This has got to stop at some point of time

“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it” – a famous quote from Voltaire that has been used by liberals like myself while fighting for absolute freedom of speech with no restriction whatsoever. I am very clear in my mind, rather than making efforts to stop a person from expressing him/herself, we must invest energies into how best can we choose to ignore or turn a deaf ear towards unpalatable sound bytes. The solution as well the choice is personal. I often hear people protesting some book, movie or joke citing reasons that it hurt their regional / religious and other sentiments. This does not make sense to me as there is absolutely nothing in this world which will be loved and accepted universally. Isn’t the best response then to choose to ignore things that hurt sentiments rather than try and enforce bans?


But, I digress. Today the topic is media itself. How many of us agree that news channels should not be showing entertainment segments nor should they be beaming spots where some “tantric/ baba” – quack is giving spiritual / medicinal advice to people in the audience. There is a healthy respect for the trade of journalism but in the name of television ratings and advertising money the news media has lost its JQ – journalistic quotient. Editors no longer take the time and employ their deep insights to find a position on the main story which best suits the audience. Today, more often the editorial is looking to find an angle to the story which is most controversial and hence will grab eye balls and in turn bring in more advertising money. Consequently, the 9 PM news becomes a slanging match between political and ideological opponents often not adding any value to the audience who are often frustrated with this nonsense sans news value. Every new item is being made larger than life and projected based on its ability to be controversial and eye catching. In the times when there is agrarian crisis throughout the country more time was spent in discussing about the holiday destination of the vice president of a political outfit and conjectures on how a certain son-in-law made million by finding loop holes in the law.


I ask, apart for voyeuristic pleasure, what benefit do such moronic news items provide to the viewers? We provide a service and there is a demand for it – is often the argument for such abomination. I ask again, there is a huge demand for pornography too so does that mean news channels should be beaming porn clips during the 9 PM “prime time” slots ? Can any news media get away with tabloidization of news because there is a demand for it? There many such pressing issues haunting Indian media today and hence I took the liberty of checking the program listing of BBC and CNN, two international news organizations which have become a brand in the field of news reporting. I found BBC and CNN have so many slots dedicated to human interest stories; issues faced within the country and internationally. They have journalist on the field in distant locations bringing to us the tears, joys, sorrows and accomplishments of people around the world. Compare this to the coverage of Indian media when the PM was travelling to the US or Japan. Instead of utilizing the opportunity to get some human interest story, our media was pandering to lowest common denominator by wall to wall coverage of the PM and his cultural programs. Every shit and every fart was being covered. There were embarrassing moments when the NY times and WSJ wrote an article on how the Indian media was gushing like a teenage girl meeting the movie star. The only reason why BBC and CNN gave 5 minutes each for this story was to report the “coverage style” of Indian media. Almost like saying, we get it!! Now please tone it down.


As embarrassing as the coverage of the “PM travels” was, nothing can make the case more strongly about news media tabloidization as the recent natural disasters – Kashmir floods and Nepal earthquake. In the month of October 2014, Kashmir faced a surprise flood on the banks of Jhelum which brought the capital and the government to a halt. Most government offices were flooded and help had to arrive from outside for rescue and rehabilitation. Given the fact that Jhelum laid siege on the capital, it was obvious the Centre had to help the state fight the disaster and the PM did admirably well. The rescue mission was taken up on war footing and the PM even spent “Diwali” in Kashmir to show solidarity with Kashmiris. There was a major problem despite the admirable work of the armed forces on the orders of the PM, his friends who own media channels either saw this as an opportunity to advertise “Government efficiency” or were advised to do so. Somehow, the narrative in the news media was of a larger than life savior (read the PM) saving people (Kashmiris) from natural disaster and hence they should now be beholden to the savior. Conjectures were being made on foreign policy and how the PM won over Kashmir from Pakistan etc. All this focus on Kashmir, while Assam was facing floods where no help arrived. If you remember Kashmir was to go to polls in December of 2014 and all of sudden it became plainly clear that media was talking at behest of the master for electoral benefits. While rest of India remembers the floods as a case of swift and decisive governance, Kashmiris remember this as cynical move by central government to use a disaster for electoral benefits. Again, I am not sure if the PM meant to put this message across but nevertheless that was the message put across by our tabloid news media.


In April 2015, just couple of days after floods hit Bihar, a 7.9 earth quake hit Nepal and Bihar. Once again, the PM with the help of Army and NDRF started a rescue mission on war footing. This time help was provided to an Indian state and a neighboring nation simultaneously and I must mention that this was the best response to a calamity of this nature, until the media came in. In order to cover a human impact story, the media channels sent 600 media persons to Nepal (ignoring Bihar) for a wall to wall coverage of the calamity. Media persons took too much space in the rescue helicopters – space that could be used for ferrying the injured or for supplying food and medicines. The air force had to run additional sorties for rescue because of space taken up by media persons in each helicopter sent for rescue work. Again, the same old narrative of a savior (PM) coming in Rambo like fashion to save the world was being projected. In addition, reporters were seen asking leading questions to those being rescued – asking if they wanted to thank the Indian PM –something that will haunt the PM for now. Soon, the Nepalese people were nauseated watching the PR exercise of a politician on the backs of their loss and tears. #GoHomeIndianMedia and #GoBackIndianMedia started appearing on Nepalese twitter trends and the Government of Nepal politely asked the media and NDRF to return home as they felt the rescue was completed and Nepal could take care of the rehabilitation by itself. It was a major embarrassment to India in a world forum where 11 other countries worked as tirelessly as India without this PR exercise. Indian media managed to covert a humanitarian aid which could have won us goodwill into a debacle that earned us the ire of Nepalese people and its government.


So is there a solution to this? First things first, media must stop going after advertising money at cost of journalistic ethics. The media must stop being beholden to the administration or the corporate honchos who own the parent company and the editorial integrity must be maintained. Media must be allowed to take ideological positions but must do so openly by declaring allegiance to a party or ideology. Audience must be aware of the intention before they see the content. Finally, human interest stories must be given precedence over sensationalisation and entertainment.


So long.....

And you think she owns her body

And then He made woman – the best of his creation and He poured into her his beauty and sensuality. We all have read this (not verbatim but the gist) from each of our ancient scriptures. It describes woman as the perfect creation of God and since she was created after man, by inference she is much superior to him. We often quote the scriptures to make gender based laws that more often than not decide what women can or cannot do in our society but me thinks this is more in awe of the super being that seems uncontrollable and unfathomable to men. So we hear, “purdah” / hijaab laws for women; we hear of lack of inheritance rights to women; we also hear of not having a choice whether to / when to conceive. I often ask myself, who are these people who made these laws and it seems to me that whoever it was, should have been a man for there is a deep misogynistic agenda in all these laws. I wish to bring to fore two disturbing trend that is bucking the evolution of men and is becoming more prevalent now than ever.


Female genital mutilation (FGM) a term that was alien to me till very recently, until it started making headlines in The Economist magazine. The details would horrify you. Apparently there is a custom in Africa of using a knife to cut a girl’s clitoris before she hits puberty (around the age 9-12) and then in extreme cases sowing the vagina shut. This is an exercise to ensure purity of a woman to her husband who then performs a sort of surgery to remove the sutures on the wedding night. Imagine the horror a girl’s body is put through because a few men back in the day thought it was impure for a woman to have sex before marriage or outside marriage. It amazes me nobody thought of sowing shut a penis or chemically castrating men until they are married to ensure they do not have sex…..but, I digress. Women in Africa have associated this procedure with Islam (being prevalent religion) and have for generations accepted this to be a ritual similar to “khatna” – where the foreskin of the penis is removed for all male children. While khatna seems to have medical backing and is in fact a ritual mentioned in the Quaran, FGM is not mentioned anywhere. There is simply a notion that the practice is linked to Islam and is blindly followed not just in Africa but even in Pakistan and Afghanistan.


The consequence of FGM is terrible for women. To begin with women permanently experience pain near the vaginal area from a wound that never heals. Since FGM is performed by quacks rather than trained surgeons the scar never heals and bleeds very often. One must also understand that women who have undergone FGM never enjoy sexual relationship due to unbearable pain and women whose vaginas were sown shut suffer from infections due to unhygienic menstruation. Imagine a lifelong worth of pain for ensuring “purity” of a woman’s body. Who among us feels this was a ritual made by a woman for fellow women? It almost certainly is the thought work of a man who could not bear the fact that women are superior in sexuality and can in fact enjoy a healthier sex life than men. The best way to stop it is to destroy the genitals or mutilate them so much that sex becomes an unenjoyable task. It also ensures “loyalty” in women to their spouses. This to me is destroying beauty of nature because you cannot fathom the depth of it. Each of us has to fight these customs and rituals which harm a woman’s body so that men can feel better about themselves.


The second “ritual” I want to address can be called as marital rape for lack of a better or more suitable word. Now, I know it is not a ritual as such but we have for generations been told that sex is a duty a wife performs for her husband that we have come to think of sex as an enjoyable act that is provided by women grudgingly who in fact don’t like it at all. Movies and television serials always depict a woman as virtuous, who are incapable of liking carnal pleasures and hence are merely shown as a service provider for the husband. We celebrate these women and in many cases this depiction of woman stays in our subconscious mind. Then we try to practice the learnings in our own marriages / relationships where we force/ coerce the woman to provide the service at our beck and call. If God forbid she says “she is not in the mood” we start to feel “women are not supposed to be in mood and are supposed to do their duty to men”. Even in the movies the lady refusing sex to her husband or lover is doing to spite him rather than not being in the mood. So a woman’s mood is thought to be of no consequence to the act of physical love. This has dangerous consequences.


Very often we hear horrid stories of women having to face the brunt of insatiable male lust. Whether it is in a relationship or a marriage, she is often told that love equates sex and the only way she can prove her love for the man is to lay with him anytime he wishes. Failing to comply is often met with one of the two consequences. Either the man emotionally blackmails her to comply, which makes her feel low self-esteem and dirty about herself or the man resorts to violence and beats her up and shoves objects up her vagina to show his dominance. The horrid part of it all is that this is not a crime in the eyes of Indian law as it stands today where rape is not recognized between a husband and wife. Sure, she can press charges of cruelty but I think we can agree this is a lot more than just cruelty; it amounts to physical and emotional torture that simply is not covered enough in the definition of cruelty.


So how do we tackle marital rape? Surely a first step is to recognize it as an offense. But then the immediate question is how you say “consent for sex was given”. Well, if there is love in a relationship and not merely the transaction between a subscriber and a service provider the consent thing will take care of itself. Educating men on female sexuality is a second important task. Men should be able to wrap in around their heads that women are human and are capable of enjoying sex much more than men and even without the help of men. If we all learn to recognize and respect the woman as a superior being we would not have to resort to disgusting rituals and practices to control her body and sexuality.


So long..

All-out attack

In May 2014 – after three decades of ‘policy paralysis’ due to compulsions of coalition politics, India gave an outright mandate for a new administration. There was cheer all around and the hope was palpable in every voice. It did not matter so much as to who the victor was but the fact that we overcame a three decade old curse was reason enough to celebrate. The business sector was happy as many tough decisions could now be taken easily and the man on the street was happy hoping the economic indicators would improve under the new regime and the trickle down benefits would make life much better for all. I must make a quick side note: Elections in democracy is one of the most potent drug, it enables the governed to vote out the Government and at same time help them erase past memories and make a clean cut to new tomorrow. It almost breaks my heart to see how often this goes wrong.


The new administration in Delhi marked a change in ways we think and work with the PM laying emphasis on fast and efficient government. Once again, we cheered that we finally are a country of doers than speakers. I was not too hopeful of the new government doing much fruitful because I am forever wary of the PM. I am very aware of things he is capable of and his legendary loathe towards any criticism. To me, power – when mixed with narcissistic tendencies makes a heady cocktail that sweeps most people off their feet and here we were dealing with Narcissist himself. I was very sure that sooner than later the PM will run roughshod over contradicting views and it would be a hoot and half to see how he handles it from the seat of power. To his credit, he had two successful terms as a CM but being in Delhi under constant gaze of media is a whole different game than being a CM of a state. Round one was won by the PM when he managed to get his corporate friends buy large stake in national media and through them control the media narrative. The media had a dictat to not speak against the PM and the government and hence we had a good long run of 8 months of sycophancy in the media. This was broken by the Delhi elections of 2015.


The thing that scared me the most of these 8 months was how easy it was for an elected Government to use levers of power or influence with the corporates to effectively muzzle all criticism. Now, I know most of what Indian media does is noise; but even so, the response to wrong news is right news but here the Government was encouraging the approach of “no news is good news”. Access to all information about the administration was cut and the media had to depend on heresy to report on any happenings in the corridor of power. Contrast this to the position of media advisor equivalent to a press secretary - that existed not so long ago who effectively liaised between the media and administration. If you thought it was bad that the administration was blocking the access to media, it went a lot further.


Right to information act was modelled on the US Freedom of information act which ensured that the working of the administration would be open to public gaze and any information that is not a national security issue could be sought by a citizen by filing a RTI. In cases where information was not forthcoming, the chief information commissioner would release the information or order the administration to comply. The new administration has not appointed a chief information commissioner for the last one year, since the incumbent retired. So the administration is effectively starving the media and the citizen of any information of the happenings within the corridors of power. The question that begs to be asked – Why, exactly is the administration wary of sharing any information of its actions? Is there something worth hiding? Does it bode well for a democracy if the administration is going all out to muzzle voices of all possible opposing views and is wary of its own citizen. Why is the current administration going out of the way to hide its tracks and wipe its finger prints off its deeds.


While all this was going on, non-governmental organizations (NGO) were petitioning the courts to force the hand of the administration into being more open and transparent in its dealings. Several such petitions ended up as litigations which embarrassed the administration and hence, in a pure vindictive and ham handed way, the administration has cracked down on NGOs for violation of FCRA norms and is trying hard to out maneuver the NGOs by piling counter litigations so that they don’t have time to look into dealings of the administration. By this one act, the administration has proved convincingly that it does not appreciate criticism from any quarters and will fight with all its might to muzzle these contrarian voices by drowning them in litigations. How much this bodes well for our democracy is a question we need to ask ourselves the next time we step out to vote.


So long....

Land wars and agrarian crisis – arguments

“The next war will be fought for water and food grains”, prophetic words already haunting India. A country, which in 67 years, failed to provide adequate irrigation to its farmers, is now hitting the final nail into their coffin by resorting to land grab as a means to “wean away” the farmers from agriculture towards skilled labor. Talk to any spokesperson of the present day administration and they will tell you that farming is no longer profitable as it used to be back in the day because the land holdings have reduced over the years due to land area being split between siblings as a share to the property they were entitled to as heirs. So a land owner has smaller land holding which is not profitable enough to sustain a family and hence the farmers are committing suicide day after day. Several newspapers are carrying this story without stopping to check for facts. Frankly, no political party cares why a farmer is killing himself all they care is the political fallout of the suicides should not harm them during elections. It is this short term vision that is hampering proper analysis of the problem and subsequent finding of a long term solution to it.


I am neither a farmer, land owner nor an economist but I have my own theory on why such stark agrarian crisis has hit India. I would like to articulate a few points and hope to initiate a discussion on its merits / short comings. Firstly, the administration has to overcome a large deficit of lack of irrigation facilities accumulated over past 60 years and for this they have to come up with innovative plans to set up small scale irrigation projects (bunds etc.) in fertile areas so that farmers do not have to depend on rains for sustained farming. The land will be provided by farmers and capital can be provided by the administration. There will be easy land acquiring as farmers desperately need irrigation. This is a perfect win-win solution with long term benefits. This will also sustain the water table as farmers will be weaned away from using ground water. I am not saying nobody has thought about this solution but maybe this is common sense solution and hence not always sought out.


The second argument for weaning away farmers from agriculture is the argument “60% of work force producing 15% of GDP”. I am flabbergasted that the administration can even say such a thing. The main reason why 60% of farmers cannot product 60% of GDP is because of lack of adequate irrigation, supply of proper fertilizers and pesticides and lack of scientific farming. Instead of making agriculture more profitable by fixing raw material issues the administration is fixing this with trying to reduce number of people employed in agriculture by snatching away their land using “land acquisition bill”. This is equivalent to saying if there is not enough food; tell your family to go eat elsewhere instead of striving to get more food to the table. Again, this is a common sense solution but the administration has set its eyes on some other aims. There is also an option to encourage farmers to employ co-operative farming – wherein contiguous farmlands could be irrigated by farmers on cost / profit sharing basis and gain from the benefits of economies of scale. Not so long ago, individual dairy farmers were not making much money but co-operative dairy farming has led to “while revolution” in India and today it is the largest producer and exporter of dairy products. Why cannot we replicate this in agriculture and horticulture? Again, common sense is not so common.


There is one last bit in this puzzle. The rich folks don’t want the poor to be able to afford good food so that the demand can be controlled and prices remain stable. The administration is trying to tackle the inflation by killing the demand rather than fixing the supply side issues listed above. This has become a classic battle of the haves v the have nots because the powers that be are unwilling if not unable, to think straight and address the right issues instead of fighting the losing battles. In closing, the agrarian crisis has been in the making for last 3 decades but the simmer is provided by attempts of present administration to tackle the issue in a way detrimental to the farming community. Unless a rethink is done almost immediately, this crisis will blow in to a full scale class war – that much can be guaranteed.


So long….

The wife

“Dr. Amita was a bright young doctor and surgeon working at Father Mueller hospital in the department of general surgery. Over the last several years the hospital and her patients have benefitted from her skill in surgery and knowledge of medicine. In her passing, the hospital has lost a talented doctor and the nation has lost a bright young mind. In the times of grief, the hospital stands firmly with the family.” The morning bulletin of Father Mueller hospital was used to make an official statement on the sudden and untimely death of Dr. Amita the previous night. It was too soon to be speaking about the cause of death but prima facie the death looked unnatural.


Dr. Amita Purohit (maiden name) was a young and talented doctor. She had graduated from top tier university in the UK in the field of general medicine and surgery. Dr. Purohit was a class topper and her Chief was Medicine had written a glowing reference letter for her when she was seeking a job in India. It was mentioned on more than one occasion about the keen bent of mind Dr. Purohit had shown for research in medicine despite being a major in surgery. The Chief had also offered her an on campus job in the research department and a chance to pursue PhD in medicine. Unfortunately, Dr. Purohit had to leave for personal reasons and could not take up the job. In the year 2013, Dr. Purohit returned to India and joined Father Mueller hospital in the capital.


Dr. Anish Agarwal was a graduate of Father Agnel School of medicine and is a trained dermatologist working at Father Mueller hospital serving as a resident doctor in the department of Dermatology. Dr. Agarwal is mild in his manners, has a great rapport with his patients and seniors, and is also easy on the eyes. The entire hospital was invited for his wedding with Dr. Amita Purohit in the January of 2014. They looked so happy, deeply in love that one could not make they had met just weeks ago in an arranged marriage setup by their parents. Being doctors, it seemed a perfect match as they would understand the pressures of the job and cut each other some slack. The match was just too meant to be by logical standards and also by the standards of “religious / caste match making”. The pundit (astrologer) had claimed this was a match made in heaven.


Coming back to present day, the autopsy of Dr. Amita confirmed that she died due to an overdose of sleeping pills possibly ingested by her due to suicidal thoughts. It was hard to fathom what had gone wrong from “happily ever after”, a year ago. Many theories were doing the rounds about possible causes for the suicide and most of them were the usual- mental torture, dowry harassment, possible extra marital affair and so on. However, the people who knew Dr. Anish and the people who worked with him vouched that the doctor was an upright person with good manners, no roving eye or ever a harsh tone with his staff or patients. To be fair, Dr. Anish was visibly shaken with the suicide and was taking it hard upon him. It would be very hard to pin the blame on Dr. Anish for he was genuinely unaware why his wife took this extreme step. After forensic analysis of the house, her belongings and after a thorough analysis of her email accounts and text messages, it was assessed that Dr. Amita committed suicide because her husband Dr. Anish was a homosexual.


From her various email conversations with her friends, it could be gathered that Dr. Anish’s parents were aware of their son’s sexual preference but wanted to cure him of homosexuality. Some family advisor or spiritual guru had advised that a heterosexual marriage along with a diet regiment would cure Dr. Anish of his depravity. The parents were convinced that homosexuality is a disease borne out of western influence and could be easily cured by “babaji’s” blessings. Marriage to Dr. Amita was part of this regiment and over a period of time the parents were happy that they had successfully cured the son. Dr. Amita also wrote of her conversations with her parents and in-laws about the lack of physical intimacy between the couple even after a year of marriage and were always advised that some guys are shy and take some time to develop amorous love. Lack of support from parents and some plain speaking by the husband had convinced Dr. Amita that there was no hope as her husband had different sexual preferences. Dr. Amita tried to file a divorce but was constantly dissuaded by her parents and in-laws, many times blaming her for lacking feminine qualities to entice a man. There was also advice to make “adjustments” as marriage was basically a compromise. All these negatives had taken a toll on her and Dr. Amita, in a weak moment consumed high dosage of sleeping pills to end her misery.


Dr. Amita’s parents and in laws are facing prosecution on charges of abetment of suicide. Dr. Anish has moved to another city as it became difficult living and working in a city after being identified as a gay man and a “wife killer”. We could all take a deep breath and analyze if societal prejudices and lack of empathy towards LGBT preferences are driving people to end lives as it is becoming impossible to live in a hostile society. There is a need to understand LGBT preferences are not mental sickness that needs a cure but is a preference like that of food or clothing. Live and let live should be the learning here. #DownWithArticle377 #HomosexualityIsNotSickness

So long...

Land wars

If anyone has been reading the newspapers or going online to check for latest happenings in India, one cannot miss out reading about a certain ordinance issued by the Government of India which enables “land acquisition” for infrastructure projects which fall under several categories. Primary infrastructure – roads, rails, ports, dams, bridges and defense installations; secondary infrastructure like public schools, hospitals, cold storage chains, warehouses which can be built by private players by having the Government as a stakeholder and tertiary infrastructure – private schools, private hospitals, golf courses, townships etc. which are wholly owned by private corporates with no Government stake involved. In each of these cases, Government would now be a land broker acquiring the land from owners by paying the owners under a “R&R package” – which stands for remuneration and rehabilitation of those who will have to be resettled owing to the land acquisition. This ordinance has hit rough weather due to opposition from political parties in the Rajya Sabha (Indian Senate). Although, a defeat on this bill would mean loss of face for the Government internationally and weaken industry sentiments, in India defeating this bill or blocking it via pocket veto is of immense necessity for the benefit of farming community. I must confess upfront that I am not a stakeholder in this discussion because I am neither of the affected parties – land holders or land acquirer, I am involved however, for the larger goal of analysis of policy prescriptions and making necessary suggestions. Please make your own assessment after going through the salient features of the ordinance vis-à-vis the existing bill. I must state emphatically that I am neither a povertarian (a term coined by the political right in India) meaning someone who benefits from sustained poverty in India nor am I an out-and-out capitalist. In fact my political leanings do not matter on this subject. I would however ask to be simply judged on the arguments I place and also on basic human values.


1894 was the year when the Raj (British occupied India) legislated a “Land acquisition” bill used mainly to help the Government forcibly acquire land from owners by paying a set price known as the “circle price”, which is essentially the cost of purchasing agricultural land and then change the ‘use of land’ which means converting agricultural land to commercial land by the stroke of a pen and then use the land to build basic infrastructure like roads, rails, dams, schools etc. In those days, Government was the only entity investing in building infrastructure and this “act of acquisition” was dubbed as nation building. The 1894 act stayed on the Indian statute (like all other British laws, including sedition laws) after Independence and all the land acquisition for “nation building” was being done by enforcing a law that had “colonial mindset”. The first task to be performed by India’s Parliament in 1952 should have been repealing all the colonial laws and replace them with “democratic” laws. The government of the day did repeal many laws from the statute but let several laws stay on- like the land acquisition laws, the sedition law, the unnatural sex (section 377 in CrPC) to name a few. The idea was that these laws will soon become obsolete and future Governments would replace them with more democratic inclusive laws. Little did our first Prime Minister know that having a vision for India will pass with him and all future Governments will govern with aim to get reelected rather than to propagate their vision for India. Somewhere in the seventies and more so in the eighties (1970s and 80s) private players (Industrial houses) of India started getting involved in land purchase for expansion of business by using the Government machinery for land acquisition as it would mean easier access to cheap land without going through the hassles of purchasing land from the land market. Government on its part let the industry abuse the land acquisition law as they provided the much needed funds to political parties for election expenses. Consequently, until very recently Government of India and the various state governments acted like as a glorified land broker for industry.


One argument for the Government to get involved in land acquisition process is because of the land titles in India are not clear because of the hangovers of the “zamindari” (land lord) system and the existence of land mafia. Purchasing any land from the market is hazardous for the private parties as India does not have a database of land titles and relies on the rudimentary method of producing a sales deed as proof of land holding. The land mafia got involved and started producing fake sales deeds to harass the parties involved in a land deal and extort money. This lucrative business of the land mafia could only be stopped if Government took control of the land forcibly and then handed it over to the business for development purposes. This saved the industry from lengthy trial processes over fake claims or settling with the “claimants” of the land by paying them off. In each case the industry lost out because the delays caused and excess money spent. Ideally, the Government should have stepped in and cleaned up the process of land purchase, spend a few years and clean up land titles and create a state wise database of land titles and underwrite these titles. Instead, the Government chose the easier route of acting as a broker on behalf of private players by misusing the provisions of land acquisition law. The land owners (in most cases farmers) and small time agriculturist we paid pittance and their land was forcibly acquired in the name of development and in many cases these farmers lost their livelihood and had to relocate to other villages and work as landless laborers or go to cities and live in slums and work as day laborers. Over a period of time this caused a lot of stress on the cities whose infrastructures were not equipped to bear influx of people in such large numbers. So instead of solving one problem fully, the Government helped create many new problems.


Amount of land that was acquired by government would often be more than the project needed and hence over a period of time, Governments effectively created land banks which it held on to instead of returning it to its owners. After the change of “land use” from agriculture to commercial, the land price soared from 10 times the original up to 100 times the original price depending on the project it was being chosen for. Elected politicians pawned of the excess land held by the Government to favorable parties who in-turn benefitted from change of land use (legitimately or illegitimately) and became millionaires overnight. All this continued unabated and unchecked for a good 25 years when thousands of farmers lost their land and became landless laborers while a handful of people made millions out of this deal. Effectively, the government which was mandated to protect the interests of the governed (farmers included) was reduced to a broker who was abusing its powers to help a few chosen ones make quick bucks at the cost of others. In the year 2010, farmers from all over India laid a siege on New Delhi. The immediate irritant was the events in Bhatta-Parsaul, villages in Uttar Pradesh where the state had to deploy police to evict farmers who refused to give up land to the Government and instead squatted on the lands and dared the state to evict them forcibly. What ensued shook the conscience of the nation. The Police brutally assaulted the villagers, shot rounds killing many of them and injuring scores of them. In a few cases, the women of the village were sexually assaulted. The people who were killed were piled up in a heap and their carcass burned. A land acquisition exercise had turned into a mass murder by the state of its subjects. This prompted several farmer associations to lay siege on New Delhi and force the hand of the Government to repeal the land acquisition law and legislate a new modern law which is fair to the farmers as well as the buyers.


After two and half years of consultation with NGOs, farmers associations, land owners, industry and other affected parties, the Government of the day came up with LARR (land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement) act of 2013. The legislation was discussed threadbare in both houses of the Parliament and several amendments moved and accommodated. Finally in October 2013, India had, a sort of modern, sort of fair and sort of compromise deal on land acquisition legislation which was meant to undo the wrongs of the past and make sure that future land acquisitions were done in a fair manner. I will highlight the salient features of the LARR 2013 which were well meaning and also the shortcomings of the law.


Consent: this was a major win for the farmers and other land owners. The land was being acquired forcibly thus far in the name of development and national interest. Going forward, land owners consent would be mandatory (up to 80% for public-private partnerships and up to 70% for infrastructure projects). Meaning, at the very least 2/3rd of the land owners will have to consent for a land to be acquired for projects. Of course there were emergency clauses put in where consent would be waived – mainly for defense installation and nuclear reactors etc. but this clause was largely seen as a win for the land owners.


Remuneration: apart from forcible acquisition, the biggest issue that the land owners had with 1894 act was the lack of proper remuneration. The Government changed the land use post acquisition and helped industry make millions while the original land owners were paid market rate (pre land use change) which were peanuts considering the profits the users of the land made. This gulf brought about a sense of disgust where small time land owners lost the land, lost their livelihood for meagre remuneration while the land users made millions by merely changing land use. LARR 2013 was expected to provide post land use change remuneration but did not go as far; it fell short but was not as bad and unfair as the 1894 act. LARR 2013 provides for 2 times the market rate for urban land and 4 times the market rate for rural land which was sort of a mid-way between both extremes. Another clause added was to make original land owners a shareholder in the new enterprise that was to come up on their land so that they have some share of the profits generated by the enterprise built over land (exceptions include defense installations, nuclear plants, dams etc.) The percentage of shareholding pattern would be agreed upon in between land owners and buyers.


Rehabilitation: apart from the remuneration to the land owners and giving them a share in the windfall profits that change of land use would bring, the daily laborers who work on the piece of land which is being sold also lose their source of livelihood and hence were made a stakeholder under the new law. The bill encourages the enterprise set up on the land to provide a job to one member of each family who is being displaced by the land acquisition. Also, the people have to be relocated to so a similar location which could provide access to purchase land at comparable rates. It is not the ideal like to like displacement but the legislation encourages the Government to relocate the displaced masses to appropriate areas with comparable standard of living.


Multi crop land and forest land: the legislation prohibits acquisition of multi crop land and forest land for purpose of infrastructure building (except as a last resort). In case of the forest land, there is an exception where tribal people will have a say on the land acquisition and will also get a stake or a job in the enterprise that is being put up on forest land. These safeguard were put in because the 1894 bill did not recognize tribal rights and hence caused a constant rift between Government and the tribal who saw this exercise as a trespass on their land.


Social impact assessment: the social impact assessment clause was added to win the confidence of locals. Over the period of 65 years of independence, Governments had lost the confidence of land owners by acting in the interest of industry and by not representing the land owners / farmers adequately. The Governments would acquire land many times more than required and hold it as land banks. This caused a loss to the land owners and gave windfall profits to government cronies. Proper social impact assessment will ensure the locals are explained the benefits of project and also ensure that no extra land is acquired by the Government.


Retrospective clause and land return: The retrospective clause was added to ensure that if land has been acquired many years ago and has been lying unutilized and is part of Government land bank it will be returned to the original land owners and re-acquired under the new law if the need for the land exists. Likewise prospectively if any new land acquired that remains unused for a period of 5 years will lapse and should be returned to the original land owners.


The legislation had an important lacuna; it exempted 13 types of projects which require majority land acquisition from the ambit of the LARR as there were other laws guiding these projects. Parliament decided to revisit this legislation in a year to add a clause removing these exemptions after the other 13 laws were repealed via legislation.


A subsequent ordinance by the Government overturned most of these safeguards sans the remuneration clause in favor of ease of business but in the bargain it turned the clock back 125 years. The underlying assumption for the ordinance is land owners and farmers don’t bother about nation’s progress and hence their land needs to be taken forcibly by Governments in the name of progress. Debate is on in the Parliament and outside over this largesse to industry. We will soon know the future of land wars in India.


So long...

Defend the freedom to offend

Today, more than ever, the debate is raging – should the freedom of speech be absolute or should there be as we in India say “reasonable restrictions” and I have always been trying to figure out why the debate rages given that it’s a no brainer. To me the right to speech is like the right to live – absolute. There cannot be reasonable restrictions on my right to speak up, no more than my right to draw breath. I understand that my stance would trouble the minds of people in charge of maintaining law and order as they have the added responsibility to temper the right to feel offended with the right to free speech, but I have the liberty to make my case. So, I come back to my original point, should the right to free speech include the right to offend?


Over the last few years I have been troubled by acts of violence against freedom of expression. I was too young when Salman Rushdie was hounded for his novel “Satanic Verses” but I do remember my countrymen targeting M.F. Hussain’s paintings and issuing death threats to him and forcing him to relocate to Qatar (where he stayed until he passed away in 2011). I also remember the banning of Rohinton Mistry’s “Such a long journey” by Mumbai University upon insistence from Aditya Thackeray (who has a family history of intolerance and hatred) and Shiv Sena burning the copies of James W Laine’s “Shivaji –Hindu king in Islamic India”. In each of these cases, I used to ask – why do people write things that offend others? Don’t these writers and painters have the common sense that if people get offended they will get these books / art banned and the whole purpose of writing/ drawing them is not served. I also openly supported the Government stance to ban, as I viewed it to be the only way to enforce the rule of law and maintain peace. In each of these cases, I must admit I had not viewed the paintings or read the books to make an informed judgment but sort of trusted the judgment of my Government.


The only exception came when Government of Tamil Nadu banned the release of Kamal Hasan’s movie “Vishwaroopam” following protests from ‘Muslim leaders’ who thought it represented Muslims in poor light. The reason I differed with the Government’s stand was because I had watched the movie in Hindi and did not see any portion which was offensive, in fact it was a very well made movie. Kamal Hasan lost a lot of money on the movie and vowed to never work in another movie in a land that does not respect freedom of speech. It was later known that the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had a personal beef with Kamal Hasan and she had misused her office to ban a movie that had no overt offensive portions. The Government of Tamil Nadu also arranged for “protests” so that the ban seemed genuine and the rest we know is history. This event got me thinking of the previous bans and wondering if in each of these cases the protests had been “arranged” for? In fact in each of these cases the alacrity with which the Government acted in banning free speech was hinting that the whole thing could have been stage managed. Almost like, sections of the Government machinery asked a few people to protest so that the ban can be enforced citing law and order issues. The judiciary of India has a lot to answer for in each of these cases as it allowed the executive to run amok and repeatedly insult the sacred trust that binds the Government and the governed.


After my experience with the Indian law of applying “reasonable” restrictions on freedom of speech, I looked up on the internet for examples around the world where the ruling Governments have erred on the side of freedom rather than the side of caution. Guess what, there is not a single example in the world where freedom of speech with “reasonable” restriction has not been abused by the incumbent Government against the governed to further their own agenda and ideology. I could not find a single example where the Government has told these blackmailers who hold the law and order to ransom to back off and has defended the individual liberty of speech. Almost always, the Government whose primary objective is getting re-elected has sided with the freedom to get offended exercised by the majority to unreasonably curb the freedom of the individual – in many cases an author or artist. So the threat issued by Islamic leaders worldwide and the fatwa issued by the Ayatollah resulted in the banning of “Satanic Verses” in almost all countries except the United States. The surprising part was nobody had read the book and yet nobody thought it was necessary to question these fatwas which was based on heresy. A celebrated author was hounded, forced to apologize and his publishers and translators were stabbed or assassinated all based the fatwa which was issued without reading the book. The Government of Rajasthan revoked the permission for him to travel to Jaipur literary fest of 2013 because the Muslim leaders of India were still raw about Satanic Verses written almost 25 years ago. This is one example of how so many countries – many of them governed by modern and forward looking leaders did not stand up to threats but tamely allowed the freedom of speech to be curbed. In India you will find several examples where the Government has stood in solidarity with the lumpen elements or looked the other way when they attacked freedom of speech and expression at regular intervals. India went a step further and formalized this via the Central board of film certification or CBFC whose job is to issue certificates to motion pictures screened in India but they use their office to ban films or section of films playing the moral police for the Government in power.


After I have made an elaborate case of how the Government cannot and must not be a custodian for protecting my freedom of speech because the Government is often dictated by the will of the majority even then the “will” is directed by spurious intentions. So who could be a valid custodian? The Judiciary? In countries where the Governments will side with the majority and bring unjustified injunction on the voice of the individual stating she was “creating ill will among communities” the fight becomes skewed against the individual who is now taking on the might of the Government and its battery of lawyers. So does this mean freedom of speech should and must be absolute? Well yes, an unequivocal yes. The reason being the harm an individual can do by misusing her freedom of speech can be minimal as compared to the harms the majoritarian view can do to individuals. An individual misusing her freedom of speech and expression could at most draw cartoons insulting the holy prophet (PBUH) but never physically harm anyone, however, the people exercising their right to feel offended just gunned down 16 individuals and caused severe mental trauma to several survivors and family members. There is a strong case for all countries to come up with air tight constitutional amendments in favor of absolute freedom of speech and not ask individuals to apply “restrain” when they express their views.


On the larger debate, I would also exhort all individuals to wield the weapon of “freedom of speech” responsibly and use it for the larger benefit of society rather than meaningless gratification. We all are aware of the far reaching impacts of our expressions and how speeches from great leaders have changed the futures of countries. So I would rather use my freedom to express to stand up for the right of the underprivileged or the unrepresented or something that is obviously wrong with the society rather than to settle personal scores by calling people names. I am appalled by scores of people creating hate websites, writing take down pieces in magazines, drawing insulting cartoons and making videos with sole purpose to hurt religious sentiments and or making incendiary / racist remarks. While I would hope people do not resort to these tactics, I would request with folded hands that these fringe elements must be ignored as that would be the best way to put an end to the menace of individuals seeking their 15 minutes of fame. Let there be no more bans on books / plays / movies or cartoons rather we have societies use freedom of speech to educate masses to be tolerant rather than extremist in their views, and where necessary learn to ignore the obvious attempt to provoke a reaction. The 6 letter N- word is not outlawed by any state / federal law in America but societies have helped successfully phase it out of common parlance. Imagine the power of speech / expression if this can be achieved without resorting to threats and violence.


So long…

Theory of life

I must confess I have not known much about the life of Stephen Hawking despite the fact he is one of the most celebrated scientists (or cosmologist) of our times. I am not a theoretical physics major so I would apologize if I may seem trivial at times and at times would seem like focusing on everything but physics as I write this post. Recently, I had the privilege of watching the movie “Theory of everything” – based on the life of Stephen Hawking and it got me thinking on the aspects of life touched in various measures during the narrative. It is amazing how a movie based solely on the life of an atheist could get you thinking about God, but it did. At times I had tears in my eyes as I could see the work of a power much superior than I working along with Prof. Hawking even as he continued to not recognize its existence. You could call it his destiny, I could call it God and we would both be right in equal measure. I would like to highlight some obvious and some subtle messages I received from the film apart from the mind boggling achievements of Prof Hawking.


Life is struggle and it ends at death: Most of us feel it, some of us might not feel it so obviously, but life is synonymous with struggle. Every day in different way we face new problems which we overcome and experience success. Some of these problems get the better of us but in a way teach us lessons and prepare us for the problems arriving in future. So long as we live, we will encounter problems and hence it serves us right to learn ways to face them rather than turn our backs to them. The harder the problem, the sweeter is the victory over it and by that measure Prof. Hawking life is a grand testimony to fighting and winning!


Behind a successful man is a beautiful and loving woman: This adage has been beaten to death often times referring to how the wife picks up the slack at home and takes care of the kids while the man is outside chasing his dreams. This is special, but in case of Prof Hawking, his wife Jane quite literally is the captain steering the ship of his dreams. Every single time it seemed like he was giving up on life and accepting his fate given his medical condition, she was there cheering him up and pushing him to fight harder and win grander. When Prof Hawking meets an accident and is on life support and the doctors have all but given up and are encouraging her to sign the DNR, she firmly stands with him citing “his work is incomplete”. One wonders if Prof Hawking would achieve all that he did despite his medical condition without the love and support of his lovely wife Jane. Maybe it was her love that kept a man alive for 40 years; to whom doctors gave just 2 years to live.


Any medical condition is surmountable: Every person alive has some or the other medical condition. Some of us may have severe allergies; others have sinus problems and relentless colds. In case of Prof Hawking it was ALS – a motor neuron disease which degenerates the muscles slowly – severely limiting all voluntary activities. The message is best put across when Dr. Hawking says “No matter how bad the situation is there is always something you could do and be good at. So long there is life, there is hope”. If we learn to take things in our stride and continue to live life and pursue our dreams, even insurmountable problems seem petty.


Everyone deserves happiness: The character of Jane the lovely wife of Dr. Hawking brings out different shades of her personality and makes a larger point to a society that often spends time evaluating the mistakes made by others instead of understanding that each of us live under different circumstances so there cannot be a common measure of good / bad in this world. The movie depicts Jane as a strong woman who at no point gives up on her husband despite his advanced stage ALS. There are several instances when Dr. Hawking seems to have given up and Jane stands by him and nudges him to continue on his path of research. There is also an instance when she is overwhelmed by the amount of work which involves taking care of 3 children and a husband and seeks an outlet by joining the church choir and getting romantically involved with a widower she meets there. I found this person intriguing who had her priorities sorted and never gave up on her husband for the sake of her lover. In fact, when the time came to choose between the two, she picked her husband. It tells us that people all around us are dealing with their problems in their own unique way and should we as a society be unable to help, we should not get in the way of their happiness by drawing boundaries of good/bad and judge them.


In closing, a big salute to Dr. Hawking for leading a wonderful life and achieving all that he has achieved and to Jane for standing by him all the time.


So long..