d elhi friday, march 15, 2019 an abhorrent and unjust device€¦ · try, tokenistic marketing...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: D ELHI FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2019 An abhorrent and unjust device€¦ · try, tokenistic marketing threa-tened to reduce the day to hash-tags and discounts. T he irony and history O n](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042412/5f2b823617702470ee4f9b58/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
#70929
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
DELHI THE HINDU
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 20198EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
CMYK
M ND-NDE
EDITORIAL
Radhika Santhanam
On Women’s Day this year,messages clogged my inbox. They off��ered tempting
discounts in salons, on shoes,clothes and cosmetics, and evencomplimentary cocktails. Despitewomen organising seminars on fi��nance, sexual harassment andhealth problems across the country, tokenistic marketing threatened to reduce the day to hashtags and discounts.
The irony and historyOn the International Women’s Day2019 website, the partners included McDonald’s, Amazon and Oracle. McDonald’s is facing fl��ak in theU.S. for failing to pay its largely female workforce the minimumwage, Amazon is reported to havea huge gender diversity problem,and Oracle is facing a civil rightssuit that alleges female employeeswere paid on average $13,000 lessper year than men doing similarwork. All three were apparently insupport of the 2019 campaigntheme, ‘Better the balance, betterthe world’.
The irony of all this is particu
larly rich given that InternationalWomen’s Day has its origins in socialism. German socialist and feminist Clara Zetkin, who organised the fi��rst InternationalWomen’s Day, was a socialist fi��rstand a feminist next. In the magazine Die Gleichheit (Equality), Zetkin wrote in 1894: “Bourgeois feminism and the movement ofproletarian women are two fundamentally diff��erent social movements.” Zetkin held that “bourgeois feminists” were not concernedwith the conditions of workingclass women who were fi��ghtingnot only against men who soughtto suppress them, but also withmen against a common oppressor,capitalism. She believed that aswhite, upper class feminists wouldonly fi��ght to better their own conditions, socialism was the onlyway to serve the needs of workingclass women.
Zetkin suggested in the SecondInternational Conference of Socialist Women at Copenhagen in1910 that Women’s Day be celebrated each year, the foremostpurpose of which would be “to aidthe attainment of women’s suffrage”. The timing for the proposalwas ideal — a year earlier, the Socialist Party in the U.S. had alsosuggested that a National Women’sDay be observed, in honour of astrike that took place in 1908.More than 15,000 women garmentworkers fought for higher wages
and shorter working hours in thatstrike.
Following Zetkin’s proposal, International Women’s Day was observed in a few European countries on March 19,commemorating the 1848 Revolution in Prussia when a people’suprising had forced the king topromise women the right to vote,which he later failed to keep.
But the day became truly revolutionary only later. In Russia,protests erupted on March 8, 1917,against World War I and broughtdown the Tsarist Empire. The newgovernment gave the women theright to vote. International Women’s Day was thus a day of resistance and demand. The reason theUN observed the day only decadeslater, from 1975 onwards, was because the Americans were awareof — and wary of — its origins insocialism.
Over the decades, women’s de
mands have varied across cultures. In India, for instance, following the anticolonial and socialreform movement, the Constitution guaranteed justice, dignityand equality for women. However,these values came in confl��ict withold patriarchal values, thus limiting women’s progress. The women’s movement became fragmented, only to see a resurgencein the 1970s after the Emergencywhen there was a rallying cry forcivil rights. This led to the birth ofseveral women’s organisations,which successfully pushed for legal reforms. The women’s movement slowly regained strength,fi��ghting against dowry deaths,domestic violence, and sexualabuse. However, it never really appreciated the struggles of Dalit andBahujan women.
Issues in IndiaOn this March 8, in some parts ofthe world (mostly Latin Americaand Europe), women continued todo what women in the early ’90sdid — protest. In India, however,several companies with gender diversity and pay gap problems celebrated the day, despite the alarming trend of more and morewomen withdrawing from theworkforce (female participation inthe workforce fell from 42.7% in200405 to 23.3% in 201718).WhatsApp forwards continued tocelebrate women as mothers,
daughters and sisters who are ableto multitask eff��ortlessly, underlining the widespread belief that it isacceptable for women to work aslong as they also carry out theirtraditional duties at home. Giventhe huge inequality in the treatment and payment of womenworkers, and with labour conditions being unfriendly to women,it is important to ask what reallywomen want on this day: roses orreforms?
Instead of celebrating women,companies would do well to refl��ect on how they treat their women: is their pay on a par withmen? Are sexual harassment cellsin place and do they function? Arethere crèches at workplaces? Andwhat about the informal sector,the working class women, who arenot represented by “bourgeois feminists”? How do we consolidatevarious women’s movementsacross classes and castes?
In an increasingly unequalworld, March 8 gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves how muchmore is to be done and how it is tobe accomplished. Instead of allowing a day rooted in protest to be taken over by consumerism, womencould mobilise around specifi��c issues — better sanitation facilitiesand better wages — and make sustained demands for eff��ectivechange in their conditions.
From revolutions to roses Women’s Day should be an occasion to ponder over how much more is to be done for gender justice
GE
TT
Y IM
AG
ES/I
ST
OC
KP
HO
TO
more letters online:
www.hindu.com/opinion/letters/
On March 5, a threejudgebench of the SupremeCourt delivered verdicts in
three diff��erent death penalty cases. In two of those the court entirely exonerated the suspects, whilein the third it not only found theaccused guilty of murder, but alsodeserving of capital punishment.Individually read, the judgmentstypify the deep penological confusion that pervades India’s criminaljustice system. Collectively, thecases demonstrate how arbitrarythe death penalty is, how its application is mired by a belief in confl��icting values, and how the fundamental requirement of precisionin criminal law has been replacedby a rhetorical cry for avengingcrime by invoking the “collectiveconscience” of society.
Conjecture and farceIn the fi��rst of the cases, DigamberVaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh,two persons were convicted ofmurdering fi��ve women and weresentenced to death in 2014. A yearlater, the Chhattisgarh High Courtaffi��rmed these sentences. But thechief testimony, which formed thebackbone of the prosecution’scase, was that of a nineyearoldchild, who was, shockingly, noteven an eyewitness to the crime.This, the court therefore ruled,was eff��ectively a conviction premised on surmise and conjecture.
Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State ofMaharashtra, the second of thecases, saw a gutwrenching seriesof events being reduced to macabre farce. In 2006, a trial courtfound six persons guilty of rape
and murder and sentenced each ofthem to death. A year later, theBombay High Court confi��rmed thefi��nding of guilt, but commuted thesentences imposed on three of theindividuals to life imprisonment.However, in 2009, the SupremeCourt not only dismissed the appeals fi��led by those sentenced todeath, but also, astonishingly, enhanced the penalties of the threepersons whose sentences hadbeen commuted by ordering thatthey too be punished with death.In doing so, the court relied on a1996 verdict, in Ravji v. State of Ra-jasthan, where it had ruled that indetermining whether to award thedeath penalty “it is the nature andgravity of the crime” alone that demand consideration. Although inMay 2009, the Supreme Court haddeclared its earlier ruling in Ravjiincorrect, by holding that even inthose cases where the crime isbrutal and heinous the criminal’santecedents, including his economic and social background,must have a bearing on the awardof the sentence, it took until October last year for the court to recall its order sentencing the sixpersons to death.
During this time, as the courtrecords, “The accused remainedunder constant stress and in theperpetual fear of death.” What ismore, one of them, who was laterfound to be a juvenile at the timewhen the alleged crime was committed, was kept in solitary confi��nement. He was not allowed tomeet any of the other prisonersand was only allowed an occasional meeting with his mother. Fortheir troubles — for having spentmore than a decade on death rowdespite having committed nocrime — the bench ordered thatthe state pay each of them a sum of₹��5 lakh. But while the court wasquick to apportion blame on theprosecution, it didn’t so much asmention its own errors and its own
proclivity to mirror the mentalityof a mob.
A ‘rarest of rare’ caseYet, we might have been forgivenfor thinking that the court’s experience in hearing Digamber Vaish-nav and, especially, Ankush MarutiShinde may have made it more circumspect in upholding death sentences. After all, if these decisionshad shown us anything, it was thatthe judicial process is far from inerrant. But the collective conscience of society, representedthrough the court’s capital punishment jurisprudence, it appears, isstill alive and kicking. For in thethird of the cases, in KhushwinderSingh v. State of Punjab, it not onlyaffi��rmed the conviction of the accused, on charges of murderingsix members of a family, but alsogave its imprimatur to the awardof the death penalty. The murders,the judgment holds, were “diabolical and dastardly” and the casefell into the “rarest of rare” categories where “there is no alternativepunishment suitable, except thedeath sentence”.
The rarest of rare doctrine hasits origins in Bachan Singh v. Stateof Punjab (1980). There, the courtdeclared Section 302 of the IndianPenal Code, which prescribes thedeath penalty for murder, as constitutionally valid, but bounded itslimits by holding that the punishment can only be prescribed in therarest of rare cases. Since then, thecourt has repeatedly cautionedthat capital punishment ought to
only be decreed when the statecan clearly establish that a convictis incapable of being reformed andrehabilitated. But, in KhushwinderSingh, the court does not place onrecord any such piece of evidencethat the state was called on to produce. Indeed, the court does notso much as attempt to answerwhether the accused was, in fact,capable of reformation or not. Instead, it merely endorses thedeath sentence by holding thatthere simply were no mitigatingcircumstances warranting an alternative penalty.
Victims of the systemThat capital punishment serves nolegitimate penological purpose isby now abundantly clear. There’salmost no empirical evidenceavailable showing that the deathpenalty actually deters crime. Ifanything, independent studieshave repeatedly shown the converse to be true. In the U.S., for instance, States that employ capitalpunishment have had drasticallyhigher rates of homicide in comparison with those States wherethe death penalty is no longer engaged. In India, evidence alsopoints to a disproportionate application of the sentence, with themost economically and sociallymarginalised amongst us suff��eringthe most. The Death Penalty IndiaReport (DPIR), released on May 6,2016, by Project 39A of the National Law University, Delhi, for example, shows that 74% of prisonerson death row, at the time of thestudy, were economically vulnerable, and 63% were either the primary or sole earners in their families. More than 60% of thosesentenced to death had not completed their secondary school education, and 23% had never attended school, a factor which, as thereport states, “points to the alienation that they would experiencefrom the legal process, in terms of
the extent to which they are ableto understand the case againstthem and engage with the criminaljustice system.” Just as distressingly, 76% of those sentenced to deathbelonged to backward classes andreligious minorities, including all12 female prisoners.
In the face of this invidiouslyprejudiced application, the retention of capital punishment utterlyundermines the country’s moralfoundations. Over the course ofthe last decade, the SupremeCourt may well have expanded therights of death row prisoners: delays by the President in disposingof mercy petitions now constitutea valid ground for commutation;review petitions fi��led by death rowconvicts now have to be mandatorily heard in open court. But as thejudgments delivered on March 5reveal, the very preservation ofthe death penalty creates iniquitous results. Cases such as AnkushMaruti Shinde, where the accused,as the judgment records, were very poor labourers, “nomadictribes coming from the lower strata of the society,” ought to make itevident that the death penalty isan abhorrent and unjust device.
Not only are wholly irrationalcriteria applied to arrive at dangerously irreversible decisions, thelaw’s application is made all themore sinister by invariably imposing these standards on the mostvulnerable members of society.The Constitution promises to every person equality before the law.But capital punishment rendersthis pledge hollow. It legalises aform of violence, and it closesdown, as Judith Butler wrote, expounding Jacques Derrida, “thedistinction between justice andvengeance,” where “justice becomes the moralised form thatvengeance assumes.”
Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate
practising at the Madras High Court
An abhorrent and unjust deviceRetention of the death penalty utterly undermines India’s moral foundations
Suhrith Parthasarathy
GE
TT
Y IM
AG
ES/I
ST
OC
KP
HO
TO
China’s veto
It is appalling that for thefourth time, China hasblatantly abused the powerit enjoys as a permanentmember of the UnitedNations Security Council toblock the proposal toproscribe Masood Azhar,the founderleader of thePakistanbased terrorgroup, the JaisheMohammad (Page 1, “Chinaplaces hold on listing Azharas designated terrorist”,March 14). China’s successin having its will prevail atthe UNSC and adopting adefi��ant stand despite theoverwhelming support thatIndia had on the issue atthe UNSC is a clearindication of its ruthless,unabashed ambition tosupersede the U.S. as thenext superpower. It alsocasts a dark shadow on itsattempts at emerging as aresponsible global power.China’s move of supportingits ally, Pakistan, can be
traced to its apparentattempts at mollycoddlingterror groups who pose asecurity threat to itseconomic corridor. Littledoes it realise that it islosing sight of longtermperspectives for shorttermgains. China’s currentanimosity towards Indiacould also stem from thefact that its ‘string of pearls’policy has taken a beatingrecently.India can take solace fromthe fact that the move toban Azhar was cosponsored by othermembers of the UNSC.Therefore, China’s standalso humiliates them.Nalini Vijayaraghavan,
Thiruvananthapuram
■ China is at it again. It isclear that China has its owninterests in mind, afraid thatterror groups can aff��ect itseconomic ambitions. China’sstatement is an insult to allother UNSC member
countries. They should stilltry to make it see reason. K.V. Seetharamaiah,
Hassan, Karnataka
■ China has, once again, letIndia badly down. Instead ofhaving an ostrich in the sandapproach to the matter andgiving shallow explanationslike it needs ‘more time toinvestigate’ evidence againstthe terrorist, it is time Beijingrealised that on account of itscontinued and unjustifi��ablyinfl��exible stand, the united,strong and committed fi��ghtof many nations againstglobal terrorism will only getweakened. A. Mohan,
Chennai
■ India’s continuedconciliatory approachtoward China exposes thefact that New Delhi lacks anyleverage with it on Azhar andthat Beijing interprets India’spussyfooting as a sign ofweakness. Unless India sees
Pakistan and China as onehyphenated strategic entityand takes an integratedpolicy approach, piecemealeff��orts will remain ineff��ectiveand even counterproductive.R. Sivakumar,
Chennai
On the IS
The article, “Down, butdefi��nitely not out” (Editorialpage, March 14), talks abouthow the U.K. HomeSecretary has been criticisedfor his alleged disregard ofthe human rights of a youngBritish mother in distress,who fl��ed the country to jointhe Islamic State. The writerhas not mentioned a keypoint published by manycredible U.K.based mediahouses: on accounts of thegirl having had no regrets injoining the IS. Yet sheintends to return to the U.K.on humanitarian grounds. Ido not intend to challenge orundermine the overall
Australia except that it couldmake India come out of itscomplacency (‘Sport’ page,“Australia burst India’sinvincibility, scriptmemorable series win”,March 14). Experimentationhas paid dividends in thepast. It is an ongoing processand helps to gauge the benchstrength which can beemployed in case a needarises. But forexperimentation, KuldeepYadav and Yuzvendra Chahalwho replaced R. Ashwin andRavindra Jadeja, would havenever represented India. Inthe fi��fth ODI, except VijayShankar, all the other playerswere top notch onedayplayers. We must appreciateAustralia’s resilience.However, resting M.S. Dhonidefi��es logic as he plays onlylimited version games andmight call it a day soon. V. Subramanian,
Chennai
narrative or the content butfeel that opinion pieces mustcapture all the ethicaldilemmas so as to enrichreaders. Vishwarath Reddy,
New Delhi
■ What we must note is thatit is the absence of stable anddemocratic governments thatis actually paving the way forthe rise of deadly terroristgroups. It is with the backingof the U.S. that the SyrianDemocratic Forces issucceeding in getting backlost territories. We must notforget that the Islamic State isa hydraheaded terroristgroup which can’t beeliminated quickly. It canbounce back if there is apolitical vacuum. Jelvin Jose,
Thrissur, Kerala
ODI win
There is no need to read toomuch into the unexpectedseries loss at the hands of
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Letters emailed to [email protected] must carry the full postal address and the full name or the name with initials.
The Tamil Nadu government’s decision to transfer
the ‘Pollachi sexual abuse case’ to the Central Bu
reau of Investigation (CBI) gives the case rightful
priority, and the agency must swiftly unravel the sexual
assault and blackmail racket that has victimised a num
ber of young women. The case had its origins in a com
plaint of sexual harassment, assault and robbery in a
town in Coimbatore district. While the arrest of the ac
cused was made in endFebruary, the case created a
storm early this week when a leaked video found its
way into the public sphere. Sourced from the phones of
those who were arrested, it had a woman piteously
pleading with her abusers to leave her alone. In fact,
what has been uncovered so far might be the mere tip
of the iceberg, as initial investigation has indicated that
the scale of the operations of the four young men in Pol
lachi might be much larger than is obvious now. Among
the accused was a member of the All India Anna Dravi
da Munnetra Kazhagam (who has since been removed
from the party’s membership), and Opposition parties
allege that the case involves those much higher in the
State’s ruling party leadership.
The public outrage that ensued had the government
fi��rst ordering that the case be transferred to the Crime
BranchCID, and then in just a day, to the CBI. Given the
timing, with the Lok Sabha polls and critical Assembly
byelections around the corner, the political glow on
the case is likely to be accentuated. But it is important
that even as the investigation proceeds to nail the guilty
and establish the scale of the abuse and blackmail
crimes, the women’s identity and their privacy be
strictly protected. The State Women’s Commission has
promised that it will conduct an investigation into the
matter, providing telephone numbers that victims can
call to lodge complaints with complete confi��dentiality.
The National Commission for Women has expressed se
rious concern over the safety of women in Tamil Nadu.
In a letter to the State DGP, its Chairperson has asked
that appropriate action be taken, and sought an action
taken report. For its part, the government cannot wash
its hands of the matter with the transfer of the case to
the CBI. It must allow and assist in a free and fair probe
into the incidents to bring justice to the victims, and to
ensure their dignity and anonymity are maintained. In
this election season, the ruling and Opposition parties
must summon their political morality by articulating
the gravity of the crime and refraining from trying to
make political capital out of this heinous crime. Sexual
assault and blackmail are dark crimes — the guilty must
be brought to book. And the women and their families
must be assured of justice and confi��dentiality.
Horror in PollachiCases of sexual assault and blackmail must be
pursued swiftly and the guilty brought to book
China’s decision to block the listing of JaisheMo
hammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist
at the UN Security Council is both a setback to In
dia’s postPulwama diplomatic strategy and a reality
check on ties with China at present. After the February
14 attack, claimed by the JeM, the government had
made the listing of Azhar a focus in its diplomatic ef
forts. It reached out to several governments, and shared
a dossier on Azhar with each member of the Security
Council, who are all members of the 1267 ISIL and al
Qaeda sanctions committee. A special eff��ort was made
with Beijing, which has blocked the Azhar listing in the
past, including just after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
From 2016 to 2018, India’s proposals to list Azhar, with
evidence of JeM involvement in the Pathankot airbase
attack, were also foiled by China, which placed holds
on the listing, and then vetoed it. The vetoes came des
pite the fact that the JeM is banned, and in the UNSC
listing it is noted that Azhar, as its leader and founder,
accepted funds from Osama bin Laden. China, as the
one country that has refused to allow Azhar’s name on
the list, is well aware of the evidence against him, but is
not ready to withdraw its objections. It is clear that des
pite IndiaChina relations improving after the Wuhan
summit in April 2018, China is unwilling to align itself
with India on its concerns on crossborder terrorism
emanating from Pakistan.
China’s stand is regrettable and condemnable, and it
has been consistent on this issue. New Delhi must now
consider whether it wishes to accept this as a fait ac-
compli, or confront Beijing to try to persuade it to
change its stand by means of incentives or coercion.
This is a challenge, as any kind of concerted interna
tional pressure from the Western countries in this re
gard has in the past only served to be counterproduc
tive. It is also unlikely that the suggestions being off��ered
by some political groups, of cutting imports from China
and other punitive actions, will yield much. The go
vernment may be more successful if it identifi��es the in
centives it can off��er China in the next few months to re
view its position. While some of those incentives would
be bilateral, the Chinese spokesperson’s hint that dia
logue between New Delhi and Islamabad, and even pos
sible “triangular” talks including Beijing, is indicative of
China’s thinking. The government must also not lose
sight of the bigger picture: that the UNSC cannot en
force its own listings, and other leaders who have been
sanctioned in the past remain free and unencumbered.
While listing Azhar at the UNSC is an unfi��nished task,
the larger issue remains: to ensure that Pakistan takes
substantive action against Azhar, the JeM and other ter
ror groups that are threatening India. China, with its
economic and strategic leverage with Pakistan, may be
betterplaced to help in this matter.
China’s blockIts decision on Masood Azhar is shocking —
but India must keep up persuasive diplomacy
https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official
https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official
![Page 2: D ELHI FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2019 An abhorrent and unjust device€¦ · try, tokenistic marketing threa-tened to reduce the day to hash-tags and discounts. T he irony and history O n](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042412/5f2b823617702470ee4f9b58/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
#70929
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
THE HINDU DELHI
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2019 9EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
CMYK
M ND-NDE
OPED
The National Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman,sore over the failure of the round table talks in Rawalpindi tosecure acceptance of the demand for autonomy for East Pakistan, yesterday [March 13] called on Air Marshal Asghar Khanand, according to Radio Pakistan, discussed with him the political situation. This was the fi��rst notable development following the conclusion of the Round Table Conference yesterday[March 13] between President Ayub Khan and Opposition leaders. The Sheikh today [March 14] said at Lahore that he wouldpresent his own draft constitutional reforms soon. The Times(London) correspondent from Rawalpindi reported today[March 14] that Mr. Rahman hinted that the “revolt” in East Pakistan might turn into a serious separatist movement unlessMr. Ayub Khan granted the 70 million Bengalis full autonomyalmost immediately. The correspondent said that after thethird session of the Rawalpindi talks, the Sheikh said it wouldbe natural if people began thinking in terms of “complete independence” if the present talks failed. “I do not know howmuch longer their patience will last, President Ayub can concede our demands, but much depends on the attitude of therest of the administration.”
FIFTY YEARS AGO MARCH 15, 1969
Mujibur Rahman warns of movement
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
FROM ARCHIVES
Since sometime past great diffi��culty is experienced from thegeneral shortage of kerosine oil, and no vigorous steps haveyet been taken to allay the distress of the public. Between thehours of 4 and 6 in the evening every day a kerosine oil bazaaris swarmed by people anxiously waiting for their day’s supplyof oil. A local depot keeper when asked by one of our representatives told him that since the stoppage of the American oiland the irregular and insuffi��cient supply by the importingcompanies the situation had become more aggravated. Further enquiry showed him that in addition to this partial truth,the depot keepers do not put in market the entire quantitythat they obtain from the agents. A great part of their supply issold to retailers and who in turn raise the price as it suits thembest. If these unscrupulous profi��teers are pointed out their illegality and dishonest business the situation becomes worseand one has to go back disappointed. Another vagary of thebazaarman is that they do not sell before 4 o’clock or after seven o’clock in the evenings.
A HUNDRED YEARS AGO MARCH 15, 1919.
Kerosine Oil.
For years now, Facebook has been facingfl��ak for privacy violations. The most notorious of these was the Cambridge Analyticascandal. Under relentless pressure fromregulators to tighten its privacy safeguards,Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in a postlast week, appears to have made a 180de
gree shift in what Facebook has stood for all along: fromsharing and openness, to privacy and encryption.
In a 3,200word post on Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg unveiled what he calls “a privacyfocused vision for social networking”. Facebook is a company whose very business model is built on encouraging, coaxing, and manipulatingpeople to share more and more of their private lives. So understandably, its founder’s latest posture on privacy hasstruck many as little more than posturing.
In his post, Mr. Zuckerberg outlined a fourfold strategy toposition privacy at the heart of Facebook’s business. First,all social media activity would be endtoend encrypted, asWhatsApp currently is, across Facebook, WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram. Second, users could post ‘ephemeral’messages that would all get automatically get deleted unlessthey specifi��ed otherwise. Third, interoperability, whichwould enable users to seamlessly send and receive messagesacross WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram or SMS, would bepossible owing to a unifi��cation of the technological backendof all these platforms. Many fear that this might open the gateway for massive data mining and be a way to duck antitrust legislation. Finally, Facebook will not store data incountries that have a questionable record in protecting human rights such as privacy and free speech. This is to protect users’ privacy by ensuring that data is not “improperlyaccessed.”
Of these four, the most radical promise is encryptionacross platforms. If implemented, which many still doubt, itwould mean that even Facebook cannot ‘see’ what its billions of users are sharing. As per Mr. Zuckerberg’s analogy, italso signals a shift in Facebook Inc’s centre of gravity — fromthe social network imagined as a town square (Facebook),where you are sharing something with all or most of yourfriends, to the social network imagined as your living room(such as a small WhatsApp or Messenger group), where amore intimate — and more private — sharing can take place.What happens to Facebook’s adbased business model insuch a scenario?
Mr. Zuckerberg’s answer suggests that the ‘pivot to privacy’ would itself be based on a pivot towards “payments,commerce, and ultimately a platform for many other kindsof private services.” He hasn’t off��ered a time frame for eff��ecting this transition.
Not surprisingly, given Facebook’s long history of sacrifi��cing privacy at the altar of Mammon, many remain sceptical.A brilliant New Yorker cartoon captured the general sentiment that greeted Mr. Zuckerberg’s proclamation. In thecartoon, Mr. Zuckerberg, speaking from a podium, announces to the world, “Facebook is changing. From now on,sharing is private. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.”
The writer is the Social Aff��airs Editor of The Hindu
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
SINGLE FILE
Can sharing be private? Facebook’s ‘pivot to privacy’ plansignals a shift in its centre of gravity G. Sampath
AP
Rescued puppy becomes top sniff��er dog in Bengal Police
bomb squad
http://bit.ly/Sniff��erDog
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
MORE ON THE WEB 3
The Supreme Court has opted for atimebound mediation process in abid to resolve the Ayodhya dispute.Sukumar Muralidharan and Sanjay Hegde debate whether mediation is necessary at this stage,and if the process is viable, in a discussion moderated by K. Venkataramanan. Excerpts:
Is mediation viable at this stageof the litigation, when theSupreme Court is set to beginthe fi��nal hearing in the Ayodhyadispute? Is it advisable anddesirable?
Sukumar Muralidharan: I thinkthe Supreme Court has stepped inas a problemsolver at numerousstages of this dispute over the years.And sometimes it has declined toplay that role — instances being asfar back as in 1989, when it wasasked to put a stop to the Shila Pujans that were going on all over thecountry and causing a lot of communal violence, and it declined todo so; and then again in 1992, whenit was asked to ensure the safety ofthe structure when the Vishva Hindu Parishad was planning its kar seva on December 6, 1992. Of course,it did issue a writ and asked for guarantees to the safety of the structure. The rest is history. Then, thereference was made to determinewhether there was a Hindu religiousstructure under the mosque prior tothe mosque being built. The Supreme Court declined to hear it butheld that the acquisition of the landwas good in law. And that a mosquewas not part of essential religiouspractice for the Islamic faith and,hence, there was no violation of religious freedom in the acquisition ofthat land. It then reverted the caseto the Lucknow Bench for a determination of the title suit. So, that’swhat we had coming out in 2010.This mediation decision comes outof an appeal against the LucknowBench’s decision. So, I think this fi��tsin with the normal course of adjudication in the matter. The mediationdecision is the court, in a manner ofspeaking, abdicating its responsibility.
Sanjay Hegde: Any court always
has the option of asking parties tomediate before it proceeds to adjudicate. That is laid down in the CivilProcedure Code. This is a kind ofcase where even if there is adjudication, the court is not particularlysure as to whether its verdict wouldbe honoured if it is unpopular onone side or the other. However, thecourt decided to be proactive, not inthe sense of abdicating its jurisdiction, but is aware now that mediation itself is a specialised process. Itis not exactly in the sense of a negotiating or bargaining kind of situation. Mediation is something muchdeeper and the court wants to seewhether that process with thetrained mediator plus two otherswho are of repute within the community, both legally as well as interms of a broader religious appeal... they’ve tried to get somekind of representational team together. And see where the processgoes.
There is a small window ofeight weeks for mediation.Would it have been better if themediation process was givenmore time, or if it was openended so that there could be amore viable process?
S.H.: If you give too much time,nothing really happens. So, having adeadline also concentrates parties’minds wonderfully, inasmuch asthere is time pressure to arrive at asolution.
S.M.: My worry is that the court hasopted for a deadline that just puts itover the threshold of the electoralcycle, so that it does not get aff��ectedby the heat and dust of the electioncampaign. Now, it may be prudentto have done this, but I don’t seethat the court should really be allowing this political scenario to impinge upon its decision. Now, oncethe mediation begins, who will themediators involve in the process?There are a number of litigants involved. The original litigants are theNirmohi Akhara, the Wakf Board,and there is Ram Lalla, the deity.But the VHP is creating trouble onthe streets, and they have become,by virtue of their coercive politics,
litigants in the problem. So, who aregoing to be part of the mediation?It’s going to be a tricky process because whoever is left out of the mediation process can move out to thestreets with their grievance, andwhip up public fury.
The suits are representative innature with the twocommunities on either side ofthe dispute. It is said it will bediffi��cult to enforce a decree ofthe court, if one partyexpresses misgivings and theother party is happy about it.Does this not apply to themediation process also?
S.H.: A negotiated settlement willalso ultimately end up in a decree ofthe court. What will happen on theenforcement of the decree is another question. Right now, we are wondering whether the decree can bearrived at by consensus among theparties to the litigation, or whetherthe decree has to be arrived at onlythrough the adjudicatory route.
Do you agree with the basic formulation — that this is a matter concerning faith and not merely the civil rights of the respective parties?
S.M.: There’s so much of politicsriding on this. They [the Muslimparties] say they are willing to cedethe land if it is proven that it was taken by fraud or by force from theother side. And the other side is arguing, ‘No, it is a matter of faith, andwe cannot negotiate, or have a judicial determination on a matter offaith.’ I don’t see any reason whythey will retreat from that reallyhardline position now, without risk
of loss of face, since it has becomesuch a highstakes issue politically.The judiciary could have just proceeded to take the bull by the horn,rather than bring in the question offaith and the emotion.
Do you get the sense that thelegal issues are secondary?
S.H.: Politically, it has always beenframed like that. How does the judiciary handle it? The judiciary couldhave well said, ‘Look there are nomanageable standards,’ and declined to get into the dispute altogether. Or, it could have said, ‘Wehave no space for faith and beliefout here. Let us go simply by the lawas laid down.’ The mosque hasstood there for nearly 500 years,and we all saw this go down in 1992.How does, in the face of all that evidence, one side prove title?
There are two basic emotions outhere. One emotion on the Hinduside is, ‘We have suff��ered religioushurt and we have lived with itthrough 500 years. This may not bea Hindu state, but it is a Hindu majority country. The wishes of themajority on this thing must prevail.’On the Muslim side, it is this emotion that, ‘Look, we are not intruders. These are things that have happened so many years ago.’ Theseunderlying emotions, if the multifaith mediation team could addresssomewhere, and get people to un
derstand that irrespective of faith,irrespective of the past... this country needs to move on ahead.
It is argued that for Hindus it isa matter of faith as far as thespot is concerned, whereas theright of worship of Muslims canbe exercised anywhere. Theidea behind the mediationseems to be to get the Muslimside to give up their claim overthe site, and instead have amosque elsewhere. Against thisbackdrop, it is interesting thatthe Sunni Wakf Board and theAll India Muslim Personal LawBoard were open to the idea ofmediation, whereas the threeHindu parties were not infavour of it.
S.H.: You are right that the Muslimside in a way perceives itself to bethe weaker side, and it had alwayssaid whatever the court orders, itwill abide by it. The thing on theHindu side is that after all this isgod’s property. There is almost asense of crusade out there and wecannot give up anything, havingstarted the fi��ght in god’s name. Atthe end of the day, Hindus and Muslims are all part of India.
S.M.: We should avoid any impression that the institutions of our governance process are skewing thewhole balance in favour of favour ofmajoritarian coercive politics. Because, I think the people of the minority faith have a sense of grievance that they have not been givena fair deal in this process. In fact,even the ruling that the acquisitionof land was legitimate because theplace of worship is not an essentialpart of the religious faith of Muslims— that also has caused some disquiet... but now they’re even beingrestrained from even off��eringprayers in public places.
Would you like to comment onthe choice of the mediators?
S.H.: Well, about two choices nobody has any doubts: Sriram Panchuand Justice Kalifulla. The question isabout Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Thepoint is that you needed somebodyon the Hindu side who could possibly sell a settlement to the largerHindu community. Therefore it didmake sense to bring in a holy man.
But why this particular godman?That is a choice left to individualjudges who can constitute theBench.
S.M.: Well, he’s on record sayingMuslims should give up their claimto the title of the land and alsothreatening dire consequences ifthat does not happen. So, that giveshim not exactly the best claim to being a fair mediator to this process.So before the task of achieving a mediated outcome between the diff��erent litigants to this process, I thinkthe mediators have to achieve consensus amongst themselves abouthow they’re going to approach this.And given the composition of thisteam, I think that is not a trivial challenge.
What do you think will be thelarger implications forconstitutional values like therule of law and secularism,when this litigation reacheseither an adjudicated ornegotiated settlement?
S.H.: Quite frankly, I think we, as ademocracy, gave up our belief in therule of law on December 6, 1992.What we are trying to do is to snatchback whatever remains; to rebuildit, because ultimately, let me put itthis way and this is my question toeven those who propound a HinduRashtra: Even a Hindu Rashtra can’twork without the rule of law. And ifyou do something which is out ofthe law, and then you try to retrospectively make it right, it justdoesn’t work.
S.M.: That is the key question goingforward. Because once you havedestroyed the faith that people ofdiff��erent religious convictions mighthave in the neutrality of the governance process, it is very diffi��cult toretrieve that. Over the last 30 years,the balance has shifted too far in favour of majoritarian assertion andwe’ve allowed a number of politicalcampaigns to ride on this issue,which should have been settledright at the moment it was born.That default over 30 years has allowed this issue to become a political matter on which very emotivecampaigns were mounted by bothsides. The damage has been verydeep and it’ll be very lasting unlesswe sort things out very quickly.
Will a court-mandated mediation on Ayodhya solve the issue? The Supreme Court’s attempt at mediation hasits share of supporters and critics
PARLEY
Sanjay Hegde
is an Advocate,
Supreme Court of
India
Sukumar
Muralidharan
teaches journalism
at the O.P. Jindal
Global University,
Sonepat
Scan the QR code towatch the fullinterview online
<> We’ve allowed a number of
political campaigns to ride
on this issue, which should
have been settled right at
the moment it was born.
AF
P
the party publicity posters,help in the wall writing andget the snacks. The amountcame to a little over ₹��100per day.
In the evening we wouldvisit the local hotel andhave a sumptuous meal ofdosa and rasa vada,washed down with a cup oftea or coff��ee or sukku coffee. More often than not,Opposition party cadreswould also be there seatedon the benches facing us.They would never eat whatwe ate. Only the Communists would spend out oftheir own pockets.
When the money wasspent on the gum, paintand lime for the white washof the walls, the cadreswould make upma and sukku coff��ee in the kariayalams. At times they wouldboil tapioca and have itwith freshly ground chilliand garlic paste as a sidedish. As there was no timeframe for the election campaign, our arguments anddiscussions would go onendlessly. There weretimes when a senior leaderor even the candidate
The distribution of moneyto voters during electiontime is one of the challenges democracy in India faces. Though it has been anestablished practice, infl��ation applies here too, andthe amounts seem to haveincreased.
Even the local offi��cebearers and cadres of political parties will not carryout election work unlessthe candidate and the highcommand meet their regular expenses: biryani and liquor. When it comes to thetime of elections, biryanibecomes a national food.
When I was a studentand worked for politicalparties, a group of localleaders would often visitthe areas we were in — in anAmbassador car — to distribute money and posters.Karialayams, or smallsheds that were put uptemporarily, would function as a party offi��ce.Cadres would use the money to buy gum, which wasmade by boiling tapiocapowder in water, to stick
would drop by to greet thecadres. On the day of election, buttermilk or panagam (lemon juice with jaggery) would be distributedto voters. We sat before atransistor radio on the dayof counting and listened tothe bulletin of All India Radio, a process that wouldoften take two to three daysto complete.
In many constituencies,the cadres would be able topredict the candidatesbased not only their wealthbut also their commitmentand ability to do partywork. So the candidate listalways had a mix ofwealthy and a committedparty workers who depended on the high command for electionexpenses.
The trend was the sameeven in the late 1980s.While covering an election,I was engaged in a conversation with a senior Dravida Munnetra Kazhagamcandidate, who was oncethe Mayor of Chennai. Hetold me that the high command had given him ₹��4lakh for the election expen
diture and that he couldsave ₹��1.75 lakh after meeting the expenses.
He said, “If the party off��ers me a seat today, I maynot be in a position to enterthe fray as contesting anelection has become a richman’s business. If I win theelections, it is well andgood. If I lose, I will be indebt permanently.”
He was absolutely right.Once an aspirant for the Panamarathupatti constituency showed me a demanddraft made out for ₹��50 lakhwhen he came for the interview for candidates. Hesaid, “I had to show it to theparty leaders to prove howmuch I am worth.”
His views were echoedby another former Minister. He said, “Today, contesting in an Assembly constituency will cost you atleast ₹��3 crore. Partymenwho run businesses, educational institutions and existing MPs and MLAs alonecan aff��ord it.” A Lok Sabhaconstituency covers six Assembly constituencies. Soyou can calculate theamount.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
NOTEBOOK
Field notes from the election battleground Biryani, liquor and money are nonnegotiable �� B. Kolappan
Absentee ballot
This refers to a vote cast by someone who is unable to go tothe polling station. The system is designed to increase voterturnout. In some countries, the voter is required to give a reason for not going to the polling station, before participating inan absentee ballot. In India, a postal ballot is available to onlysome citizens. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 allows heads of states and those serving in the armed forces tovote through postal means. The Lok Sabha recently passed aBill to allow proxy voting for NRIs. However, domestic migrants and absentee voters in India cannot cast postal votes.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
POLL CALL
https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official
https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official https://t.me/TheHindu_Zone_official