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 (9)

By Ritwik Agrawal | September 15, 2009 6:24 am

The Telegraph (UK) reports that Jon Amiel’s film Creation, a British project about Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution has not found a distributor in America. The film, which has secured positive early reviews, has had no problem in securing distributors in other territories all over the world.

It may be recalled that America has witnessed an acrimonious debate on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is widely accepted as the best explanation for the origin of life and evolution of various life-forms. Creationists in America refuse to accept Darwin’s theory as it clashes with ideas propagated by Christianity.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as “a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder”. His “half-baked theory” directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to “atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering”, the site stated.

It is difficult to see this incident in isolation, given the increasing intolerance and jingoism shown by vast sections of the American media over the past few years, while covering matters as diverse as Iraq, health care and outsourcing.

It is also interesting that despite the election of Barack Obama, right-wing opinions seem to hold a great amount of sway over the country. This seems to rule out any hope of genuine “change”, at least for now.

For a society that prides itself on being free, America has touched a new low. One can only hope that sense will prevail and at least one distributor will show the guts to stand up for freedom of speech, in the land that is gave us Operation Enduring Freedom

Comments (5)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 22, 2009 2:30 am

The following is a riveting drama possible only in the contradiction that is India.

*a nod to history: all characters & situations in the following work are imaginary. Any resemblence to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

The players:

The Long Arm of The Law: it is omniscient. It extends everywhere, in every domain, in every direction.

JM Lyngdoh and minions - tasked by The Long Arm of The Law to rewrite the rules of student union elections.

“Student”  ”Leaders” – who are neither one nor the other.

Universities – the canvases on which above artists show-off their wizardry.

Jawaharlal Nehru University – it happens to be an actual university [gasp!] with a functioning and vibrant students union [big gasp!] comprised of people who are students as well as leaders [gasp leading to asphyxiation]

Narrator: at times, a direct victim of aforementioned wizardry; at other times,  a scarcely believing observer of this theatrical production.

AND ….

The Report: it is the final word, to be applied in unaltered form all over the country. Logic, common sense, practicality all be damned.

Synposis:

Act 1

It is felt that student union elections are infested with corruption, overt political interference and unaccountability. The Long Arm of The Law tasks JM Lyngdoh and minions to rewrite the rules of student union elections.

Act 2

JM Lyngdoh and minions tour the country. Write what is already known: student union politics is dirty. Then they visit JNU, and document the election process in that university and immortalize it in the form of The Report. They effect certain cosmetic changes [no printed posters, for example] but otherwise are so impressed by the JNU election process that they essentially plagiarize it. They mention that elections in JNU are vibrant, participative, issue-oriented, non-violent and non-coercive.

Act 3

The theatre shifts to Delhi University. The Report mandates that “Student” “Leaders” must have a certain minimum attendance, otherwise they’d be barred from the election process. This results in established party candidates magically acquiring 90% attendance overnight. A clean independent candidate like the Narrator is conveniently dispensed with through this filter.

Other points of The Report – like campaign expenditure limits, non-use of vehicles, even non-use of printed posters all lie in tatters. Voter turnout plummets to 25%, from 45% an year ago.  Thus, voter participation also lies in tatters.

The Result: DU elections proceed as before, with no qualitative change whatsoever. However, on paper The Report has been implemented. This is to the satisfaction of The Long Arm Of The Law.

Act 4

JNU elections are held. Lyngdoh recommendations are not implemented because they are already in place [Lyngdoh copied from JNU, remember?]. Printed posters and pamphletes are still allowed. Unlike DU, these pamphletes stress on issues and ideology. They are not modelling portfolios of candidates like in DU.

A new students union is chosen. It does good work, like raising the issue of labourers on campus not being paid minimum wages. [contrast this with illustrious "Student" "Leaders" in other universities].

But The Long Arm Of the Law is unamused. Criticizes JNU for not implementing The Report. Suspends the union.

Result: Union is still suspended. The country’s most vibrant and effective students union movement has suffered a massive setback. Nobody knows what is going to happen next.

Act 5 – Conclusion:

The Report set out to duplicate the JNU model in other universites. Other universities function as before; the report is implemented only on paper.The JNU election process is on life-support, desperately seeking blood transfusion.

The Law is satisfied in its glory.

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.