the ruling combine, and it never hesitates in wielding this power.
So, the run-up to the Presidential election has been much more tortured this time, starting with reports about how the Uttar Pradesh elections were seen as important due to the number of votes wielded by UP in the presidential election. In addition, the post of President is seen as having immense prestige for most politicians in the Congress. They know very well that with the Gandhi dynasty controlling the levers of power, there is no way that they can become powerful. Any politician who threatens to become powerful in any way is typically cut to size (in that way, Sonia Gandhi has all the instincts of Indira Gandhi).
So, the Congress has floated the names of a number of politicians, but with the left having a veto (how that must distress ordinary Congressites!), a number of names have floated and shot down due to rejection. Shivraj Patil (a disaster as Home Minister, but loyal) was tried out, and he would have fancied his chances, but the left did not like the way he conducted himself as Speaker (apparently was close to the BJP, or more likely, did not rule against the BJP often enough) and so was rejected. Next, Karan Singh (a true blood, but the left did not like him either, and you know what would happen). In between, Mayawati apparently rejected a few other names, for one not willing to have another Dalit be the President.
One wonders as to why this much drama for the name of the President. The President in India has much glamour associated in terms of perks, state visits and the like, but no real power. Discretionary power of the President is being carefully cut down, with the Supreme Court giving adverse comments when it sees some discretionary power being utilized in the wrong way.
So, eventually the Congress announced that it will recommend the name of Pratibha Patil, as a loyal party member (anyone who believes that it will go to somebody not seen as loyal has spent too much time in the North Indian sun). This was seen as a killer, given that she is a women, and also of the same caste and community (by marriage) as the vice-President. On cue, she gives statements about how she will act independently, hah !
And after much celebration, she does the very thing geared to provoke left opposition. In a public speech, she claims that Purdah was meant as a protection against Muslim invaders. My, in one stroke, she ha turned the left against her. How could she make comments about the Muslim invaders threatening local Hindus. If this issue catches fire, it is possible that she may have to withdraw her nomination, with the left wielding a veto. And what will the Congress do then ? Refer this article:

Even before the photo-ops are over, the ruling coalition's presidential candidate Pratibha Patil has run into a messy controversy over the origin of the purdah in India by claiming that it was introduced to protect women from Mughal invaders and, in the process, annoying many among her backers and giving her opponents gratuitous ammo for attack.
Patil's interpretation of history, say historians, is not accurate. But more than that, her statement at a function to commemorate the 467th birth anniversary of Maharana Pratap, was politically incorrect. And this has triggered a massive controversy with Muslim outfits, the Left intelligentsia and women's groups protesting against it.

The next few days are bound to be interesting. The BJP will be watching to see whether this will make a difference to the chances of its Presidential candidate.

Labels: BJP, Congress, Election, India, Minority, Muslim

This entire issue of the Gujjar protest to get Scheduled Tribe status now looks to blow away for a few months, till the time that the committee setup to look into the issue. But one thing is clear, that no one from the political arena anticipated that things will take such a turn. As the position currently stands, it is a lose-lose situation for politicians, and they realize that the reservation flame can burn all of them. Otherwise, if a fire was burning in a BJP ruled state, where elections are due in a short while, and there is some amount of internal dissension, would the Congress be mostly silent ?
I was listening to the news and reading the papers everyday, and the most important news was the one missing. The Congress President, spokesperson, and sundry other people from the Congress and the other non-BJP parties, none of them made the usual noises about the BJP not fulfilling an electoral promise, about the government not keeping violence in control, about dismissing the Government for an apparent collapse. Instead, when Sachin Pilot raised his voice once, that was the last time he raised his voice; and you had the Prime Minister down trying to keep things in control. At the same time, violence was tolerated so that a community does not get aggrieved against the political party.
And that brings us to our prime topic. The issue of reservation and politics in India has spun out of control. Reservations were seen as a way to get people who are down-trodden and crushed by other parts of society a leg-up. I can't disagree with that. However, over time, it has got so political that the original purpose is getting lost. Would somebody be willing to believe that a rural community, usually very proud of itself, would say that it wants to be classified as a Scheduled Tribe, the lowest in the ladder. Anybody looking at the situation from an honest angle would not classify the Gurjjar community as a ST community.
But reservations are now the best way to get government jobs; in the administration, in the police, and other groups that make a difference to society, especially so in a rural area. It is not anymore about social uplifting, the single point agenda being to get a better share of government jobs. And there is ample precedent in this case. The prime users of the ST label in Rajasthan is the Meena community, and they corner most of the offices reserved for ST's. The Gujjar community got added to the OBC list after an agitation some time back, but are now losing out to the Jats who they see as better in terms of economic and developmental models, and hence more likely to corner a share of the reservations. So, add the Gujjars to the ST list as they are demanding? Not so fast, if the Gujjars get added, the Meena community will start to feel that their domination of the ST seats is under threar, and that is not something that is going to be tolerated. Hence, the Meena community gathered as a large group, numbering more than 50,000 (as per the papers), gathered a huge quantity of weapons, and set out to have a peaceful non-violent discussion with the Gujjar villages. Only the army and police prevented these 2 extremely peace loving groups from meeting and creating a river of blood.
What is a poor, well intentioned politician likely to do ? Set up a committee and push the decision out. Taking a decision (either yes or no) would have large repercussions in terms of voter base, and with both the Meena and Gujjar community on the warpath, it would only have been a lose-lose decision.
This is something that is to be expected. Reservations, without any good targeting of the people needing this kind of help, will be seen as an entitlement, and something to be defended. What will happen now ? Politicians, especially of the Congress variety are starting to see that the reservation bandwagon that they are championing is not giving them any benefits. Political benefits are cornered by the specific caste focused parties, urban voters start punishing them, and the courts ask hard questions for which they have no answers. In addition, their supporting parties raise hell with them about not getting the reservations implemented.
One would like to say at this point that politicians deserve this, but this is bigger. It affects our country. These sort of agitations deepen caste divisions, create economic misery, ruin portions of the economy such as tourism, and affect the aam admi (daily wage earners). We need to bring people not getting the benefits of growth into a life of improvement, but not through short term measures. Targeted benefits to people in terms of more education, more facilities, and even reservation (but focused, else the creamy layer will skim it all away). Does one really believe that politicians will listen ?

Labels: BJP, Caste, Community, Court, Development, Discrimination, Election, Governance, India, Minority, Police, Protest, Reservations

Labels: Corruption, Court, Empowerment, Governance, India, Law, Minority, Parliament, Responsibility

Well, the Congress Government seems to be firm in going ahead with the 27% OBC quota implementation, and is planning to file a review in the Supreme Court so as to get the court to lift its stay. The stay came as a shock to the Government and sundry political parties in the Indian political environment. On the issue of quota, no party would like to be seen as not fully supporting the quota, irrespective of the merits of the case.
Of the 2 reasons that the court gave while staying the case, the Government is essentially telling that the court that its reasoning is wrong, that there are different reasons which the court has not taken into consideration.
On the issue of the Government using the 1931 census, the Government denies that the census is the basis of deciding the reservation figure. Instead a combination of the 1931 census, state level calculation, criteria used by the Mandal Commission, etc is the logic that is used for deciding the OBC percentage of the population. This is all illogical. The truth is that in this big country, there is no sure way of knowing the OBC quota unless it is determined. The last survey happened in 1931, and after independence, the leaders of the Congress at that time, being more enlightened, decided that there will be no more caste based census. Now the Congress is debating how to do this. Initially the spokesperson claimed that the Congress will not do such a survey. This however may have provoked much opposition from other parties, and so, the next day, the Congress spokesperson refused to flatly deny that such a survey would not be contacted. This is how it stands today.
About the creamy layer, the Government refuses to back down. It now expounds a logic that does not seem to make sense. What it says is, that while a job involves earning money and hence reservation is not necessary, education is expensive and it makes sense to provide reservation for OBC's, else the quota will go empty, since poorer OBC's will not be able to take advantage. This is crass political behaviour. If creamy layer OBC's have the money and expertise, why do they need reservations ? It somehow does not make sense.
Overall, one gets the feeling that the Government is not really prepared for the hard questions asked by the court, and is stuck between a hard rock and another hard rock. On one side are the various parties that will keep on needling the Government and on the other side is the court that refuses to take the Government side. In addition, this advocacy of the reservations agenda is sowing reverse political seeds for the Congress. It is getting punished by the upper castes and is surely not getting any benefits. Furthermore, the fact that we are starting to re-talk about all this casteist politics is the direct byproduct of the dirty politics of the Congress.

Labels: Caste, Court, Development, Discrimination, Empowerment, Governance, India, Law, Minority