The age of propriety is well and truly gone. Today, we are slowly and surely getting into the times of "anything goes" with scant respect towards propriety and fear of setting unhealthy precedents. In judicial language, whenever a prayer is made to the honorable court, the learned judge asks for precedents before granting the prayer. This means, whenever Supreme court or the High courts read a particular law, they are conscious of setting a precedent that will be quoted in the future while determining similar cases. The knowledge of which, makes them that much more careful about setting wrong precedents for others to follow. What is expected of judiciary should also hold for other organs of the constitution. However, the sad reality is that day after day, they are setting unhealthy precedents while trying to look for narrow short-term gains rather than thinking of what precedents they are setting for the future.
To begin, there was a time when the entire union cabinet and no just the Prime Minister had to be above board on public perception (like Cesar's wife). The levels of propriety were so high that the position of any union minister would become untenable the moment an allegation (of any form) was made on the concerned minister. People respected the institution of Prime Minister, President and the Chief Justice of India and people holding these positions were revered for their upright behaviour and clean public perception. There was never a loose canon mouthed opposition leader who would demand the resignation of no less than a Prime Minister for a lapse on the part of a police constable, let alone a District magistrate. In those days, personal integrity was so high that a resignation was tendered the moment it was demanded stating personal propriety and the Government was truly the holder of "societal trust". People in high offices were always mindful of setting wrong precedents and took the option of demitting office rather than sticking on to chair of power. Those were the days when the union cabinet truly enjoyed confidence of the House of People.
Then came the era of might is right. During the late 60s and early 70s, the number of people supporting you became an indicator of whether you had the right to govern. It was a turbulent time which saw 3 major wars and one cannot be sure if it was constant war scenario or simply belligerence on part of the union cabinet, but this period saw maximum number of state governments being dismissed by the union government. Every time there was a disagreement between the state government and the federal government, the state government was not mollified, it was dismissed on flimsy grounds because the federal government had the might to do so. The persons occupying high offices in those times were either fearful of federalism making India weak during times of constant wars or wanted a unitary power centre at New Delhi with states merely carrying out orders. The persons occupying high offices were unmindful of the fact that by constantly dismissing lawfully elected governments at the state, they were setting wrong precedents of being "disrespectful to people's wishes" and following the adage "might is right". Consequently, Indian polity began to move to multiparty polity with each state mushrooming a political outfit to take on the might of the centre and carve a space for itself. Over the years, it has been successfully proved that this lack of judgement by the leaders of 60s and 70s have pushed India into co-olation era with federal government so weak that for every small decision it has to look for support from regional parties.
The high office of the President and the Governors were basically created in the constitution to have uniformity in the definition of the "Head of the state" both at the centre as well as the states. It was deemed fit that people occupying these high offices would not be of any political color and would rather be eminent people from the society executing the office within the framework of the constitution and making sure that the executive respects the boundaries of constitution and works within these boundaries. It was impossible according to the constitution for a executive to exist in absence of the "pleasure" of the head of the state and hence the constitution never went into details about what if there is a confrontation between the two. People occupying these offices should have respected that spirit and should have worked accordingly. However, the office of President and Governor became a post retirement benefit for aging politicians and this set unhealthy precedents of constant confrontation between the executive and the head of the state. So much so, the Supreme court had to intervene and lay down the law by validating the stand that the head of state had to execute his office on the advice of the cabinet and not in absence of advice. This judgement set right a wrong precedence of might is right set in the 60s and 70s by the federal government and distributed the powers equitably. Even today, due to lack of propriety, we have constantly have executives attacking the head of state with absolute impunity stating the mandate of people. No one is mindful of constitutional propriety and spirit with which they much execute their office. Its a recipe for disaster as there will come a time that state's rights will take precedence over the rights of the union and bring the existence of "union of states" under question.
The judiciary is the upholder of justice in a democratic setup and the only enforcer of the constitution both in letter and in spirit in cases where the executive or the legislature crosses the line of propriety. However, in the past few years and more, successive Chief Justices of the Supreme Court have been caught with their hand in the cookie-jar. There have been far too many cases where justice has been denied to complainants because we have the wrong set of people occupying the chair of a judge. There was a time when some states were infamous for getting a judgement "fixed" in the personal chambers of a sitting judge rather than in the courtroom. There was a shield of invincibility protecting the judges and anyone who questioned them were hauled up for "contempt of court". Gladly, despite all the corruption in the lower courts, some very good and honest judges have occupied the high chairs in the high courts and Supreme court keeping the hopes of getting justice alive for the rest of us. Still, I would appreciate the learned judges more if they had spent more time setting their own houses right before going in for "judicial over-reach". There has hardly been a time in the last 10 years or so, that the high court or supreme court asked a complainant to petition the executive or the legislature as certain activities fall within the purview of these arms of the constitution. Instead, these courts have gone about issuing writs left, right and centre against other arms of the constitution and by doing so have got the people believe that the courts run this nation. I would not go as far as to question the motive, because in all cases the motive has been to provide relief to the complainant; however, the learned judges should have shown some imagination and put moral pressure on the executive and legislature to take corrective steps rather than step in and issue writs. Today, everybody is of the opinion that if you cannot win an election fairly, you can keep petitioning the courts and get writs passed against the executive and bleed them with a thousand cuts. The courts are unknowingly falling in to this political trap and setting wrong precedence for future. Refer to the case where John Kerry did not file a suit against President Bush for election malpractice, even though it was common knowledge that the President's campaigners had preempted the election results of Florida to declare victory for President Bush. To avoid all future elections being challenged in the court and to avoid setting wrong precedence about court choosing winners rather than people, John Kerry gave up his claim on the election and stepped aside for President Bush to be declared victorious in 2004. This is the kind of lack of imagination that the superior courts are showing today in India.
Recently, the armed forces were in the news for all the wrong reasons too. It was the Chief of Army staff (COAS) filing a suit against the ministry of defense (MoD) for some minor issue. Even though we all believe that there is more than what meets the eye, the prospect if COAS suing his Government is preposterous. Indian Army operates on the principle of command and honor above life. Orders are not questioned even to the perils of one's life. If the COAS wants Army as an institution to believe in the doctrine of command, how can he sue his own Government while still holding the chair of COAS. This will set wrong precedent for all incoming COAS and there will be a time in future, when some COAS will sue or worse go against the command of the government he is supposed to serve - without questions. For personal honor, is it worth risking setting up wrong precedents? It is a question best left to the present COAS to answer ( without questioning his motives).
Summarising the above, we started on the right footing in 1947 and were holding propriety of office above personal ambitions. Somewhere in the 70s we lost track and moved to the doctrine of "everything goes" and ever since have been setting wrong precedents one after other. Its time people occupying high offices take a step back and redefine their roles. Do we want various arms of the constitution at loggerheads with each other or do we want them to compliment each other in serving the greater good of the people of India- to whom they are all accountable. Its time people stop transgressing their roles defined in the constitution and abuse the powers granted to them under constitution to usurp the powers of other constitutional posts. Its time we stop setting dangerous precedents for future generations and stick to rule of propriety that our founding fathers so cherished.
So long...
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Why my dad watches the news on BBC
When our parents and the people from their generation returned home after work in the evening, they kicked back and watched a television series (most of them had a story line or a moral) and caught up with the events of the day by watching the evening news. In those days, the television series were not overtly religious or blatantly gross but were a healthy mixture of values, morals and had a narrative reflecting the times in which they lived. The news was mostly bland without spice and involved a narration of the events of the day with no personal motive or prejudice. Once in a while, the television studios held panel discussions on important issues of the day by inviting eminent people with immense knowledge of the subject and with no conflict of interest or political leanings. In effect, these discussions were actually initiatives by the news channels to help dispense knowledge and provide a platform to experts of any particular field to connect with the masses and provide in depth analysis. Consequently, that generation of people were more in tune with realities of their era and were very knowledgeable about current affairs. Their vision was seldom blinkered by political leanings and could make a more dispassionate choice during elections knowing which political party stands for what. Take the example of the 2008 presidential campaign in the US or even the 2012 primaries (on currently) and go through some of the debates held by CSPAN, CNN etc and you will know which candidates stand for what along with details about their plan for the US for the next 4 years (in every field) should they be elected to run the country. Apart from normal politicking about personality clashes, the news channels make a serious effort to educate the masses about the candidates in the fray. It does not end there, stands taken by the candidates in these television debates are taken very seriously and the candidates are expected to stand by what they have expressed. The whole things adds a feather into the cap of democracy and makes critical analysis of the regime in power and takes point by point rebuttal from the incumbent on the charges made by the aspirants.
The media is supposed to be the 4th organ of the constitution and a conscience keeper for the other organs. The media must take this job with the seriousness that it deserves and not shortchange the viewers by showing content that's despicable to say the least. Television industry, in general, in the US has very low standards with too many shows purely voyeuristic and setting unhealthy morals for impressionable teenagers. However, they have a very solid television rating system that classifies the content for the viewers and does not go in for censorship (method most used in India). For all the crap that it spews out, the news channels in the US and UK are clearly classified as tabloids and current affairs related programs and the viewers know which one is to be taken seriously. The current affair programs shows nothing but facts with many levels of verification happening before any news item is broken on national television.
On the contrary, Indian media sucks, to say the least. They have no sense of propriety and have no division of content. Every news channel wants to outdo the competitors by mixing current affairs with tabloid news with little demarcation of which is which. Consequently, most television channels have become entertainment channels with no space left for serious news coverage and in depth analysis. On the few occasions when they do hold panel discussions, its mostly the usual suspects from the major political parties who are so predictable and out of sync that they repeat same set of sentences no matter what the topic of discussion is. This leads to a chaos in the newsroom with each party trying to outshout the other and the audience not getting any wiser. To give an example, the Lokpal discussion must have happened at least 50 times in various television studios in the past 8 months. If you ask any viewer today, he/she would be hazy about the details of the said legislation and would only be reminded of the fierce bickering of the various parties involved.
Today, as 5 states of India vote for a new government, no voter is any wiser about where his candidate stands on anti-corruption issue. Every thing is hazy and until the dust settles down, the elections will be over and the voter will feel cheated about the entire exercise. Who is to blame for all this? Political parties? I don't think so, they benefit by keeping things hazy and and shying away from accountability. It is serious indictment of our news television industry. There are no ethics in journalism and everyone functions with an eye to get high TRPs. Basically, everyone knows that appealing to voyeurism and stating controversial things are the surest possible ways to garner TRPs, hence, even the news channels get to the lowest denominator and fight ugly. Every host on the news channel fights to get the politician who are sure to say some controversial thing and they can post it as "breaking news" for the rest of the evening. The entire sham has been going on for years now and whenever anyone objects to this depraving behaviour of news anchors, it becomes a threat to "freedom of speech" and the entire fraternity stands up in unison. Only in India, can a bunch of unqualified individuals use the power of satellite television and display their abject lack of knowledge on any subject and still stand for freedom of speech. We don't need guidelines anymore, we need blackouts for channels that are seen as wasting the time of the viewers by showing who's-who of human crap. If appealing to lowest denominators of the masses is the criteria, then why don't these channels simply telecast soft porn movies. They may end up being educational to a few (sic).
I do not expect a overnight change, but there has to be a movement in the right direction and the new chairman of Press council of India has taken few steps in this direction. News channels should have all the freedom to telecast what they like, but if guidelines are not followed, they must face blackouts for days /weeks/ months depending on the seriousness of violations committed. Unless there are financial implication for their transgressions, the media barons of India will not mend their ways. The news media needs a non governmental head-master to keep a watchful eye on their activities because frankly they are not doing a good job with self regulations. What is true of news channels is true of newspapers and journals too. There the story is even worse with journals after journals vying to be political mouth pieces rather than hiring good ethical correspondents. The quality chasm is so wide, that The Times of India (TOI) looks like a tabloid when you compare it to The New York Times. If Bennet Coleman Ltd. opened a copy the present TOI, they would hang their head in shame. I would not comment about other news papers or journals because it suffices to say that TOI is the best of the lot.
A lot has to change and the time is running out. Are we forever going to appeal to lowest denominators of public taste or are we as a society going to rise above and set new standards for ethical journalism. Will India forever ape the west while it copies all its reality shows and ignore the high standard of ethical journalism that is a norm in all the respected news channels of the west ? Will my father and people of his generation always depend on BBC for news updates because of the Indian media channels dishing out substandard stuff that hardly qualifies to be called journalism ? Only time will tell.
So long.....
The media is supposed to be the 4th organ of the constitution and a conscience keeper for the other organs. The media must take this job with the seriousness that it deserves and not shortchange the viewers by showing content that's despicable to say the least. Television industry, in general, in the US has very low standards with too many shows purely voyeuristic and setting unhealthy morals for impressionable teenagers. However, they have a very solid television rating system that classifies the content for the viewers and does not go in for censorship (method most used in India). For all the crap that it spews out, the news channels in the US and UK are clearly classified as tabloids and current affairs related programs and the viewers know which one is to be taken seriously. The current affair programs shows nothing but facts with many levels of verification happening before any news item is broken on national television.
On the contrary, Indian media sucks, to say the least. They have no sense of propriety and have no division of content. Every news channel wants to outdo the competitors by mixing current affairs with tabloid news with little demarcation of which is which. Consequently, most television channels have become entertainment channels with no space left for serious news coverage and in depth analysis. On the few occasions when they do hold panel discussions, its mostly the usual suspects from the major political parties who are so predictable and out of sync that they repeat same set of sentences no matter what the topic of discussion is. This leads to a chaos in the newsroom with each party trying to outshout the other and the audience not getting any wiser. To give an example, the Lokpal discussion must have happened at least 50 times in various television studios in the past 8 months. If you ask any viewer today, he/she would be hazy about the details of the said legislation and would only be reminded of the fierce bickering of the various parties involved.
Today, as 5 states of India vote for a new government, no voter is any wiser about where his candidate stands on anti-corruption issue. Every thing is hazy and until the dust settles down, the elections will be over and the voter will feel cheated about the entire exercise. Who is to blame for all this? Political parties? I don't think so, they benefit by keeping things hazy and and shying away from accountability. It is serious indictment of our news television industry. There are no ethics in journalism and everyone functions with an eye to get high TRPs. Basically, everyone knows that appealing to voyeurism and stating controversial things are the surest possible ways to garner TRPs, hence, even the news channels get to the lowest denominator and fight ugly. Every host on the news channel fights to get the politician who are sure to say some controversial thing and they can post it as "breaking news" for the rest of the evening. The entire sham has been going on for years now and whenever anyone objects to this depraving behaviour of news anchors, it becomes a threat to "freedom of speech" and the entire fraternity stands up in unison. Only in India, can a bunch of unqualified individuals use the power of satellite television and display their abject lack of knowledge on any subject and still stand for freedom of speech. We don't need guidelines anymore, we need blackouts for channels that are seen as wasting the time of the viewers by showing who's-who of human crap. If appealing to lowest denominators of the masses is the criteria, then why don't these channels simply telecast soft porn movies. They may end up being educational to a few (sic).
I do not expect a overnight change, but there has to be a movement in the right direction and the new chairman of Press council of India has taken few steps in this direction. News channels should have all the freedom to telecast what they like, but if guidelines are not followed, they must face blackouts for days /weeks/ months depending on the seriousness of violations committed. Unless there are financial implication for their transgressions, the media barons of India will not mend their ways. The news media needs a non governmental head-master to keep a watchful eye on their activities because frankly they are not doing a good job with self regulations. What is true of news channels is true of newspapers and journals too. There the story is even worse with journals after journals vying to be political mouth pieces rather than hiring good ethical correspondents. The quality chasm is so wide, that The Times of India (TOI) looks like a tabloid when you compare it to The New York Times. If Bennet Coleman Ltd. opened a copy the present TOI, they would hang their head in shame. I would not comment about other news papers or journals because it suffices to say that TOI is the best of the lot.
A lot has to change and the time is running out. Are we forever going to appeal to lowest denominators of public taste or are we as a society going to rise above and set new standards for ethical journalism. Will India forever ape the west while it copies all its reality shows and ignore the high standard of ethical journalism that is a norm in all the respected news channels of the west ? Will my father and people of his generation always depend on BBC for news updates because of the Indian media channels dishing out substandard stuff that hardly qualifies to be called journalism ? Only time will tell.
So long.....
Saturday, January 28, 2012
La vita è bella
For most part of our life, we run after things that do not last. We run after ‘jobs that pay the rent’; women/men that break our heart and money that doesn’t last. What we do not realize is that we walk through an entire lifetime without spending much time appreciating the gift of “one life” that we have got. Guilty- as charged! Well I am as much a culprit as you all are. Somewhere down the line, we lose focus of the whole point of “living” and spend a lot of time running from one goal to another. Don’t get me wrong, ambitions are a must and one must try and achieve all that one is capable of, but we must also not lose focus of the larger picture – enjoying the life that we have. Don’t leave too much to do for too late, for we have no clue how long we might live. ‘Make each day count’.
Most of you might wonder, why this new found love for life? Are you dying or something? Well, not really. There are times in life when you come across people or events that make you stop and wonder – have I lived my life completely? There are even times when you feel, “I wish I could life my life that way”. Well, I just realized it is never too late to change. Today, I wish to narrate my experiences meeting this Korean guy named Song Angler. I barely talked to him a few sentences and must have met him for a total of 40 minutes, but man! They were the best 40 minutes I ever invested talking to another person.
I was out shopping for china clay tea-set at Shanghai technology centre (known for scores of shops and inexpensive stuff) and I chanced upon this little shop in the corner where the prices were too excessive, considering the neighborhood. I would not find it difficult to accept the fact that the only reason I entered the shop was to check out how this man can stay in business selling stuff that has such a markup as compared to other shops in the arcade. As expected there was no one in the store and the only things on sale were clothes for children – years 2 to 6. What was more shocking was the entire line of clothing was British-Victorian. You had the Scottish 3 piece suits for young lads and dress gowns with accessories for the young ladies. Imagine an entire line of clothing dedicated to dressing up an age group, which doesn’t believe in “dressing for the occasion”. That’s not all; the entire line of dressing was too formal for the age group and was priced on par or slightly higher than adult clothing in the shops nearby. Too many handicaps I remember thinking to myself, no wonder this guy has no business!
Song Angler welcomed me with a warm smile and his first words were “sorry, I don’t know mandarin”. After exchanging pleasantries, I stood there looking at his clothesline and silently judging him for his abject lack of business skills. After noting down a few points on his laptop, he turned to me with a smile and said, “You must be wondering how I do business?” I remember smiling at him as if to say, “I think you are too ambitious for your own good”. He suddenly pats me on the back and says, “Its not just you, very often I keep asking that to myself.” It was good enough for me that finally I could talk to an Asian guy who spoke fluent American English. He said, “Don’t look surprised, I have lived almost 20 years in New York”. Intriguing! How could a man living in the business capital for 20 years, make a rookie mistake of opening up expensive clothing store in China – known for its inexpensive assembly line products. He looked at me and said – “No I am not stupid, I am here by choice and following my dream”. Wow! That must be one hellu’va dream that brought a man settled in New York with a high paying job to move to China.
Song worked for Ralph Lauren-Polo, a designer clothing brand known for its dress shirts and trousers. For 15 years he worked up the corporate ladder to become the chief buyer for Ralph Lauren for Asia market. He told me that he even visited Shanghai couple of times to understand business in China and to use Chinese labor to create a cost effective supply chain for Ralph Lauren- Polo. It was during these visits that he got to know that the fashion industry was on the decline (according to him) and the designer clothes were more about how to increase the bottom-line rather than the pleasure of creating new styles. It was not why Song had joined the fashion industry and that very moment he quit. He goes on to narrate how for the next few years, in New York and Shanghai, he continued on his quest to bring back style quotient into the clothes we wear. According to Song, newer styles must be more practical for the end consumer rather than a means to grab money for the designer. For the next 15 minutes, he showed me the intricate design and techniques of tailoring that he had taught a family in rural China, who were now his suppliers and he had stores open in Shanghai to sell the same. Song said this business was to satisfy his creative quotient and give him the happiness of creating dress fashion for a whole new younger generation (who have lost taste to authentic fashion in the haze of party wear). “Its not for profit, I have fixed sales target and want the quality rather than quantity; also quality doesn’t come cheap” says Song.
I asked him, “Do you not fear the Chinese assembly line manufacturing style. There would soon be inexpensive versions of your clothes-line”. Song says, “ I hope they copy me and make it better. The world needs better clothing style”. I ended up buying nothing from his store, but he still had a smile on his face. He was happy to have shared his passion about clothing with another human being and enriched his life with some basic knowledge of picking up good clothes. Song loved fishing too. He spent most of the time outside the world of clothing with his family, fishing. I am an inventor says Song. I like inventing new things and I am not constrained by the thought whether the idea would sell. As I left, he handed me his card and said, “it was a pleasure talking to you and thank you for listening to me.” I was humbled to the core. I just thought to myself, how many people could claim to be as happy as Song Angler; doing things they love and living life with its full glory. A handful maybe, and I left the shop learning few lessons on life that I do not intend to forget anytime soon. I thought to myself, I love writing and can express myself well on that medium, how much pleasure would I get if I had a job doing what I like. Would I be as happy as Song Angler? Well, let the time decide on that one.
So long….
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Freedom ? What were they thinking !!
Its that time of the year when people are out in the street trying to enforce their freedom to oppose even at the cost of some one's freedom to speak. Yes, I am indeed talking about the Sir Salman Rushdie fiasco that happened at the Jaipur literature fest (JLF) last weekend. It got me thinking, even if the Muslim organizations were right in saying that Sir Rushdie's book "Satanic verses" critiqued the practices of Islam and hence caused them immense hurt; were they right in trying to hound him out of the seminar that he was supposed to address. Is this actually a case where freedom to oppose a viewpoint triumphs over freedom of speech or is this a case of misuse of freedom of speech? The more I thought on those lines, it began to dawn upon me that there is a very fine line to distinguish the two and in India we usually don't see the line at all.
Indians are notorious for their hypocrisy. They want the perks of being a free country but still haven't gotten down with the concept of freedom. Incidentally, freedom also has a class bias in India and many times the rich and the mighty seem to be more free than the rest of us down here. The prism with which we view freedom is often political and hence the degree of freedom that we enjoy changes from time to time (based on how far the next elections are and who is currently in power). In Sir Rushdie's case, his plans to address a group of people about his book "Satanic verses" was just too close to elections and hence his freedom of speech got curtailed and the deoband and ullemas enjoyed the higher freedom to oppose. People all around cried hoarse about the unfair treatment meted out to a scholar like Sir Rushdie; even the opposition fought for his freedom of speech - pretty rich huh, for a political outfit that recently hounded noted painter (Late) M.F. Hussain out of India for some paintings that was objectionable according to them. It got me thinking, this is unfair! Are we actually free or does our freedom have political constraints. Can artists have absolute freedom to express themselves or should all freedom be tempered with reasonable restraints.
The maze of thought is very confusing because what rules fit for one case, fails in other cases and there cannot be "one rule for all" and this makes freedom of expression the most complicated freedom to enforce in a multi-lingual and multi-racial society like INDIA. Very recently, the Delhi high court was in the news for pulling up the executives of online content companies like Google, Face book, Twitter, YouTube etc. for showing scant respect for local laws and being unable to effectively monitor the content posted by users on their websites. The case was typical as the websites argued that they have immunity from libel laws for content and monitoring would amount to transgressing freedom of speech of its users. The court put these companies to notice by giving out a stern warning that the websites will be blocked if they don't comply to local laws. No sooner, the headlines read "India going the China way"; unfair? maybe, but certainly not excessive.
In this case, the netizens (as they prefer to call themselves) had taken their freedom too far and sought to use slander as a means to critique. Somehow, due to lack of proper definition, FREEDOM was being (mis)used to justify unacceptable behaviour. There was a big hue and cry when the companies carrying content stated that it was impossible to censor the Internet; yet, at the same time allowing their medium to host caustic views stating freedom of speech and not taking accountability because of laws that disallow libel and slander proceedings against such companies. It basically meant, you are free to use Internet to post anything you want and nothing can harm you as long as you are outside the geographical borders of any particular nation state that you are choosing to slander. This is unacceptable, I mean for God's sake, even the envoys and ambassadors are accountable for the views that they carry and can be declared "persona-non-Grata" by the host country (so much for diplomatic immunity). How can people run away from the accountability and state freedom of speech as a reason?
While I was still concurring with the views of the honorable judge in forcing accountability to the views that one posts online and stating that "No freedom is absolute, it has to be tempered with reasonable restraint", did the Sir Salman Rushdie incident happen. Again, this was a case where the author in question, a noted scholar and winner of Booker prize; had his book "Satanic verses" banned in India in 1988-89. Now, 24 years later, he was invited to a literary fest in Jaipur where he was to read passages from the said book and present his views. It seems that the deoband and the ullemas haven't moved past 1988 and this time wanted the author banned and muted rather than his book. In this case, one party states freedom of speech and the other states libel and slander laws. Dicey eh! You betcha. No wonder we had the Government of Rajasthan cowering under pressure and creating a story or two about terrorist strikes and keeping Sir Rushdie from attending this fest. If you try and go by the letter of the law, Sir Rushdie must be stopped because for one, he plans to read paragraphs from a banned book and secondly his views about Islam was bound to create disharmony in the community. Does it go by the spirit of our constitution? well that's a whole different matter. Indians do not realise one basic thing, we cannot have different laws for different cases, we have to use the statute and temper it with the spirit of the constitution to apply the same law for different cases. Executive does not have this wisdom, as its often laden with the burden to satisfy people's aspiration (however unreasonable), so it should be the purview of the judiciary to take a view in all such cases. Somehow, the executive gets involved every time and the entire drama makes the constitution look foolish.
Instead, the Supreme Court has to read the law and lay down the spirit of the law for all people irrespective of who they are and who they know, to follow. If the executive is in violation of this spirit to gain in electoral battle, it should be termed unconstitutional and the Supreme court should direct the President to dismiss the Government, for an executive that cannot follow the constitution in the letter and spirit (for whatever compulsions) has no right to remain in office. If one such example is made out, maybe we wont have more such dramas being played out in public and maybe people will not mock at the constitution with absolute impunity. On the Republic Day, we had an article making rounds, "Have we failed our constitution or has it failed us?"; I would have no hesitation in saying, we most certainly have failed our constitution and not the other way around.
The spirit of freedom, as enshrined in our constitution and other such documents around the world have the same spirit of accountability. It can be encapsulated by the Miranda rights of freedom to remain silent; and if you choose to give up this freedom, you will be accountable for the words of your mouth. Its as simple as that. It solves both our cases both in letter and spirit. Freedom does not mean Sir Rushdie is allowed to slander any community or religious belief nor does it mean anonymous persons being allowed to post anything on the Internet. It actually means, holding people accountable to the views that they carry. For a truly free man/ woman would not run away from that accountability.
Most importantly, one must distinguish between slander and critique. The judicial contempt laws help us on this one, "ability to critique a judgement without critiquing a judge or ascribing motives". If someone finds a religious practise wrong they must be allowed to critique it without slandering the religion, wholly on merits. If we as a society cannot take criticism and have too many holy cows whom we do not question, then we will have to spend more time filing suits against people for questioning our faith. We must encourage healthy criticism right from childhood and have schools provide a platform to young minds to question everything we do. If we do not embrace criticism, it re-routes itself into our society as abuse and slander. Lets provide a healthy outlet for all citizen to bring out their views and not force them to take anonymous paths to spew venom. Lets truly define and follow freedom in letter and in spirit and not force people to ask "Am I really free in India?"
So long....
Indians are notorious for their hypocrisy. They want the perks of being a free country but still haven't gotten down with the concept of freedom. Incidentally, freedom also has a class bias in India and many times the rich and the mighty seem to be more free than the rest of us down here. The prism with which we view freedom is often political and hence the degree of freedom that we enjoy changes from time to time (based on how far the next elections are and who is currently in power). In Sir Rushdie's case, his plans to address a group of people about his book "Satanic verses" was just too close to elections and hence his freedom of speech got curtailed and the deoband and ullemas enjoyed the higher freedom to oppose. People all around cried hoarse about the unfair treatment meted out to a scholar like Sir Rushdie; even the opposition fought for his freedom of speech - pretty rich huh, for a political outfit that recently hounded noted painter (Late) M.F. Hussain out of India for some paintings that was objectionable according to them. It got me thinking, this is unfair! Are we actually free or does our freedom have political constraints. Can artists have absolute freedom to express themselves or should all freedom be tempered with reasonable restraints.
The maze of thought is very confusing because what rules fit for one case, fails in other cases and there cannot be "one rule for all" and this makes freedom of expression the most complicated freedom to enforce in a multi-lingual and multi-racial society like INDIA. Very recently, the Delhi high court was in the news for pulling up the executives of online content companies like Google, Face book, Twitter, YouTube etc. for showing scant respect for local laws and being unable to effectively monitor the content posted by users on their websites. The case was typical as the websites argued that they have immunity from libel laws for content and monitoring would amount to transgressing freedom of speech of its users. The court put these companies to notice by giving out a stern warning that the websites will be blocked if they don't comply to local laws. No sooner, the headlines read "India going the China way"; unfair? maybe, but certainly not excessive.
In this case, the netizens (as they prefer to call themselves) had taken their freedom too far and sought to use slander as a means to critique. Somehow, due to lack of proper definition, FREEDOM was being (mis)used to justify unacceptable behaviour. There was a big hue and cry when the companies carrying content stated that it was impossible to censor the Internet; yet, at the same time allowing their medium to host caustic views stating freedom of speech and not taking accountability because of laws that disallow libel and slander proceedings against such companies. It basically meant, you are free to use Internet to post anything you want and nothing can harm you as long as you are outside the geographical borders of any particular nation state that you are choosing to slander. This is unacceptable, I mean for God's sake, even the envoys and ambassadors are accountable for the views that they carry and can be declared "persona-non-Grata" by the host country (so much for diplomatic immunity). How can people run away from the accountability and state freedom of speech as a reason?
While I was still concurring with the views of the honorable judge in forcing accountability to the views that one posts online and stating that "No freedom is absolute, it has to be tempered with reasonable restraint", did the Sir Salman Rushdie incident happen. Again, this was a case where the author in question, a noted scholar and winner of Booker prize; had his book "Satanic verses" banned in India in 1988-89. Now, 24 years later, he was invited to a literary fest in Jaipur where he was to read passages from the said book and present his views. It seems that the deoband and the ullemas haven't moved past 1988 and this time wanted the author banned and muted rather than his book. In this case, one party states freedom of speech and the other states libel and slander laws. Dicey eh! You betcha. No wonder we had the Government of Rajasthan cowering under pressure and creating a story or two about terrorist strikes and keeping Sir Rushdie from attending this fest. If you try and go by the letter of the law, Sir Rushdie must be stopped because for one, he plans to read paragraphs from a banned book and secondly his views about Islam was bound to create disharmony in the community. Does it go by the spirit of our constitution? well that's a whole different matter. Indians do not realise one basic thing, we cannot have different laws for different cases, we have to use the statute and temper it with the spirit of the constitution to apply the same law for different cases. Executive does not have this wisdom, as its often laden with the burden to satisfy people's aspiration (however unreasonable), so it should be the purview of the judiciary to take a view in all such cases. Somehow, the executive gets involved every time and the entire drama makes the constitution look foolish.
Instead, the Supreme Court has to read the law and lay down the spirit of the law for all people irrespective of who they are and who they know, to follow. If the executive is in violation of this spirit to gain in electoral battle, it should be termed unconstitutional and the Supreme court should direct the President to dismiss the Government, for an executive that cannot follow the constitution in the letter and spirit (for whatever compulsions) has no right to remain in office. If one such example is made out, maybe we wont have more such dramas being played out in public and maybe people will not mock at the constitution with absolute impunity. On the Republic Day, we had an article making rounds, "Have we failed our constitution or has it failed us?"; I would have no hesitation in saying, we most certainly have failed our constitution and not the other way around.
The spirit of freedom, as enshrined in our constitution and other such documents around the world have the same spirit of accountability. It can be encapsulated by the Miranda rights of freedom to remain silent; and if you choose to give up this freedom, you will be accountable for the words of your mouth. Its as simple as that. It solves both our cases both in letter and spirit. Freedom does not mean Sir Rushdie is allowed to slander any community or religious belief nor does it mean anonymous persons being allowed to post anything on the Internet. It actually means, holding people accountable to the views that they carry. For a truly free man/ woman would not run away from that accountability.
Most importantly, one must distinguish between slander and critique. The judicial contempt laws help us on this one, "ability to critique a judgement without critiquing a judge or ascribing motives". If someone finds a religious practise wrong they must be allowed to critique it without slandering the religion, wholly on merits. If we as a society cannot take criticism and have too many holy cows whom we do not question, then we will have to spend more time filing suits against people for questioning our faith. We must encourage healthy criticism right from childhood and have schools provide a platform to young minds to question everything we do. If we do not embrace criticism, it re-routes itself into our society as abuse and slander. Lets provide a healthy outlet for all citizen to bring out their views and not force them to take anonymous paths to spew venom. Lets truly define and follow freedom in letter and in spirit and not force people to ask "Am I really free in India?"
So long....
Friday, January 6, 2012
Open letter to Arvind Kejriwal
Credits: This was a wonderful post authored by Mr. Anant Rangaswamy. Simply loved it. Will share it with you guys. I simply had to have this post. So here goes....
Arvind Kejriwal has written an article in The Times of India asking people to suggest the way forward for Team Anna. “The anti-corruption movement is at the crossroads today. Where do we go from here? We are conscious that a wrong decision at this stage could prove disastrous for the movement,” he writes.
Here we go, Mr. Kejriwal, if you care to listen.
Remember that you’re the salesman. You have a product and you want to sell it to the political class, particularly to members of Parliament. This is not your usual sale; the ‘buyer’ has no need and no want for the product — which immediately means that in negotiations, the salesman is significantly weaker than the buyer.
If at all you want to sell your Jan Lokpal Bill, what you cannot afford to do is to walk away from the deal; the politician would be delighted. What you cannot do is heap abuse, belittle and besmirch the buyer.
The only way forward is to deal with the situation as a good salesman would.
• Tell your client why he needs it at all: Imagine, 25 years ago, you were a salesman of vacuum cleaners, a product neither wanted nor needed. Think of the Lokpal bill as a product facing similar challenges, and remember that the sale is going to be long and hard. Time needs to be spent on evangelism and education.
• Describe your product in detail to the client: Spend time with parliamentarians and party chiefs and explain why your version of the Jan Lokpal Bill is better than all others, in the same spirit that a salesman of, say, photocopiers educates his prospective customer. Get more and more parliamentarians to buy in. Think of all these parliamentarians as members of the household who could influence a sale – perhaps the party chiefs are equivalent to the head of the household, the final decision maker.
• Build a relationship with the prospect: This is not a quick, uninvolved sale, like a razor blade. The product you are trying to sell is such that the sale process will be long and tiring. Establishing a rapport with the client is an essential ingredient in your chances for a sale. Clients are more likely to spend time with salesmen they like, rather than salesmen they do not like. Get your clients, the politicians, to like you and admire you for your effort and persistence. No salesman worth his salt will rave and rant at a prospect; none can abuse a client and hope to close a deal. Good salesmen will build relationships with prospects they do not like and prospects who treat them badly – because the only thing that matters to them is the sale.
• Do not set unachievable deadlines: The moment you do, desperation will show as the deadline approaches. The moment this happens, the salesman gets more aggressive – and the customer more wary. Remember, in this case, the customer never wanted the product in the first place. The moment the desperation increases, politicians will be relieved – that the endless pressure of being sold a product that they didn’t want will end soon.
• Make the client feel like a winner: Let the client feel that he is a part of making a significant decision that will change his life for the better. Good sales make the client look good, not the salesman. Do not broadcast details of the negotiations when they are in progress, especially when you think you’re winning or you think poorly of your client. The more you do this, the less the client will want to meet you, let alone buy from you.
Fundamentally, in all sales, good salesmen need to establish how much or how little a prospect needs and wants the product on offer. Establish negotiating positions from there.
Team Anna is selling a product which is unwanted – and the negotiating position needs to reflect this truth.
What we have seen since April is negotiations based on a premise that
a) The salesman will convince the buyer
b) That the sales process would be short; and;
c) That the buyers would just keel over and fall when they come to the negotiating table.
That’s our advice. Unlike you, we don’t say this way or the highway. There will be others with other views that reach you as well.
The minimum you have to do is to listen – that’s something Team Anna has proven to be very poor at.
So long...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
