Comments (7)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 17, 2010 2:38 am

Ours is a law-loving country.  Deprivation, oppression and crime are rampant. However our esteemed leadership cannot be accused of not doing enough legislatively to contain these problems. It’s a different matter that our bewildering gamut of laws usually end up multiplying aforesaid problems.

Readers would hardly need reminding of the far-sighted legislation that imposed a blanket ban on smoking in public places. Every major college and university now have big boards that declare them to be no smoking zones. Of course, this has caused all professors in say, JNU to give up smoking overnight. If there exists a place where this glorious objective has not been achieved then that is a lacuna of implementation. Of course, there could be nothing wrong with the law itself, even if it is making law breakers out of all us.

Or we could take the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 which somehow applies to Delhi and which bans the sale of alcohol to those under 25 years of age. I feel tempted to repeat the oft quoted line about being mature enough to vote and drive at 18 …

The latest such initiative comes from the Women and Child Development Ministry. This department has already given us controversial legislation like the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, which though noble in spirit, are overly susceptible to misuse. Earlier this year, the Ministry saw a change of guard when the last minister lost her Lok Sabha seat. There was  some hope that her successor will not display excessive zeal but would instead focus on deliverables.

This time, though, the Ministry has outdone itself, thus sending out an emphatic signal that it will continue to battle common sense regardless of changes at the top.

So what has happened? The Times of India reports that the Ministry is “piloting” a legislation that will make it possible for the authorities to penalize and even jail parents who beat their kids. In fact, it goes beyond that as the “comprehensive” draft bill, which not surprisingly, has been drafted after consultations with “civil society” seeks to prevent the abuse of children by parents, schools, day care centres, workplaces etc etc. It even seeks to cover ragging.

Of course, any effort to strengthen the legal framework to deal with child abuse is laudable, but some salient features of the proposed legislation require closer examination:

The proposed punishment for the first offence is one year imprisonment or a fine of Rs 5,000 that can be raised to three years’ imprisonment for a second offence with a fine of Rs 25,000.

Maybe I am reading this wrong. But the above seems to say that if ever this law is passed and implemented [which in India, as noted above, are two very different things] then any reasonably well off parent can get off by paying a paltry fine. However the same amount can be backbreaking for any of the country’s countless poor people. Maybe I ought to have more faith in our police system, but I cannot let go off the idea that this gives yet another tool for unscrupulous policemen to harass and torture the poor. Might it be that  the “civil society” activists who have consulted on the bill missed this insignificant detail?

The draft bill says, “Whoever intentionally inflicts physical penalty on a child for disciplinary purposes shall be punished for the offence of corporal punishment.”

Whoever means “family member, school, relatives, neighbours, friends, educational or care giving institutions, prisons and homes set up under the Juvenile Justice Act.” Again, maybe it’s just me but this seems awfully broad ranging. What will happen in case of a fight between two children, say one who is 14 and the other 17 ? Maybe the aggressor could be sent to one of our homely juvenile justice homes, which we can expect to be homelier still once this bill has been cleared.

It is obvious that the proposed bill is yet another act of over-zealousness which seeks to achieve social objectives by force of law, rather than investing in necessary social and cultural reform. It will be non-implementable, because of its sheer impracticality. That does not bother me as much as the fact that unlike the equally stupid anti-smoking law, the proposed bill has inherently greater scope for misuse and harassment.

Comments (6)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 9, 2010 6:17 pm

A few days back, thugs belonging to a radical Islamist outfit called Popular Front chopped off the right hand of Prof. T.J. Joseph, a private college lecturer in Muvattapuzha in Kerala as “punishment” for the  ”offence” of hurting religious sentiments. The Hindu has covered this story in some detail.

Dilip D’Souza has raised some pertinent questions in this regard:

* Why the college management “apologised”.

* Why the Kerala government saw fit to issue “instructions” that the professor should be suspended.

* Why the college followed the government’s instruction and suspended him.

* Why the police lodged a case against the professor.

The following is worth noting as well:

T. Vikram, Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, who was camping in the area, said: “We have talked to church leaders to convince them that an all-out effort is being made to nab the culprits.” (as reported in The Hindu)

I don’t understand why the police needed to specifically assure church leaders that the perpetrators of this ghastly attack will be brought to justice? Surely these “church leaders” should have been incensed regardless of the religious affiliation of the victim?

Of course, this episode would not have even become a news story had the attackers not committed the tactical error of chopping off Joseph’s hand. As it is, they had him on the run. A little bit of shouting from the rooftops had ensured that:

1. Joseph was suspended from his job. In what capacity did the state Government instruct a PRIVATE institute to suspend an employee is not clear.

2. He was picked up and harassed by the police.

3. After getting out on bail, he went into hiding to escape frequent death threats. In response, the police put out a wanted poster for his arrest

Why exactly were the government and the police so keen to prosecute Prof. Joseph? Why were the charges of “hurting religious sentiments” believed at face value and not investigated properly? What constrained the government to apply the serious charge of “fomenting communal hatred” on the Professor? What about the concept of an educational institution being an open space? Why did the state not defend Prof. Joseph’s fundamental right to expression?

Maybe the secular, progressive and people friendly Left Democratic Front government of Kerala can provide some answers.

Comments (0)

By Ritwik Agrawal | August 5, 2009 4:05 am

Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe

Wonder how Indian leftists [in politics, media and academia] will go about defending this.

Hugo Chavez - revolutionary leader of the third world in the fight against American imperialism and messiah of the people, has not had much to say since the end of the Bush Presidency.

After all, George W Bush was everything a demagogue like Chavez could ever hope for.

Over the last decade or so, Chavez cleverly mixed socialist rhetoric & populist economic policies with shrill anti-Bush vitriol to win a cult following all over the world. In India too, Chavez has a committed band of sympathizers, including the entire spectrum of communist parties in the country. For example, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) proclaims:

Under President Chavez’s leadership, a radical transformation is taking place in Venezuela.
-People’s Democracy, December 12, 2004  (link)

All over the world, those inimical to Bush were more than ready to welcome Chavez with open arms, inspite of the fact that his authoritarian streak has become increasingly evident over the years. Even while he spewed venom on Bush, Chavez had no qualms about glorifying fascist Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

Chavez has been relatively quiet for the past few months. As Denis Macshane notes in the Guardian, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States robbed Chavez of his main anti-American plank.

But his enthusiastic supporters needn’t worry any longer, for their maverick leader has found a new enemy: the free press.

Hugo Chavez’s government has introduced a new draft law against “media offences”. Some provisions of this law:

Journalism hostile to the social peace, the security and independence of the nation can be punished by prison sentences of between six months and four years.

Journalists will also break the proposed new law if their writings are seen as an attack on public order or Venezuelans’ “mental or moral health”. Article 5 threatens imprisonment for “false information” that is prejudicial to the interests of the state.

On careful reading, it immediately becomes clear that such provisions can be used to muzzle the media to an almost unlimited extent.

Put simply, it means that once the proposed law is passed, journalists in Venezuela who do the kind of investigative stories that Tehelka excels in would find themselves behind bars.

Distressingly, the wording of the law runs counter to the very nature of journalism, which, in its true sense, is MEANT to highlight systemic lapses, instead of brushing them under the carpet.

One can imagine the [justifiable] protests that would ensue if such a law were ever to be conceived of in India or Western Europe or America.

I hope that our “opinion makers” [especially of the leftist/socialist/communist variety] do not shy away from condemning Chavez’s attempts at taming the media in the strongest possible terms.

After all, if Chavez’s “21st century Socialism” is such a panacea, then the people must not be deprived of an opportunity to hear about it from the press!

Comments (4)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 28, 2009 3:44 am

Last week there was much drama following the unexpected courtroom confession of Mohammad Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’.  By owning up to his crimes, the terrorist managed to take the court and the public prosecutor by surprise. Kasab, who had pleaded not guilty on an earlier occasion, wished that he given the death penalty, ostensibly to ease his feeling of ‘guilt’.

Maharashtra chief minister  Ashok Chavan too expressed a desire for the quick completion of the trial, resulting in the hanging of the accused.

The rationale for awarding the death penalty to Kasab is strong. His crime unquestionably falls into the “rarest of rare” category, which is the Supreme Court mandated requirement for a criminal to be hanged unto death.

According to our legal system, Kasab should be hanged for the sheer barbarity, audacity and scale of his crime. For the fact that he and his accomplices crossed into foreign territory, fired indiscriminately at innocent civilians, killed persons in uniform and tried to destroy heritage structures and take hostages.

Hanging Kasab would presumably provide closure to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the Mumbai attacks.

Ujjwal Nikam, the public prosecutor in the case, has argued that Kasab confessed to win sympathy and somehow avoid the death penalty.

I think he misses the point entirely, or more probably, chooses to gloss over Kasab’s true intentions.

It is an inconvenient truth that young boys like Kasab are systematically brainwashed using a potent mixture of religious and national ‘pride’. Such recruits and their families are assured of the “glory” of the mission and their place in history. It is repeatedly drilled into impressionable young minds that their “sacrifice” would not be in vain and would in fact corner the highest rewards. They would be honoured forever as heroes and martyrs.

Few things match the appeal of the idea of sacrificing one’s life while fighting for a cause.

Thus in many ways, the people and the ideology which converted Kasab into a cold blooded killer would actually want him dead. Used once, he is not of any utility to them; his death though would presumably give them another “martyr” whose “memory” would serve to inspire countless others.

In light of this, though I can see the legal and sentimental reasons which demand that Kasab be hanged, I sometimes wonder, whether Kasab should be given life imprisonment [for the extent of his natural lifetime, without an option of parole]? This would send out a message that we are ready to fight terrorism ideologically, not just legally. This would be one example which would hopefully force terrorist masterminds to ponder and maybe recalibrate their strategies.

At least, we would, for once, be taking the initiative in the so called “war” against terrorism.

Comments (6)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 19, 2009 3:55 am

Its common to say – “this only happens in India”. Perversely, a lot of Indians have even begun saying this with a degree of affection for the chaos prevalent in this country.

To balance this perspective somewhat, and also as a concerned “citizen of the world”, I present to you a deeply unsettling development that hasn’t happened in India (yet):

The British Government has drawn up new guidelines “to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults.” A new body called the Independent Safeguaring Authority has been established which is responsible for issuing licenses to anybody who wants to work or volunteer with the aforementioned vulnerable sections of society.

I’ll just say it again: anybody intending to work or volunteer with kids, even an author who wants to read out pages from a book, will need to be certified as safe by a quasi-government body.

This is so incredible that I cannot find words to express my outrage. So I leave that to a professional writer:

It seems to be fuelled by a combination of prurience, sexual fear and cold political calculation, when you go into a school as an author or an illustrator you talk to a class at a time or else to the whole school. How on earth — how on earth — how in the world is anybody going to rape or assault a child in those circumstances? It’s preposterous.”
-Phillip Pullman

I would like to add that this move seems to have resulted from an absurd kind of political correctness, one that runs like “kids should be protected at all costs, even at the cost of social sanity”.

This really has brought home to me the sheer extent to which governments have started entering people’s life. What the f*** happened to the counter culture? Where is the universal declaration of human rights? How is this even possible under a democratic regime?

Charlie’s Diary talks about the considerable ill effects of such a move, and the very real danger of false positives.

But beyond that,  this sucks also because it makes the system extremely unforgiving. There is simply no scope for an offender to reform. Commit one offence, or even be doubted of an offence and the government can bar you from working in a school, or in a day care centre, or as a school bus driver, presumably even as a traffic warden.

I can only hope and pray that common sense will prevail and the ISA will be dismantled.