Desicritics Category: Politics: Laws

Women's Reservations - The Ground Reality

Sumeet Trivedy — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:22:26 EST

I strongly believe that well educated and empowered women can do miracles to our society. History tells us Indian women were strong and powerful. Even in last century Indian society gave the world some strong and powerful women.

On 9th of March, the very next day after Women’s Day, the much hypes women’s bill was passed. Before that on August 27th, 2009, The Cabinet of India approved 50% of reservation for women. Two Great decisions. Now, we will be having more women MPs, MLAs and woman sarpanchs and maybe, even a chairwoman in our villages. The rural woman would not be any less than their urban counterparts.

But the ground reality is very different. I would like to bring an example of my own village, Paikmal in the state of Orissa. In 2002-2003, in the panchayat election, the Sarpanch seat was reserved for woman. There were about 4-5 women contesting for the seat. Considering the condition of women in rural India, this, by any means, was never a bad figure. The fact was that the villagers were actually voting for the respective husbands of those women. Each of these candidate was just that -- a mere candidate. In reality, they were proxies for their men back home who wanted to run the affairs of the village but couldn't do so because the seat was reserved for woman.

Finally, the elections were held and my village had a women sarpanch. But did things change?

I always remember a funny incident when women reservations bill is talked about. I was in some discussion with few of my fellow villagers and a fine gentleman of our group remarked, "Here goes our Sarpanch". I had never seen our lady Sarpanch and bitten by curiosity, I went out of the way to have a look. There was no sign of any lady. It was her husband.

So in 2009, when I heard the news about the 50% reservation for women labeled as "Breaking News", I, for a moment, did not know to feel happy or sorry for it all.

Now in 2010, we have The Women's Reservation Bill. There will be 33% reservation for women in Parliament also. I do not have any doubt over who will be elected to the upper and lower house. My only curiosity is how the husbands of elected women will control things in National label. In panchayats it is not that difficult. That was managing few villages. In parliament, it’s about India; not a few villages.

Politics of Identity - A Discussion on the UID Project

Ruchi — Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:55:52 EST

By February 2011, India will become the first country in the world to issue its residents biometric-based numbers (UID) to establish identity. For this purpose, the Central Government has constituted the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) under the Planning Commission. The UID number is marketed as a fundamental enabler for efficient delivery of government services and inclusive development. As per the Authority, benefits of the UID number include elimination of leakages in welfare programs like PDS and NREGA, and facilitation of targeted education and health interventions for underprivileged children.

A less publicized purpose of the UID number is to improve national security. The impetus for UID came after the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. In January 2009, the Center issued notice to maritime states and two UTs to issue identity cards to all coastal residents. In an interview in the aftermath of the terror attacks, Chidambaram announced Government's decision to set up the UID authority. The UIDAI was established in February 2009, within three months of the attacks. By the Authority's own admission, “The UIDAI is only in the identity business. The responsibility of tracking beneficiaries and the governance of service delivery will continue to remain with the respective agencies”. Presumably “security” is not just a peripheral but the primary purpose of the project.

The UID project underscores the need for transparency of objectives of government programs and the importance of civil participation to ensure democratic end-use. Covert objectives are tantamount to subversion of democracy. Public opinion and approval of this undertaking are contingent on its stated altruistic goals; the Indian populace is unlikely to sanction a project for its own increased policing. Furthermore, since UID is a tool and not an outcome, it is susceptible to misuse by vested interests. Therefore, it is necessary to preemptively block dangerous outgrowths with legislative measures. While continuous engagement with the civil society is necessary to develop a comprehensive list, some obvious safeguards are outlined below.

First, non-enrollment should not be treated as criminal. There's a history of States using anti-terrorism/anti-insurgency pretexts to flout or curtail civil liberties; often political issues are treated like law and order situations. Enrollment is currently discretionary, likely 'cause of the impossibility of universal enrollment of a billion plus. However, there could conceivably be a push for universal enrollment in border, coastal and/or “red” states leading to potential harassment of undocumented individuals, esp. poor migrants.

Second, governments should not use UID numbers to trump individual choice. States should not be allowed to specifically target individuals from insurgent areas, inconvenient political groups etc. Moreover, state agencies should be barred from using UID numbers to withdraw essential services in any area to coerce relocation or discourage migration.

Third, social security services should not be withheld due to non-enrollment. The UID number is envisioned as a tool to monitor implementation of government schemes and programs. Therefore, it is likely that these schemes will mandate UID enrollment before providing services. In the case of social security services, the onus of enrollment should be on the organization, not the beneficiary. Also, the enrollment cost (estimated @ Rs. 20-25 per number) should not be taken from social security scheme outlays.

Fourth, private organizations should be debarred from pooling data to form comprehensive individual profiles to prevent invasion of privacy. The Authority aims to make the UID number the preferred mode of identification for both users and public/private organizations to drive revenue through its identity authentication service. Given an incontrovertible unique number for one individual across all of his/her life transactions creates the tremendous risk of this data being pooled to recreate the individual's life history

Fifth, expenditure incurred should be rationalized and transparent. The UID project comes with no expenditure caps; estimated enrollment costs alone are over Rs. 3000 crore. Unsurprisingly, there is deep interest from multinational technology and private finance organizations. Engagement with civil society will be vital to control ballooning costs and hijack of the project for private profit.

Coming back to the project's stated purpose of forming the basis for efficient delivery of government programs. It is worthwhile to debate both the relevance and effectiveness of the UID number for delivery of welfare schemes. The problem in targeted welfare schemes is of eligibility and not identity. The varying number of BPL families in the country is due to changing eligibility criteria such as income, calories, and other wellness indicators. Moreover, the largest leakages in welfare schemes are due to organized intermediary defalcation not fake beneficiaries. At best, the UID number will address the latter less significant problem.

Additionally, the design of the UID number reduces its effectiveness. The number will only store name, DoB, gender, parent's name, address (permanent and current), photograph and biometric info (ten fingerprints and iris scan) and will only verify identity of individual; defining and tracking beneficiaries, governance of service delivery will all need to be managed at the individual state government, program or scheme level and entail additional expenditure. This approach leaves a huge lacuna in execution and renders already nascent benefits more uncertain.

For instance, UID will alleviate only a small subset of leakages in NREGA and PDS, two of the biggest social security programs. Moreover, this increased efficacy will be contingent on beneficiary identification through biometric readers, which are susceptible to damage and sabotage. Even in the case of mobility, the benefit of UID will rest on administrative and systemic change by delivery organizations to allow transfer of benefits on proof of identity instead of requiring proof of eligibility again. E.g., ration cards for migrating family.

Last, there are considerable dangers to successful implementation. The UID project will require enormous technical capability and reliance on thousands of disparate intermediaries (“registrars”) for accurate and honest enrollment of each resident. In India, all large databases are riddled with errors; some voter lists alone are incomplete and erroneous by as much as 40 percent. Furthermore, the benefits of UID implementation are contingent on near universal enrollment, which is jeopardized by two risks. First, enrollment of individuals without documentary proof of identity rests on the “introducer” system, similar to opening an account at a bank. This strategy is both irrelevant and inadequate for migrant workers (especially those in the unorganized sector) and legions will remain unenrolled.

Second, in the absence of universal coverage (target enrollment at 600 million people or ~50% of population four years from launch), there will need to be alternatives to the UID to obtain service, verify identity etc. Since, enrollment in UID will not be mandatory, but “demand driven” to “access the benefits and services associated with it”, the benefit (one number to prove identity for life) will need UID to be accepted as preferred proof of identity by all significant private and public organizations. Given that UID verification will be chargeable (up to Rs. 10 per verification), private organizations may prefer alternative proof of identity thus further reducing incentive for voluntary enrollment.

The UID project is one of the most ambitious programs in India, without precedence or parallel anywhere in the world. Given its scale, centralization of power and potentially invasive use, there is need for transparency of its purpose with the civil society and a collaborative design process to ensure that democratic ideals of the country are upheld and derived benefits outweigh its costs.

Note: A few people are organizing for a concerted effort to mainstream discussion on UID – if you would like to join, please email me gupta (dot) ruchi (at) gmail (dot) com

Lawyers Refusing to be Lawyers

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:15:12 EST

The right to legal representation is a cornerstone of every civilised society. For a legal association to refuse to support an accused is nothing but a breakdown in that country’s civilisation and basic humanity. In other words, the country’s pretensions to be civilised and defend rights is frankly in the toilet. This was brought home to me when I read this story:

Islamabad (AsiaNews) - Because of the threats posed by the powerful Lahore Bar Association – an umbrella organization of city lawyers - no Christian or Muslim lawyer is ready to take on the defence in the murder of 12 year-old Shazia Bashir, it was reported yesterday by The Pakistani Christian association that deals with legal assistance.

The girl, of Christian faith, died on Jan. 23 as a result of violence - even sexual – at the hands of her employer, a wealthy and powerful Muslim lawyer in Lahore. The alleged culprit, Chaudhry Mohammad Naeem, is a former president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association. The girl, just 12 years old, had worked as a maid in the home of Naeem in the last six months.

Now you can draw what conclusions you may from this story. But here are some more examples before you do.

1. This was the legal representation situation with respect to trying Kasab, the sole surviving member of the Pakistani terrorist team which attacked Mumbai. I quote:

The news of providing state legal aid to Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the sole surviving gunman in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, has stirred profound consternation throughout India. Shiv Sena honcho Bal Thackeray thundered that no trial for Kasab is necessary, that the television news clippings are evidence enough, and that he should be hanged in full public view at the Gateway of India opposite the Taj Palace, which was one of the attack sites.

Thackeray found support from an unexpected quarter, with All-India Milli Council president Iqbal Mohiudeen invoking the shariah: “An eye for an eye, a limb for a limb, and a life for a life.”

The homes and properties belonging to three Mumbai-based lawyers who volunteered to appear for Kasab have been vandalized. A Parsi lawyer was even castigated collectively by his own community through the Bombay Parsi Panchayat.

2. There were terror blasts in Varanasi, Faziabad and Lucknow in the court premises. I quote:

After the terror blasts on 23rd November on court premises in Varanasi, Faizabad and Lucknow in which 15 people, four of them lawyers, were killed and over 80 injured, some bar associations had taken an unprecedented decision not to provide legal assistance to the accused in the blast cases.

The move was condemned as it was against natural justice.

It has to be pointed out that in both these cases in India, the lawyers have been appointed to defend the accused. But the fact that some are denying legal assistance to the accused is a shameful situation. This is directly going against the fundamental rights of all citizens of both countries. Despite the fact that the accused committed horrible crimes, they are presumed to be innocent till found guilty. So to exhibit some kind of weird protest against terrorism or religious participation is criminal. What next? Teachers refusing to teach because the pupil is from a different religion? Doctors refusing to treat patients because they are from another religion? Or how about architects refusing to build houses because the requester is from another religion?

These people are professionals and are supposed to uphold their professional standards. By refusing to do so, they are knuckling under total obscurantists and blithering idiots who are frankly uncivilised. Totally not cricket.

Women's Reservation Bill: Denying Citizens Rights to Contest in Elections

Sumanth — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:56:49 EST

This is not the first time that attempts are made at subverting democracy in India. In 1974, Indira Gandhi created a massive crisis in India by declaring emergency, suspending elections and civil liberties. She threw most of her political opponents into jail. She was the mother-in-law of Sonia Gandhi, the chairperson of current ruling Congress Party.(link)

The latest attempt by Sonia Gandhi and Jayanthi Natarajan is towards reservation of 33% of seats of country’s parliament and state assembly for women. They want to do it by preventing men from contesting elections in these constituencies (link).

Since the last couple of years opportunist feminists have tried for 33% reservation in parliament. Their goals are simple. They need some more numbers in parliament to pass some more discriminatory laws against males. At present, the feminist politicians are in a very awkward position due to large scale misuse of anti-dowry laws, section 498a of IPC and also DV act. This has made it very difficult for them to get the sexual harassment at workplace law passed in parliament without the “prevention of misuse clause”. Their anger and frustration has hit the skies.

So, the feminists in politics and outside think that once women get 33% reservation in parliament, then they can officially declare men as second class citizens by preventing them from contesting in elections. After that, they may think of denying the men’s right to own property, once they get married. The problem with democracy in India is that parliament can officially sanction discrimination against any section of population and it is constitutional once such discriminatory bills are passed.

India is not the only country in the world, where there is under representation of women in politics. There were only 38 women who became senators in US history till today. The US senate does not reserve seats for women. Now, the irony is that feminists want to create an example in the world by reserving seats for women in Indian parliament and the fund donors from US are also supporting it. If seats in parliament have to be reserved for women, then the constitution of this crippled democracy will be further mutilated with another major constitutional amendment. Democracy will be dead, if men are told that they cannot contest election in a particular constituency, just because of their gender.

In the recent LS elections(link), out of the 443 candidates declared by the Congress, the party pitched only 40 women candidates (less than 10%). Opposition BJP was no better with the party fielding only 43 women candidates out of the total 427 seats. Left parties, the self claimed flag-bearer of the cause of women reservation, had the worst record of women representation in their list of candidates with the left parties not even giving 5% of the tickets to women candidates for the 15th Lok Sabha elections. While, the CPM only fielded 4 women candidates out of the 80 declared seats, the CPI gave only 3 women candidates out of the 45 seats it was contesting. Still, people made 61 women candidates win the elections.

So, the Congress Govt controlled by Mrs.Sonia Gandhi failed to field even 100 female candidates. It’s difficult to believe that a more than 100 year old political party does not have 100 worthy female leaders to contest parliamentary elections. The truth is the older male politicians are not ready to give up their seats for females. Even Sonia Gandhi was powerless in front of these old politicians. She cannot risk a major revolt in Congress party, if she had fielded women in 30% of parliamentary seats.

So, just because of the stubborn behaviour of old male politicians, Sonia Gandhi and Jayanthi Natarajan are thinking of amending constitution. If Sonia Gandhi can’t take risks of fielding 100 female candidates in elections, then why should the citizens take a risk of having a mutilated constitution?

The Congress Govt tried to table this bill in the parliament before elections in 2009. Still, Sonia Gandhi fielded only 40 women in the elections. If Sonia Gandhi does not have integrity and courage, then why should I give up my choice to contest elections in my own constituency?

People have not discriminated women in the national elections. One out of 12 women candidates won in elections compared to one out of 15 male candidates. If Sonia Gandhi and other Congress leaders can’t trust women, then that is not my problem. Why should I give up my democratic rights and choices, just because of discrimination of women by Sonia Gandhi, Congress leaders, Brinda Karat or her husband Prakash Karat?

I and my friends did not stop Kiran Shaw Majumdar, Sudha Murthy, Jayanthi Natarajan, Uma Bharati or Kiran Bedi from contesting in elections. Then, why should I be stopped from contesting elections, just because of my gender?

When Sonia Gandhi does not have integrity, then she should clean it up by taking responsibility for the same and correct herself instead of preventing some citizens from contesting in elections. Otherwise, the solution will create a bigger mess than the problem itself. It is like:

“The Patient has got Piles, and the Doctor is getting ready to do Open Heart Surgery.”

The Constitution of India will be protected at any cost. This Rape of Constitution will be stopped. People will not tolerate any further amendments of Constitution, because they have every right to protect the democracy and civil liberties using all possible means.

All political parties, small and big will be warned against voting for a constitutional amendment, which denies citizens their right to contest in elections. Massive letter and email campaigns will start to see that democracy does not remain a joke anymore in this country of more than a billion people. We in India say, "Satyameva Jayate (Truth only Wins)". There be victory of truth and integrity.

Freedom of Speech or Responsibility to Do No Harm?

Cee Kay — Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:47:59 EST

I watched the Tuesday, January 5 episode “Infamy” of the series The Good Wife and it had a case about a young mom who committed suicide after her little girl was kidnapped and a TV show commentator made life hell for her by attacking her, saying she killed her little girl (who turned up alive at the end of the episode, by the way). He was shown leveling various charges on the mom, including that she killed her own daughter and that she had tried to get a late (third trimester) abortion (the latter charge proven to be false by the prosecution team). The husband of the deceased sued the commentator for wrongful death because it was his attacks that led the woman to take her own life. The prosecution team proved that the anchorman knew his claims were false but still attacked the woman on his show. The jury came back with a verdict against the defendant but the judge overturned it saying much as he found the actions of the defendant abhorrent, he (the defendant) was just exercising his right to freedom of speech. The defendant got off. This set me thinking.

What is more important - our right to freedom of speech or our responsibility to cause no harm? I am no lawyer, but to my non-lawyer mind it seems that another approach could have been tried for the case (I know I am too much invested in a show that was only someone's figment of imagination! Silly me) Maybe a stronger case could be made by showing that the TV show anchor's reckless, unsubstantiated claims about the kidnapped girl's mother drove her to take her own life? Isn't THAT is why he was responsible for her death? One can be held responsible for a death if they were the prime reason behind it, even if it wasn't their hand that killed. Now, some lawyer-brain please tell me if that kind of prosecution strategy is possible.

That brings me back to my question. Is one's right to be able to speak freely, above and beyond their responsibility to make sure their speech doesn't hurt someone else? They do have the right to "life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness", given to them by the constitution. Can someone else's right to free speech infringe upon this inalienable right granted to them? It can be argued that it was not the speech that killed the said person. But isn't it true that the speech definitely drove the person to take their own life? Do you know the power of words? They can hurt, sear, scathe and pierce like nothing else can. While it is true that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", a mother who has just lost her child must already be in such a fragile state of mind that even the slightest unkind word might drive her to the brink of insanity. Should all this be taken into account before passing a judgment?

Is this whole discussion useless because it was just a fictional episode in a fictional series? I have seen this kind of relentless pursuit of parents by the media in Jonbenet Ramsey case, though the wrongful death scenario doesn’t fit there. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Should the media (or public) be allowed to take matters in their own hands and pursue the people they imagine to be guilty?

Again - DOES my right to freedom of speech trump someone else's right to live (and pursue happiness)?

Ruchika Girhotra: Where's The Justice?

DesiGirl — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:07:45 EST

19 years, 400 hearings, 40 adjournments and at the end of it, Ruchika Girhotra's family had no justice for the injustice meted out to them in 1990. It was in 1990 that 14-year-old Ruchika was molested by DGP Shambhu Pratap Singh Rathore and within the span of three years, drove the child to take her own life rather than face a day more of torture and harassment at the hands of Rathore and his goons.

And the punishment? Six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000. That is what the life of Ruchika Girhotra is worth. That is the price of her honour, the price of the harassment her family has faced.

Shame!

A supposed pillar of the community in Chandigarh, Rathore, a Director General of Police, sworn to protect the lives of the common man, woman and child cannot keep his glands in check and molests a child, one who is the same age as his daughter and is in fact, her classmate. He, Rathore, is defended in the court of law by his wife. Not one to sit back, he keeps up a daily assault on the Girhotras - Ruchika, her ten-year-old brother Ashu and their father. Ashu is repeatedly tortured and beaten in a bid to make Ruchika take back the case. Ruchika is kicked out of school on trumped up charges and their father is harassed at work, with false cases of murder and theft filed against the Girhotras, man and boy.

After years of this non-stop harassment, Ruchika commits suicide. Not even an FIR has been filed for the atrocity committed against her and the teenager finally gives up her fight. But still her family wasn't left in peace until they were driven out of Chandigarh, forced to take up menial jobs to survive.

Whilst the lives of the Girhotras continued in a downwards spiral, things couldn't be more different for Rathore. Less than a year after Ruchika's death, Rathore gets promoted to Director General of Police. In 1999, he is recommended for a President's Medal for Distinguished Service.

Meanwhile, the fight for justice for Ruchika continues. Ruchika's friend Aradhana Prakash, the eye-witness, is running a signature campaign to garner support. Her family has appeared on NDTV, where Barkha Dutt interviewed various power figures like Kiran Bedi. Online petitions have been set-up, in a bid to get the President's eye.

Will the Girhotras get justice? Will Rathore get his comeuppance? Going from the past, where Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo got justice after a furious campaign kicked up by the people, one can live in hope. But justice? Basic rights of the common man? Truth? Do these have a place in the Indian society? Or will money and power be the only currencies and, in the words of Kiran Bedi, the criminal justice system be on the side of the criminals?

Punishment to Fit the Crime

Somik Raha — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:35:29 EST

In a piece titled, "Ruchika-Indian Law Allows Child Molester to be Let Off," Kishore fumes at the Indian legal system which sentenced the offender, SPS Rathore, the retired Director General of Haryana Police, only for 6 months and granted him bail within ten minutes. People are protesting and asking for stiffer sentences. CPM leader Brinda Karat has also requested the law ministry to look at this again.

In the midst of the outcry, I find myself honoring the sentiment that makes us take notice of the terrible injustice in this situation. At the same time, I find myself asking if longer jail time is both adequate punishment and easy to pull off. In India, and elsewhere, professional criminals treat crime as a business, doing their cost-benefit analysis, accounting for the chance of getting caught. By the same logic, we ought to reflect the cost of the crime much more accurately when sentencing.

Perhaps we should take a leaf out of O J Simpson's trial, where he won the criminal case but lost the civil one, and was liable for a large sum of money, which pretty much bankrupted him for the rest of his life. Criminal cases are much harder to win, and when you do win, there are lots of limitations on determining how much personal freedom of the criminal should be taken away. A lot of attention is being given in the media to the criminal case, as it should be. However, very little has been given to filing parallel civil suits, to claim damages.

I am not familiar with the legal system in India, but here is a thought experiment. What if Rathore were to face a civil suit. A big calculation exercise should be done, to count the amount of money that had to be spent by the family of the victim and her friend who fought on with the case. We should then add to it all the hospital charges faced by the those who were beaten up. Then, we get to the part which very few people think about - in that neighborhood, for some time, I will bet that women must have been scared to come out on their own. All the people who lost business because of that must be compensated for this. All the women of that area who had to give up their freedom out of fear must also be compensated for the nuisance. That amount may be given toward starting a women's rights organization in the neighborhood - perhaps it could be given to Ruchika's brave friend (see video below) who put so many years of her life to get justice, so she might invest it in helping others like Ruchika.

When we start making all these calculations, a strong case can be made for asking for damages to the tune of several crores, and not a paltry Rs. 1000 (as reported by IBN).

It would be great if the civil angle were looked into in parallel with the criminal one, because age and health cannot be argued so easily when it is a monetary fine. All the people who were shielding the criminal should also be included in the liability of this amount (perhaps the political parties/politicians that were involved as well). It will also set a precedent that if caught and convicted, such crimes carry a much bigger penalty than just the damage to the individual. If the criminal cannot pay the entire amount, then a large part of their future income could be marked down for payment by installment.

With this kind of legal reform, criminals who think of crime as a business will now have to think twice.

On another note, we might also consider whether our police system really works. Honest officers like Kiran Bedi get hounded out of the system. Others have to crush their heart and give up the fight. The problem is that the people who pay the police and control their careers and the people who receive their services are different, and the incentives are not aligned. Controversial as this may sound, maybe it is time to think of police as a service that should not be a government monopoly. How would that work?

Would love to hear people's thoughts on both these ideas.

Ruchika - Indian Law Allows Child Molester to be Let Off

Kishore — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:47:20 EST

These are historical times we live in. These are times when a high ranking police officer is allowed to molest a kid, be tried for two decades and then lawfully be allowed to walk free, simply because he’s grown gray hair on his head.

Ruchika was 14 when she was molested. And when protested, she was caught in a battle between the political prowess of the Rathores and her little family – she was molested, three years later expelled from school, her brother falsely accused of stealing cars. Overwhelmed by what her family was going through, she committed suicide.

During the two decades it took for a sentence, Rathore who had all fun in his younger years satiating on a little kid young enough to be his daughter, what he probably missed with his wife, grew from height to height and retired as the well respected police officer. And after pronouncement of the sentence, Rathore still had the balls to say “It's a very old issue. Forget about it now.”

Not surpising, for a rich 67 year old former policeman who has seen all the wealthy (and sexual) pleasures of life this nirvana-ish trash talking might just be his way of spending a peaceful no hassles post-retirement life; who cares if he stomped over a few families on the way, or molested and murdered a few kids. After all, the law gives so much respect to old age, that even the molestation of a kid forcing her into suicide becomes a little scar on the cheek that would heal in time.

The pronouncement note quotes section 354 IPC and says, "the prolonged trial and the age of the convict can be considered while passing the order on quantum of sentence."

Ok, so the law is an ass. But on this day, humanity has sunk to a new low where the elderly age of the convict is reason-enough to brush aside the tortures of a 14 year old. Rathore's wife Abha, who was the defence counsel protecting the husband who had broken all shards of morality, said, “He has already undergone valve surgery and he requires medical help.” So we have a case where an old convict seeks medical help to remain alive after abetting the suicide of a kid thereby depriving her of an entire life.

Not for the first time, this sentence has revealed the massive chinks in the Indian Legal System. The law prosecuted Rathore for molesting a young girl, but does not prosecute him for raping the trust the common man had on the Indian civil officers.

Indian Police - Protectors or Perpetrators?

J Srinivasan — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:19:57 EST

The Ruchika molestation case is only the latest in a history of police acting as criminals in their own "den" - the Police Station. Then the Court awards a six month sentence after 19 years and provides bail along with the sentencing.

The perpetrator was in police uniform, i.e. in police service and was a top cop (DGP*) to boot when this happened. The girl committed suicide unable to bear the humiliation. Again, everyone will "take up the case" and TV will gets it TRPs for 24 to 48 hours before dropping it. Some ministers will instruct the CBI to appeal the verdict. 20 years later, we may see another verdict and maybe the perpetrator will still be alive but too old to serve the sentence. He'll then get pardoned on "humanitarian" grounds.

Sorry if I've stretched a point. But give or take some, this will sum up the scenes that would play out in a movie, if one were made. On life in India. Who is accountable?

This is what we will hear:

The Congress Union Government: No we are not. The state government is responsible for law and order.

The Congress State Government: No, we let (gave permission to) the CBI prosecute him and it is for the courts to deal with punishment.

The Court: You have no right to question us. Else we will put you behind bars for contempt of court for 2 years!

The following State Government: What can we do? Once he was under a cloud, we transferred him out. But his promotions after the incident are a matter oif the civil servants' rules.

The Congress Union Government Rep in TV shows: But the BJP also had power for 6 years, why didn’t they do something to him?

The BJP Rep on TV Show: We made CBI take up the case. What can we do if the court thinks six months is enough?

The Congress State Government: How can we prevent the courts from giving him bail? That’s his constitutional right!

I better stop. Otherwise I may actually get a contract for a script for a movie that I'd also die of shame if I was a part of making!

Why can this continue? Because we think "it doesn’t affect me, so why should I take any risk? I'll be smart and watch. If it happens to me, I know this person and that. I'll make sure they influence things and get the SOB finished off, etc. Don’t tell me that's not familiar. Aurangzeb ruled us. The British ruled us. Now ?

If you have a doubt, watch TV. But if you are not yet raging mad, wait for the story of Chief Justice Dinakaran's dirty linen unfold. This is the case of the HEAD of a High Court, not some ordinary (!) DGP of Police. It only gets higher with each day. I know you're probably thinking, what can I do? I'm only a small, helpless individual. Maybe you and I are, just that.

---------

* DGP = Director General of Police

New Indian Visa Regulations Impact Tourists

smallsquirrel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:32:56 EST

Within the past few months, the Government of India has implemented new regulations which severely restrict the movements of people wishing to complete multiple entries into India on a Tourist visa.

According to a Warden Message from the US Government:

Initial information from the Government of India indicated that revised visa regulations would primarily affect travelers with tourist visas who had been in India for more than 90 days before travel abroad or more than 180 days in the past year. However, the U.S. Mission has received confirmation that foreign passports are now stamped on exit to indicate that the bearer cannot re-enter India within two months of exit unless special permission is obtained from an Indian Embassy, Consulate, or High Commission abroad, regardless of the validity of visa or length of stay in India. Travelers have reported being denied re-entry after exiting India for business or family emergencies, or for tourist travel to nearby countries, even if their initial visit to India was for only a few days. Prior guidance and procedures that allowed re-entry to India after stays of up to 180 days are no longer in effect.

Apparently now these regulations are being inconsistently applied, and people with various kinds of visas, including business visas, are having serious issues. The same Warden's message relates the story of a woman who tried to depart India on her tourist visa after a one week stay. She was told to go to the Foreigner's Registration Office and register, even though her passport had been clearly stamped on entry: “Registration not required if stay is less than 14 days.” There are other stories of other families and individuals being refused re-entry on shaky grounds.

I can see where the Indian government might want to close a loophole which would allow tourists who posses long term, multiple entry tourist visas from essentially living in India by simply leaving the country every 180 days. But this kind of haphazard and ham-handed approach to implementing new regulations does not help anyone.

I would encourage anyone planning to visit India on any kind of visa to plan your trip carefully, and not make any side trips outside the country during the duration of your stay. People currently inside India, whether on Business, X, or Tourist visas should contact their nearest High Commission or Consulate overseas or their local FRO before exiting India to try to ensure that you will be let back in.