Justice or vengeance?

Lubhyathi Rangarajan

July 24, 2015

 Illustration: Satwik Gade

The procedure followed to obtain a death warrant for Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon suffers from serious constitutional flaws. If seen through, it will set a very wrong precedent.

There is a worrying certainty around the hanging of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon, convicted for planning and executing the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. The Maharashtra government seems determined to execute him on July 30 despite several omissions on its part and constitutional options still remaining open for Memon. These concerns have gone unaddressed, given the obsession with both the manner in which Memon is likely to be executed and his demeanour on hearing his fate. Unfortunately, there has been virtually no discussion around the death warrant proceedings of April 2015 at the TADA court in Mumbai, which have now come to light. There is even less reportage on the multiple legal options available to him, the exercise of which is his constitutional right, and on which the crimes he has been convicted for have no bearing. The widespread sentiment appears to be that this is the end of the road for Memon, though this is far from true.

Death warrant or ‘black’ warrant proceedings, as they are colloquially called, are held in the court that first ordered the sentence of death. The contents of a death warrant can be found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the innocuously named Form No. 42. The form states the name of the person to be executed, the offence for which he was originally sentenced and, most critically, the time, date, and place of execution. This kind of specificity is embedded in the procedure to avoid unnecessary conjecture, and to ensure that the prisoner is not traumatised by speculation around the timing of his death.

Issuing a death warrant

Ideally, ‘black’ warrant proceedings ought to take place only after a prisoner has exhausted all legal remedies. Yet there is very little clarity in the law, and consequently in the actions of State governments, on precisely when a death warrant can be issued. Recently, there have been demonstrable lapses on the part of State governments, notably in the case of Surinder Koli, who was convicted in the serial Nithari killings in Noida. Three ‘open-ended’ death warrants were issued against him by the sentencing court in Ghaziabad. The High Court of Allahabad while commuting his sentence in PUDR v. Union of India (January 2015), however, read in basic rules of procedural fairness into the process for issuing death warrants. These principles have now been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Shabnam v. Union of India (May 2015). The basis for the writ petition in Shabnam was the hasty, almost enthusiastic, manner in which the sentencing court in Moradabad issued death warrants against Shabnam and Salim, lovers who killed seven of the girl’s family members, ordering that their executions take place ‘as soon as possible’ despite a host of legal options remaining open.

Unfortunately, what governments ignore is the unimaginable impact of unnecessary, premature, open-ended or multiple death warrants against a prisoner — that of swinging between life and death, or living with an indeterminate fate.

“Ideally, ‘black’ warrant proceedings ought to take place only after a prisoner has exhausted all legal remedies.”

As the law stands after the decision of the Supreme Court in Shabnam, a black warrant proceeding cannot take place without the accused and his lawyer being present. Shabnam now requires that five elements be satisfied: that a convict be given prior notice of the death warrant proceeding; that the warrant specify the exact date and time of execution and not a range of dates; that a reasonable period of time be fixed between the date of the order on the warrant and the date set for execution to enable the convict to meet his family and pursue legal remedies; that a copy of the execution warrant be made available to him; and that he/she be given legal aid at these proceedings.

In Memon’s case, the death warrant that was issued on April 30, 2015 scheduling his execution for July 30, 2015 was unnecessary and invalid in law. The Maharashtra government should have known that Memon still had the option of filing a curative petition. Before proceeding to execute an individual, it is the government’s obligation to ensure that all legal options have been explored. Moving for an execution in a clandestine manner, hoping that the prisoner would not exercise his constitutional options, reeks of vengeance. The fact that the Maharashtra government thought it fit not to give notice of the death warrant proceedings to Memon or his lawyers casts a serious shadow over the manner in which the government sought to proceed on the matter.

Many discrepancies

Curiously enough, when the first news stories broke about Memon’s scheduled execution on July 30, they also indicated that the Supreme Court would consider his curative petition on July 21, 2015. This happened much before the official notification of it being listed appeared on the Supreme Court’s case status platform or his lawyers were officially informed.

Another glaring inconsistency in the state’s actions is the assumption that Memon’s curative petition would be undoubtedly rejected on July 21. Ideally, the state ought to have cancelled the death warrant upon knowing that a curative petition was pending before the Supreme Court, and issued a fresh warrant. The fact of the matter is that the conduct of the Maharashtra government in obtaining a death warrant for Memon suffers from serious constitutional infirmities that must result in it being set aside.

Apart from challenging the validity of the death warrant, Memon has other legal remedies that remain unexplored. The Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (January 2014) once again affirmed the rights of death row prisoners to challenge the rejection of their mercy petition on certain grounds. Memon has now filed a fresh mercy petition in his name (the earlier one was by his brother on different grounds) and the Governments of Maharashtra and India will now have to consider the grounds raised in it. If the concerned governments choose to reject his mercy petition, Memon can, based on the judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan, ask the courts to examine the rejection on various grounds, including that of procedural impropriety.

For those waiting impatiently for Memon’s execution, these might appear to be unnecessary details. But the nature of a society that runs on the rule of law demands that individual rights are not sacrificed merely because sections of society find it inconvenient. Constitutional safeguards allow prisoners on death row, regardless of the offence they may have committed, to exhaust all legal remedies and to be spared hurried, arbitrary and secret executions. Yakub Memon cannot be denied the opportunity to exercise his legal options, and it would be a dangerous precedent to preclude him from doing so. The taking of life by the state must be subject to the highest levels of constitutional scrutiny. To deny someone fundamental rights on the basis of public demands for revenge would cast serious questions over our claim of being a modern constitutional democracy.

(Lubhyathi Rangarajan is with the Centre on the Death Penalty, National Law University, Delhi.)

Source: thehindu

Read also: Yakub Memon must not hang, we brought him back: Key RAW man in ’07

An atonement gone too far?

July 23, 2015

Arghya Sengupta

It has often been heard during discussions surrounding the 40th anniversary of the 
Emergency in the last month, that the Supreme Court had its darkest hour in this period.

The radical nature of judicial intervention along with the sweeping nature of orders against governments gives rise to the irresistible inference that public interest litigation was the Supreme Court’s way of atonement for its genuflection before government during the Emergency

Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The adage is widely considered true for the Supreme Court of India which held in the height of the Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla that detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) could not approach the judiciary if their fundamental rights were violated. Not only was the law laid down unconscionable, but it also smacked of a Court more “executive-minded than the executive”, complicit in its own independence being shattered by an all-powerful government. So deep has been the impact of this judgment that the Supreme Court’s current activist avatar is widely viewed as having its genesis in a continuing need to atone. Expressions of such atonement have created another Court made to measure — this time not to the measure of the government but rather the aggrandised self-image of some of its judges.

It has often been heard during discussions surrounding the 40th anniversary of the Emergency in the last month, that the Supreme Court had its darkest hour in this period. For those not familiar with the history of the Court, it might be instructive to understand why. In ADM Jabalpur, the four judges in the majority, Chief Justice A.N. Ray and his successor Chief Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud and P.N. Bhagwati handed down a judgment that was fatally flawed in law. Given that the consequences of their error were entirely to the government’s advantage, it was widely viewed as the death of an independent judiciary. The excessively deferential, almost apologetic language used by the judges confirmed this impression.

Life, a bounty of the government

The legal question before the Court was whether as a consequence of a presidential order suspending the fundamental right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) during the operation of the Emergency under Article 359 of the Constitution, detenus who had been put behind bars under the provisions of MISA without any reasons being provided, could challenge their detentions as unlawful in a court of law. The majority held that Article 21 of the Constitution that had been suspended was the sole repository of life, personal liberty and judicial review in the Constitution. Further, that the rule of law in an Emergency would be entirely what the government said it should.

On both counts, the judges were entirely mistaken. While it is an arguable proposition whether there is a right to life and personal liberty in natural law, outside the Constitution, there can be no debate on the proposition that the power of judicial review, i.e. the power of the Supreme Court to examine the legality of executive action does not depend on Article 21. Thus, whether a detention order under MISA was validly issued in terms of the statute itself is a question that the Court must remain competent to adjudicate on notwithstanding the emergency at hand. Otherwise, under the pretext of the Emergency, a government can — and in the case of Indira Gandhi’s government did — round up its opponents in the name of national security. In legal terms, the rule of ultra vires, that the act of government cannot go beyond the power vested in it by the legislature, is hardly a creature of Article 21; it is a principle of common law that predates the Constitution.

“ For an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is dangerous…”

Second, as a court of law, the Supreme Court was called upon in this case to balance the interest of public order in an Emergency with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person. Nine High Courts called upon to perform the same function had found a nuanced answer by which they had held that the right to life cannot be absolutely subservient to public order merely because the government declared so — the legality of detentions could be judicially reviewed, though the intention of the government would not be second-guessed by the Court. This was a delicate balance. The Supreme Court however reversed this view and made the right to life and personal liberty literally a bounty of the government. If this genuflection did not look perverse per se, in hindsight as the real rationale of the Emergency became apparent, it was devastating for the image of the Court as an independent institution.

Speaking truth to power

It was only the dissenting judgment of Khanna J. that spoke truth to power. On the one hand it did not enquire into the subjective satisfaction of the government as to whether an emergency proclamation was required or whether detention of particular persons was expedient. At the same time, it did not provide a carte blanche to the government, preserving a minimal but significant remit for judicial review to assess whether the legal requirements for detaining a person had been met. As a price for his honesty, Justice Khanna was superseded when by convention he ought to have been appointed the next Chief Justice of India. With Justice Beg accepting the government’s offer in defiance of convention, the Supreme Court looked all too human; yet another institution in India whose independence lay shattered by the government, its reputation in shreds.

Noted scholars have inferred that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar in the 40 years since and particularly prominent today, can directly be traced to this dark episode in its history. Justice Bhagwati, the pioneer of the public interest litigation movement in the Supreme Court publicly apologised for his judgment, rare for a Supreme Court judge. At his behest, the Court came to the rescue of bonded labour, girls in protective homes, undertrial prisoners, minimum wage workers and several other disadvantaged and needy groups in society. The radical nature of such judicial intervention coupled with the sweeping nature of orders against elected governments, makes the inference irresistible that public interest litigation was the Court’s shrewd and humanist atonement for its genuflection before government during the Emergency.

In activist mode

Today, however, while public interest litigation has restored the independent image of the Supreme Court, it has achieved this at the cost of quality, discipline and the constitutional role judges are expected to perform. The Court monitors criminal trials, protects the environment, regulates political advertising, lays down norms for sexual harassment in the workplace, sets guidelines for adoption, supervises police reform among a range of other tasks of government. That all these tasks are crucial but tardily undertaken by government can scarcely be questioned. But for an unelected and largely unaccountable institution such as the Supreme Court to be at the forefront of matters relating to governance is equally dangerous — the choice of issues it takes up is arbitrary, their remit is not legal, their results often counterproductive, requiring a degree of technical competence and institutional capacity in ensuring compliance that the Court simply does not possess. This sets an unhealthy precedent for other courts and tribunals in the country, particularly the latter whose chairpersons are usually retired Supreme Court Justices. To take a particularly egregious example, the National Green Tribunal has banned diesel vehicles more than 10 years old in Delhi and if reports are to be believed, is considering imposing a congestion charge for cars as well. That neither of these are judicial functions and are being unjustly being usurped by a tribunal that has far exceeded its mandate, is evidence of the chain reaction that the Supreme Court’s activist avatar has set off across the judicial spectrum.

Finally, the Court’s activism adds to a massive backlog of regular cases that makes the Indian justice delivery mechanism, slow, unreliable and inefficient for the ordinary litigant. As on March 1, 2015, there were over 61,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court alone. It might be worthwhile for the Court to set its own house in order, concomitantly with telling other wings of government how to do so.

As we mark 40 years of the Emergency and the darkest period in the Supreme Court’s history, it might be time to not single-mindedly harp on the significance of an independent judiciary. Judicial independence, is and must remain a cherished virtue. However, it would be blinkered to not confront newer challenges that damage the credibility of our independent judiciary today — unpardonable delays and overweening judges taking on the mantle of national government by proxy. The Supreme Court 40 years on is a different institution — it must be cognisant of its history but not at the cost of being blind to its present.

(Arghya Sengupta is Research Director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a New Delhi-based legal policy think-tank.)

Source: thehindu 

Bengaluru Ola Auto driver is social media sensation

Shonali Muthalaly   

Chennai, July 20, 2015

Ghasamfar Ali K. and his wife, with Ranjani Shanker

One man can make a difference. Read to know why Ghasamfar Ali K. made the news

Less than a month ago, auto driver Ghasamfar Ali K., picked up a passenger in Bengaluru at 8.30 p.m. and drove her to her destination.

Just another journey, as far as he was concerned. Except, by the next morning, he had become a social media celebrity. In less than a week, people were recognising him on the street. And last weekend, the same passenger travelled from her hometown in Chennai to Bengaluru, turning up unexpectedly at his home to say ‘thank you.’

Back in Chennai, the passenger, Ranjani Shanker, a marketing consultant and musician, talks about how that seemingly ordinary journey made an impact on not just her, but thousands of people across the country. In Bengaluru for a short holiday, she found herself stranded in the city at night. “I needed to go to Kanakpura Road, about 38 km away, and I just could not get a cab.” She finally tried the Ola Auto app on her phone and Ghasamfar Ali accepted the ride.

Before he began driving, however, he warned her that a large part of the route would be through deserted roads. “He said, “the light is very low and it will be lonely — I need to tell you that. But don’t worry.” Despite being nervous, she decided to get into his auto anyway, instructing him to stick to a route she picked via Google Maps. “About 15 minutes into the ride, the roads got dark. I was worried — but he kept checking on me, saying ‘Are you ok, madam? Don’t worry’.”

When she reached Kanakpura, where a friend was to pick her up, she jumped out of the auto in relief. “It was not a city road, but at least there were tea shops, and some light.” However, her friend was delayed — stuck in traffic. “Ghasamfar then insisted on waiting with me for 20 minutes till my friend arrived. And it was those 20 minutes that made me write that Facebook post.”

She wrote the story as soon as she got back to her hotel that night. “I’ll be honest — I did have a feeling it would be popular, but I did not expect it to become the sensation it did.” In an hour, there were 400 Likes. By morning, there were 2,000. “I was like, whoa, I’ve never seen so many Likes on a post,” Ranjani laughs. “Then 4,000, 5,000… now it’s at 17,500.” With almost 2,800 shares. But that’s not all. It’s also gone viral on a number of online news sites.

Why did this post get so popular? “That’s something I’ve been thinking about,” Ranjani says, “I feel it’s the lack of positive news that’s made it stand out. We hear so many negative stories — especially about cab and auto drivers. Men who are rude, who are offensive and dangerous.” She talks about how women, in particular, related to her post. “I think women understand that fear of a dark, lonely road, because they’ve all felt it.”

Meanwhile, Ghasamfar has been making waves in Bengaluru. Says Ranjini, “He’s a local hero now: he’s been on radio stations, three newspaper articles and television. The local Commissioner of Police also felicitated him and posted the picture on their Facebook page.”

Ola finally got wind of the story and wanted to reward Ghasamfar. “They decided to pay off his autorickshaw loan. And they called to ask me if I’d like to join in and surprise him at his home,” says Ranjini.

She agreed enthusiastically, and Ola flew her to Bengaluru last weekend. “He was so surprised when I walked into his house!” She says, “My family was insistent that I give him something as well, as a token of our appreciation and respect.” So she gave him a watch, after which he introduced her to his wife and five-year-old son.

Ranjani then says with a smile, “As we were all sitting together and drinking tea, he said, “Madamji, I don’t even know why I’m famous. I hear it’s because of Facebook. I know what Facebook is… But what is a ‘Like’?”

Source: thehindu

The Iran Deal Is a Victory for Obama Diplomacy Over Bush Warmongering

     Photo: Jewel Samad/Getty Images

July 14, 2015

By Matthew Duss @mattduss

“I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” That was Senator Barack Obama, speaking about Iraq in a 2008 primary debate. For a candidate who had seen his own campaign surge on the strength of his opposition to the Iraq war, it was a near-perfect distillation of the change he hoped to bring to America’s foreign policy discussion, long dominated by hawkish views that were shattering against the bloody reality of Iraq’s civil war.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama started—and won—a hugely significant debate about the proper uses of U.S. power. His declaration that he would not be afraid to talk to America’s enemies brought accusations of naiveté from both his Republican adversary John McCain and Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, who would go on to begin implementing that same policy toward Iran as Obama’s first Secretary of State.

Ending that mindset has proven a difficult task. The idea that military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not remains a very attractive one, especially for politicians looking for cheap ways to appear tough. And to be fair, Obama has moved slowly on this, often frustratingly so. There are policy areas, particularly the use of drone warfare, where he has continued the commitment to the use of force. But Obama’s Iran policy is one in which the president has followed through on that central promise of his candidacy, and with great results. In short, Obama’s Iran policy is the anti–Iraq war.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 U.S. troops and more than 100,000 Iraqis, including many times that number seriously and permanently injured. It cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars. It empowered both Iran and Al Qaeda in the region, and led to the creation of the Islamic State. Its negative repercussions will bedevil the region, and U.S. policymakers, for decades to come. Conceived by the Bush administration as a demonstration of American military power, it succeeded only in demonstrating its limits.

In stark contrast, the historic nuclear deal announced Tuesday in Vienna between the U.S. and its P5+1 partners and Iran demonstrates an alternative vision of the use of American power. It shows that our security and the security of our partners can be effectively advanced through multilateral diplomacy, and proves once again the importance of U.S. global leadership in addressing shared problems. Specifically, it achieves the central goal of blocking Iran's path to a nuclear weapon by dramatically reducing its capacity to produce nuclear fuel (something which continued to expand even under tight international sanctions), and by putting Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure under the most intensive inspections regime in history.

As a result of the deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency will have eyes on Iran's nuclear program at every level: mining, procurement, production, enrichment, etc. Not only does this deep visibility create a deterrent to cheating, but it also means that, when the intensive inspection period expires years from now, the IAEA will possess far more detailed information and understanding of Iran's program than any other in the world.

And by demonstrating to the Iranian regime that a positive change in its behavior can produce benefits, the deal could empower more moderate elements within Iran calling for broader reforms. This is one reason why the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has supported this diplomacy all along, and hailed the agreement this morning as “a victory of diplomacy and peace,” and why Iran’s hawks remain hostile to any agreement, a position they’ve long shared with U.S. hardliners. (It’s no secret why the most ardent supporters of the Iraq war have been the loudest critics of Iran diplomacy: The failure of the former and success of the latter utterly discredits their claims about how the world works.)

Frankly, if there were any justice, we would be seeing an outbreak of “Support Our Diplomats” bumper stickers. Americans rightly honor those who defend our security with military strength, and it’s time to accord the same to those who do it through effective and painstaking diplomacy.

To be clear, this agreement addresses one contentious issue among many that the U.S. and the international community have with Iran. Now that the deal is inked, the administration must articulate a more detailed strategy for confronting Iran’s regional troublemaking. There's precedent for this: The U.S. did it with the USSR, a far more powerful and threatening adversary than Iran, even as we were negotiating and implementing arms agreements. At the same time, the reality of post-Iraq war Middle East requires the U.S. and Iran to look for ways to confront shared challenges, particularly the growth of ISIS. There’s no “one-size-fits-all” policy for a region that’s increasingly fragmented. And the U.S. has no interest in taking sides in a sectarian Cold War.

Ending the mindset that got us into Iraq isn’t the work of one presidency, but of a generation. That work received a huge boost today. The Vienna agreement is a victory for a better vision of foreign policy.

Matthew Duss is president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, based in Washington, D.C.

Source: newrepublic

ఎదిగినా ఒదిగుండే వ్యక్తిత్వం ఆమె సొంతం

 

గన్నవరం: భారత జట్టుకు ఆడి వచ్చిన ఏ క్రికెటర్‌కైనా ఎయిర్‌పోర్ట్‌లో కారు, స్వాగతం పలికేందుకు హంగా మా ఉంటుంది. కానీ టీమిండియా మహిళా క్రికెట్‌ జట్టు వికెట్‌ కీపర్‌, విజయవాడ క్రీడాకారిణి కల్పన పరిస్థితి మాత్రం వేరు. బెంగళూరులో ఐదు వన్డేల సిరీస్‌లో పాల్గొని గురువారం తిరిగొచ్చిన కల్పనకు స్వాగతం పలికేందుకు ఆమె తండ్రి, ఆటో డ్రైవర్‌ వెంకటేశ్వరరావు, ఆమె చదువుతున్న కళాశాల ప్రిన్సిపాల్‌, అధ్యాపకులు, విద్యార్థులు మా త్రమే వచ్చారు. అనంతరం తన తం డ్రి నడిపే ట్రాలీ ఆటో లో ఎయిర్‌పోర్ట్‌ నుంచి ఇంటికి బయలుదేరింది.  

Source: ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి

The government would have loved it if I had quietly slunk away, but that I was not willing to do: Amartya Sen

Amartya Sen speaks about his assessment of Modi's first year as PM, researching gender in the 1960s, his love for Sanskrit literature, and what judo can teach those who frame social policy.

      Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.

Written by Amrita Dutta | New Delhi | Updated: July 8, 2015 7:53 am

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s new book is a collection of essays, brought out by the Oxford University Press in collaboration with The Little Magazine. In this wide-ranging interview, he speaks to Amrita Dutta about his assessment of Narendra Modi’s first year as PM, researching gender in the 1960s, his love for Sanskrit literature, and what judo can teach those who frame social policy.

The Country of First Boys is the title of your new book, a collection of essays. Could you talk a bit about what the phrase is trying to say?

When I was growing up in Bengal, it was a big thing: ‘Who is the first boy in class?’ It had to be a boy, and, second, he had to be a great achiever. And it didn’t matter what the others did. I found it very offensive, even as a child. There are three things here. One, there is a strong gender preference, which is characteristic of India, much more so than we often recognise. If you compare India with Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, not to mention China, we come out worse in female life expectancy, female literacy, female schooling, female survival. The previous government did not do enough, but the present government is doing less than enough.

The second thing is the concentration on the more successful and neglecting what happens to the rest. [Of course], we see great successes. Indians go abroad and run institutions, whether it be Microsoft or Deutsche Bank. On the other hand, there are a whole lot of people from whom we have no expectations, nor do they have any expectations from themselves. The third point is that success or failure depends a great deal on social stratification, on caste, class, community and so on.

A year on, how do you read the PM as a leader? Were some of your fears about Narendra Modi unfounded? Were some confirmed?

The positive thing about Modi, which I recognized even earlier, was that he was telling people: we can get things done. I admired it then, I admired it now. The problem begins with what it is that he wants to get done.

I think he has a wrong understanding of economic development. You can think of development as a process with human beings at the centre, or you can see it as a process with financial and industrial leadership [at the centre]. He definitely belongs to the latter [school of thought]. You need the financial leaders, no doubt, you also need the industrial entrepreneurs. But humanity has to be in the middle. The previous government also failed in that but they were trying to correct a bit with [schemes like] Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, funding for which has just been cut. Funding for school meals too has just been cut. I don’t think we recognise how out of tune India is with Asia, because the Asian model of economic development has been to combine the power of the market economy with human beings having the capability to lead a good life. There is some idea that you first become rich, and then raise the level of human development. But every country that has been successful, whether we look at Europe and America, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China or Thailand, has concentrated on raising human capability along with the power of market economy. We pay no attention to that, as if the quality of human beings is not central to human development. If India was bad at that earlier, it’s worse at it now.

I can’t say I am disappointed, I was expecting that. Because they were playing up Gujarat, which may have had a high growth rate but has neglected the human side—recently the Economist ran an article on how its immunisation rates are lower than Bihar’s.

But what made me speak up at the time of the elections was my concern at the Hindutva elements in Modi’s agenda. You see that as an academic very much now, in the interference in the academic administration of the National Book Trust, where A Sethumadhavan has been replaced by an RSS ideologue, or at the Indian Council of Cultural Relations or the Indian Council of Historical Research. There has been that sectarianism [on display]. And despite rhetoric to the contrary, there have been cases of church burning, talk of ghar wapsi. India deserves better than that. In that respect, have I been reassured? I am afraid not.

What is happening at the Nalanda University now? Has some kind of a compromise been worked out?

What happened at Nalanda is a relatively nicer story than either it first appeared and also compared with what is happening to other educational/cultural institutions like ICCR or NBT or ICHR or for that matter TIFR, as well as what might be happening to the IIMs if the bill goes through. The board wanted unanimously me to continue as chancellor, but the government’s advice was clear: under no circumstances. Some people wanted to continue the battle but I thought that would be a mistake. First, because attention was being diverted to a personality issue. Second, it was clear to me that even if my friends in the board were to win in keeping me as chancellor, I could not be an effective leader because I would have to fight the government all the time. But I decided to make it a public affair so that it would be difficult to put a Hindutva ideologue in charge at Nalanda. The government did not want it to be made public at all. They would have loved it if I had quietly slunk away, but that, I am afraid, I was not willing to do.

Did anybody in the government reach out — the PM or the Minister of External Affairs — to you after you spoke out?

They couldn’t reassure me. The ministry of external affairs put out a lot of misleading statements, like ‘Amartya Sen was impatient. We would have liked him to continue’. But the minister did not say so. The minister spoke clearly to the members of the board and said that Amartya Sen wasn’t acceptable. Even if the ministry made public statements, they were at odds with what the minister was saying to the board. I think she was also trying to get a non-Sen solution, and we’ve got a good solution. [Former foreign minister of Singapore George Yeo has been appointed chancellor.] I am happy with the way it has turned out. If there’s one thing to learn from this, it is that in a democracy, if you are critical of the government, you have to express it. Sitting quietly and grumbling about it is not going to help. That’s not what democracy is for.

Could you talk a bit about your love for Sanskrit literature? What sense does it give you ancient Indian culture?

Sanskrit and maths were my favourite subjects in school. When the Nobel academy asked me to donate two items to its museum, I gave them Aryabhata’s book on maths, Aryabhatiya, which I had read in Sanskrit in school, and my bicycle. The bike I had used to collect data about the famine period. I would ride to farms in Bengal and get them to open their dusty rooms where they had kept their records. I used it even more while researching on gender and inequality, when I would go to villages near Santiniketan to weigh boys and girls under the age of five. (By the time girls were five, they had fallen behind in terms of weight.) I was very proud that I had become quite good at weighing children. I had a very good research assistant, the first Santhal in her village to get a BA. On one occasion, she called me to help her weigh a teething child. And I did it without getting bitten.

I get an extraordinary positive impression of the past, which makes me very proud. I get an impression of a very cerebrally active society — never as remarkable as the Chinese in observational science — but in the philosophy of science, and the speculation of it, very high brow. On the philosophy of jurispredence. In fact, my book Idea of Justice is based on a distinction that only Sanskrit scholars make, between niti and nyaya. I think Meghdootam is extraordinarily important to understanding Indian culture. But my favourite Kalidasa play is Mricchakatika — and it had a profound influence on my understanding of justice. I also like the Vedas, and I don’t think you have to be a passionate believer in Hindutva to like it — it is a great book. People don’t even recognise that it is not just a book on religion but also a book on human behaviour. Some of the verses are absolutely overpowering. But I don’t at all accept the view that the Vedas had interesting mathematics. It had some arithmetic puzzles, that is all.

When you started analysing women’s health and education with respect to economic growth, in the 1960s, what were the reactions?

I became interested in gender equality when I was in college at Presidency, Kolkata. Marx’s idea of false consciousness, I thought, applied to women. I also did a few papers when I was teaching in Jadavpur University. I was amazed not just at the inequality but the fact that people knew about it and took it for granted. Secondly, if you drew their attention to it, they would give you lectures about culture. I was told that this was a Western point of view, that Indian women do not think of themselves as individuals, but as an extension of their families. I had an argument at the Delhi School of Economics in the 1960s, and I said this was a form of ultimate denial of a person’s individuality, which is one of the huge possessions we have. That is the way inequality survives, by making underdogs become upholders of the inequality.

Are you working on any books right now?

I wrote a mathematical book when I was at the Delhi School of Economics, it was published in 1970, called Collective Choice and Social Welfare, which I hope I am not being immodest when I say that it had quite an influence in the literature that followed in economics. A lot of people have grumbled that I should write a follow-up. But then some people, including the big influence on my economic thinking, Kenneth Arrow, told me that it’s a classic, you can’t change it. So I have begun adding a few chapters to it, and I am about half-way there.

I am also writing something of a memoir, not to be confused with an autobiography. It is not about what happened, but about what I thought. I have reached the age of 12 or 13, so I have a long way to go.

You were around 11 when you first saw the ruins of Nalanda. What has the idea of Nalanda come to mean to you?

I remember being bowled over, especially at the sight of the excavations at the site. That’s when I thought I should do something about it. So my ability to lead the first stage of the Nalanda revival has been a fulfillment of a dream. The idea of Nalanda emphasises that human progress has always been linked to thinking, and not just doing. Secondly, that Indians were capable of building and running such a university at that time is a matter of considerable pride. They were teaching religion and philosophy, but also medicine, public healthcare, linguistics, certainly astronomy—in a way that is distinctly modern. Third, Nalanda attracted people from everywhere. They were ready to sit down together and discuss things together, resolve differences through discussion.

You have lived all your life on university campuses, haven’t you?

My father was a teacher, my grandfather was a teacher. One reason I haven’t retired even though I am 81 is because I love students, and they like me. Ultimately, when I look back on my life, the thing that I am happiest with is that I was a teacher.

You have written for decades on India’s education. What was your experience of school like?

I was very lucky because I went to a very nice school in Santiniketan. [Before that], I had a little over a year at St Gregory’s School in Dhaka, which was very keen on performance. After I got the Nobel, I visited the school. The headmaster said they had started a few scholarships in my name. He also said he got out my old exam scripts to inspire the students. Inspire, I said? ‘That was my hope,’ said the headmaster. But then he checked that my position in class was 33rd in a class of 36, and he wondered whether it was a good idea.

I have to say I became a relatively good student once I went to Santiniketan, where no one worried about grades, it was almost shameful to worry about them. One of my teachers described a classmate of mine: “She is quite an original thinker, even though her grades are very good.” I liked that aspect: there was no pressure to be a first boy.

Not only were there girls with me (I was in school in the 1940s) but my mother was also schooled there earlier. She was proud of the fact that she did judo there, 90 years ago. She must have been one of the first Indian women to do judo. She had a Japanese teacher, who for the first week, only taught them how to fall without hurting themselves. In some ways, the idea of what happens to those who fall seems to me not just an approach fit for judo, but for humanity at large—and for social policy.

Source: indianexpress

30 per cent of rural households landless, live off manual labour

T. C. A. Sharad Raghavan

Literacy, second most common form of deprivation.

Nearly 19 per cent of India’s rural population in 2011 lacked at least one of seven socio-economic parameters used to estimate deprivation that include source of income, the presence of an able and literate adult and quality dwelling.

The first socio-economic and caste census in India since 1934, the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011 (SECC), was released here on Friday by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

Among the crucial findings of the exercise, conducted by the Ministry of Rural Development, was that about 30 per cent of rural households are landless and derive a major part of their income from manual, casual labour. The second most common form of deprivation was literacy with close to a quarter – 23.5 per cent — of rural households having no literate adults above the age of 25.

Releasing the census, Mr Jaitley said the findings would form the basis for States and the Centre to take policy decisions on schemes and programmes. “It provides a basis for helping to target groups for support and for policy planning,” he added.

However, the data released on Friday pertained only to the socio-economic parameters of the SECC 2011. The detailed caste-based data that will include figures for the Other Backward Classes will be placed before Parliament.

“Although it is called the Socio Economic and Caste data, the release so far has been of only the socio-economic data. The detailed caste-based data has not yet been released. However, Parliament has asked for this data, and so it will be placed before them at some point. At that point, it will be made public," said National Statistical Commission Chairman Pronab Sen.

Deprivation, not income

The extent of and approach to deprivation captured by the SECC 2011 contrasts with the poverty estimates of the erstwhile Planning Commission, which were income-based. As per the Commission’s last estimate, in 2011-12, 25.7 per cent of India’s rural population was below the poverty line ie. with an income below Rs. 816 per capita per month.

Dr Sen, told The Hindu that the poverty estimates of the Planning Commission and the SECC were not comparable. “This census measures deprivation on the basis of what a household does not have as against the Planning Commission’s poverty estimates that looked at the income an individual does have,” he said.

Source: thehindu

శ్రీ కౌముది జూలై 2015

Why Love Should Come After Marriage

Posted by: Praveen Kumar

Relationship experts opine that the best way to enjoy marital bliss is to marry someone first and then fall in love with that person after marriage. Well, today there are so many couples who date just to break up soon after for the slightest reasons.

May be this is the reason why experts suggest to marry first and love later. Well, when you are dating someone, you would naturally try to see reasons for not committing to that person because you are not tied down yet.

But marriage is a committed relationship. So, you would naturally try to see more reasons to stay with the person unless you really hate that person. Maybe, that is the reason why some find falling in love after marriage a better option. So, there are some advantages of arranged marriage too.

Also, in the dating world, you tend to have so many choices. This would make you a bit confused about what you really want in your partner.

Why Falling In Love After Marriage Is Better

Commitment Is More Important In Marriage

In dating, romance comes first. But in marriage, commitment comes first. It is a fact that relationships last longer due to commitment and not romance.

Marriage Considers Many Factors

When the marriage is an arranged one, many factors are considered by both the parties. In dating, romance dominates the relationship. In such cases, a person tends to get carried away by the emotions. The chances of a relationship going wrong would be more when you are emotional.

Stability Plays A Role

We marry to gain some stability and also to start a family. When stability is ensured, romance can gradually enter the picture to make the bond more beautiful. When we are young, we tend to think that romance is the only important thing to consider but stability is a factor that influences the shelf life of a relationship.

Loving Your Spouse Is Easier

As you tend to stay with your spouse under the same roof, the chances to get intimate would surely increase. This makes it easier to fall in love with your partner after marriage.

Source: boldsky

Foods For Weak Memory And Heart Problems

Posted by: Iram Zaz  Published: Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Heart and brain are the vital organs of our body. In today's life, weak memory and heart problems are a common problem. Almost all people forget the things that we are untented to do on urgent basis. People also suffer from increased cholesterol level and high blood pressure. 

This is mostly due to deficiency of essential nutrients important for brain and heart. People are addicted of eating wrong type of food (junk and processed foods) that increase cholesterol level which causes heart problems. These artificial foods also damage your brain and cause weak memory.

However, we are also blessed with some best foods that improve function of both heart and brain. These foods will not only improve your memory power and concentration but will also keep your heart healthy. Have a look at some best foods that keep your heart and brain healthy


Walnuts
They are also rich source of omega 3 fatty acids, antioxidants and vitamin E. Some people even say that the shape of walnut inside resembles human brain. Walnuts remove all the deposited plaque from the arteries and prevent the risk of stroke and heart attack

Rosemary
It contains carnosic acid which offers protection from brain and heart damage. It prevents memory loss and also protects your heart from the damaging effects of free radicals.

Pistachio Nuts
They are rich in thiamine (vitamin B1) which helps in keeping your heart and brain healthy. They increase memory power and concentration. They keep your blood vessels flexible and prevent heart diseases.

Almonds
They are rich in antioxidants, vitamin B6, E and omega 3 fatty acids. They increase the memory power and decrease bad cholesterol level. Therefore, you must eat handful of almonds daily to prevent heart problems and to increase mental concentration.

Avocado
It is rich in good fats that are must for a healthy heart and brain. It helps in enhancing memory and also heals many heart diseases. It sharpens your memory by increasing the blood flow to the brain.

Gooseberry (Amla)
It is rich in vitamin C and antioxidants. Vitamin C in amla increases immunity and helps in the healing process of the body. It also increases the blood flow to the brain and heart and protects them from damage. You can have amla juice or amla jam

Onion
It is rich in antioxidants known as quercetin. Onion also increase blood flow to brain and heart. Thus, onions help to supply all the essential nutrients to these vital organs. If you add onions in you daily daily or in salads, your brain and heart will be healthy.

Black Seed (kalonji)
Black seeds are rich in antioxidants and protect the brain and heart from free radical damage. They improve memory and concentration. They also prevent high blood pressure and heart diseases. Have black seed powder after mixing it with honey to enhance it's taste.

Blueberries
They are rich in antioxidants that provide protection to brain and heart from damage. They increase mental power and increase blood flow to the heart.

Fish
Fatty cold water fish like salmon, tuna and trout are rich in omega 3 fatty acids. They protect your heart and improve brain power as omega 3 is important for both.

Red Apple
Apple skin contains high amounts of antioxidants such as quercetin. Red apples contain anthocyanin, which sharpens memory and also prevents heart damage. It is also useful for people suffering with weak memory and heart.

Sage
It is beneficial for those who have weak memory and a risk of heart attack due to increased cholesterol level. It improves concentration, relaxes the mind and protects your heart from damage.

Pumpkin Seeds
They are rich in zinc and omega 3 fatty acids which decrease cholesterol and sharpens your brain. Pumpkin seeds increase concentration and sharpens weak memory.

Honey
No food can compete honey in it's health benefits. It is used for almost all ailments. From cold remedy to increasing the sperm count. It is rich in almost all essential nutrients. It contains all B vitamins, antioxidants, potassium, phosphorus and magnesium etc. Therefore it is best for your heart and brain. It increase memory and the fructose sugar present in it supplies energy to brain.

Dates And Figs
Dates and figs are rich source of phosphorus and other essential nutrients also. They increase memory, concentration and protect the heart from damage.

Beetroot
It increases blood flow to the brain and heart, thereby it enhances memory and keeps your heart healthy. Apart from this it is good for overall health and also increases hemoglobin level.

Source: boldsky.com

శ్రీ కౌముది జూన్ 2015

8 Fascinating Wedding Traditions Around the World

Katie Waldeck

May 31, 2015

What event typifies a culture better than a wedding? Read on for some of the most unique wedding traditions across the globe. Do you have a great wedding tradition in your family or culture? Let us know about it in the comments!

1. Kenya: Spitting on the Bride

The Maasai people of Kenya have what is perhaps one of the most unique matrimonial customs on the planet: the father of the bride actually spits on the bride’s head and breasts after the ceremony! And it’s not just in wedding ceremonies, either—in Maasai culture, spitting is a way to show respect to others.

2. Lebanon: Late Nights

In much of the world, it’s customary for the newlyweds leave the ceremony before many of the guests. That’s not the case in Lebanon, however; in this Middle Eastern nation, it’s customary for the happy couple to stay until every single guest has left.

3. South Korea: Wedding Ducks

Many Korean couples receive carved mandarin ducks as a wedding gift. It’s believed that mandarin ducks mate with their partners for life, and that ducks symbolize peace and fertility.

Though far less common in modern ceremonies than it once was, traditionally, the duck carvings actually have a place in the ceremony. Before it starts, the ducks, minus the necks, are wrapped in cloth and carried into the ceremony. The bride then puts the wrapped ducks on the table when she enters, and, after the ceremony, the mother of the groom throws the ducks at the bride. If she catches it, she’ll have a boy; if she doesn’t, a girl.

4. India: Stealing Shoes

Known as Joota Chupai, or, quite literally, “stealing shoes,” this Indian wedding tradition involves the eldest unmarried woman from the bride’s side of the family stealing the shoes of the groom. At the start of the ceremony, the groom removes his shoes when he enters the mandap (similar to a western wedding altar) and the young women of the bride’s family find a clever place to hide them. The groom then offers a “ransom” of some sort, often pocket money, to get them back. It’s a fun tradition that’s meant to symbolize the uniting of two families.

5. Germany: Log Cutting

In Germany, the bride and groom saw a log in half immediately after the ceremony. Known as baumstamm sägen, the log sawing is symbolic of the first major hurdle the two face as a couple.

6. Greece: Crowns

Crowns are a mainstay of a traditional Greek Orthodox wedding ceremony. These crowns, tied together by ribbon, represent the union of two families, two souls and the creation of a new kingdom. During the ceremony, the priest switches the crowns back and forth between the bride and groom and, wearing the crown, the bride and groom follow the priest around the altar 3 times. The removal of the crowns represents the end of the ceremony.

 

7. Romania: Kidnapping the Bride.

In Romania and many other Eastern European countries, the bride can expect to be kidnapped by the family of the groom. It’s all in good fun, though: a little bit of alcohol or a song, or even a little money is enough to meet the “ransom” demand.

8. African Americans: Jumping the Broom

A popular ritual for African American couples, jumping the broom almost certainly has its roots in traditional African tribal weddings, particularly in Ghana. It’s a way to honor your heritage and join two families. After African Americans were legally able to marry, the practice of jumping the broom went out of favor. It didn’t gain popularity until the landmark television miniseries “Roots” depicted it. You can read more about the fascinating and heartbreaking history of jumping thebroom here.

Source:  care2

How Indian Girls Are Winning Their Way Out of Arranged Marriages

by Kevin Mathews | May 30, 2015

Rights for women in India are notoriously abysmal, and a lot of that starts with how Indian families force their young daughters into marrying strangers. While there is a law in the country forbidding Indian girls from marrying before the age of 18, it’s a fairly nominal rule considering that nearly half of all girls in the country are wed before 18 anyway. Finally, however, some of these girls are starting to escape these marriages and regain their autonomy in Indian courts.

Though urban areas have mainly eradicated underage weddings, the custom still flourishes in rural areas and remote villages. At this point, basically all Indians are well aware that these marriages are illegal, but that hasn’t stopped them from continuing with this practice. Many communities resent that Indian politicians have tried to impede on centuries-old traditions and continue to arrange underage marriages in defiance of the law.

As a result, 47 percent of girls in India are married by the age of 18. Young brides miss out on a lot of opportunities because of these sham weddings. They must quit school and become mothers before they are mature enough to handle this responsibility. Although economic opportunities are not plentiful for women in the country, they are especially stifled for girls trapped in these marriages.

When the law against child marriage was first implemented, it included a clause that unions where one or more of the participants is underage could be annulled. However, given prevailing societal norms against female empowerment and divorce, no one dared to try to contest these marriages. Women who divorce are practically considered lepers, and the court proceedings for divorce are unnecessarily long and expensive, undoubtedly designed to discourage people from pursuing them.

All that changed in 2012 when Kriti Bharti, a psychologist and children’s rights advocate, met Laxmi Sargara, a teenage girl whose parents married her back when she was just one. When she reached 16, the age where she was supposed to move in with her husband, Sargara learned that his family had been so abusive to another bride that she killed herself, obviously worrying her.

On Sargara’s behalf, Bharti appealed the court to end the marriage. Though these annulments were unprecedented, the judge agreed that the law was on the book and granted her an annulment. After this initial success, Bharti went to court advocating for many more child brides and has won 28 annulments. Generally speaking, Bharti finds that comparing dates on birth and marriage certificates is sufficient to show judges that the girls had been married illegally.

It’s not always so easy. Right now, Santadevi Meghawl has been trying to escape a marriage she wants no part in. As an infant, she was married to a 9-year-old boy. Now that Meghawl is a teenager, her husband’s family is demanding 1.6 million rupees ($25,000 USD) to give her an annulment. The husband has also threatened Meghawl’s life if she pursues an annulment in court. Meghawl is standing her ground, though, and vows to escape the marriage so she can study to become a teacher instead.

Continued victories in these court battles will be critical for cutting down on further child abuse. If Indians know that a reluctant bride will be able to later annul the marriage in court, it will begin to discourage them from forcing girls into these situations in the first place.

Source: care2