It is a sad commentary on the conformism of our times that Muslim clerics, and not our voluble secular liberals, have taken on Wahhabism, the most virulent form of Islam. Maulana Syed Mohammad Ashraf Kachochavi, general secretary of the All-India Ulama & Mashaikh Board (AIUMB), a Sufi sect, recently said at a public meeting in Moradabad, “Hamey Wahhabiyon ka na Immamat kabool hai, na kayadat Kabul (We reject the religious and political leadership of Wahabis).”
He thundered, “If anyone knocks on your door with the message of extremism, hand him over to the nearest police station.” He hit the nail on its head, for Wahhabism wants to freeze time in the seventh century, at least for the Muslims all over the world. It was propounded by a theologian, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792), from Najd in what is now Saudi Arabia. The movement strives to purge Islam of all impurities and innovations.
Wahhabism is the official version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. It is the ideology that inspires al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the countless other terrorist organizations.
Wahhabism got a big fillip when petroleum exports made the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries rich. Saudi petrodollars in particular financed a number of schools, seminaries, and mosques as well as social programmes in the entire world. Thanks to the inveterate misogyny and limitless intolerance of Wahhabism, the consequences were catastrophic for Muslim women, pluralism, and liberalism in the Islamic world and elsewhere.
Kachochavi was right when he said, “About 100 years ago, Sunni Muslims in India had rejected the Wahabis. After Independence, however, the Wahhabis expanded their influence through political backing. While we remained away from government and politics, Wahhabis gained control over institutions dealing with minority affairs, including the wakf board and the Muslim Personal Law Board.”
AIUMB spokesperson Syed Babar Ashraf pointed out that while four out of five Indian Muslims believe in the Sunni Sufi tradition, the Wahhabis have control over just 13-14 per cent of the community. “But a large section of the Urdu press has boycotted us. They are controlled by hardliners.”
Terming the outfits like Deoband, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, and Ahl-e-Hadees as Wahhabi-inspired bodies, he said, “They are funded by petro-dollars and aim to grab political power.”
The Sufi conclave got the full support of Islamic scholar Sultan Shahin: “It is for the first time that mainstream Ulema have come out so strongly against Wahabism which is slowly but determinedly spreading in this country.” According to him, “Islam spread in India through the Sufi saints. But all that changed with the infusion of Saudi petrodollars. For me the most worrying example is Pakistan. Everything that happened there a decade ago is happening here today.”
Faizur Rahman, secretary-general of the Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought Among Muslims, also reacted in a similar fashion. “There are books of fatwas written by Saudi clerics which contain such abhorrent ruling as those that declare a Muslim who does not pray five times to be a ‘kafir’ and say that he must be killed and ‘buried outside the graveyards of the Muslims’ if he does not repent.”
But the most retrograde sections among the Muslim community were rattled by the statements made by the AIUMP leaders. Darul Uloom rector Maulana Qasim Nomani lashed out at both the AIUMB and the English press for giving good coverage to the Sufi event. “Why did the English media front-page this news?” he asked.
Unsurprisingly, the Urdu press practically boycotted the Sufi event, but prominently displayed the reactions of Nomani. What is regrettable is that it is not only orthodox and narrow-minded people who have thrown their weight behind Wahhabism; even those who are expected to fight the fundamentalist ideology are actually supporting it. Consider the case of Mujtaba Khan, a professor at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, a publicly funded institution. Its faculty is supposed to uphold such cherished principles of Indian Republic as freedom of religion, equality of women, and modernity. But what does Khan believe in?
According to him, “the contributions of Wahabi/Deobandi movements in extricating Muslim youth from many customs forbidden in Islam cannot be simply glossed over.” He is actually saying that the reaction against any sort of modernization is good; so, there is nothing wrong if acid is thrown on a Muslim woman who does not dress properly; it is also proper that those using religious freedom to go beyond the literal interpretation of Koran are treated shabbily; it is also in the fitness of things that homosexuals, apostates, etc., are killed.
Intellectuals like Khan try to downplay or overlook the bigotry of such Wahhabi-inspired organizations. A recent instance of their bigotry was the demand by Darul Uloom Deoband for a ban on the followers of Ahmadiya sect to perform Haj. In a letter to the King of Saudi Arabia, the seminary urged him to act against the Ahmadiyas, also known as Qadianis.
It is not just Muslim luminaries like Khan but almost the entire intellectual class of India that refuse to see the evil of Wahhabism and the resultant Islamic terror. They are loath to take on the jihadis for the fear of being dubbed as ‘communal’ or fanatical. So, ironically, now Muslim clerics are fighting the jihadi ideology.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Hypocrisy unlimited
Why is there a gulf between public discourse and private deliberations? Anything that is asserted, cherished, and promoted in the public domain is almost always at variance with what is appreciated, esteemed, and encouraged in private life.
Let’s begin with one of the most important things in the world—money. All of us—at any rate, all of us, save the fortunate few—work for money. Most people spend almost three-fourths of the time, effort, and energy on earning money, investing it prudently, or spending it cautiously. In its pursuit, men and women perform heroic, even superhuman feats; they also commit the most heinous crimes. Money consumes us; it makes and breaks relationships. It shapes our viewpoint, attitude, and values. It plays an extremely important role in our life. It is the axis around which the world revolves. It molds our relationships. Unsurprisingly, we remember our rich uncles and forget poor cousins.
Yet, its importance is routinely downplayed. Religions put scorn on money and the moneyed; moralizers warn us about the dangers of mammon worship; movies tell us that the rich are bad and the poor are good (and the poor vanquish the rich); intellectuals often equate money with theft (and do their best to replenish their own coffers).
One word that describes mankind’s duplicity is hypocrisy. Perhaps, America is the only country in the world where wealth is generally seen as a reward for enterprise and endeavor, though there is no dearth of moralizers railing against money even there. America’s success in bridging the gap between public discourse and private deliberations has a great deal to do with its economic might, political clout, technological prowess, and military muscle.
India’s relationship with America has been unique. In an article (November 29, 2009, The Economic Times), Swaminathan Aiyar wrote, “During the Cold War, India's governmental relations were warm with the USSR and cool with the US. But a million Indians migrated to the US while none went to the USSR.” The question is: why? India is a democracy, so its political class is supposed to reflect the views, feelings, and aspirations of the people. But why was it that while the people of India felt, and feel, at home in Washington, New York, and other U.S. cities (and in the West in general), our leaders found friends in Moscow and Jakarta? India and the U.S. have had strong economic ties (the U.S. is the biggest trade partner), social and cultural relations, but the political ties have often lacked warmth; at times, there was pronounced hostility between the world’s two biggest democracies.
The answer lies in socialism, the ideology that delineated our economic and foreign policies during much of the second half of the twentieth century. It can be called the most overrated ideology the world has ever witnessed; all over the world, intellectuals generally favor it as much as common people detest it.
Socialism means controls which lead to shortages; anybody who has lived in pre-liberalization India knows it very well because they have suffered it. Socialism means licences, even for radio and television. It means that even if you build your own house with your own hard-earned money, you have to run from pillar to post for cement. It means that when you have a marriage in your family, you have to go to a babu with the invitation card for the release of sugar. It means that you have to wait for years to buy a scooter. It means that essential amenities like gas cylinder and telephone connection, you have either to wait indefinitely or seek favor from a politician or a ‘well-connected’ person. It means that for good things in life, you look askance at imported stuff. Yet, intellectuals love socialism. And, despite the failure of socialism all over world, they preach its virtues.
But thanks to our intellectuals love for socialism, the public discourse in India is generally against multinational corporations (MNCs) and big industry. Our intellectuals never tire railing against big companies. We are told that these companies exploit their employees, bribe politicians and bureaucrats, break or mold rules and regulations, evade taxes, and don’t care a hoot about the environment. Yet, if you ask any non-intellectual if they would like to work with a big company—or if they want their children to be employed by an MNC—the answer would be a big ‘yes’ (Most intellectuals also would reply in a similar fashion in private, but that is another story). Common people know that big companies pay well, have a better working atmosphere, and are not run by the whims and fancies of small, proprietary firms—at least, at the lower and middle levels. They are happy working with big companies.
But intellectuals claim that they are exploited by corporate tycoons. Oxford Dictionary defines the verb ‘exploit’ as ‘make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand’ or ‘benefit unfairly from the work of (someone).’ In the normal sense of the term, MNC employees are not exploited; this is the reason they work or aspire to work for MNCs and big companies. Intellectuals, however, have nothing to do with the normal or the obvious; they are comfortable with the dogma Karl Marx propounded over a century-and-a-half ago, called the Theory of Surplus Value. No amount of empirical evidence can shake their faith in the discredited Theory. People like MNCs, but these remain ugly in public discourse.
Similarly, most people want to earn their own living. They also want their children to be self-dependent. In all societies, the virtues of endeavor and diligence are cherished. But public discourse in our country is all about shaping the political economy in such a way that more and more people become dependent on state largesse. It a family member or friend suffers huge financial losses or is ruined, we try to help him by increasing his earning rather than paying him regular donations. Lead a man to fish, they say, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Not that there is no altruism. We make sacrifices and take pains to help our buddies, family members, etc. But the idea is to help who needs it rather than make them dependent on us.
But when it comes to public discourse and political debate, everything turns topsy-turvy. Poverty alleviation grabs the attention of policy-makers, politicians, and bureaucrats—which is fine. However, the means employed are the ones opposite to those which we would never employ in our personal capacity. They conceive publicly-funded schemes, establishing postmodern feudalism, with government as a gigantic lord and the poor as permanent dependants. The lord gives and the serf receives, making the latter to perennially look askance at the former. The entitlement mindset is promoted. Personally, we don’t like our dear ones to be our dependants; politically, we do it all the time. With great aplomb, as if the creation of serfdom were a remarkable feat.
Consider another public-private dichotomy. Politicians of various hues claim to be the champions of vernaculars. They aggressively campaign to change the names of cities to make these echo the local dialect. Bombay becomes Mumbai; Madras, Chennai; Calcutta, Kolkata; Bangalore, Bengaluru. In the name of promoting Indian languages, they bar English from government schools in the primary classes, thus ensuring that the children with humble origins—for it is normally they who attend such schools—are handicapped for life in their career pursuits. It is a well-known fact that English enables a person to get a better job, move faster in any profession, and get better connected with the world. Politicians themselves acknowledge this fact and, therefore, send their own kids to English-medium schools; they also send their children to the U.K. and the U.S. for higher education. What is good in private becomes bad in the public domain and political arena.
Similarly, villages and rural life are glorified and valorized in public discourse. Politicians and intellectuals go lyrical in describing the ethos and pathos of country life; but all of them live in cities, and will continue to live in cities. And their children will also live in cities.
There are many other instances which illustrate the gulf between private beliefs and public posturing. Can this gulf ever be abridged? Not until the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of our opinion makers is exposed.
Let’s begin with one of the most important things in the world—money. All of us—at any rate, all of us, save the fortunate few—work for money. Most people spend almost three-fourths of the time, effort, and energy on earning money, investing it prudently, or spending it cautiously. In its pursuit, men and women perform heroic, even superhuman feats; they also commit the most heinous crimes. Money consumes us; it makes and breaks relationships. It shapes our viewpoint, attitude, and values. It plays an extremely important role in our life. It is the axis around which the world revolves. It molds our relationships. Unsurprisingly, we remember our rich uncles and forget poor cousins.
Yet, its importance is routinely downplayed. Religions put scorn on money and the moneyed; moralizers warn us about the dangers of mammon worship; movies tell us that the rich are bad and the poor are good (and the poor vanquish the rich); intellectuals often equate money with theft (and do their best to replenish their own coffers).
One word that describes mankind’s duplicity is hypocrisy. Perhaps, America is the only country in the world where wealth is generally seen as a reward for enterprise and endeavor, though there is no dearth of moralizers railing against money even there. America’s success in bridging the gap between public discourse and private deliberations has a great deal to do with its economic might, political clout, technological prowess, and military muscle.
India’s relationship with America has been unique. In an article (November 29, 2009, The Economic Times), Swaminathan Aiyar wrote, “During the Cold War, India's governmental relations were warm with the USSR and cool with the US. But a million Indians migrated to the US while none went to the USSR.” The question is: why? India is a democracy, so its political class is supposed to reflect the views, feelings, and aspirations of the people. But why was it that while the people of India felt, and feel, at home in Washington, New York, and other U.S. cities (and in the West in general), our leaders found friends in Moscow and Jakarta? India and the U.S. have had strong economic ties (the U.S. is the biggest trade partner), social and cultural relations, but the political ties have often lacked warmth; at times, there was pronounced hostility between the world’s two biggest democracies.
The answer lies in socialism, the ideology that delineated our economic and foreign policies during much of the second half of the twentieth century. It can be called the most overrated ideology the world has ever witnessed; all over the world, intellectuals generally favor it as much as common people detest it.
Socialism means controls which lead to shortages; anybody who has lived in pre-liberalization India knows it very well because they have suffered it. Socialism means licences, even for radio and television. It means that even if you build your own house with your own hard-earned money, you have to run from pillar to post for cement. It means that when you have a marriage in your family, you have to go to a babu with the invitation card for the release of sugar. It means that you have to wait for years to buy a scooter. It means that essential amenities like gas cylinder and telephone connection, you have either to wait indefinitely or seek favor from a politician or a ‘well-connected’ person. It means that for good things in life, you look askance at imported stuff. Yet, intellectuals love socialism. And, despite the failure of socialism all over world, they preach its virtues.
But thanks to our intellectuals love for socialism, the public discourse in India is generally against multinational corporations (MNCs) and big industry. Our intellectuals never tire railing against big companies. We are told that these companies exploit their employees, bribe politicians and bureaucrats, break or mold rules and regulations, evade taxes, and don’t care a hoot about the environment. Yet, if you ask any non-intellectual if they would like to work with a big company—or if they want their children to be employed by an MNC—the answer would be a big ‘yes’ (Most intellectuals also would reply in a similar fashion in private, but that is another story). Common people know that big companies pay well, have a better working atmosphere, and are not run by the whims and fancies of small, proprietary firms—at least, at the lower and middle levels. They are happy working with big companies.
But intellectuals claim that they are exploited by corporate tycoons. Oxford Dictionary defines the verb ‘exploit’ as ‘make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand’ or ‘benefit unfairly from the work of (someone).’ In the normal sense of the term, MNC employees are not exploited; this is the reason they work or aspire to work for MNCs and big companies. Intellectuals, however, have nothing to do with the normal or the obvious; they are comfortable with the dogma Karl Marx propounded over a century-and-a-half ago, called the Theory of Surplus Value. No amount of empirical evidence can shake their faith in the discredited Theory. People like MNCs, but these remain ugly in public discourse.
Similarly, most people want to earn their own living. They also want their children to be self-dependent. In all societies, the virtues of endeavor and diligence are cherished. But public discourse in our country is all about shaping the political economy in such a way that more and more people become dependent on state largesse. It a family member or friend suffers huge financial losses or is ruined, we try to help him by increasing his earning rather than paying him regular donations. Lead a man to fish, they say, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Not that there is no altruism. We make sacrifices and take pains to help our buddies, family members, etc. But the idea is to help who needs it rather than make them dependent on us.
But when it comes to public discourse and political debate, everything turns topsy-turvy. Poverty alleviation grabs the attention of policy-makers, politicians, and bureaucrats—which is fine. However, the means employed are the ones opposite to those which we would never employ in our personal capacity. They conceive publicly-funded schemes, establishing postmodern feudalism, with government as a gigantic lord and the poor as permanent dependants. The lord gives and the serf receives, making the latter to perennially look askance at the former. The entitlement mindset is promoted. Personally, we don’t like our dear ones to be our dependants; politically, we do it all the time. With great aplomb, as if the creation of serfdom were a remarkable feat.
Consider another public-private dichotomy. Politicians of various hues claim to be the champions of vernaculars. They aggressively campaign to change the names of cities to make these echo the local dialect. Bombay becomes Mumbai; Madras, Chennai; Calcutta, Kolkata; Bangalore, Bengaluru. In the name of promoting Indian languages, they bar English from government schools in the primary classes, thus ensuring that the children with humble origins—for it is normally they who attend such schools—are handicapped for life in their career pursuits. It is a well-known fact that English enables a person to get a better job, move faster in any profession, and get better connected with the world. Politicians themselves acknowledge this fact and, therefore, send their own kids to English-medium schools; they also send their children to the U.K. and the U.S. for higher education. What is good in private becomes bad in the public domain and political arena.
Similarly, villages and rural life are glorified and valorized in public discourse. Politicians and intellectuals go lyrical in describing the ethos and pathos of country life; but all of them live in cities, and will continue to live in cities. And their children will also live in cities.
There are many other instances which illustrate the gulf between private beliefs and public posturing. Can this gulf ever be abridged? Not until the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of our opinion makers is exposed.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Rahul gives 99 per cent marks to Govt
It requires inveterate superciliousness for a person to make preposterous and insensitive comments on a regular basis. Rahul Gandhi is one such person. This gets confirmed, if confirmation was required, from his 99 per cent remark about the Bombay serial blasts on July 13.
The terror attack killed 17 and wounded many more, rattled the commercial capital of the country, and angered all Indians. A day after the outrage, as the city was trying to limp back to normal and the victims were groaning in hospitals, the crown prince said that total elimination of terror attacks was impossible. He went on to laud his own government for having largely succeeded in controlling terror assaults.
“It’s very difficult to stop every single terror attack. Terrorism is impossible to stop all the time. But 99 per cent of terror attacks have been stopped due to strong vigilance and intelligence efforts,” he said.
So, what should we do? Instead of castigating the Congress-led governments in New Delhi and Bombay for their gross incompetence and worse in checking the jihadis, should we hail Rahul, the lame duck Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and the super-Prime Minister, Sonia mama as divine creatures? Should we sing hosannas in praise of such gods and goddesses? By making such gauche remarks, Rahul has added salt to the injuries of the victims.
Then there is Home Minister P. Chidambaram who reacts by saying that all cities are vulnerable to attacks. He went on to say that terrorism is a global phenomenon. At a press conference, he listed the number of attacks in other countries. So, we have some consolation: it is not only the Indians but others as well who are dying because of terror! Thank God for small mercies.
Of late, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has begun peddling a perverse form of globalization. When questions are asked about soaring inflation, they say it’s happening all over the world. When it faces flak for its ineptitude in tackling jihad, it says terrorism is not restricted to India.
While it is true that global commodity prices have been hardening for some time, it is undeniable that mindless populism of the government has also augmented the aam aadmi’s torment. Similarly, developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan and regular terror funding from the Middle East are a big problem, but the sins of omission and commission by the UPA regime are too obvious to be ignored. But Rahul, who represents Amethi in the Lok Sabha, said, “We have improved by leaps and bounds.”
Evidently, what Rahul, Chidambaram, and other Congress leaders are saying is a lot of baloney. Yes, terror strikes have been happening all over the world, but no such thing has happened in the US since the September 11 attacks in 2001. Similarly, the UK was able to stop any incident after the London terror attack on July 7, 2005.
At the heart of the terror problem in our country is the propensity of the Congress, and other political parties, to mollycoddle Muslims fundamentalists and incorrigible fanatics. Congress leaders such as Digvijay Singh—who, by the way, is Rahul’s mentor—have always opposed policies and actions that can have a deterrent effect on jihadis. The aftermath of Batla House encounter is testimony to their brazen appeasement of Muslim hardliners.
Rahul’s superciliousness and insensitivity are the product and function of this appeasement.
The terror attack killed 17 and wounded many more, rattled the commercial capital of the country, and angered all Indians. A day after the outrage, as the city was trying to limp back to normal and the victims were groaning in hospitals, the crown prince said that total elimination of terror attacks was impossible. He went on to laud his own government for having largely succeeded in controlling terror assaults.
“It’s very difficult to stop every single terror attack. Terrorism is impossible to stop all the time. But 99 per cent of terror attacks have been stopped due to strong vigilance and intelligence efforts,” he said.
So, what should we do? Instead of castigating the Congress-led governments in New Delhi and Bombay for their gross incompetence and worse in checking the jihadis, should we hail Rahul, the lame duck Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and the super-Prime Minister, Sonia mama as divine creatures? Should we sing hosannas in praise of such gods and goddesses? By making such gauche remarks, Rahul has added salt to the injuries of the victims.
Then there is Home Minister P. Chidambaram who reacts by saying that all cities are vulnerable to attacks. He went on to say that terrorism is a global phenomenon. At a press conference, he listed the number of attacks in other countries. So, we have some consolation: it is not only the Indians but others as well who are dying because of terror! Thank God for small mercies.
Of late, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has begun peddling a perverse form of globalization. When questions are asked about soaring inflation, they say it’s happening all over the world. When it faces flak for its ineptitude in tackling jihad, it says terrorism is not restricted to India.
While it is true that global commodity prices have been hardening for some time, it is undeniable that mindless populism of the government has also augmented the aam aadmi’s torment. Similarly, developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan and regular terror funding from the Middle East are a big problem, but the sins of omission and commission by the UPA regime are too obvious to be ignored. But Rahul, who represents Amethi in the Lok Sabha, said, “We have improved by leaps and bounds.”
Evidently, what Rahul, Chidambaram, and other Congress leaders are saying is a lot of baloney. Yes, terror strikes have been happening all over the world, but no such thing has happened in the US since the September 11 attacks in 2001. Similarly, the UK was able to stop any incident after the London terror attack on July 7, 2005.
At the heart of the terror problem in our country is the propensity of the Congress, and other political parties, to mollycoddle Muslims fundamentalists and incorrigible fanatics. Congress leaders such as Digvijay Singh—who, by the way, is Rahul’s mentor—have always opposed policies and actions that can have a deterrent effect on jihadis. The aftermath of Batla House encounter is testimony to their brazen appeasement of Muslim hardliners.
Rahul’s superciliousness and insensitivity are the product and function of this appeasement.
Food security law wil spell doom
A short but extremely significant statement that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made during his interaction with newspaper editors went largely unnoticed. About the proposed Food Security Bill, he said, “Maximum that has been procured is 57 million [tones of food grain]; the average procurement for the last couple of years is 55 million tones. We have to work out a system within this.”
This is an unambiguous refutation of the obstinate position taken by the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC). The NAC wants to give legal entitlement to highly subsidized food grain to 70 per cent of the population. This translates into about 80 million people getting with monthly ration of 7 kg for every member of families below the poverty line and 3 kg to each individual from “general households.”
As is its wont, the Leftist-infested NAC is trying to expand the role and scope of government in food grain distribution, while Singh is trying to limit the populism to whatever extent it can. Earlier, it looked like the Prime Minister was fighting a losing battle, for his own ministers are seem keener to follow the NAC chief’s diktats than to obey his commands. Food minister K.V. Thomas, for instance, told The Economic Times in an interview (May 30), “[The Food Security Bill] has been drafted under the direction of Madam Sonia Gandhi.”
The Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Committee (PMEAC), headed by former Reserve Bank governor C. Rangarajan, has serious differences with the NAC on a variety of issues. But it must be noted that the PMEAC’s resistance to the NAC’s big state measures is feeble and based on practical considerations. While the NAC wants is indulges in demagoguery to increase the number of beneficiaries of subsidized food-grain, the PMEAC meekly favors such subsidies for 46 per cent of rural population and 28 per cent of the urban people.
So, nobody is talking about, let along opposing, the moral hazard of Leviathan statism; there is no ideological or principled opposition to the giant strides being made in government spending. This is despite the fact that, in absolute numbers, the fiscal deficit stands at Rs 3.69 lakh crore, which is much higher than Rs 139,231 crore in 2004-05, when the Manmohan Singh government took charge.
The NAC jihadis, of course, have no regard for the concept of fiscal prudence. Like spoilt brats who, unbothered about the family income, always pester their parents with ever-rising demands, they incessantly work on schemes that would be ruinous for the exchequer.
Apart from the strain on public finance, there is the ethical issue of creating and nurturing an entitlement mindset among vast sections of society. They would be eternally looking for succor from the state.
And since pilferage and graft are the inevitable consequences of state expenditure, one can safely assume huge rise in the spread and scale of corruption in the public distribution system.
Instead of looking for novel ideas for improving food-grain distribution and increasing the role of private sector for efficiency, the government remains stuck with linear thinking. Among other things, it is trying to transform the inherently inefficient Food Corporation of India (FCI) into a modern, competent machine to address the gigantic task of grain distribution. As Thomas said, “Compared to earlier periods, the recruitment in Food Corporation of India has risen by 10 per cent. We have modernized FCI go-downs through computerization. Sitting in my office, I know the quantity, quality and distribution of grain from each go-down. We have put CCTV cameras to watch operations. We have also enabled e-transactions; every payment above 1 lakh will be e-transacted. To complement all this, PDS will be improved through Aadhar.”
In short, the idea is cure socialism with more socialism. The endeavor is doomed, for the capabilities of FCI are grossly inadequate. A recent study conducted by, among others, chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) Ashok Gulati said that FCI’s efficiency was half that of private traders.
Further, the proposed food security legislation can be pervasive enough to drive out private companies. The study also recommended that the government, instead of embarking on a massive exercise in food-grain distribution, should explore the options of cash transfers and food coupons.
“Strangulating the private sector could impact other key areas in agriculture, including seed and storage where its role would become even more crucial now,” the study said. Ad hoc government policies have already adversely affected the private sector in a few states.
The Left-leaning activists of the NAC are not satisfied by higher government expenditure and the attack on the private sector; they want more; the council reportedly wants complete ban on food grain exports.
More radical Leftists are dissatisfied by even the NAC’s recommendations. Jean Dreze, who is credited with conceiving the rural employment guarantee scheme, is not comfortable with the existing NAC proposals. Appeasement of the Left is a Sisyphean task.
This is an unambiguous refutation of the obstinate position taken by the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC). The NAC wants to give legal entitlement to highly subsidized food grain to 70 per cent of the population. This translates into about 80 million people getting with monthly ration of 7 kg for every member of families below the poverty line and 3 kg to each individual from “general households.”
As is its wont, the Leftist-infested NAC is trying to expand the role and scope of government in food grain distribution, while Singh is trying to limit the populism to whatever extent it can. Earlier, it looked like the Prime Minister was fighting a losing battle, for his own ministers are seem keener to follow the NAC chief’s diktats than to obey his commands. Food minister K.V. Thomas, for instance, told The Economic Times in an interview (May 30), “[The Food Security Bill] has been drafted under the direction of Madam Sonia Gandhi.”
The Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Committee (PMEAC), headed by former Reserve Bank governor C. Rangarajan, has serious differences with the NAC on a variety of issues. But it must be noted that the PMEAC’s resistance to the NAC’s big state measures is feeble and based on practical considerations. While the NAC wants is indulges in demagoguery to increase the number of beneficiaries of subsidized food-grain, the PMEAC meekly favors such subsidies for 46 per cent of rural population and 28 per cent of the urban people.
So, nobody is talking about, let along opposing, the moral hazard of Leviathan statism; there is no ideological or principled opposition to the giant strides being made in government spending. This is despite the fact that, in absolute numbers, the fiscal deficit stands at Rs 3.69 lakh crore, which is much higher than Rs 139,231 crore in 2004-05, when the Manmohan Singh government took charge.
The NAC jihadis, of course, have no regard for the concept of fiscal prudence. Like spoilt brats who, unbothered about the family income, always pester their parents with ever-rising demands, they incessantly work on schemes that would be ruinous for the exchequer.
Apart from the strain on public finance, there is the ethical issue of creating and nurturing an entitlement mindset among vast sections of society. They would be eternally looking for succor from the state.
And since pilferage and graft are the inevitable consequences of state expenditure, one can safely assume huge rise in the spread and scale of corruption in the public distribution system.
Instead of looking for novel ideas for improving food-grain distribution and increasing the role of private sector for efficiency, the government remains stuck with linear thinking. Among other things, it is trying to transform the inherently inefficient Food Corporation of India (FCI) into a modern, competent machine to address the gigantic task of grain distribution. As Thomas said, “Compared to earlier periods, the recruitment in Food Corporation of India has risen by 10 per cent. We have modernized FCI go-downs through computerization. Sitting in my office, I know the quantity, quality and distribution of grain from each go-down. We have put CCTV cameras to watch operations. We have also enabled e-transactions; every payment above 1 lakh will be e-transacted. To complement all this, PDS will be improved through Aadhar.”
In short, the idea is cure socialism with more socialism. The endeavor is doomed, for the capabilities of FCI are grossly inadequate. A recent study conducted by, among others, chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) Ashok Gulati said that FCI’s efficiency was half that of private traders.
Further, the proposed food security legislation can be pervasive enough to drive out private companies. The study also recommended that the government, instead of embarking on a massive exercise in food-grain distribution, should explore the options of cash transfers and food coupons.
“Strangulating the private sector could impact other key areas in agriculture, including seed and storage where its role would become even more crucial now,” the study said. Ad hoc government policies have already adversely affected the private sector in a few states.
The Left-leaning activists of the NAC are not satisfied by higher government expenditure and the attack on the private sector; they want more; the council reportedly wants complete ban on food grain exports.
More radical Leftists are dissatisfied by even the NAC’s recommendations. Jean Dreze, who is credited with conceiving the rural employment guarantee scheme, is not comfortable with the existing NAC proposals. Appeasement of the Left is a Sisyphean task.
From Cyberia to Siberia
The recent government effort to police blogs is yet another assault on the freedom of expression. It emanates from the belief among our political masters that the lesser mortals need to be constantly monitored and, if need arises, reprimanded for infractions. And, of course, only our betters can define what constitutes an infraction.
The draft rules, derived from the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, describe the due diligence an intermediary is expected to carry out. An “intermediary” is an entity that?on behalf of another?receives, stores, or transmits any electronic record. So, intermediaries include telecom networks, web-hosting and Internet service providers, search engines, online payment and auction sites, cyber cafes, and even bloggers.
The proposed rules stipulate that hosts or owners of websites must take action against “objectionable content” that is considered “disparaging,” “harassing,” “blasphemous,” or “hateful.” They are ordered to act against anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign countries, or public order.”
Such verbosity, however, does not fool everybody about the nefarious designs of our political masters. As Nikhil Pahwa, editor and publisher of the news and analysis website, MediaNama, was quoted in The Hindu (May 11, 2011): “These rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why sites have been blocked, who took the decision to block it, and, just as importantly, providing adequate recourse to blogs, sites and online and mobile businesses, for getting the block removed.”
Three points need to be made in this regard. First, there is absolutely no need to bring in any rules to monitor or regulate blogs and other modes of communication on the Net. Such communications, unfettered by governmental or other controls, offer a platform to common citizens to express their views about anything under the sun.
It is true that often the postings by Indian bloggers and others are not the best examples of elegant prose, poise, and sobriety; apart from bad English, there are vituperation, racial abuse, etc. But even the most abusive of Internet communications have not caused any law and order problem. Nor has there been any demand from any section—not even from any tetchy group. So, why is there an attempt to impose censorship in the first place?
Second, if the government decides to regulate cyberia, it will call for a huge drain on the public exchequer. For the task would truly gargantuan—countless blogs, the sites of all newspapers, magazines, news channels, innumerable portals, etc. Then there are websites of foreign media houses and organizations. Who would regulate them? The proposed rules would be practically unimplementable.
When laws are unimplementable, they weaken the individual, strengthen the state, and promote discretion in the affairs of state. The most likely consequence: officers of the state would use the ban on breathing at will—for rent-seeking or repression.
And, finally, there is the issue of burden on our law-enforcement apparatus. Have our cops solved all cases? Have our courts disposed of the millions of cases that have been waiting for years?
The proposed rules are a gauche attempt by meddlesome mandarins to control the Net. It is perhaps the first time that the Indian government has embarked on such a venture in India, though Internet censorship is rampant in repressive regimes like China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Unfortunately, freedom of expression is facing relentless assaults not just from the state. An assortment of forces—the Left and the Right, the pre-modern mullahs and postmodern intellectuals, publicity hungry outfits and rabid busybodies—is busy in activities that end up shrinking the sphere of individual liberty (and, concomitantly, augmenting the scope and role of Indian state). It is a veritable Inquisition. Unlike the original Inquisition—which was an ecclesiastical tribunal or institution of the Roman Catholic Church for combating or suppressing heresy—the contemporary enemies of individual liberty and open society are a multifarious lot who want to proscribe anything and everything that can “hurt the sentiments” of any community, creed, or group. It is like a rainbow coalition against individual liberty. They inveigh against books, movies, songs, etc; often the protest becomes violent.
With a frightening frequency, demands are made for ban of this or that book, movie, song, etc, because it “hurt the sentiments” of some persons, groups, or communities. This is despite the fact that ‘sentiments’ are arbitrary and subjective. Some Hindus’s sentiments may get hurt by M.F. Husain’s Saraswati painting, while others are not offended. Similarly, Taslima Nasreen’s novels may or may not hurt the sentiments of the Muslims. The predominantly Christian West was not offended by The Da Vinci Code movie, while many Indian Christians were.
The social and cultural backdrop adds an alarming dimension to the government effort to control the Net. A draconian fiat may see the light of the day without much protest.
The draft rules, derived from the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, describe the due diligence an intermediary is expected to carry out. An “intermediary” is an entity that?on behalf of another?receives, stores, or transmits any electronic record. So, intermediaries include telecom networks, web-hosting and Internet service providers, search engines, online payment and auction sites, cyber cafes, and even bloggers.
The proposed rules stipulate that hosts or owners of websites must take action against “objectionable content” that is considered “disparaging,” “harassing,” “blasphemous,” or “hateful.” They are ordered to act against anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign countries, or public order.”
Such verbosity, however, does not fool everybody about the nefarious designs of our political masters. As Nikhil Pahwa, editor and publisher of the news and analysis website, MediaNama, was quoted in The Hindu (May 11, 2011): “These rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why sites have been blocked, who took the decision to block it, and, just as importantly, providing adequate recourse to blogs, sites and online and mobile businesses, for getting the block removed.”
Three points need to be made in this regard. First, there is absolutely no need to bring in any rules to monitor or regulate blogs and other modes of communication on the Net. Such communications, unfettered by governmental or other controls, offer a platform to common citizens to express their views about anything under the sun.
It is true that often the postings by Indian bloggers and others are not the best examples of elegant prose, poise, and sobriety; apart from bad English, there are vituperation, racial abuse, etc. But even the most abusive of Internet communications have not caused any law and order problem. Nor has there been any demand from any section—not even from any tetchy group. So, why is there an attempt to impose censorship in the first place?
Second, if the government decides to regulate cyberia, it will call for a huge drain on the public exchequer. For the task would truly gargantuan—countless blogs, the sites of all newspapers, magazines, news channels, innumerable portals, etc. Then there are websites of foreign media houses and organizations. Who would regulate them? The proposed rules would be practically unimplementable.
When laws are unimplementable, they weaken the individual, strengthen the state, and promote discretion in the affairs of state. The most likely consequence: officers of the state would use the ban on breathing at will—for rent-seeking or repression.
And, finally, there is the issue of burden on our law-enforcement apparatus. Have our cops solved all cases? Have our courts disposed of the millions of cases that have been waiting for years?
The proposed rules are a gauche attempt by meddlesome mandarins to control the Net. It is perhaps the first time that the Indian government has embarked on such a venture in India, though Internet censorship is rampant in repressive regimes like China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Unfortunately, freedom of expression is facing relentless assaults not just from the state. An assortment of forces—the Left and the Right, the pre-modern mullahs and postmodern intellectuals, publicity hungry outfits and rabid busybodies—is busy in activities that end up shrinking the sphere of individual liberty (and, concomitantly, augmenting the scope and role of Indian state). It is a veritable Inquisition. Unlike the original Inquisition—which was an ecclesiastical tribunal or institution of the Roman Catholic Church for combating or suppressing heresy—the contemporary enemies of individual liberty and open society are a multifarious lot who want to proscribe anything and everything that can “hurt the sentiments” of any community, creed, or group. It is like a rainbow coalition against individual liberty. They inveigh against books, movies, songs, etc; often the protest becomes violent.
With a frightening frequency, demands are made for ban of this or that book, movie, song, etc, because it “hurt the sentiments” of some persons, groups, or communities. This is despite the fact that ‘sentiments’ are arbitrary and subjective. Some Hindus’s sentiments may get hurt by M.F. Husain’s Saraswati painting, while others are not offended. Similarly, Taslima Nasreen’s novels may or may not hurt the sentiments of the Muslims. The predominantly Christian West was not offended by The Da Vinci Code movie, while many Indian Christians were.
The social and cultural backdrop adds an alarming dimension to the government effort to control the Net. A draconian fiat may see the light of the day without much protest.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Maligning BJP: An illiberal strategy
Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh’s intemperate remarks against Baba Ramdev and the incessant attempts to link the yoga guru to the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) should be seen as part of the grand old party’s strategy to keep itself in power in perpetuity. The idea is not only to malign Ramdev but also to present the Sangh Parivar as demonic and anything connected with it taboo. It is a strategy to keep the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) aloof from other parties.
The reasons are not difficult to find. The Manmohan Singh Government, remote-controlled by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has comprehensively failed on all fronts: inflation is killing the aam aadmi for whom the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) so sanctimoniously professes to work; corruption is rampant; industry is exasperated with rent-seeking; the economy has started feeling the strains of the UPA regime’s mindless populism; national security is in a mess, thanks to the Congress’ desire to win brownie points among Muslim fundamentalists; and foreign policy is in a shambles, the recent blunder being indirect support to the tyrant Gaddafi by opposing Nato strikes in Libya. The only way the ruling coalition can sustain for a substantial period of time is by keeping the Opposition divided.
The BJP got 18.8 per cent vote in the 2009 general elections, down from 22.16 per cent vote in 2004; for the Congress, the corresponding figures were 28.55 per cent and 26.53 per cent. Any genuine non-Congress formation at the Centre is inconceivable without the BJP.
It is not for the first time that Digvijay Singh has chosen to castigate the Sangh Parivar. On December 19 last year, he said, as reported by PTI, “In the 1930s, Hitler’s Nazi party attacked the Jews... Similarly, the RSS ideology wants to capture power by targeting Muslims under the garb of furthering nationalism.” Further, he said, “Demolition of the Babri Masjid... is the darkest patch in the history of India. The roots of terrorism in India lie in BJP leader L.K. Advani’s rath yatra.”
He would like us believe that Lashkar-e-Taiyaba, ISI, etc., are not at the root of terror. However, his own party colleagues in the Government are unlikely to agree with him, but that is another story. What is germane to this article is the fact that Congress leaders like Digvijay Singh, and the intellectuals sympathetic to his party, have always tried to smear BJP (and earlier, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh) so that it could be left apart from the mainstream.
A fear psychosis is conjured up about ‘communalism’; and, concomitantly, ‘secularism’ is presented as the shield against all the evils that ‘communal forces’ could spawn. The propaganda is so vicious and misleading that the two words, ‘communal’ and ‘secular’ have been divested of their original meanings. A Briton or an American unfamiliar with the conditions in India may find the connotations of the two words bewildering. Congress leaders and their lackeys in the opinion-making apparatus have not only vitiated politics but also ravaged the English language. In their make-believe world, a big part of the Indian political system, the BJP, is dubbed as forbidden; any association with it is portrayed as vile.
More than the Congress leaders, it is the intellectuals who have played a key role in perpetuating the GOP’s misrule in the country. Careers have been made and fortunes built by lambasting the BJP.
Not that the project has succeeded completely. The first time that the Congress got an electoral setback was in 1967; the SVD governments were formed in states. Interestingly, it was the socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia who chalked out the strategy of anti-Congressism and joined hands with the BJS.
In 1977, another socialist leader, Jayaprakash Narayan, also decided to include the saffron forces into the grand alliance against Indira Gandhi’s Congress and the result was the first non-Congress regime in New Delhi after Independence. It was a diluted form of anti-Congressism in 1989, when the BJP and the Left supported the V.P. Singh government from outside, that Rajiv Gandhi was ousted from power, despite having secured a historic mandate five years earlier.
The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government (1998-2004) was also an exercise in anti-Congressism, the first time that a non-Congress government lasted full term. It included socialists like George Fernandes. Many of the constituents of the Vajpayee government are now part of the ruling United Progressive Alliance. In short, association with the saffron party did not cost them politically.
In this context, another point needs to be made. When we associate with somebody in politics or in life, we need not completely agree with them. If Anupam Kher supports Anna Hazare, it does not mean that the film actor will become a Gandhian like Hazare. In a liberal democracy, all of us are entitled to our viewpoints, so long as we don’t impose them on other by force. A natural corollary is that if we lampoon and criticize anybody just because they support the cause of our opponent, we only exhibit out intolerance. Our liberal commentators not only play into the hands of the Congress by joining the slam-BJP project but also show their own illiberal streak when they keep doing it blindly. Often, they end up becoming apologists for the monumentally corrupt and inept regimes like that of Manmohan Singh.
The reasons are not difficult to find. The Manmohan Singh Government, remote-controlled by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has comprehensively failed on all fronts: inflation is killing the aam aadmi for whom the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) so sanctimoniously professes to work; corruption is rampant; industry is exasperated with rent-seeking; the economy has started feeling the strains of the UPA regime’s mindless populism; national security is in a mess, thanks to the Congress’ desire to win brownie points among Muslim fundamentalists; and foreign policy is in a shambles, the recent blunder being indirect support to the tyrant Gaddafi by opposing Nato strikes in Libya. The only way the ruling coalition can sustain for a substantial period of time is by keeping the Opposition divided.
The BJP got 18.8 per cent vote in the 2009 general elections, down from 22.16 per cent vote in 2004; for the Congress, the corresponding figures were 28.55 per cent and 26.53 per cent. Any genuine non-Congress formation at the Centre is inconceivable without the BJP.
It is not for the first time that Digvijay Singh has chosen to castigate the Sangh Parivar. On December 19 last year, he said, as reported by PTI, “In the 1930s, Hitler’s Nazi party attacked the Jews... Similarly, the RSS ideology wants to capture power by targeting Muslims under the garb of furthering nationalism.” Further, he said, “Demolition of the Babri Masjid... is the darkest patch in the history of India. The roots of terrorism in India lie in BJP leader L.K. Advani’s rath yatra.”
He would like us believe that Lashkar-e-Taiyaba, ISI, etc., are not at the root of terror. However, his own party colleagues in the Government are unlikely to agree with him, but that is another story. What is germane to this article is the fact that Congress leaders like Digvijay Singh, and the intellectuals sympathetic to his party, have always tried to smear BJP (and earlier, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh) so that it could be left apart from the mainstream.
A fear psychosis is conjured up about ‘communalism’; and, concomitantly, ‘secularism’ is presented as the shield against all the evils that ‘communal forces’ could spawn. The propaganda is so vicious and misleading that the two words, ‘communal’ and ‘secular’ have been divested of their original meanings. A Briton or an American unfamiliar with the conditions in India may find the connotations of the two words bewildering. Congress leaders and their lackeys in the opinion-making apparatus have not only vitiated politics but also ravaged the English language. In their make-believe world, a big part of the Indian political system, the BJP, is dubbed as forbidden; any association with it is portrayed as vile.
More than the Congress leaders, it is the intellectuals who have played a key role in perpetuating the GOP’s misrule in the country. Careers have been made and fortunes built by lambasting the BJP.
Not that the project has succeeded completely. The first time that the Congress got an electoral setback was in 1967; the SVD governments were formed in states. Interestingly, it was the socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia who chalked out the strategy of anti-Congressism and joined hands with the BJS.
In 1977, another socialist leader, Jayaprakash Narayan, also decided to include the saffron forces into the grand alliance against Indira Gandhi’s Congress and the result was the first non-Congress regime in New Delhi after Independence. It was a diluted form of anti-Congressism in 1989, when the BJP and the Left supported the V.P. Singh government from outside, that Rajiv Gandhi was ousted from power, despite having secured a historic mandate five years earlier.
The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government (1998-2004) was also an exercise in anti-Congressism, the first time that a non-Congress government lasted full term. It included socialists like George Fernandes. Many of the constituents of the Vajpayee government are now part of the ruling United Progressive Alliance. In short, association with the saffron party did not cost them politically.
In this context, another point needs to be made. When we associate with somebody in politics or in life, we need not completely agree with them. If Anupam Kher supports Anna Hazare, it does not mean that the film actor will become a Gandhian like Hazare. In a liberal democracy, all of us are entitled to our viewpoints, so long as we don’t impose them on other by force. A natural corollary is that if we lampoon and criticize anybody just because they support the cause of our opponent, we only exhibit out intolerance. Our liberal commentators not only play into the hands of the Congress by joining the slam-BJP project but also show their own illiberal streak when they keep doing it blindly. Often, they end up becoming apologists for the monumentally corrupt and inept regimes like that of Manmohan Singh.
Cong, intellectuals try to fool people
A new doctrine has emerged since Anna Hazare sat on indefinite fast: the institutions of parliamentary democracy should be respected. There is nothing wrong with the assertion, but the doctrine is being abused to delegitimize a movement which so many people sympathize with.
It is true that many of the demands made by Hazare and then Baba Ramdev are impractical, that the tone and tenor of their discourse is excessively sentimental, that some statements made by their followers are outlandish, but this does not mean that the issue that the social activists are raising is inconsequential. It has been argued—quite convincingly, one may add—that there is no need for a Lokpal in the first place and that the corrupt can be thrown behind bars by properly utilizing the existing rules and apparatus. But the point is: who is interested in such action? The Congress-led regime in New Delhi is certainly not. This very fact makes the movement relevant and popular.
Fearful of the electoral consequences of the popular movement, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and its spin doctors have tried to belittle its importance and impact. Earlier, we were told that only the urban, English-speaking, middle class people are supporting Hazare and going to Jantar Mantar (As if these people belong to another world and have nothing to do with the country they live in. This is one of those Leftist theories that pollute the climate of opinion). But when Ramdev began his fast at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi and his followers turned out to be mostly from villages and suburban areas, it became evident that all sections of people—urban as well as rural, educated as well as not-very-educated, middle class as well as the poor—were supporting the movement.
Efforts were made to malign the Bhushans, ad hominem charges were hurled at those opposing the government. Finally, Ramdev was accused of being the front of the Sangh Parivar. What our liberal commentators did not explain was why an RSS front should be banished. After all, there are a number of Left-leaning outfits—many of which are front organizations of communist parties—which espouse various causes. For this very association, these outfits are not denounced. So, why should Right-leaning bodies and individuals be castigated for their ideological proclivities?
Congress leaders, Central ministers, pro-Congress intellectuals, and many other commentators tenaciously assert that the institutions of parliamentary democracy should be respected. None of these worthies, however, have pondered over a simple question: do the politicians of the day, including those who cite this doctrine, really believe in it?
It is an open secret that politicians of all parties have undermined these institutions; and the Congress has done the most harm because it has ruled the country for the maximum period of time. At any rate, democracy and individual liberty cannot be left to politicians alone, even if they are democratically elected. It was, after all, a democratically elected government that imposed the infamous Emergency in 1975 and gave the country a taste of authoritarian rule. And it was the Attorney General of that government, Niren De, who said in December 1975 in the Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur versus Shiv Kant Shukla case, popularly known as the habeas corpus case, who said, “Even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless.”
It was the darkest chapter of our Supreme Court’s history that its bench decided against habeas corpus in April 1976. The majority decision was: “In view of the Presidential Order [declaring emergency] no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.”
It is to the eternal credit of Justice H.R. Khanna that he wrote a note of dissent, saying, “The Constitution and the laws of India do not permit life and liberty to be at the mercy of the absolute power of the Executive… What is at stake is the rule of law. The question is whether the law speaking through the authority of the court shall be absolutely silenced and rendered mute… Detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty.”
A democratically elected government, under Indira Gandhi, had made Parliament a rubber stamp, subdued the press, repressed civil disobedience, trampled on democratic rights, and managed to convince the highest court of the land that the life of a citizen could be snuffed out by the state without any legal recourse. And it was an unelected man, Justice Khanna, who kept the flag of individual freedom flying!
Before Khanna, there was Mahatma Gandhi. He was also unelected. Obviously, electability is not and cannot be the necessary condition for being the voice of the people.
Our elected representatives have imposed many draconian laws and oppressive rules on us. Quite apart from such sinister moves, they weaken democratic institutions on a routine basis. They stall Parliament. Could there be anything more dangerous for democracy? Members of all parties regularly shout and try to silence their opponents on the floor of the House. They exceed the time limit the presiding officer of the House imposes on them; they frequently disobey the chair; Parliament is often reduced to a circus with members indulging in theatrics.
Besides, there is the issue of representativeness. How representative of us are our elected representatives? It is a well-known fact that factors like caste, community, monetary might, muscle power, and slavishness to party bosses often help people win elections. One has to ludicrously credulous to believe that all members of Parliament and state Assemblies represent us and Hazare, Ramdev, and their comrades don’t.
A ruling party genuinely concerned with the rise of graft would have engaged the activists as well as the Opposition in a meaningful manner, thus evolving a national consensus. It is unadulterated hubris on the part of the Congress which nudges it to the view that just by maligning social activists it would be able to fool all the people for all of the time.
It is true that many of the demands made by Hazare and then Baba Ramdev are impractical, that the tone and tenor of their discourse is excessively sentimental, that some statements made by their followers are outlandish, but this does not mean that the issue that the social activists are raising is inconsequential. It has been argued—quite convincingly, one may add—that there is no need for a Lokpal in the first place and that the corrupt can be thrown behind bars by properly utilizing the existing rules and apparatus. But the point is: who is interested in such action? The Congress-led regime in New Delhi is certainly not. This very fact makes the movement relevant and popular.
Fearful of the electoral consequences of the popular movement, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and its spin doctors have tried to belittle its importance and impact. Earlier, we were told that only the urban, English-speaking, middle class people are supporting Hazare and going to Jantar Mantar (As if these people belong to another world and have nothing to do with the country they live in. This is one of those Leftist theories that pollute the climate of opinion). But when Ramdev began his fast at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi and his followers turned out to be mostly from villages and suburban areas, it became evident that all sections of people—urban as well as rural, educated as well as not-very-educated, middle class as well as the poor—were supporting the movement.
Efforts were made to malign the Bhushans, ad hominem charges were hurled at those opposing the government. Finally, Ramdev was accused of being the front of the Sangh Parivar. What our liberal commentators did not explain was why an RSS front should be banished. After all, there are a number of Left-leaning outfits—many of which are front organizations of communist parties—which espouse various causes. For this very association, these outfits are not denounced. So, why should Right-leaning bodies and individuals be castigated for their ideological proclivities?
Congress leaders, Central ministers, pro-Congress intellectuals, and many other commentators tenaciously assert that the institutions of parliamentary democracy should be respected. None of these worthies, however, have pondered over a simple question: do the politicians of the day, including those who cite this doctrine, really believe in it?
It is an open secret that politicians of all parties have undermined these institutions; and the Congress has done the most harm because it has ruled the country for the maximum period of time. At any rate, democracy and individual liberty cannot be left to politicians alone, even if they are democratically elected. It was, after all, a democratically elected government that imposed the infamous Emergency in 1975 and gave the country a taste of authoritarian rule. And it was the Attorney General of that government, Niren De, who said in December 1975 in the Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur versus Shiv Kant Shukla case, popularly known as the habeas corpus case, who said, “Even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless.”
It was the darkest chapter of our Supreme Court’s history that its bench decided against habeas corpus in April 1976. The majority decision was: “In view of the Presidential Order [declaring emergency] no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.”
It is to the eternal credit of Justice H.R. Khanna that he wrote a note of dissent, saying, “The Constitution and the laws of India do not permit life and liberty to be at the mercy of the absolute power of the Executive… What is at stake is the rule of law. The question is whether the law speaking through the authority of the court shall be absolutely silenced and rendered mute… Detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty.”
A democratically elected government, under Indira Gandhi, had made Parliament a rubber stamp, subdued the press, repressed civil disobedience, trampled on democratic rights, and managed to convince the highest court of the land that the life of a citizen could be snuffed out by the state without any legal recourse. And it was an unelected man, Justice Khanna, who kept the flag of individual freedom flying!
Before Khanna, there was Mahatma Gandhi. He was also unelected. Obviously, electability is not and cannot be the necessary condition for being the voice of the people.
Our elected representatives have imposed many draconian laws and oppressive rules on us. Quite apart from such sinister moves, they weaken democratic institutions on a routine basis. They stall Parliament. Could there be anything more dangerous for democracy? Members of all parties regularly shout and try to silence their opponents on the floor of the House. They exceed the time limit the presiding officer of the House imposes on them; they frequently disobey the chair; Parliament is often reduced to a circus with members indulging in theatrics.
Besides, there is the issue of representativeness. How representative of us are our elected representatives? It is a well-known fact that factors like caste, community, monetary might, muscle power, and slavishness to party bosses often help people win elections. One has to ludicrously credulous to believe that all members of Parliament and state Assemblies represent us and Hazare, Ramdev, and their comrades don’t.
A ruling party genuinely concerned with the rise of graft would have engaged the activists as well as the Opposition in a meaningful manner, thus evolving a national consensus. It is unadulterated hubris on the part of the Congress which nudges it to the view that just by maligning social activists it would be able to fool all the people for all of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)