not my vote, Shweta

Were I living not in NCR but in Maninagar, I would not vote for Shweta Bhatt.

I am no fan of Narendra Modi nor do I think that the BJP is the nation's saviour .

I have no particular antipathy for the Congress, it is as good or bad as the other political parties. 

I am not a male chauvinist in disguise and do not think that the home and hearth are where women belong, not politics.

While prior experience is necessary for most corporate jobs, civil servants who run the country's 600 districts have no prior experience so one can waive that requirement for elected representatives as well, although it would certainly be my preferred option to see in Parliament/Legislative Assemblies people who have some experience in running organisations, be they corporates or NGOs. 

It would help if our elected representatives were articulate. While they do not necessarily have to be powerful orators, and the best orator may mean only half of what he says, or nothing at all, its my perhaps erroneous belief that clarity of thought is reflected in clarity of speech. However, it is not for reason of lack of oratorical skills that I will desist from voting from Shweta Bhatt. 

Does she subscribe to the Congress manifesto? Has she even read it? Does she have a vision for the nation, other than routing Narendra Modi? Is she simply a pawn being played by the Congress which knows that no Congress candidate, be it a Gandhi or a Bollywood superstar or a sports icon, can defeat Modi? None of these matter to me, for we'd be hard put to find candidates who contest elections on a party ticket having read the manifesto and are in agreement with its vision.

The reason why I will not vote for Shweta Bhatt is that her candidature smacks of complete lack of integrity. Why has Sanjeev Bhatt fielded his wife as a candidate? If he has courage of conviction, he should resign from government service and enter the political fray. Instead, his wife, whose name we had not heard till yesterday, has stepped forward as a proxy candidate. That she has agreed to contest elections as a proxy for her husband places a question mark over her integrity as well. Is this the kind of politics that Sanjeev Bhatt wishes to promote, where the alleged authoritarianism of Modi is attempted to be toppled by a mere mouthpiece while the de facto candidate remains in the background? It is not enough that one be seen as a person who does not demand or accept bribes of the pecuniary kind. Integrity is a much larger concept ---- any contradiction whatsoever between word and deed lays one open to the charge of lack of integrity that Sanjeev Bhatt makes against Narendra Modi and is himself guilty of as is his wife. You do not get my vote, Shweta Bhatt.

why 66 A happened

Whether its television or newspapers or social media or e zines, one encounters Section 66 A of the IT Act in all one's meandering journeys these days. Some commentators have read the said clause,  some haven't, some understand it, some don't, some are genuinely concerned, some are not, but every one is talking about it. We owe a debt of gratitude to K Chidambaram, B Thackeray, and Mumbai Police. Had it not been for these worthy men, each one of us would have remained in blissful ignorance of Section 66 A ----- till dragged to the nearest police station for reason of an offending FB post!

Have we asked ourselves the reason for such ignorance? There are more than 40 Bills which are either pending introduction in the Parliament, or have been introduced and are to be passed. Other than the Lokpal bill, which erupted into national conscience thanks to India Against Corruption, most of us would be hard put to name even 2 or 3 pending Bills. As for the provisions of these Bills, the level of ignorance will be even higher, notwithstanding the fact that when enacted into law, these will directly impact our lives, our rights, responsibilities and privileges.

The media too remains mostly silent ---- neither the national newspapers (with exceptions like The Hindu) nor national TV channels carry any discussion on proposed legislation. All the discussions take place, if at all, post facto.

Is it the case that we are too busy to keep ourselves abreast of developments in at least one or two large areas of public policy? I think not ---- middle class lives are far more comfortable and far less tedious than they were 30 years ago. We have plenty of leisure. What we do with our hours of leisure is, however, dictated by an almost frantic attempt to have "fun"---- lots of television, lots of shopping, lots of eating out, lots of sight seeing in India and abroad, in short, lots of stuff that places no burden on the mind. None of these activities is undesirable per se ----- but the fact that this is what we mostly do in our leisure hours and have totally dissociated ourselves from the making of public policy is disastrous for the nation. The educated middle class owes it to itself and the nation to make an effort to learn, perhaps master, those aspects of public policy that do not require expert knowledge ----- even esoteric subjects like atomic energy have some aspects that a layman could acquaint himself with if he tried. It is only a well informed citizen who can trigger/participate in public debate on issues of public importance. That such public debate can influence policy is something all of us have seen vis a vis the Lokpal bill, which would have remained in hibernation had the ordinary Indian not begun talking about it in every nook and corner of the country.  It is only when each one of us begins to participate in policy making to the best of his ability that more such successes will happen, and there will be an enrichment in the quality of our lives, the future of the nation, and the legacy that we leave behind for the next generation.

There are some excellent online resources to aid one in this effort ---- one is http://www.prsindia.org/,which aims to increase public engagement on issues of national importance. 

Let us not leave the task of nation building to the government -----let each one of us also assume that responsibility.

Akhilesh's game changer

While the UPA government flashes cash subsidy as a "game changer", Akhilesh Yadav has gone one step better and decided to withdraw prosecution proceedings in several criminal cases in which the accused belong to the minority community and are charged with the same category of offences, viz., terrorist acts.

 In a manner of speaking, Akhilesh Yadav is not on weak ground. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides vide Section 321 that the Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, withdraw from the prosecution of any person at any time before the judgment is pronounced. This provision is taken recourse to by the Central and State governments in many different types of cases. In UP itself, in the recent past, prosecution proceedings have been withdrawn against Sanjay Dutt, actor, in the cases which were registered in respect of his allegedly offensive remarks against the Mayawati government. Prosecution proceedings have also been withdrawn in several criminal cases that were lodged against farmers during the protests over land acquisition-related issues in Tappal in 2010. 

It is also a well documented fact that in many of the criminal cases involving charges of terrorist activities, the accused are acquitted after several years of incarceration. A group of teachers at Jamia Milia Islamia University has put together a compilation of 16 such cases between 1992 and 2008 that failed to hold up in court. All these cases involve youths arrested and described as terrorists, some of whom languished in jail for years before courts acquitted them, citing lack of evidence or possible tampering of evidence.

So, the action proposed by Akhilesh Yadav is neither illegal nor implausible. What makes one react so sharply, perhaps, vehemently in opposition to the proposal are the following facts:

1. While the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of a person, with the consent of the Court, and therefore appears to have adequate checks and balances against the abuse of such a provision by the Executive, the ground reality is that the Public Prosecutor is appointed by the government and rarely contradicts or opposes the wishes of the government. It is therefore likely that a government which has made up its mind will experience no resistance from the Public Prosecutor, no matter what the merits of the case.

2. A single terrorist set free could be instrumental in the deaths/loss of limb/injuries of countless innocent Indians. Will Akhilesh Yadav then step forward, assume responsibility and make good the loss of lives?

3. It is not from the minority community alone that innocent people are being arrested and jailed for years only to be set free subsequently by the courts. This is the fate that befalls many for the simple reason that our investigating agencies adopt short cuts, are used by political bosses to achieve short term political gains, still carry the colonial legacy and therefore view the ordinary citizen as a lesser being deserving indifference at best and exploitation at the worst, and do not, in any case, possess either the skills or the equipment or the will to make proper investigations and collect infallible evidence. That being the case, should we immediately review each and every criminal case pending in the courts to decide whether it merits withdrawal?

4. There are, at present, approximately 2.5 lakh undertrials in India's 1500 prisons. Of these, roughly 70 % or nearly 1.7 lakh have been booked for petty offences. Many, many of them have either undergone the maximum punishment for the alleged crime or major portion thereof without conviction. If at all Akhileh Yadav wishes to ensure that the criminal justice system with its huge backlogs and innumerable deficiencies does not cause harassment to the innocent, why does he not focus on the under trials in UP and secure the release from prison of those accused of petty offences? 

No matter how strident the denials, we know that Akhilesh Yadav is motivated not so much by compassion or a passion for justice as securing/strengthening a vote bank, whatever the repercussions.This is politics of the worst kind and reinforces my conviction that it is not so much educated politicians that we need as politicians with a conscience.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/akhilesh-govt-takes-credit-for--withdrawing--cases-closed-by-maya/1025052/0

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arrested-accused-acquitted/1004163/0

Aadhaar vs Voter ID

On Saturday, the Prime Minister launched the Aadhaar-enabled service delivery initiative in 51 districts across the country. It will be used for making pension payments, MNREGA payments, PDS distribution, scholarship payments and other social welfare schemes. As per the Prime Minister, the intended beneficiaries include 5 crore MNREGA workers, 1.5 crore students who avail of scholarships, 2 crore old age pensioners, and 3 crore families who get medical facilities. The Aadhar will also serve  as identity proof for opening bank accounts, gas and mobile connections etc, says the Prime Minister.

Could the Voter Identity card not have served the same purpose?

In a democracy, it is of utmost importance that elections invite the widest possible participation from voters and that voting be seen as participation in nation building and a primary duty of every citizen. Indian democracy suffers from many ills, not the least of which is the apathy and non participation in the electoral process of millions and millions of voters, specially those who belong to the educated middle class. If the voter identity card were made the most important document that a citizen could possess, there would be a sea change in the attitude that citizens have towards participation in the electoral process. They would begin to look at the Voter card and the attendant electoral process not as an optional activity to be undertaken at one's leisure, if at all, but as an integral part of a citizen's life. If mobile connections, gas connections, bank accounts, social welfare benefits, registration of property transactions, college admissions, stock transactions, high value purchases of consumer goods etc etc required that the Voter Identity card be presented, it would become imperative for citizens to obtain a Voter Identity card. It would be viewed then as a document as necessary to one's existence as the Ration Card once was ----- and the frequent excuse trotted out by many that they do not vote because they do not have a Voter ID card would no longer hold valid. All the demographic and bio metric information that is now being included in Aadhar could become embedded in the Voter ID card, and serve the same purposes ---- proof of identity, and a fail-safe method of preventing identity fraud and leakages of social welfare benefits.

Over the last two years, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has generated over 20 crore Aadhaar numbers and it is mandated to cover 60 crore people by March 2014. There are roughly 80 crore voters in India. Had the time, money and effort spent on Aadhar been expended on streamlining the process of obtaining Voter Identity cards, providing each and every Indian eligible to vote with a Voter ID card, and making the ID cards multi functional, Indian democracy would have benefited and there would have been far less controversy and opposition vis a vis the project.

What we will now have in Aadhar is an identity card that possesses greater utility than the Voter ID card, and is far easier to obtain. Even more than before, the indifference towards the need to get registered as a voter will flourish, and in the absence of such registration, participation in the electoral process will remain at its current low levels. The middle class will continue to watch  exposes of corrupt practices on television, extend support to anti corruption crusaders via social media, participate once in a while in protests and rallies, but when clean and competent candidates present themselves, the potential voters will remain glued to television screens, watching election analyses, and not be seen at polling booths casting their votes.

jana gana mana

 It was a primarily female audience, mothers, daughters, friends, who had decided to catch the morning show of English Vinglish. There were teenaged, giggling girls, elderly women with walking sticks, young mothers, and chiffon clad grandmothers. The excited girls in the row ahead of mine were practicing whistling ----- Sridevi's come back deserved to be thus welcomed, they said. 

Having settled down with a coffee to enjoy the movie, I was a little taken aback when I heard the request to all movie patrons to stand up for the National Anthem. Plonking my coffee on the floor, I rose to my feet, as did my mother and many others, some with alacrity, some a little slowly as they struggled to their feet. There were some in the audience, however, who remained seated -----the young girls who had been rather loud and vociferous before the announcement was made.

I am still trying to comprehend why this happened. Is it because schools and colleges have almost completely stopped playing the national anthem during the daily/periodical assembles so that the sheer force of habit no longer works in the case of our school/college going youth? Is it because there is a marked decline in the sense of pride in being an Indian? Is it because there is a growing tendency among youth to disobey/ignore directions, no matter what the nature of the direction? 

Whatever the reason, it saddened me to be a witness to such indifference to the national anthem. There are experiences which never fail to stir the heart ----a rendition of the national anthem is one of them if one learns love and regard for it in early childhood.Even as we spend huge amounts of money, time and effort educating our children, let us also make an effort to inculcate in them respect for the national anthem, an inalienable part of our identity.

de criminalising Parliament

With the public gaze resting so determinedly on politicians involved in crimes against women, some political parties have announced that they will not henceforth field such candidates. Some well meaning social activists have filed PILs in the Supreme Court, seeking suspension of MPS and MLAs with cases of crimes against women pending against them. The Supreme Court has declined the prayer, the matter being outside its jurisdiction. 

But why must we hold our breath and wait for political parties to display the good sense to not field criminals as candidates when that's something that they have not done for several decades? Why must we appeal to the courts for relief ? Why do we not demand a legal provision for disqualifying those candidates and elected representatives who have pending criminal cases?

The qualifications and disqualifications for the people's elected representatives are laid down in the Representation of The People Act, 1951 ( the Act ). At present, the law provides for disqualification of only those candidates and MPs/MLAs who are convicted of serious crimes. Because there are long delays in criminal courts, this means that people accused of serious crimes become and remain MPs/MLAs. If the disqualification clause were to kick in before the conviction, we would in one stroke be rid of such elected representatives. 

More than a year ago (4rth August, 2011), The Times of India had reported that there is a move to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951 along these lines; the move appears to have sunk without a trace. 

Proposed amendment

What is being proposed is that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 be amended so that elected representatives or candidates against whom the court has framed charges involving serious crimes are disqualified from office and contesting election respectively. 

Such a provision will remove the anomaly that MPs/MLAs who have been arrested and against whom investigations have concluded and charges framed in serious crimes continue to participate in parliamentary/government business and to draw salary, perquisites and privileges. Even when an MLA/MP gets convicted, he does not get disqualified till the appeals that he files against the judgement are finally disposed of. The corporate sector would not employ such a person and if he were a government employee, he would be placed under suspension/dismissed. Our elected representatives and political aspirants, however, enjoy a different status ----the irony is that rather than the standard of probity, it is the level of immunity from the consequences of criminal activity which is higher in their case! 

The bogey that is raised against such a provision in the Representation of People Act is that it will be abused by political rivals who, it is said, may get false/bogus FIRs registered or complaints filed in order to wreck the political aspirations of their rivals.

However, if one looks at the various stages of criminal proceedings in India, it becomes clear that this is an exaggerated and baseless apprehension. If an FIR or complaint is registered with mala fide and without sufficient ground, the case will not reach the stage of framing of charges, which is the stage at which it is proposed that disqualification clause under the Representation of the People Act should kick in.

Stages of criminal proceedings

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the CrPC) is the procedural law vis a vis the substantive criminal laws, such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and other laws that criminalise specific acts of omission or commission and lay down the penalty for such crimes. It divides the procedure to be followed in criminal cases into three stages ---- investigation, inquiry, and trial.

First stage

Investigation is the preliminary stage and begins after the recording of a First Information Report (FIR) in the police station. It includes all the action taken by the police officer for collecting evidence, ascertaining facts and circumstance, arresting the suspected offender, examination of various persons including the accused, recording their statements in writing, search and seizure, and formation of opinion as to whether, on the basis of the material collected, there is a case to place the accused before a magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for filing the charge-sheet. Investigation ends in a police report to the court.

Second stage

The court sifts and weighs the evidence placed before it to find out whether or not there is a prima facie case against the accused person(s). If, after considering the material placed before it and hearing the accused person and the prosecution , the judge considers that there is no ground or insufficient ground for proceeding, he discharges the accused . In case the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused , the court frames the charge. A charge sets out the offence that was allegedly committed by the accused person. 

Third stage

Now the charge is read over and explained to the accused. If the accused pleads guilty, the judge records the plea and may convict him.If the accused pleads not guilty , the trial begins and examination of witnesses, cross examination, examination of the accused by the court etc take place. If after taking the evidence for the prosecution and examining the accused, the judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused has committed the offence, he acquits the accused. Otherwise, a defence is entered, evidence adduced in its support and witnesses produced. After conclusion of arguments by the prosecutor and defence, the court pronounces a judgment in the trial.

As of now, the disqualification clause kicks in after stage 3 , what is proposed is that it gets set into motion after stage 2. Obviously, if a mala fide FIR has been registered by a political opponent, no charges will be framed by the court against the MP/MLA/candidate. Therefore, the argument that such an amendment will be abused by political opponents is baseless and merits not even a second look.

Why then are political parties wary of even talking about such an amendment? Because 31% of our MPs/MLAs have pending criminal cases and would be immediately disqualified!

the ignorant Indian

The Argumentative Indian ( a la Amartya Sen) has been replaced by The Ignorant Indian. Money does not grow on trees, ignorant Indians were informed yesterday by the Prime Minister. They have reacted with disbelief, and a sense of outrage.

These words are familiar to even toddlers who are thus admonished by exasperated parents when they persist in demanding an object of desire that the parent cannot afford. It is entirely possible that the toddler does not understand the phrase and perhaps tries in vain to understand what money is. As he grows older, however, the concepts of income and  expenditure begin to get assimilated, the fact that incomes have to be earned, and that income and expenditure have to be balanced. The average Indian child sees his parents balancing monthly budgets, annual budgets, festival budgets, wedding budgets. He sees how sudden illnesses demanding expenditure on medical care upsets the budget for months, and sometimes years. He sees money being saved and put aside for a two wheeler or a car or a dowry or higher education. There are exceptions, of course --- perhaps the Ambanis and Jindals and Adanis do not burden their children with such knowledge. (Even the privileged children grow up to understand these concepts ----- how else  will the business he inherits continue to make profits ? ) 

So who was the Prime Minister talking down to? Is our government so removed from reality that it does not credit the citizen with even common sense? Is it so arrogant in its belief in its infallibility that it does not make even a pretense of respecting the very people who have voted it to power? 

This is not a Prime Minister given to making extempore speeches. He does not make frequent addresses or Parliamentary interventions, nor does he conduct weekly press briefings. This is a Prime Minister whom we hardly ever hear, so the very safe presumption is that the address he delivered yesterday was carefully scripted, and was delivered with complete knowledge of its content and deliberate intent ---- and it insulted the intelligence of the ordinary Indian.

The Prime Minister did not choose to address the nation when the CAG report on coal allocations was presented in the Parliament, and a whole session of the Parliament was washed out.The CAG report has cast strong doubts upon the bona fides of the whole policy making and execution mechanism of the nation, including the Prime Minister. Yet, the Prime Minister spoke only of the need to take measures that lead to restoration of investor confidence, with not a whit of concern shown for the complete erosion of citizen confidence in the government.In fact, so strong is the government's apparent belief in the credulousness of the "ignorant" Indian that he has been asked by the Prime Minister to extend his "trust", "understanding" and 'cooperation" as the government takes "hard" decisions to secure national interest. Please note that the "hard" decisions extract a disproportionately high cost from the ordinary Indian, they place scarcely any burden at all upon the privileged Indians whose "big cars" and "SUVs" do not face any additional tax burden. 

We are living in strange times indeed ---when the price of inclusive growth is being paid by the very people who are sought to be included in the growth story! Perhaps the government believes we are oblivious to this irony.  I do not think we are, and it is time that we made that known.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Full-text-of-Prime-Minister-Manmohan-Singhs-address-to-the-nation/articleshow/16493622.cms