Desicritics Category: Politics: Freedom

Is India Still Socialist?

thedailypheesh — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:36:05 EDT

The Supreme Court recently 'dismissed as withdrawn' a petition by an NGO challenging the insertion of the word 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, terming it a mere academic matter. It seems the court used the term 'academic' in the sense of nobody relevant (read political parties) having raised it at this point of time.

Now all we can do is merely speculate the relevance of the term socialism in the Preamble. Ignore the fact that India's largest company, largest bank, largest steel producer etc etc are all state-owned; one could hope that the word would be retained to at least give students a faint glimpse of the time when our national priorities seemed a bit different. But, says the NGO which filed the petition, market reforms mean that expecting political parties to swear to uphold socialism is a mere dichotomy.

This implies that a certain vision that animated the use of the word socialism is bankrupt merely because of 20 years of reforms. Would such an approach also imply that there should be no ban on child labour simply because we have failed to eradicate it over 63 years? Obviously not. Thus, the point the petition seeks to make is that socialism no longer occupies any place in the 'national consensus'; that we have reached a stage where socialism is no longer one of those goals which we aspire to, despite our innumerable failures to attain it.

The constitution of a country is not a mere rule book. True, it is a site of contestation. But one would hope the contestation is towards a greater aim, a nobler society. Socialism means a lot of things to a lot of people but no one can deny it seeks greater egalitarianism and a greater role for the collective in deciding the future of their labour. That such an aim, no matter the ways to achieve it, would not be part of a constitution seems a very blinkered way of perceiving the future of a county.

On a related note, there has long been a contention that India has lacked a conservative movement on par with those in the west. Two decades after the economic reforms it would seem that what we call civil society, comprising a variety of(though not all) NGOs have emerged as the torch-bearers of conservative ideology. Products of and truly indebted to the LPG wave, favouring the limited role of the state in economic and administrative affairs and against any radical overhaul of the economic and social foundation, they seem to best embody the limited-government principles of the conservative movement. This petition, while insignificant in its own right, is a small pointer to the solid emergence of this movement.

PS. The crowning irony of course, is that legal eagle Fali. S. Nariman, arguing the case for the NGO, cited Ambedkar's opposition to the introduction of socialism. Yes, ignore the rest of that man's voluminous and often beautifully curt writing about a host of issues including caste and pick up that bit about socialism!

Rhetoric?

Kaushik Chatterji — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:49:24 EDT

More than 77% of our country's population lives on less than 20 Rs per day. This is not any random statistic I just came up with - it is the official figure provided by the NCEUS. The top 1% - the rich - control a ridiculous amount of wealth. The figure's probably not as obscene as the USA, but it's more worrisome given our population. Then again, 1% of 110 crore - 1.1 crore - can hardly be termed as insignificant. Even the top 0.01% - the bracket that is ordinarily called "super rich" - constitutes 1.1 lakh people, but it is only when we have a look at those levels that we get even a vague idea of concentration of wealth and the associated disparities.

But we, who are firmly rooted in and around the middle of that 22% bracket, continue not to give a damn about that 77%. Instead, we scramble to lap up whatever little crumbs are thrown our way by that 1%. Some of us vote (many of us don't even do that), plan (but don't evade) our taxes and work hard (and while we are at it, step over tons of people who are in a similar position as us if not worse off). We work hard just so that our overlords feel pleased and in a moment of weakness decide to marginally increment the amount of crumbs to be thrown our way. Our overlords - a bunch of people who are amassing wealth by multiples of thousands of crores and openly competing against each other in terms of their personal collections of private yachts and jets, and have the clout to get away with genocide over and over again, let alone something as petty as murder. Our overlords - the owners of big businesses, the industrialists, the corporates, the capitalists; the parliamentarians and other so-called democratic politicians, as well as the highest circles of bureaucracy; the media, redundant as it is to mention it separately since it is nothing but just another really big business.

Rhetoric? Yes. Each and every aforementioned word, nay, character even. Close your eyes and close this tab/window. Immediately. Do not, I repeat, do not snap out of the dream. Pay 200 bucks to see a film that cost 60 crores to make and market in a plush multiplex. Be fooled by clever advertising, give in to temptation and spend your hard-earned money on things that do not matter. Better still, adopt a pseudo-liberal stance, optimize your social media presence and make yourself heard - on blogs, forums, Twitter, Facebook, online, offline, newspaper readers' opinion columns, news channel talk shows, etc. etc. Shun religion, caste, region, language, community, gender and all those other entities that cause biases and divides. All but one, that is. Money, 'coz if it weren't for the economically privileged, how would these biases persist and how would we be made privy to their existence?

Once upon a time, it might have been the White Man's Burden, but as things stand now, especially in our country, tearing down the walls that stand between people is the Rich Man's Burden. All we - we who are not yet rich but who aren't exactly struggling to make ends meet - need to do is support them, and maintain just this one partition - the one that is root cause of each and every other one of them.

Right to Information, State Accountability, and Wikileaks

Ruchi — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:53:53 EDT

Please see note below

There is natural tension between the State and the public on the question of transparency. Authoritarian states by definition limit access to information. In democratic states, democracy manifests itself as elections, which reduces incentive for routine oversight (to delay judgment) and in case of ruling government’s culpability, creates a disincentive for transparency. In addition, democratic states necessarily follow a capitalist model of development, either by choice or obligation (IMF, World Bank, Free Trade Agreements). While the premise of a democratic government is at least partly altruistic and redistributive (in addition to security and maintenance of law and order) thereby deriving the moral rationale for taxation, the premise of capitalism is the pursuit of self-interest and maximization of profit for a small group of people. Internally as well, corporations aren’t democratic – divergent interests are resolved not by open discussion but by pure might (preferential ownership; bulk of the share holders don’t have voting rights). With increasing size of private corporations and increasing privatization of governance, democratic states are adopting corporate ethos of opacity, consolidation of power and growing authoritarianism. This authoritarian tendency is in the true sense of the phrase, not “politically correct” and in the past fifteen years, sixty countries have passed laws to facilitate public access to state information. However institutional reticence to transparency is evidenced by the fact that only a fraction of these countries have a whistleblower’s law[1]to protect the individual who exposes institutional corruption from reprisal. When the institution in question is public, states with whistleblower’s law frequently undermine their own legislation[2] by blocking publicity, investigation, and counter intuitively pressing criminal charges on the whistleblower! The last is aimed at deterring future whistleblowers, and stems from the desire to retain control – of fragmentary transparency and hence accountability – to release only that information, the consequences of which can be accommodated in business as usual, and to calculatedly deploy state infrastructure against the will of the people.

There are obvious limits of a state legislated and managed RTI/FOI regime: first and foremost, the State defines the categories of exempt information. Security and intelligence agencies are both outside the ambit, with good rationale though increasingly less defensible given their disproportionate contribution to instances of human rights violations. Exempt categories are further susceptible to spurious classification, where information is withheld not to preserve the integrity and/or security of the State but its machinery and/or functionaries. Second, there are many ways of subverting the spirit of the act through shoddy implementation (conveniently transferring culpability to a frontline official from the institution). In India, this manifests itself as lack of information management, ignoring Section 4 (proactive dissemination), harassing applicants, convoluted processes, high pendency[3] etc. Lastly, since the application for information is initiated by a beneficiary, there are two drawbacks: the disadvantage of being an outsider who cannot know of the universe of relevant information; second, a David and Goliath scenario pitching an individual against the might of the State to obtain information of public interest but without the force of the citizen collective.

An independent website, Wikileaks (launched in 2006) aims to fill this gap. “WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. […] WikiLeaks information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations and individuals. Once a document published it is essentially impossible to censor[4].” Notable publications of the website include a report on toxic dumping in Africa by Trafigura, a US military video that shows American soldiers killing eighteen people in Baghdad including two Reuters photographers, Climategate emails, and tax evasion by American citizens in connivance with Swiss bank, Julius Baer. In India, Wikileaks published the UIDAI approach document in November 2009. It’s interesting to note that the respective state apparatuses had blocked public access to this information: UK ordered a super injunction[5] against the publication of Trafigura report; Reuters tried unsuccessfully to obtain the Baghdad video for three years under the American FOIA; Julius Baer succeeded in temporarily knocking down the Wikileaks website after obtaining a permanent injunction against the website and domain registrar in a California court; and allegedly numerous RTI applications had been made to get more information about the UID project. Julian Assange, one of the founders of the website says, “Open government is strongly correlated to quality of life. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it (plans which cause injustice are revealed and opposed before implementation). Open government exposes, and so corrects, corruption. Historically, the most resilient form of open government is one where leaking and publication is easy. Public leaking, being an act of ethical defection to the majority, is by its nature a democratising force.” There are some features that make Wikileaks or a similar concept of a private leaking system worth consideration:

Establishes global accountability: Freedom of information laws often mandate citizenship of the country. However, in a globalized world, states are accountable not to just their citizens, but to the global citizenry. America’s “war against terror” has changed the global landscape; the financial crisis of 2007-2010 has had global consequences; global warming affects us all. The need for concerted global action makes global transparency imperative. For instance, one classified CIA report on shoring support in Europe for the war in Afghanistan states “public apathy enables leaders to ignore voters” and goes on to discuss the different ways to manipulate the public in France/Germany to support their country’s continued presence in Afghanistan. The report is an indictment of the unilateral nature of America’s battle in Afghanistan and its disdain for democracy.
Ensures anonymity of the whistleblower: States are increasingly crushing dissidence through draconian laws and their application. Obama despite campaigning on a platform of transparency is aggressively pursuing Bush-era whistleblowers, all of who exposed high-level illegal activity. In India, the government has cynically used TADA, POTA and UAPA essentially classifying the right to dissent in a democracy as terrorism. In this situation, not only is it impossible for the whistleblower to use formal mechanisms to trigger correction but there’s also a high probability of reprisal against the individual. India’s most famous whistleblower, Satyendra Dubey was murdered in 2003[6] after writing to then Prime Minister, Vajpayee about high-level corruption in the NHAI (despite widespread outrage, India has not passed a whistleblower’s law). Further anonymizing the individual’s identity in no way detracts from the substance of the leak, and also reduces incentive to publish information for personal profit. Wikileaks operates a series of complex technological and other measures to protect sources, and claims that no source has been revealed in the three years of its operations[7].
Circumvents state: A question worth asking is whether the state can be held accountable through state legislated and controlled mechanisms. History is replete with examples where the State has used the police, investigative agencies and even the judiciary for its own ends. In India, the two main anticorruption agencies, CBI and CVC lack independence and frequently close investigations with questionable conclusions[8]. Governments also prevent public mobilization with the use of gag orders[9], not only to suppress and censor information, but also the fact that the information has been suppressed!
Uncovers spurious classification into exempt categories: The history of leaked classified documents reveal content kept secret not to protect the security/integrity of the State but to protect the might/authority of the State machinery. This brings into the public domain unconstitutional/unethical means adopted by the Government and hidden from its constituents through false classification.
Exposes state hypocrisy: Even though China has a Freedom of Information Act, it blocks all URLs with the word “wikileaks” in it[10]. The US, which can’t censor so obviously commissioned a counterintelligence report to take down Wikileaks, perversely citing China’s blanket blocking as justification.
Expedites timelines: In India, publishing the UID document online forced the Chairman, Nandan Nilekani to release the document as well, leading to increased media coverage and public discourse on a government project of great public interest. In a less direct measure, the publication of the Baghdad video and report on Afghanistan will decrease domestic and international support for US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan increasing pressure for disengagement.

While the purpose of such institutions is to promote transparency and accountability in large corporations, the integrity[11] of such institutions themselves is internally policed and inextricably linked with the integrity of its executives. Opacity is built into the Wikileaks model (understandably given the many attempts to take down the site) however this lends itself to unaccountable discretion to filter information – what is received, what is put out, how and when it’s put out. Legitimacy of democratic state institutions is contingent on, inter alia, equal treatment of all citizens and constituencies through due process of law – citizens voluntarily give up some freedoms to the state under this very assurance – however private institutions are not obligated to neutrality. For Wikileaks to serve as an alternative/complement to legislated freedom of information regimes, it must evolve mechanisms to ensure (both in implementation and appearance) that its internal bias is not reflected in the information put out. Finally the sticking point with both Wikileaks and Freedom of Information laws is that information does not exist in a vacuum. Merely making information public will not necessarily catalyze social change – information must also be accessible (understandable). Moreover for information to have meaning, corresponding mechanisms must be developed to force (and sustain) state accountability. Institutions have longevity that often transcends the people who direct it, and while ad-hoc embarrassing information may have consequences at the personal/party level, institutions will remain unaffected without an active inquisitive citizenry.

Note: Bulk of this piece was written before the arrest of Bradley Manning for being the alleged source of the Iraq video and also the Garani massacre in Afghanistan. Bradley apparently initiated a series of chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo and revealed his identity. Based on the heavily edited chat transcripts put out Wired, it is evident that Lamo baited Bradley in these chats, asking him incriminating questions with the full intention of outing him (there is also the disturbing question of when government officials were involved and their complicity in eliciting confession). In the fallout, Wikileaks is under attack and founder, Julian Assange hunted by the US DoD. Even three weeks after arrest,Bradley Manning has not been chargesheeted. Bradey, Julian and other Wikileaks members are all on the right side of history, and deserve our support. To learn more, please follow Wikileaks on Twitter or visit the Wikileaks site and follow links from there

[1] A whistleblower brings to the public notice an act of institutional wrongdoing by an employee, and is therefore a natural complement to freedom of information laws.

Countries with existing/draft whistleblower laws: UK (Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998); US (Whistleblowers Protect Act of 1989, 1994); South Africa (Protected Disclosures Act, 2000), Australia, Norway, Canada, South Korea, Argentina, Russia, Slovakia, Mexico and Nigeria

[2] Obama’s pursuit and escalation of Bush era whistleblowers; Super injunctions in UK

[3] A recent Delhi HC judgment struck down single benches as unconstitutional ruling that all information commissioners should pass judgments together. This will increase pendency further

[4] Wikileaks .Org– About Us

[5] Gag order in the UK, which prohibits publicizing even the fact of gagging

[6] Satyendra Dubey’s case was closed in March 2010 by the CBI, which concluded that the murder was the fall-out of a botched robbery and not connected to the alleged criminal nexus at NHAI

[7] Bradley Manning was recently detained by the US military for being the alleged source of the Iraq video and also the Garani massacre in Afghanistan. Note: Bradley revealed his identity himself in a series of online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo.

[8] Lalu Yadav, Mayawati, Shibu Soren etc

[9] US: Patriot Act National Security Letter; UK: super injunctions

[10] Wikileaks hosts multiple cover sites (mirror sites with different names) to allow access even from China. These cover sites change frequently, and current names can be googled outside of China

[11] Some comments by Julian Assange on the financial and attribution integrity of Wikileaks

Our funds audited according to German, Australian, Swedish, French, Swiss and US law and most of our funds are even blind to us to prevent donor influence.
There has never been a documented case of WikiLeaks misattributing a document. We have a perfect record over three years of publishing. Compare this record with any other publisher of political materials.
In the US a lot of the anti-wikileaks propaganda comes from military apologists attempting to undermine the strength of http://collateralmurder.com/ by attacking its messenger. However, read that website carefully and all statements made in the video itself. You will see that even after other details have come to light, none require corrections. Why? Because we fact checked–to the degree of sending people to the most dangerous part of Baghdad during election time to do it. Who else has such demanding standards?
We push the ideal of “scientific journalism” — all primary sources for every article made available. It’s our invention because we love fact-checking and want others to check our facts to prove our good work.
On the balance issue. You’re right. We don’t believe in “balance”—we believe in accuracy and fairness. That is an important difference and a higher standard. The truth is not revealed by balancing the lies of competing powergroups–that is a job for politicians. We, as servants of the historical record, have a higher standard.

International Violence against Women Act Faces Stiff Opposition From Unexpected Quarter

Sumanth — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:01:48 EDT

A Human life is full of sufferings. However concern for fellow human beings must always be accompanied by Compassion. Concern without compassion is called fraud.On Feb 04, 2010, Senator John Kerry and others reintroduced I-VAWA (International Violence against Women Act) in Senate and US House of representatives. This bill if passed will fund 1 Billion Dollars for forcing Governments across 10 to 15 countries for stringent laws and policies to prevent violence against women. This bill is handled by Senate and House Foreign Affairs Committees.

Video of Senator John Kerry introducing I-VAWA:

Within two weeks of introduction of the bill in both Senate and House, the members of Save Indian Family Foundation and the Civil Liberties Groups in US started opposing it saying that this bill will not help the abused women, but will only lead to Civil Liberties Violations by jailing of innocent men, women and children under gender biased laws in many countries including India. They wanted statutory language in this bill to prevent this one billion dollars getting into vested interests, agencies and NGOs, who undermine civil liberties.

Flyers were distributed and several meetings were held in offices of Senators and House Representatives in last couple of months to convey them about the dangers of such ideological activism being made a part of US foreign policy. (link, link)

I-VAWA bill is mainly pushed by Amnesty International with support from Womenthrive and Family Violence Prevention Fund. On October 2009, Nicole Kidmann, as UNIFEM goodwill ambassador went to the Subcommittee on foreign relations with a team of feminists to convince them to created wider support for this 1 billion dollar program. (link )

If this bill is implemented, then the 1 billion dollars will be given to NGOs across 10 to 20 countries directly or via USAID (United States Agency for International Development), the charity arm of US State Department that operates in many countries. In India, USAID already has an aid program of about 100 million dollars per year. Needless to say, the main motive behind USAID is not charity due to compassion for fellow human beings, but to influence foreign policy and business interests under the guise of charity. As the press releases of the I-VAWA bill contain terms like dowry murders and honour killings, it is almost certain that India will be included under the scope of this program and USAID in India may get as much as 100 million dollars to fund the NGOs and feminist ideologues to push for many more biased women, rather wife centric laws in India for prevention of violence against women.

The main problems with the I-VAWA bill are that it is too simplistic and naïve and it assumes too much. For example, it assumes that a package of laws created for women’s empowerment will automatically end violence against women ignoring the issues like corrupt police and dysfunctional judicial systems in many of these targeted countries. The bill also ignores the issues of possible Civil Liberties Violations and “Family Breaking” in cultures and societies which may be very different from US. The bill is just a “One size Fits All” Made-in-US package for solving problems in societies, where systems and cultures are much more complex, which an American may take decades to grasp.

Proponents of I-VAWA ignore Civil Liberties Violations:

The main proponent of this bill is Amnesty International. For many years Amnesty International has opposed the changes in “Section 498a of Indian Penal Code (IPC)” to stop its misuse and arrests of innocent men, women and children. So, the belief system here is, when it comes to women’s issues, Civil Liberties Violations can be justified even by Amnesty International. The same organization is pushing for I-VAWA now.

Bikramjeet Batra, Legal Officer of Amnesty International writes in 2004, ignoring the civil liberties violations due to abuse of section 498a (dowry law) (link):

All laws are capable of and subject to abuse and misuse – including Section 498A. The solution does not lie in dismissing the law or taking away its teeth completely by making it compoundable and bailable. This is akin to throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

Section 498a is one of the 3 domestic violence prevention laws in India, which was implemented in 1983, about a decade before US implemented Violence against Women Act (VAWA). This law considers the accused men, women and children to be guilty till proven innocent. In last 5 years, more than 550,000 men, 160,000 women and scores of children were harassed, traumatized, arrested or jailed in India under this law.

Section 498a directly violates several articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (link):

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

USAID in India has categorically opposed the amendments to this law even though it conducted a research about misuse of 498a in 2005. It has created a radical organization called womenpowerconnect.org, which has been a strong voice against amendments to section 498a.

The research report and seminar contents are available in links below:

http://www.csrindia.org/attachments/Research%20-%20498A.pdf
http://www.498a.org/contents/Publicity/CSRStudy_FinalSeminarReport.pdf

It is to be noted that the public opinion in India and Indian Government is towards amending section 498a of IPC to prevent its misuse and put an end to arrests of innocent men, women and children. As “women’s empowerment” is a highly politically correct topic and the powerful international agencies like USAID, UNIFEM, Amnesty International and their supported lapdogs in India are opposed to it, the Government of India is afraid of making amendments to this law. Indian Supreme Court and even Indian president have warned several times about this controversial highly misused law.

Interestingly, USAID is involved in some other issues as well. It was bragging about how it created a lobby group to amend Indian constitution for reservation of 33% seats in Indian Parliament for women by denying the men the right to contest in elections. (www.usaid.gov/in/newsroom/iwd_celeb.htm)

Now, why the hell USAID, a part of US State Department, meddling in a constitutional amendment in India? Whether there will be 30% or 10% reservation for women in parliament will be decided by people of India. Who the hell USAID is to force that on us? Needless to say, US has forced 33% reservation for women in many other countries including Afghanistan. This is highly inappropriate and irresponsible on the part of US State Department that it dared to touch the constitution of India and undermined India’s democracy.

All these activities of USAID are completely inconsistent with what the founding fathers of United State of America stood for.

US based columnist Carry Robert calls this activity an "Ugly American Initiative"(link).

The agencies pushing I-VAWA somehow would like all of us to believe that, when it comes to laws for women’s empowerment, the Civil Liberties can be ignored. This thought process extremely dangerous. It will be a foreign policy disaster, if US does not rein in its own agencies, which undermine Civil Liberties Violations and democracy in other countries.

Let us look at two specific instances of Civil Liberties Violations here one involving a 2 month old girl and another involving a 92-year old woman. Does it bother the officials of Amnesty International, UNIFEM, USAID or US Government?If they consider it a problem of Indian police and judiciary, while supporting section 498a in current form, then they are meddling in Indian affairs without responsibility or compassion.That necessitates closure of their offices and operations in India.We do not need them here.

Stepmom Names Two-Month-Old in Dowry FIR (link)

In diapers, lying in her mother's lap and yet to sprout teeth, but Zoya is an accused in a dowry harassment case. The two-month-old baby was named along with seven adults by her stepmother in a complaint letter to the police. What is worse is that the police has included the child's name in the FIR [“First Information Report,” the Indian equivalent of a police report]. Her mom: I told them (police) that she is a baby and how can you write her name in the police FIR.

92 year old woman dragged to police stations (link)

The officer in-charge of Bainsada police station had arrested Badan Devi (92), a widow, and her 40-yearold daughter Minatee of Ichhapur village on Saturday. The police action followed an FIR lodged by the woman's daughter-in-law, Santilata. Police did not even bother to make special arrangements for the old woman. They virtually dragged the tottering accused" to court along with other criminals.

The Senators and Congressmen cannot pass a bill in US Congress any more ignoring the diversion of funds for conducting radical experiments on complex societies by some fringe ideologues in US. US cannot afford anti-American protests across various cities across India for funding programs that violate civil liberties.

In a region, where there are a billion Muslims, who hate America and a billion plus Chinese, who are talking of using debt as a strategic weapon against US, can US afford to alienate at least a section of billion plus Indians with its ugly American initiatives?

SIF members and others responded angrily to US Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer in his blog, as he started talking about creating a package of laws to eliminate domestic violence in India. Within days, he found that the costs of US’s misadventures towards creating heavy incentives towards “Family Breaking” and ignoring Civil Liberties Violations can prove to be very costly.

He tried to distance US Stand in the issue of Section 498a calling it as an internal matter between Indian people and Indian Government. This has to be welcomed. However, till the time US State Department does not clean up USAID and the ideologues who worked for sustaining laws that violate Civil Liberties, the issues will not be considered resolved.(http://blogs.usembassy.gov/roemer/2010/05/04/section-498a/)

As a result of my postings about the importance of support for women’s rights and empowerment, I have received a number of comments criticizing Section 498A. Clearly, this is a very controversial law about which people have strong feelings. It is fortunate that we live in this great democracy where Indians can debate these kinds of issues honestly and openly. In fact, Indian laws are best debated among Indians and I can only hope that Indian society will find a path that will lead to fairness for all – men, women and children.

SIF’s current stand is that US State Department must close down all USAID funded programs in India and close down its office in US Embassy. One must not allow an agency which undermines democracy, promotes violation of civil liberties and meddles with our constitution to operate in Indian soil. Its 100 million dollars (a mere 450 crores) programs are not even a drop in the ocean and that charity tokenism must be put to an end. SIF also warned the US Senators and Congressmen to use special statutory language in the I-VAWA bill to exclude India from these programs. India does not need the failed American experiments and social theories created by radical ideologues, whose behavior and attitudes border many of those insane characters in history, who perpetrated grave crimes against humanity.

Abuse, arrests and jailing of innocent women, children and elder under section 498a is a grave crime against humanity as Indian jails are in no way better than any concentration camps. The perpetrators and abettors of these crimes against humanity need to be tried by tribunals in some neutral countries.

United States of America is under trillions of dollars of debt. With economic turmoil, many Governors in different States are cutting millions of dollars of funds to domestic violence programs. (link)

The Keystone State would also eliminate all state-funded programs for the homeless and substance abusers, as well as reduce state-supported social services for poor adults and families by 90%. And it would cut in half funding for domestic violence and rape crisis assistance.

It is better for US to spend than 1 billion dollars towards own taxpayers rather than funding some insane ideologues thousands of miles away. Every American Family will pay 20 dollars for I-VAWA apart from another 100 dollar they per every year for AID to Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and some other countries.

One out of 4 teenage girls in US has Sexually Transmitted Diseases. (link). US should spend the billion dollars to save its own daughters from STDs. The murder rate in US due to family breaking is double that of India. The chance of a woman getting raped in US is 24 times more compared to the chance of a woman getting raped in India. US should look inwards and fix itself instead of forgetting national boundaries and indulging in international misadventures with the limited knowledge and expertise of its Government and politicians.

What moral right US and its politicians have got in interfering in other countries to improve them? The social experiments that US conducted using radical gender ideologies in own soil have failed. Why it has to export these same failed social experiments to complex societies risking huge political costs and stroking anti-American passions? Is not it the time US starts trusting the other countries as responsible civilizations capable of taking care of their internal and regional social problems including gender related issues and start investing more into its own people, who are worried about its mounting debt and job losses?

The funds will never reach the abused women in developing countries due to bureaucracy and corruption in the system and in the NGOs. Ultimately, the situation does not improve and the same corrupt NGOs will keep asking couple of more billion dollars showcasing the plight of abused women, who were never helped in the first place.

The plot below uses statistics from some very reliable sources and compares the rate of domestic violence faced by Indian and American women. It shows something very interesting. Women in many states, who are educated (definition: have completed just 10 years of schooling), have very less chance of facing domestic violence compared to their sisters even in United States of America. For example, only 6% educated women in state of Karnataka faced domestic violence ever in life time. That is, a slap in 1983 and nothing afterwards puts a woman in this 6%. Whereas, uneducated and illiterate women have 45% chance of facing domestic violence in life time. India’s police and rotten judicial system does not reach out to these uneducated and illiterate women.

The jealous ideologues use the incidents of domestic violence on illiterate women to push for laws and policy directions, which get misused by the greedy crowd in the left side of the plot.

Conclusions:

Many Senators and Congressmen believe 1 billion dollars of funds for I-VAWA program is a waste of American tax payer’s money.

It is almost certain that democrats will lose majority in the House of Representatives in this November and will have narrow majority in Senate. The fiscal conservative fire breathing Tea Party Activists are emerging as a strong force demanding Government to stop expanding itself to control people’s lives at everywhere. Its time, the rest of the world too tells US Government to mind its own business.

With such circumstances it will not be easy to push I-VAWA. However, some fanatics are still frantically trying to get this bill passed before November. If the democrats do not stop Anti-Family policies and do not stop radical ideologue exporting hate in India, then it is just a matter of time, there will be protests in India against these “Ugly American Initiatives”. There is nothing for Indians to learn from US’s failed experiments related to its gender relations and family. The data and statistics speak for themselves.

The rhetoric of women’s empowerment must also be accompanied with compassion for fellow human beings. That is lacking with United States as of now. It will not succeed in its ventures. It’s time, US Government stops misleading its taxpayers and the citizens of the world with wild rhetoric. The world does not need US’s failed social experiments.

Security Is A Comedy In India

Being Cynical — Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:35:19 EDT

The death of 140 odd passengers of a Mumbai bound train early Friday made us revisit the question all over again. How safe are we and how efficient and foolproof our security apparatus are? Answers to both is that we are pathetic on these two fronts and don't show any encouraging signs that we would improve anytime soon.

Everyone seem to have shown some improvement including the notorious terrorists, except our Sarkar. When the nefarious elements wield mayhem with Kalashnikov and high end hand grenades, our security forces (I am not talking about Indian army) who are supposed to take on these cowards heads on are equipped with the British Era 303 rifles, which incidentally many tout are the same set of guns for which Mangal Pandey started the Sipahi Mutiny back in 1857 and even our police force is skeptical as to whether these guns would fire in the first place since the last operational testing of those were done way back during the time of World War-I.

Worse, many a times even these 303 rifles are all together absent and our security forces are left with the blessings of the almighty and of course our own indigenous invented weapon of ass destruction : The Lathi. Don't get me wrong. If used properly these weapons of ass destruction can be as deadly as anything, at least few home ministry sleuths believe so. So what is our poor police Havildar equipped only with this dreaded weapon of ass destruction supposed to do when he sees a terrorist roaming around with an automatic assault weapon?

(a) Throw the lathi right there and run for his life.
(b) Faint with some awkward sadma as shown in Hindi movies.
(c) Wet his pants and stand in a corner like a statue and do nothing since there isn't much that he can do.
(d) Run towards the terrorist and whack his posterior as hard as possible with the lathi :- The weapon of ass destruction

All the above options look bizarre but are true. Leaving aside few government offices and our airports all other places do give you a sorry picture of security. Shopping malls seems to be bit better as they put up a show of security checks, but ground reality is that they are no better either. The deserted look (in terms of security) of all our major railway stations speaks volume about our nonchalant attitude towards security. The metal detector which is supposed to detect unwanted items getting in, most of the times doesn't work. If at all it works no one seems bothers to go through them. The Paan chewing Havildar sitting at the corner with that weapon of ass destruction in his hand, who is supposed to make sure that all pass through the detector, doesn't do anything about it. As it is he is pretty confident he won't be able to do much in the event of a real terrorist attack, so why bother?

When we are surrounded by two phase attack both from outside (LET, JeM etc) and inside (Maoists), the first thing we should do is send those 303 rifles to the place they belong - yes the museums and we should also get rid of our fondness for the deadly weapon called Lathi. Does anyone remember (we Indians suffer from short term memory loss) the immature video capture of Kasab at Girigam Choupati or for that matter the CCTV footage of the railway constable firing from that 303 rifle at the two terrorists? Both these clips make us look like laughing stock. Our police forces at one place kicking and punching a terrorists with lathi in their hands and at the other place the 303 holder doesn't know how to fire a rifle, as he hasn't done even once before and worse when one of them did manage to pull the trigger, the rifle never went off during the first few attempts and we clowns still believe we can fight these maniacs with these set of weapons and skill set.

Who should be the one to streamline our security apparatus? Where is the strategy? Post 26/11, when all thought the change was in the air for the better, surprisingly the same set of seasoned crooks were back at the government and funny, it is we who brought them to power again. By electing the same buffoons it seems the foolish voters actually liked the idea of our non-availability of any strategy to counteract the terrorism and probably consider it a waste of time to come up with effective strategy on matters of national security. It seems the only strategy that is intact and at full swing is the strategy to keep the vote bank intact. If few lives are lost in the process, what's the big deal? That's the reason why our Home minister doesn't think twice before announcing to the world that the captured joker in connection with Pune blast is just another suspect. That's the reason why Mamtadi threw the tantrum when she said the DG of Bengal is a useless fellow for associating Maoists with the recent train tragedy. Surrounded by black cat commandos these so called leaders don't realize the value of security as it is the tax payers who are taking care of that by the generous contribution of their hard earned money on the security aspect of these grossly incompetent, lazy, good for nothing individuals.

First step could be to take away these commandos from their security system and drag them out in the open to face the summer heat all alone. Then I feel entities like Mamtadi would refrain themselves from uttering nonsense like - law and order is a state matter. If that is so, could anyone please ask this lady - what she is doing out there? Can't the railways be better without one such useless individual? Little point in discussing (read negotiating) with a rogue nation. It is about time these composite dialogue stuff should be thrown out of the window and if possible make few politicians follow the trajectory right after. India then would be a cleaner and safer place to live after. Amen!

Abuse by Police and Deaths in Judicial Custody.

Sumanth — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:59:38 EDT

I have often said that I have no sympathy at all for any policeman or police official. The entire Indian police reins terror in the minds of common citizens. If the police ever catch hold of you due to any reason, you are sure to face hell unless you bribe your way out. I regularly come across men and women, who were slapped, hit and threatened by Indian police.

It is estimated that more than 4 million arrests every year are unnecessary or unjustified. They are 60% of all arrests made by police(link). This shows, how monstrous the abuse and extortion racket is.

The police can slap you, hit you, threaten you and your family. It is all considered legal and there is no way the police can ever get punished for abusing you. Our parliament and our Home Minister P. Chidambaram will choose to look else where. Deaths caused by Indian police due to torture are increasing rapidly.

Every 5 hours, a man gets killed in Judicial Custody. Many more commit suicide within days of judicial custody as they fail to bear the trauma of torture and extortion by police. (Torture Report)

On the night of 2 June 2009, a 48-year-old Dalit woman (resident of Jambada village) was allegedly gang-raped by four police personnel, including Head Constable Mishra at Amla police station in Betul district of Madhya Pradesh. On June 2009, the victim was arrested in connection with a dowry case. Upon her production before the court she was sent to judicial custody. But the police told the victim that it would be late by the time they reach the jail and prisoners were
not allowed to enter the jail after 6 pm. So the police kept her at the Amla police station where she was gang-raped by four police personnel at night. Medical examination reportedly confirmed rape of the victim.

Is our country a fascist terrorist state?Who is responsible for this state of affairs?

I will blame the Congress Government, which ruled more than 80% of India since 1947. This Government will not do anything substantial to change these police atrocities, unless civil society creates enormous pressure on the Government. The civil society is also responsible for not holding the Government to account with persistent campaigns.

In October 2009, Delhi police brutally tortured an Award Winning American Journalist. Outlook published an article along with shocking pictures of the brutalities. What is our civil society doing? Watching IPL?

Outlook article with shocking pictures of torture of American Journalist.

A few weeks back, P.Chidambaram, the home minister, asked Delhi-ites to mend their ways before the Commonwealth Games. "We must behave as citizens of a big, good international city," he said. Clearly, Delhi Police thought it was not included. Joel Elliott, an award-winning American freelance journalist, working as a staff writer at Caravan magazine in Delhi since May this year, has charged "six to seven hours of beating and torture" by Delhi Police, for intervening while the cops were thrashing another man. Delhi Police, on its part, insists that Elliot was drunk, trying to steal a taxi, and had beaten up a couple of police men and an elderly driver. Even if we go by the Delhi Police version, what does it say about the rule of law in India's capital city and the way its police metes out instant justice? Following is the full text of the signed statement of Joel Elliott about the night of Oct. 5 and the morning of Oct. 6.

Poetry: Maqbool Fida Hussain - A Qatari Citizen

Amitabh Mitra — Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:30:12 EST

they hounded him
off the blue skies
off the bold strokes
past the giant canvases
and color streams
they hounded him out
because he painted
strange life forms
and stranger
shadow times
he painted unframed pride
in stretched bylanes
he painted you
and me
in the darkest of nights
and its aroma
in the kindest
thoughts
he painted the earth
in a fallacy of stillness
his bare feet burnt
the collage of seasons
shed in sudden travails
unveiled to raptures
of quietude
today a wind blew
stopped and fell
familiar colors blurred
a nation stayed speechless
a ninety-six years old
became a foreigner
to himself.

Poem and Drawing by Amitabh Mitra

My Name is Khan Mumbai Release - Free Speech or Free Market?

Ruchi — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:23:10 EST

The release of Shahrukh Khan's latest movie, My Name is Khan (MNIK) eclipsed all news for about a week. The biggest story in Saturday's newspapers was without doubt its enthusiastic reception. The story was covered on the front page, various back pages and of course, the op-eds. The general tone was celebratory and unanimously supportive of SRK. The act of watching a movie was extrapolated to taking a stand for independence and free speech. And SRK's refusal to apologize deemed heroic, the one act that would serve as a tipping point for restoring democracy in Mumbai against Shiv Sena's regressive xenophobia and hooliganism. A la, Rosa Parks if you will, whose refusal to give up her seat on the public bus sparked the civil rights movement.

The real story though is not about freedom of speech or democracy or Shiv Sena's violent jingoism. At the heart of this episode is good business - and a little demo of the shape of things to come in an increasingly neo-liberal India.

SRK is a consummate businessman expanding his financial interests from film actor to producer to television, panoramic endorsements and now privatized sport. In 2008, Newsweek named as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world, one of the only two from India (Sonia Gandhi being the other). Despite this, time and again when asked of his political opinions his stock response has been that he wants only to "make people smile". For an intelligent, informed individual with significant money and influence and an alleged believer and proponent of democracy to be so consistently and overtly apolitical has to be a calculated economic decision. In this light, his refusal to retract his IPL statement too has to be deemed a personal economic decision. And the consequences would only have been economic - the money lost due to its limited initial release in Mumbai (no one expected Sena's theater vandalism to extend to the movie goers), akin to the losses incurred by traders/shopkeepers when a political party calls for a bandh against some government policy or inaction.

And yet our national news rallied behind SRK with multiple sympathetic interviews, clips and broadcast of his vaguely messianic tweets. Rajdeep Sardesai, editor of CNN-IBN exhorted every Mumbaiker to "go watch MNIK in the theatres, its a small, but important way of taking a stand" and Barkha Dutt (NDTV) earnestly claimed that "im [sic] standing up for a belief". Mumbai government deployed over 21,000 policemen to guard theatres screening MNIK and preemptively arrested over 900 Shiv Sainiks. Nary a squeak from any of our news networks about this shocking display of state repression and targeting based on political affiliation.

For Shiv Sena, this was a calculated political move - the churlish actions of a regional political party with a fragmented support base after Raj Thackeray's defection. Putting this party in its place requires not Mumbaikers flocking to the theatres to watch MNIK but media blackout. A party of this small size can't rely only on its little official mouthpiece, "Saamna" and needs the media platform for survival. However, the lurching illogic of the Thackerays is good drama, which always translates to good TRPs.

Ratings were the primary interest, not freedom of speech or taking a collective stand against divisive/undemocratic intimidation. There have been numerous other instances of clamps on freedom of speech and nowhere near this kind of sustained coverage to drive public behavior. 94-year old Husain is in exile in Dubai. Taslima Nasrin was expelled from India in 2008. Deepa Mehta's movies, Fire and Water both came under Sena and other Hindu right-wingers' ire. While the above have the right to free speech in common with MNIK's release, they lack easy marketability. And easy marketing is at the heart of this campaign: the effortless connection with India's two loves, cricket and Bollywood, a media savvy celebrity, polarizing Pakistan, a comic book goon and the perception of participation by painless retweets and mere consumption. The Save Our Tiger campaign is another example of a high gloss initiative to distract the public. Yes, there are 1411 tigers left in India and urgent measures are required - but the real solution does not lie in citizen involvement as manifested by the campaign's entreaty of "speak up, blog, sms - every little bit counts". Each is completely useless to curb poaching and/or manage sanctuaries. Neither is tiger conservation hampered by lack of funds since even the allocated funds have not been completely utilized by many sanctuaries.

The real fight for freedom of speech and democracy is the fight against our desperate poverty. Yet there is frighteningly little focus and interest in governance, the prioritization and allocation of the country's resources for its people. And there are serious issues at stake. The Food Security Act (FSA) is on the anvil. What does the FSA say about India? There are people in our country who don't even have enough food for basic sustenance. That their numbers are so large that the States and Center have spent months trying to figure out eligibility criteria and a sharing arrangement that they can afford. We also have the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which entitles each rural household hundred days of unskilled work at minimum wage. This Act is testimony to the fact that we've taken an entire people of our country and thrown them out of the economy. These two legislations go at the heart of democracy and what it means to live in a just and humane society; both are going through serious upheavals. However, what is the percentage of airtime and column space afforded to either? Even worse, why is there no national passion for them?

We need to reevaluate our national priorities. Arts and sports are the underpinnings of the country's culture, and integral to national consciousness. We should rightly be passionate and proud of both. However, mere consumption cannot drive culture. And we cannot claim to be proud Indians, yet ignore Bharat.

Shiv Sena vs An Actor

Priyank Chandra — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:34:25 EST

Shah Rukh Khan, a Bollywood actor spoke his mind, and a political party went berserk. A movie, My Name is Khan (MNIK) got a lot of attention and the media decided that unity in India had reached the brink of a complete breakdown at the hands of some goons.

While I certainly do not condone the actions of the Shiv Sainiks, I do believe that this controversy has more sides to it than the media has attempted to stuff down our throats.

When two countries are in conflict but not yet at war, the first step that most countries take is to impose a trade embargo. It is a natural step to take because the countries need to make a stand and hurt the other country in the only peaceful way possible.

In this context, not allowing Pakistani cricketers into our country to play a sports tournament is simply an embargo on the export of human labor. A trade embargo which is meant to prove a point. And this is really what Shiv Sena is demanding albeit in a rather disruptive manner. And it does make sense in a twisted sort of way.

Of course we had not 'not allowed' them. They were just not picked by teams who strategized keeping in mind a lot of factors other than brutal nationalism. A lot of business reasons culminated in an auction where the Pakistanis were not picked. It was basic economics at work, without the need for hyperbole or fervent hatred for a country that is our neighbour and the home of these talented cricketers.

The Pakistanis felt insulted, like the cool kids in school who weren't invited to the most happening party in town. Some people attempted to assuage the hurt because they felt bad that the cool kids felt bad. Now the cool kids came from a family that had a few murderers as distant relatives. So the defenders of morality and identity decided that the nice kid had to be punished, because you should not be nice to people who belong to a family that has criminals in it. And amidst all these analogies, let me remind you that all of this was about the game of cricket.

Sports holds a place in our hearts unlike any other source of entertainment. We place it on a pedestal where we search in it all the attributes we wish to exist in our society. We sometimes treat it as war, the players as gladiators who shall fight until there is conquest and defeat and sometimes as means to a greater end, an agent of hope and change, often over-exaggerated. We have complicated a meaningless form of entertainment by imbuing it with the idealistic notions of war and peace.

But in this controversy we have one other important point. Who are these Pakistani cricketers representing in this lucrative tournament? Certainly not Pakistan, but colorful clubs who are but abstract, and rather fuzzy identities that anyone could identify with. If the Pakistanis were not here as a representation of their glorious nation Pakistan, then who could deny them the moral right to play as long as the laws were not broken. It is like banning bearded men from boarding aircrafts because Osama Bin Laden has a long beard. Or almost like some Indians not allowing Australians into the country because some random Australian attacked an Indian. Oh wait! All of this is already happening.

Let me try to bring about the absurdity of generalization with another example. It is like believing that all Maharashtrians are liberal, intelligent philosophers who bring about social change because B. R. Ambedkar was a Marathi. And this has certainly been disproved by the MNS and Shiv Sena.

And my point is made. Shiv Sena had one good idea - trade embargo but they applied it in the wrong context using the wrong methods. The Bollywood star won this round by default, just muttering meaningless statements about how being nice does not make him unpatriotic, while the political parties screamed itself sore in an act of patriotism.

Indian society is a metaphor for the complexities that surround the concept of identity, and the future holds a lot more battles of this sort for us.

It's Cool To Be Free

KG — Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:08:45 EST

Anonymity is a convenient mask- one which I've desperately sought since I can remember. There's a reassurance in it that's hard to shake aside- this belief that you can just be there in the background observing. And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't make you a follower.

Opinions matter. Even if they are mine. Even if they are in an anonymous blog which will be read by some, commented upon by none and then forgotten.

There are some actions that infuriate you into action. One was a police officer smiling mockingly when he walked out of court having escaped punishment for abetting in a young girl's suicide.

The other was tonight when I watched Uddhav Thackeray eloquently shrug his shoulders on NDTV's 9'O Clock news- in response to a question as to whether the release of My Name is Khan would pass unhindered.

It was an action that repeated tales that I want to believe that my generation has moved on from- the chasm of regionalism.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't find the Shiv Sena's rhetoric preposterous. I do- not only is it utterly reprehensible but also it strikes me as extremely lazy politics. Which is exactly why the Sena is in the state they are in today. Gone are the days when people were taken in by proclamations of nationalism and pride- it has been almost 63 years of independence- and let's face it- to me and my generation, freedom means a good deal more than empty words. Which is exactly why it is lazy. A true opposition would have taken advantage of the woeful apology of a government that is Maharashtra's and swept into power. On real issues which would've made more sense than stopping the screening of a film or calling Chidambaram the Home Minister of Pakistan- a statement so laughably juvenile that you wouldn't hear it even in a school level debate.

Even that is fine- everyone can say what they want. But when you use muscle power to stop the screening of a movie because it's actor has said something to annoy you, you need to take a good look at yourself. And coming from me and my ilk that really is something- we- who are so used to being steeped in cynicism that ideals are far from our thoughts. But even in a generation of cynics, this marks a new low. Open threats on national TV aren't my idea of democracy. Actually they shouldn't be anyone's idea of democracy.

Of course 'Bollywood' (I hate the term, hence the quote marks) has notoriously pandered to the whims of the Shiv Sena and Bal Thackeray since- well forever. For some reason they've had a curious hold over the film business. Which in itself is disturbing, not to mention downright wrong. What riles me even more is not that they're against Valentine's Day or lesbianism (read Fire)- but the fact that they take it upon themselves to force that down everyone's throat. And tonight I sat watching amused, but mostly infuriated when the legal chief of the Shiv Sena says that the campaign against the movie is a 'movement' started by the 'people' and he could not guarantee what the 'people' would do when the movie released.

That's such a load of crap.

And they know it. They must be knowing it. Surely they aren't that self deluded to think that 'all people of the country' feel this way. And they're milking the issue for all it is worth. Which would be fine as long as they kept their hands in their pockets instead of on lathis and guns, and not calling up theatre owners threatening them with 'dire consequences' if the movie was screened.
And I've been accused of looking too much into history before- maybe it's a disease- but all this rhetoric about 'people's movement' and 'people's anger' was exactly how Herr Adolf began. Or Mugabe. Or any other dictator.

I'm no admirer of Shah Rukh Khan. But I must say that what he's said is admirable. Even if it is a ploy to sell his film. Even if all he wants to do is to be on the news and even if it is the 'in thing' to hate him- despite all those things, what he's said is admirable. I'm glad he's not going to apologize. I do not want an apology from the Thackerays either. They can say what they like- but coercion is just not done. And the Tiger of the Sena Bal Thackeray should realise he's actually being a mouse. This is the behaviour of cowards not leaders. Cowards who want to cling on to something rather than face oblivion.

The whole question of identity is curious. I am from Karnataka, born in Andhra Pradesh, schooled in Maharashtra, now in Karnataka. And I'm a Hindu and it has been so incidental. I've had-er- have wonderful friends who are Christians, a rather special half Muslim friend and it's never made one bit of difference. And yes I've loathed certain people who happen to be Muslim but not because of it- they were just gutter rats who happened to be Muslim.

Which is why I don't get the Sena appeasement by the likes of even Amitabh Bachchan what with him organising private screenings from the self proclaimed 'Tiger'. Shouldn't he have taken a stand against this war mongering? And when asked as much by Barkha Dutt, a visibly squirming Jaya Bachchan said 'the film industry stands together in a national crisis.' Which implies of course that this isn't one. (More on that here http://blogs.widescreenjournal.org/?p=1806)

And yes, I've been called too liberal although I'm not sure I understand that. It is like saying 'too free'- one is either free or not. Can you be free one day and enslaved the next? One is either liberal or one is not- you cannot grade freedom or liberalism. But the difference is that liberalism is a choice I've made. Freedom isn't- we ARE a free country whether you like it or not.

And that's something.