Rape a social stigma - (JUSTINPRINT ), April 1-15 ,2013

For a long time I had decided not to read about it, or write about it simply because it disgusts me. The thought of the situation itself does. But social networking hasn’t made that possible and the more I read about everyone’s opinions the more angry I become.

 What is the justification of rape? Is there anyone who can justify forced invasion of another persons body, and privacy? “Libido” someone said. Some said “the woman was wearing short clothes”. Some even said they are “sex starved and they wouldn’t have done so if their wives/girl friend gave them the sex they needed”. Some said such girls deserved it. “they were asking for it”.

I need to ask one thing. What if you went through the same ordeal, where you were bound, mauled, pinched, hurt in every possible way and molested? Would you be scarred, and lived your entire life with them etched in your mind? With each detail vivid through every moment? Or would you be justifying the men/women who had done this to you.

According to the official statistics of 1991, one woman is molested every 26 minutes. These statistics refer to the reported cases. Whereas, if the unreported cases were to be included, it would be a matter of seconds- rather than minutes. investigation of Most cases are not reported by victims because of various reasons such as family pressures, the manner of the police, the unreasonably long and unjust process and application of law; and the resulting consequences thereof.

 I don’t know why I am writing this. Because I read about men justifying the acts and blaming the girl as much as they can. I can see policemen washing their hands off by saying “it was just an act of prostitution without the full payment”. 

 Central Government Act: Section 155(4) in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

(4) when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character"

I agree i dont what are the other acts the rape laws have. but a digressive act like this one has to stay speaks volumes of the justice system in place for victims of such trauma.There are times when I agree justice has been given to the victim, but then the justice is delayed for so long that it ceases to have an affect on anybody, especially the victim. And instances such as these are too rare to actually dissuade others to not repeat or do an offence like this.

The Supreme Court has in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar N. Mardikar9, held that "the unchastity of a woman does not make her open to any and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate her person against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law. Therefore merely because she is of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be thrown overboard."

As observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in Rafique’s case13:

"When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame… judicial response to Human Rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry."

Therefore rape laws in order to be of great deterrence, must have a cooperative victim, professional investigation, diligent prosecution; and an expeditious trial. For otherwise it shall not be the law, that fails, but the applicants, the process and application.

It is troubling enough that such a small proportion of reported rapes make it to court, worse still that so few victims come forward in the first place. But most disturbing of all is the reason why so many people keep their suffering to themselves: because they do not think they will be believed. That rape is still a dirty secret, hedged about with so much blame and shame that victims feel they cannot come forward, is testament to how far we still have to go.

There are, of course, great legal difficulties in rape trials. Sexual assault is one of the few crimes where proof lies not in the physical facts of the matter, but in the subjective intentions of those involved. One person's word against another's, with no corroborating witnesses, is highly problematic for a legal system predicated on the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This is no call for the wholesale abandonment of basic tenets of justice. But simply to shrug our collective shoulders, blame intractable issues of principle, and thereby leave a swathe of victims of violent assault with insufficient legal protection cannot be acceptable in what purports to be a civilised society.

In fairness, there has been significant progress in terms of institutional procedures. In many areas of the country, for example, there are now specially trained police officers and court prosecutors for cases of sexual assault. But uneven regional conviction rates only underline the extent to which such practices remain an optional extra rather than standard.

Equally, although victims no longer face the prospect of being cross-questioned by their attacker in court, pursuing a case to trial remains a horrifying ordeal. As a witness for the prosecution, the victim has no legal support, and faces intensely personal questioning from defence lawyers, often while face-to-face with their rapist for the first time since the assault. Even within the framework of innocent until proven guilty, there is more that can be done to ease the burden on victims, not least allowing them legal representation in court.

The rape statistics may be higher in the US. But that is because more incidents of rape are reported by women with the confidence that that justice will be done and after the dust settles, they can get back to being a useful and productive members of society as best as they can. They and their families will not have to guard this incident as a shameful secret for the rest of their lives. Instead, there are systems in place which help them (the victims) for as long as they need it. The society in general, continues to treat them with respect and allows them to lead normal lives without the sidelong glances and whispered comments. We, as Indians, need to relise that the consequences of rape do not end with the judgement of the perpetrators.

Here we are making exemplaries of Saudi Arabia and lebanon where men are publically beheaded for rape. So you think countries that dont let their women drive, work or have a right to vote and take insane pleasure at killing others and lynching them publically are good examples of a growing civilisation. What are those men getting killed for? is it a righteous revenge for their misdeed? is it just public outrage at those men's evil wrong doing? or is it just misplaced pleasure at seeing someone else getting tortured? the same kind of pleasure we derive at college ragging. Or looking at a politician getting embarrassed? Have these punishments helped in nullifying rape? or has it just taken another shape?

 The government however does not need a commission to remind it of several submissions to get rid of the colonial, sexist and violent practice of the two-finger test. There is no law, which says that doctors must insert two fingers (sometimes more, some even quibble about the size of the fingers in our courts) in the vagina to figure out whether the hymen is distensible or not. This then leads to the inference that the rape survivor is habituated to sex, introducing past sexual history into rape trials. Past sexual history was disallowed in rape trials since 2003. However, the two-finger test by medicalizing consent allows past sexual history of the raped survivor to prejudice her testimony.

 This is true even in cases of aggravated rape where the burden of proof is reversed. An analysis of judgments pertaining to gangrape and other instances of aggravated rape shows that there is an increased reliance on the findings of the two-finger test since the burden of proof is reversed and the onus is on the accused to prove consensual sex.

If rape survivors experience rape trials as a pornographic spectacle, it is not only the fault of the judiciary—surely the ministry of home and the ministry of health can change medical protocol.

 To treat sexual violence as a public health concern, we do not need judicial reform. We need political will. Can we please shift focus from whether or not to castrate and how to castrate (which incidentally is defined as torture in international law and can only be implemented as a voluntary medical program)? Is it possible for 24/7 television anchors, who dismiss activists making this demand by saying “oh, that’s ok”, to please not be “ok” about this?

What makes rape sentencing different from sentencing for other crimes? Unlike other offences, the crime of rape carries its own baggage. Over the years, stereotypical and patriarchal notions have developed with regard to women’s sexual behaviour. Most of these notions are based on the assumption that the chastity and virginity of a woman are her most important “assets.” Popular notions consider rape as a fate worse than death since it robs women of these “virtues” and casts a stigma over victims for the rest of their lives. In these imaginations, rape is not a crime against a woman’s sexual autonomy or bodily integrity, but an irreparable loss to her chastity, “modesty,” and social standing.

The Justice Verma Committee was set up by the Government of India after the gruesome gang rape incident that occurred in Delhi on December 16, 2012. The Committee was asked to review existing laws and suggest amendments to criminal law to effectively deal with instances of sexual violence. The Committee, however, did not view its mandate as only drafting new laws. It placed its mandate within the framework of the Constitution. The Committee grounded its report in the State’s obligation to secure the fundamental rights of its citizens, which includes the right of every person to assert one’s individual autonomy. In the context of women, if they are denied autonomy, even by actors other than State, the duty of the State does not diminish only on that ground. The failure to secure rights of women results in the State denying the right to equality and dignity that women are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Under the current Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, a person who “assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty” is punished with imprisonment of upto two years, or fine, or both. The focus of the provision, rather unfortunately is on “outraging of the modesty” of a woman and invariably the defence against the application of such a provision has centred around what constitutes a woman’s modesty, whether the woman in question was of such a character to claim that her modesty was outraged, whether young girls below the age of puberty have ‘modesty’ etc.  Further, under the current formulation the offender can argue that he did intention to “outrage the modesty” of the woman, or that he did not know that his actions would result in the “modesty of the woman” being outraged. Hence, the need for change was palpable, so as to change the focus of the crime from notions of “modesty” to violation of sexual autonomy. The recasting of the provision therefore needed to be wider in scope, cover a range of offences (and consequently provide higher degrees of punishment) and be a gender neutral provision that criminalised unwelcome sexual acts of varying degrees of severity. 

Rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life.

To understand the impact of sexual harassment on women one must listen to the account of its victims as no one conveys the meaning and truth of sexual harassment better than the women who have endured it. In response to the question “What kind of emotional response do eve-teasing /sexual harassment evoke in you”, not a single woman ticked the category of “indifferent”. The survey of the Gender Study Group shows that most women felt disgusted, insulted and scared by any sort of harassment.

Women often internalise male perceptions of sexual harassment and blame themselves for having brought on the harassment. They not only doubt the validity of their own experiences but begin to believe that they themselves must be ‘abnormal’, ‘cheap’, ‘indecent’ or deserving the violence that comes their way.

Sexual harassment is nothing less than the showcasing of male dominance. Given an opportunity, such men (those committing sexual harassment) would try fulfilling their desire. However, it also not true that all cases of sexual harassment are such- where the accused is guilty of conceiving the intention of a sexual intercourse. But it also depends on each individual case and circumstances, because it may well be the case that the woman may also be at fault.

The law of rape is not just a few sentences. It is a whole book, which has clearly demarcated chapters and cannot be read selectively. We cannot read the preamble and suddenly reach the last chapter and claim to have understood and applied it.

However, Justice Verma commission has pointed out some changes, broadening the definition of consent, so a woman’s failure to resist physically can no longer be regarded as consent, and requiring “unequivocal voluntary agreement” to sexual activity; a victim’s sexual history is no longer considered relevant and she cannot be cross-examined about it or her “moral character”; rapes can be committed by more than penises, in that they can include objects used as substitutes for a phallus; while the archaic idea of “outraging the modesty of a woman” remains in the law, there are new sentences of one to three years for offensive touching, gestures or words, treating them as sexual assault.

In another change to existing law, the government upped the maximum sentence to the death penalty for “extreme” rape cases – those that lead to death or leave the victim in a persistent vegetative state – and for repeat offenders.

Though the Verma Committee had recommended against it, calling it regressive when many countries are moving to end capital punishment, the move was popular with much of the public. The government also ordered a minimum 20-year sentence for those found guilty of gang rape.

Organizations working for victims of sexual violence were quick to point out that the new law has serious omissions: Most prominently, it does not criminalize marital rape. A woman raped by her husband continues to have no recourse under Indian law.

Approximations have quoted that every 6 hours; a young married woman is burnt or beaten to death, or driven to suicide from emotional abuse by her husband. The UN Population Fund states that more than 2/3rds of married women in India, aged between 15 to 49 have been beaten, raped or forced to provide sex. In 2005, 6787 cases were recorded of women murdered by their husbands or their husbands’ families. 56% of Indian women believed occasional wife-beating to be justified.

The marital rape exemption can be traced to statements by Sir Mathew Hale, Chief Justice in England, during the 1600s. He wrote, “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband, whom she cannot retract.”

Not surprisingly, thus, married women were never the subject of rape laws. Laws bestowed an absolute immunity on the husband in respect of his wife, solely on the basis of the marital relation. The revolution started with women activists in America raising their voices in the 1970s for elimination of marital rape exemption clause and extension of guarantee of equal protection to women.

In the present day, studies indicate that between 10 and 14% of married women are raped by their husbands: the incidents of marital rape soars to 1/3rd to ½ among clinical samples of battered women. Sexual assault by one’s spouse accounts for approximately 25% of rapes committed. Women who became prime targets for marital rape are those who attempt to flee.

Marriage does not thrive on sex and the fear of frivolous litigation should not stop protection from being offered to those caught in abusive traps, where they are denigrated to the status of chattel. Apart form judicial awakening; we primarily require generation of awareness. Men are the perpetrators of this crime. ‘Educating boys and men to view women as valuable partners in life, in the development of society and the attainment of peace are just as important as taking legal steps protect women’s human rights’, says the UN. Men have the social, economic, moral, political, religious and social responsibility to combat all forms of gender discrimination.

In addition, the Verma Committee attempted to end the impunity that human-rights groups say India’s armed forces enjoy on matters of sexual violence. The committee recommended the idea of “command responsibility” – that a senior officer be held responsible for the failure to prevent rape by troops under his or her command. The government did not add this to the law.

The Committee has started receiving feedbacks and opinions from the public.In the view of Supreme Court Advocate PP Rao , " Making stringent law is easy but implementing them is a tougher task. Demand for a more severe punishment than life is understandable , but it should not shocking. Civilised society does not accept lex talionis, the law of retaliation, that is , a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. According to the supreme court, " a barbaric crime does not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty. Castration , without the consent of the person convicted of rape , will be vulnerable to challenge, unless in the event of providing for death penalty, the choice is left to the convict to opt for castration."

If the prosecution in all such cases is carried out in a very efficient and professional manner by specially trained public prosecutor well tuned with female psychology and if specially constituted Sexually Offences Courts headed by Women judges are constituted in every where in India, the conviction rate would surely improve considerably to act as a deterrent for those who often dare to commit such heinous act owing to our slow justice delivery system.

Anyway the anti rape bill got a clear nod in the parliament. The law is still very lenient. 18 years of age is still the yard stick to determine a juvenile and an adult. It is seen that the subject did not arise interest among the members, as many of them were absent. The whole thing seems to be done half-heartedly.

It's not only about creating a law to punish the guilty. It's about preventing such incidents. It's also about changing mindsets of people towards women. When a man respects a woman, He will not misbehave with her at all. So, It's about creating respect in minds of people towards women. Most of the men in the world respect their mothers and sisters. If They are taught to respect other's mothers and sisters in the same way, all the problems are solved. Lack of respect towards women is the root cause of all these problems. Wearing a skimpy dress, being seductive, too much make- up, behaving like a sex object and roaming the city with a lot of boy friends don't create respect in men's minds towards women. Naturally, Men respect women more when sexuality is not involved. Most of the women who give too much importance to their sexuality and dress don't understand this simple natural fact. So, Government must include lessons in school and college books about respecting women. Because, lack of respect towards women is the root cause of this problem. Once men change their mindset to respect women, They will automatically treat them well.

Indian waited for 66 years to bring a strict law for rapists, repeated offence will make him get death sentence is somewhat concession, instead in first offence he should have got death sentence , most of the rapists are the politically backed ,who has no fear of any after effects because of the immunity they enjoy. Can one expect change in such cases where even the police were not entertaining the complainant for registering the cases? Hope is the only answer.

 Remember Shriram Raghavan’s Johny Gaddaar, where Neil Nitin Mukesh is shown reading James Hadley Chase and watching the Amitabh Bachchan movie, ‘Parwaana’ before he acts ‘Gaddaar’? A fleeting glance at newspapers might reveal cases where people committed crimes in ‘filmy’ style or inspired by a particular film. It leaves me wondering whether films really provide fodder to criminal minds.

The recent Delhi’s gang-rape (it was Delhi, the capital and the trust in our judicial system that got gang-raped) has ensued many a talkathons on television accusing films for instigating rape. Really? Do you buy the notion that Munnis, Sheelas, Fevicol and Halkat Jawaanis are responsible for such heinous crimes? There surely must be a line drawn, but do you mean to say that the bus driver was high on films perhaps porn films featuring Sunny Leone .

Well, here’s the revelation – the driver was high on alcohol, not filmochol! Pick up any newspaper and you’re sure to conclude that every criminal worth his ‘Malt’ was in an inebriated state before committing the crime. If we have a penchant for banning things, it’s the ready availability of alcohol that must be banned. Sadly, this too, isn’t the solution as the only thing that needs to be banned is the ban.

Instead of focusing on the actual issue, we’ve suddenly started pointing fingers to our films, the soft target. Interestingly, we didn’t choose to do that. What we picked up from the film was ‘candle march protest’ – the safest bet, which was reiterated in Rajkumar Gupta’s No One Killed Jessica. So when an Anna Hazare goes on a hunger strike or a 23-year old gets gang-raped in a bus, we buy candles on our way from office, gang up and jam the streets with candles in our hands and pose at the local news channel’s camera. Dude, candles are for candle-lit dinners, not revolutions. 

The Delhi gang-rape victim would have saved if the passersby hadn’t ignored her lying half-dead and full-naked on the roadside. At this stage where we need to come up with solutions to avoid such dastardly acts, all we end up doing is pooh poohing over the vulgarity shown in movies. We lap it all up during weekends over a three-course popcorn meal and gyrate to the item numbers during New Year Eve parties (how many of us skipped the New Year celebration in mourning of Nirbhaya’s death on 29th Dec?) and dance at the weddings  and then ask censors to snip those scenes and songs, alleging that they instigate rape and molestation.

Have you wondered why Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s films still make for a great watch? Surely, they were well-made and well-written films, but they reflected the society consisting people leading a simple lifestyle and were essentially good-hearted. Perhaps deep inside, we miss those elusive attributes and find solace in watching those films and reliving those days when moral values and respect for women weren’t a part of an Aastha channel, but inherent part of one’s upbringing.

" Crime in India " published annually by National Crime Records Bureau substantiates this amazing fact. As per the latest record, in the year 2011 there were 24,206 cases of Rape across the country, adding to that there also had been 8,570 cases of Sexual Harrasment and 42,968 incidents of Molestatio against women. These figures just reflect the reported cases and exclude those numorous instances where helpless survivors remain silent out of fear of social trauma.

The chronology of events that took place after the shocking Delhi rape incident reveals that the political leaders were the last to react to the issue. Mahatma Gandhi once said that “the day a woman can walk freely on the roads at night, that day we can say that India achieved independence”. The growing incidence of rape and sexual harassment is a pointer to the reality that mere empowerment of women will not ensure their safety either on the roads or at the workplace. The statistics disclosed by the Union Home Minister that in 2011 more than 2.28 lakh cases of rape were registered and 1.78 lakh charge sheets were filed but that only 30,266 convictions were secured underlines the tardy justice system prevailing in the country. It is time for a serious introspection on how to overcome the moral and ethical deficit in our society.

Our parliament can enact or amend a law to make the law more stronger with the contemporary needs and challenges. Finally, it is the role of the Criminal justice system which includes police,prosecution and judiciary to reap its real benifits. The investigation of a rape or sexual violence need to done very fast with the usage of modern technology and investigative techniques.

The government and experts might be talking about punishment of chemical castration for rape convicts. However, good set of society are ready for oppose it - largely males in India. Khap Panchayats in Haryana have already resisted the demand for death penalty for rapists by saying that such laws can be misused. The government has constituted Justice Verma committee to rewrite rape laws and tasked with submitting its report within 30 days after the Delhi gang-rape case that shocked nation and world consciousness but medical experts have said that it is easier said than done.

Sadly, we have no specific laws to deal with child sexual abuse and incest in our country. The cases are still tried under the IPC sections of rape. The conviction rate in such cases is too low due to obvious reasons. The relatives of the victim turn hostile and never turn up in the court to tell truth. Ironically, there are relatives who stand for the abusers in the courts of law.

The crux is nobody stands for you because nobody else has been raped. One needs huge courage to stand for this cause. The victim is on the verge of losing everything. Her social rehabilitation is difficult and her marriage prospects are next to impossible.

We as a society have conspired to leave no other option to our children. Once they fall prey to a sexually perverted relative, they have to accept it and live with this reality for life. Once a victim is married, she becomes more vulnerable. Abusers have access to their houses, they meet them in family functions, and they are always there to ask for their share of her flesh. Now if anything comes to light, it’s all about her chastity and promiscuousness. 

It’s my personal opinion that society will pay a huge price for neglecting their children. As per the citation from the Mahabharata, dharma eva hato hanti dharmo raksati raksitah (It is dharma that destroys when destroyed. It is dharma again that protects when protected.)

We as a society have failed to protect our dharma and we have failed to protect our children. When 53 per cent of our children are being abused, we can imagine the number of abusers roaming free in our society. There is nobody to check their moves and there is no one to stand against them. 

Rape is a topic that makes many people of all ages uncomfortable. Few people think of themselves as potential rape victims, and even fewer consider themselves capable of the rape of another. The natural reluctance to talk about the issue and the widespread existence of mistaken ideas about rape have resulted in a great deal of secrecy, silence, and shame surrounding the subject.

Lack of understanding, awareness, and open communication about rape only adds to the suffering of victims. Since rape affects teenagers more than any other group in society, teens deserve and need accurate information about its causes and effects.

I ask all the men, What have the womenfolk done to deserve such atrocities all over the world at our hands?  Why are we so unfair to half of the humankind? When and how did they wrong us? What right do we have to subjugate and punish them for our mental sickness and false chauvinism? “How zealous are we in punishing and killing those who disrespect our God or country. How shameless are we when we rape a 23-year-old who is studying miles away from home, in hope that someday, she can support her old parents and finance her brother’s education.

It’s not Islam or Hinduism, but the entire womenfolk that is in danger. They care for us; they listen to our rants, bear our kids, and even earn their own bread to ease our financial burden.

And what do we offer them in return? We decide what they should wear, who they should talk to, in fact, whom they should vote for!

One of the biggest failures of the modern society is its inability in making the world a safer place for women folk. Rapes, molestations, harassment at home and work know no territorial or cultural boundaries. While the guilty of such crimes should be handed out the severest punishment, let’s not evade the bigger question – ‘why have women been so marginalised and exploited and what should be done to change the mentality of men?’

I find myself incapable of a perfect answer to this question. I feel there is no single perfect answer. Therefore, I turn to you, I turn to us. Together, can we find the reason? Can we find the answers?

Like a hyper-energetic baby on a sugar-rush, the national outrage factory burns itself up and settles down into its warm blanket, sucking on a pacifier. The politicians go back to their day jobs—making money for themselves and those that give them money. Police reform ,  a national sex-offenders database for convicted sex felons (and yes not just rapists but convicted street-sexual-harassers) are not pursued because they are all difficult concepts that difficult to get angry about. People will keep opining on message boards, on and off, as to why rapists are not being hung by their testicles, but, in general, that will be their level of their engagement.

SIDDHARTHA SHANKAR MISHRA,

SAMBALPUR,ODISHA

Why Pardoning ?

The Supreme Court of India in its recent judgement found film star Sanjay Dutt guilty of possessing automatic weapons of prohibited bore without a valid license and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. It also transpired that the weapons had been delivered to him by notorious gangsters behind Mumbai blasts of 1993. Indeed, it was a tragedy that had claimed 257 lives and 713 persons were injured and maimed.

There was unimpeachable evidence of violation of the Arms Act and under TADA the Court had no option but to impose the minimum sentence of five years imprisonment. Indeed the convicted man,Sanjay Dutt had already spent 18 months in prison during pendency of the case and was entitled to a remission of that period. Thus, now the fact of spending three-and-a-half-years in prison stared him in the face.

Here come his friends and sympathizers opening a campaign asking the government to grant him pardon. It has led to a debate in the society whether it is a fit case for pardon or is just propaganda for the cause of terrorism, if it could be called a cause.

Why did the matter suddenly spring up and made headlines in the national dailies. The electronic media was not to be left behind. Times Now, an English news channel, stole the limelight by fielding Justice Markandey Katju, Press Counicl Chairman and a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India , Mahesh Jethmalani, an eminent advocate of Mumbai and Delhi who were later joined by Majid Memon, an advocate from Mumbai.

The immediate provocation to hold a TV discussion with the channel editor, Arnab Goswami as the anchor was a letter written by Justice Katju to the governor of Maharashtra, K. Shankar Narayanan pleading for pardon for Sanjay Dutt because he had committed the crime two decades ago and is now a reformed man doing social service.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani opined quite articulately that Justice Katju’s plea of sympathy for Dutt, a convicted man now, was misplaced and misconstrued. He brought out a legal point that the governor of a state had neither authority nor legal powers to grant pardon to the convict who was sentenced to a prison term for violation of provisions of the Arms Act by a TADA court.

Justice Katju cited Article 161 of the Constitution of India under which the governor enjoys constitutional powers that cannot be curbed or over ruled by other Acts of legislatures and, therefore, he had petitioned the governor. I must appreciate Jethmalani’s erudition and insight into the constitutional law that he promptly cited Article 162 of the Constitution of India that the powers of a governor to grant pardon are restricted by this over-riding Article applicable to cases of violation of the Arms Act. Justice Katju was gracious enough to concede the point to Jethmalani and said that now he would write to the President of India making out a case for pardon for Dutt.

Let us leave aside the legal aspects of the case and take up the social repercussion as an offshoot of the grant of pardon or otherwise to the so called “bad boy now turned a good boy”.

The laws are enacted by legislatures for smooth governance of the society. The prosecution brings criminals to courts of law with the assistance of police, and judiciary decides on the question of conviction or acquittal, based on the evidence on record. After the judicial process is over, the convict is given a chance to appeal to the Head of the State for grant of pardon that is decided on merit. The Head of the State takes many factors into consideration while making up his mind whether the particular case deserves to be pardoned or not. What social impact will the ultimate decision have? After all, it is the social system that has to be protected. In a democratic society all citizens enjoy Equality before Law. The age-old maxim goes thus: However high one may ever be, the law is above him.

It is clear that the law of the land treats one and all, be he an actor or a labourer, as equals. Had there been an ordinary farmer or a labourer in place of Dutt, will the legal system and the bigwigs therein go all out to make out a case for pardon and present it to the Head of the State? If not, why should there be a special treatment given to actor?

As far as reviving Gandhigiri is concerned, the convict in question did his job as an actor and was paid for it. Like a farmer reaps what he sows, an actor should get a reward or a punishment for an act or omission and he does not deserve a special treatment. There is no need to raise brouhaha and grant the convict pardon.

Have we gone to the bereaved families and ascertained their views? Many a family lost its bread winner and now lives in penury. The loved ones became victims of acts of terror and the 34-year-old man, Sanjay Dutt was no innocent kid then that he knew not impact of his acts and omissions. It is on the Mumbai police’s record that Sanjay Dutt was hob-nobbing with notorious terrorists, and was indirectly instrumental in causing a trauma to fellow Mumbaikars. Does such a man deserve pardon after his conviction by the Supreme Court of India?

Lastly, has Dutt expressed regrets for his role in the serial bomb blasts? No, none of the terrorist gangs expressed remorse about their role in that sordid act. If they are not sorry for whatever role they played in executing their devilish designs, why should some social activists fall head over heels to seek pardon for the convicts? Frankly speaking, there is no cause that merits attention of social and political workers. Let the case rest where it is now.

Far right to far left -( JUSTINPRINT) March 1 - 15, 2013

The article involves a lot of stereotyping. For someone marking me out as a Congress puppy, here is a small background.I have never been a huge fan of democracy, and I spent my early childhood dreaming of the day when I will become dictator of the country and set this country alright. As a young boy, I was convinced that democracy is a failed notion, and the sad state of the country can be attributed by a great deal to the electoral pleasing politics played by leaders. I was probably agitated by the Rajiv Goswami incident, despite being only seven years old, and seeing pictures of protests all over the country over the Mandal recommendations. My fertile imaginative mind worked in full swing back then - I wanted to take seize power from the useless leaders, who had sent the country to dogs, and create a new India, which would be corrupt-free and meritorious. There would be no place for reservations or minority appeasement  I would rule the country with an iron-hand, giving full chance to the deserving and rooting out the non-meritorious. Anyone disputing my calls would be severely punished. In short, I would wield absolute power, and use that power to make India what it historically was - the bird of Gold (sone ki chidiya). To put it otherwise, I was a right winger. However then I grew up and was able to argue things on my own, and come to the conclusion that democracy, while being the far-from-perfect model, is probably the best one given India’s position as a socially, culturally and religiously diversified society.

The movie was fabulous. Or I have heard it was. The spoof, being currently played out in the aptly named Ramlila Grounds, is anything but. A 74 year old apparently senile man who plays the major part in the new spoof, playing both the title parts. On the one hand, he is a tender voice against the corruption and the evil government (Anna), and on the other, he is the king who is holding the government, and the people of India to ransom through what can at the very modest, be termed blackmail.

A lot of people not supporting Anna Hazare's movement have been doing so because they take exceptions to the method that he is taking. A lot has been written about it, and I will therefore bypass that point and discuss something else, which is probably much more far reaching with effect to India as a country and a heterogeneous society. 

I have basically two objections to the Anna Hazare demand for corruption - other than the one about the method. Both of them are fairly controversial and I am ready for a debate on both: One has to do with the need for corruption, and how people are being entirely hypocritical while ganging up with Anna, while the second objection, which I am going to discuss first, is the impact of the agitation.

Firstly, Context: India is a truly remarkable country. Growing up,our books described India as "unity among diversity." I was not very sure about what the expression meant, and while the unity part might still be up for discussion, there is no doubting the diversity of the country. It is perhaps amazing that India is one country. There is no other country with the kind of diversity that India has, and at such different levels. Most of the states are separated on linguistic lines, and often have their own culture. No other country has the kind of linguistic and cultural diversity that India has. Spain is the only other country that comes to mind, but it has had its history of civil wars, and the peace existing in the country is very fragile, as the occasional brawls between Barcelona and Real Madrid in football often proves. The Catalans hate Madridistas, and the less said about the autonomous Basque county, the better. And in Spain, there is no divide across religious and racial lines, unlike in India. Belgium is on the verge of breaking up only because of the linguistic issue. India, moreover, also has a number of significant minority religions in different states, and within Hinduism, there is further subdivision across castes and sub-castes. All in all, the heterogeneous structure of India is a very thin fabric, and the fact that the fabric is holding up fine so far is a testimony to the strength of the country. 

In every political system, there are two extremes across the political spectrum : the far right and the far left. The right wing is generally more conservative, more business-friendly, less individual freedom and more nationalistic, while the left wing is more radical, more socialist, and more individual freedom. The right wing is also more polar, and tends to create economic and social classes, while the left wing seeks to abolish them. While there are many differentiating factors that separate the two extreme positions, they can be summed up thus: The far right believe only what they do is right, while the far left is of the view that what everyone else does is wrong. Arundhiti Roy and her paranoia about everything is an example of far-left activism, while those of the temple and cocksureness about the location of the Ram Mandir is far-right. As a consequence, an extreme right government will probably do or seek to do a lot of work in its own way, but at the cost of freedom and probably subversion of certain elements, while a far left government will probably regress, unless the far left itself takes the far right position, for the two positions are not as different as they seem. Animal Farm or the USSR government would probably be good examples. 

In the Indian context, far right would probably mean pushing reforms and promoting Indian nationalism and Hinduism, probably at the cost of the minority religions and/or the "lower" castes. The Gujarat government, which has ensured a Vibrant Gujarat, but is also charged with abetting the Gujarat riots and failing to ensure inclusive growth, is an example of far-right, while the erstwhile West Bengal government, which changed the face of Kolkata from that of Hema Malini to that of Jyoti Basu, is an example of far-left. The West Bengal growth, or the stagnation, has been pretty much inclusive. Everyone has come to the same level of poverty. In between, you have the different left-of-centre to right-of-centre combinations and different governments in India can possibly be mapped on the axis. In the Indian context, BJP is the right wing party, Congress is the centre party, while the Left Parties are well, left parties.

Similarly, most voters fall on either side of the centre: the far-right to far-left depending on your political ideals, and your moral and religious values. The right winged voters, who had been identifying themselves with the BJP for so long, are suddenly lost, for the BJP has regressed remarkably as a party since its 2004 loss. The loss was totally unexpected, but even its most adherent critics would not have predicted the rudderless ship it now resembles. The name of the party has been planned to be officially changed to Bhartiya Joker Party, if reports are to be believed. But I digress.

Secondly: Impact: The failure of BJP as a party, has alienated the right wing electorate of the country. The right wing electorate generally belong to the Hindu, upper and middle classes and the non-Schedule Castes. They are generally well educated, and are active on social media. They are generally against reservations and pro-meritocracy. A large number of these right wing electorate who feel let down by the BJP do not really care about the temple, but about ensuring a transparent society, where everything works well. Most of them also support Narendra Modi, despite him being implicated in the riots, for the reason that their only concern is development, and they feel that no price is enough to achieve it. They are pro-reforms, and believe that corruption is the biggest threat to India. They do not want to understand the viewpoint of the other side, and are adamant that their demands, and wants are entirely justified. However, despite being sizable in number, the right wing voters are particularly known to skip election day as the size and heat of May sun gets to them, which probably explains why BJP lost the two elections in May. 

On the other hand, the Congress government at the centre has made no overtures to them. In fact, the government has taken a decisive left-turn, and Congress has changed from a centralist party to a left-of-centre party. The Congress public motto of inclusive growth does not hold much weight with the right wing voters. Moreover, the reservation issue is another key thorn. This, and other policies of the government, has led this electorate to believe that Congress is not for them, which is probably true. 

And so we come to the issue of corruption. The right wing needs an outlet to the rage at the inability of BJP to launch a proper attack on the Congress. Baba Ramdev tried to capture that space, but his pro-religious antics were never going to cut much meat with the mainly secular right wing, middle class electorate. Enter Anna Hazare, and the right wing electorate has finally found a messiah to deliver them from evil. They finally feel they have an option to partake in the decision making process, which had been taken away from them by the left and centralist leaning Congress governments. And the issue of corruption has managed to unite every right-wing voter into one under Anna Hazare, and makes them feel empowered. So this right wing electorate, in true right wing style, has made a draft believing only they can do a great job of it, and are trying to impose it on the government. Why is their version better than the government? Who says seven years imprisonment is not enough punishment? Why should ministers suffer more punishment as compared to the common man? Why shouldnot bribing be made legal? There can be many questions that can be asked from them. However, being the burning issue of corruption, which most people believe to be an illness, the movement has also found support with some of the traditional central and left-wing supporters. That it is basically a right wing movement can be made out by the fact that masses of Scheduled Castes, Muslims and many other societies have stayed away, fearing backlash.

Thirdly: Why is it bad?: Historically, whenever the right wing has emerged enmasse, it has often resulted in historical tragedies. The frenzy that is generated by such movements often prevail everything else, and creates absolute power. Moreover, right wing also means giving more power to the majority, and hence can totally alienate minority. A left wing uprising, while theoretically equally potentially damaging, has atleast equality as its basic tenet. A right wing uprising on the other hand, increases the diversity.In a country like India, this can lead to dangerous consequences. The Gujarat riots united the Hindus to vote for Modi, just like German nationalism united Germans under Hitler, and we all know how that went. I am not saying that Hazare is comparable to either of the two, but going forward, if the present movement is a success, the rejuvenated right wing can plan further uprisings, to impose their will on the government - through democratic or undemocratic means - and we never know how that will impact India. Why should a few people who are up there, and have conjured up a draft of the bill, be allowed to hold the government hostage? Who gives them the right? It is not a matter of them thinking what they are thinking is right, it has to come from the people. And the people choose the Parliament. If people like Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal really want to do anything, they should take the right path and fight elections. However, they know they will lose if they stand in elections, and hence have taken unconstitutional ways to hijack the government into accepting their demands. It does not matter if their demands are right or wrong? The thing is, who are they to decide that their demands are right? This right wing tendency of always being right needs to be stopped as soon as possible, else it can have grave consequences. As mentioned earlier, India is a great country because the social fabric is holding up. With a rejuvenated right wing, if the revolution now starts, I see the fabric stopping. Hence the revolution must fail. 

 I am not against corruption. I get my Gas connection illegally, I used to drive a car when I did not have a driving licence and I drove when drunk. I save as much tax as I can, some of it unethically. I give bribe to the ticket checker when travelling on a WL ticket in train so that I can reach home earlier. I dont like standing in lines for filling up government forms and hence bribe the government official to allow me my permits. I love corruption as it makes my life easier. I am not sure we Indians are ready for a honest government as this will mean making ourselves honest. So Mr. Hazare enjoy the limelight while people forget about lying on their CVs and putting kids through schools via bribes. In short, the Indian right winger is a hypocrite, who is always ready to blame the system for his vows. And it is exactly these people who should not be at the forefront, for it will make India another Animal Farm. Hence the revolution must fail.

Reservation in promotion will break the Society

Reservation in promotion bill is currently being discussed in the Parliament and there is no doubt it will get through even after opposition from certain quarters. I don't understand the whole logic behind the reservation in promotion. I am very clear in my mind that reservation should help uplift the destitute in our society. And it is a fact that Dalits in this country are at a receiving end since times immemorial. Nothing has changed for them even till now. I strongly believe that they should get proper care and treatment from the government, and this shouldn't be seen as a charitable act from any government. This is their right and we should learn to respect it. My only point is that why on earth people who are already in jobs need reservation in promotion. Reservation was introduced to take care of marginalized sections of society. Once you availed the benefits of reservation and got a job, you become equal to other people in the society and then it is your duty to get promotion on merit rather than expecting it again through reservation policy. It is really wrong on part of central government to introduce such a bill in the parliament. It is highly undemocratic stance of the government and we should not support such type of acts of government. Why reservation to all those who already got reservation? Why not take care of others even from Dalit community who are still far behind from normal life of society. This scheme may benefit few thousand people in society, whereas a proper policy to uplift all the destitute sections of the society is the need of the hour. Now even conditions of few of the upper castes are not so good in different parts of the country. What different political parties are doing for them? Nothing. It is really sad that BJP, the chief opposition party of the country is silent on this subject. Although it had stalled the parliament on various issues, which may be proven wrong in near future because most of them were based just on assumptions. Now quota in promotion is becoming a reality and BJP is watching silently. The party used to dub various policies of the present government as anti-national and anti-people but now it is silent and doing cheap vote-bank politics like other parties. Reservation in education and jobs has been going on for decades but it has clearly failed to uplift the downtrodden sections of the society. It clearly shows that our efforts were not made in the right direction. We don’t need further reservation but yes, we need proper implementation of policies to change the situation at grass roots. If policies are implemented properly, such discrepancies can be eradicated in next 20 years. I am not exaggerating facts. Let us assume that all the children of destitute sections of society had been educated properly and after 20 years most of them will get good jobs and this whole non-sense of divide in the society can be prevented. If you cannot do so then implement 100% reservation in all sectors, including education and jobs, on the basis of percentage share of different communities of the society. In that case, no one would oppose such policies because everybody will be entitled to reservation, as per their population in society.

Drawbacks in Domestic Violence Act

Though the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 guarantees justice to women who suffer domestic violence, but the Act hasn't been implemented properly and there is a dire need to raise awareness among people, especially in rural India. Paragraph In a country, where constitution guarantees equal rights to women and men, it is a shame that women still have to struggle even for small things. A simple example of this is the domestic violence against women. Paragraph Considering the fact and problems regarding the domestic violence, government of India framed Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, which came into force on October 26, 2006, but as far as the justice is concerned, victims are less aware about the provisions of the Act. Paragraph A research work was done by Kranti Gautamrao Salunke, a social works student, to highlight the loopholes of the Act and what measures should be taken to improve it. While talking with Aruna Gajbiye, Associate Professor, Tirpude Social Works College, she explained, “The act is mainly to protect the victim (woman) from the offenders and to reduce the domestic crime in the society. But due to some negligence by government, the victims are unable to raise their voice against the harassment.” Paragraph As per the Act, the victim can directly approach the Protection Officer (PO) for justice. But, it is found that, not a single person has directly approached PO in any domestic violence case. Most of the time, victims approached the police and then they informed the POs about the case. She said, “Government delivered the charge of Protection Officer to senior officers who already have other responsibilities. And those officials who are appointed as Protection Officers, are unaware about their responsibility. Similarly, no recruitment of Protection Officer was done in last seven years.” Paragraph As per the survey, the victim should get protection within 60 days of the registration of a case. Even, the first hearing will be done within that 60-day period, but due to the delay by officials it takes a long time. Most of the time, the cases reach the officials at the last stage of the domestic violence, due to lack of awareness. Paragraph Rekha Barahate, a lawyer who deals with the domestic violence cases explained, “Protection Officers are very lenient about their work. They handle the cases just as a work and not to show their performance to help someone. The domestic violence act is very beneficial for the victims. As per the law, the result should come up within 90 days. But, due to leniency of officials not a single case was solved during the time period.” Barahate also explained that awareness among the people regarding the act is very essential. Paragraph Even, media is the best way to increase the awareness among the people. Some improvement is needed in the law as well as in the behavior of the officials. Similarly, Dr Seema Sakhre, President of Stri Atyachar Virodhi Parishad said, “It comes under civil law and it is helpful for women. But, the mechanism is not properly working. The Revenue Officers holding the additional post of Protection Officer in Maharashtra are not working up to the mark. Hence, the major rectification needed is that government should appoint separate Protection Officers for domestic violence. A separate PO will concentrate on the responsibilities allotted to him.” A survey was carried out regarding many facts of the Act, which are as follows: Women are the soft targets for domestic violence, but 88 per cent Protection Officers are male and just 12 per cent are female. 52 per cent lawyers who deal with domestic violence are male and 48 per cent are female. To solve the domestic violence cases, experience is the most important factor. As per the survey, 30 per cent Protection Officers have the experience of more than 25 years while 28 per cent lawyers have the experience of 5 to 10 years. Around 68 per cent officials are trained to deal with domestic violence cases. In domestic violence, 30 per cent protection officers believe that physical assault on women is very common and 40 per cent believe that both physical and mental harassment are the major issues. Causes of domestic violence against women - No or less dowry. - Refusal to bring money from patriarchal family on demand. - Partial or total failure to fulfill the commitments made at settlement of marriage. - Love affairs prior to or after marriage. - Extramarital relations. - Medically unfit for child bearing - Husband is alcoholic - Husband is unemployed Improvements needed in the Act - Separate Protection Officer (PO) should be recruited by the government to reduce domestic violence. - The court or legal procedure should be easy for the victims and proper protection should be provided to them by the authority. - Justice should be delivered in the mentioned time period (60 Days). - Majority of POs are male but victims are females, hence government should recruit female POs for the benefit of female victims. - Proper implementation of the Act and quick decision making should be done during solving a case.

The Society

While the Indian national spectrum allows for a surprising amount of political heterodoxy, with ideologies spanning temple construction, Gandhi-family installation, statue benediction, Bhaiyya defenestration, policy-paralysis-induction, and even more policy-paralysis-induction, there is an almost equally emphatic monochromaticity in economic thought among the political class. In that, there is not a single party of any note that consistently stands for free-markets and limited government. I am not saying, for a second, that what is roughly characterized as libertarian-ism is the solution to India’s economic malaise (far from it if I may add) but some sort of economic diversity in the stated policies of our political masters would bring a countervailing force to the overwhelming preponderance of the big-government protectionist socialism that all parties espouse. Paragraph The Swatantra Party tried, a long time ago, to bring a bit of an exotic flavor to the Indian polity, by attempting to infuse concepts like free enterprise into the socio-economic lexicon. They failed. Quite miserably. Paragraph The lesson was learnt. In India, the common people have a very definite anthropomorphism of an ideal government. Namely, the male head of an undivided Hindu joint family. Paragraph He sits on a swinging recliner, hookah in hand, as every earning member hands over a significant portion of their salary to him. “I will administer the common pool of money in a way that will benefit you all”, he says, “and I will protect you. Let none be left behind”. The family members crib and carp about the patriarch’s profligacy and incompetence, recount incidents of how he never ever really backs them up in times of trouble. And yet come beginning of every month, they once again pull out the cash and hand it over to him, eyes downcast. Paragraph How does this go on for years on end without any change? Well for a start, the patriarch always acts benevolent—-he buys the bahu a sari on occasions or gives munna a toy train from time to time. “We got something back”, they think, all fuzzy and warm, “something that could have gone to the middle brother’s family otherwise”. Even more importantly, the patriarch goes heavy on the compassionate rhetoric in a very Alok Nathian way, ready to weep and emote and hug close to chest, even as he is almost always powerless to do something of any importance. Paragraph Perhaps this line from Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani captures the expectations from the government best— “Humme pyar chahiye aur kuch paise bhi, Hum aise bhi hain, hum hain waise bhi”. First the paisa. In terms of entitlements and handouts, all couched in a blanket of compassion. Rs 2/Kg rice. Laptop to maulvis. Subsidies on cooking gas and oil. “What gifts is the Finance Minister bearing for the housewife?” asks the papers, just before the Budget, as if he is a genial Santa Claus coming down the chimney with bagful of goodies. In short, as long as we believe we are getting “something for nothing”, we are happy. Paragraph Then the pyar. The government “cares”. It is the knight in shining armor which stands between the citizenry and the forces of the “market” (and no I am not referring to the Manisha Koirala starrer “Market”) , picturized as a gigantic black serpent with multiple heads—the imperialist, the Walmart, the East India Company, the foreigner, an agent of such evil that if left unmolested would poison the milk of your infant, leave you jobless and snatch away every last bit of what you own. Which is why the government is needed, with its magical shield of red-tape and sword of regulations and market-fighting exercises like the Budget wherein it seeks to control the beast by slashing excise duty on kumkum while increasing it on agarbatti and rolled bidis. Paragraph The political class is only too happy of course with the power vested in it. It suits them just fine. Which is why they never want to reduce the size of government or of its role (they do fight over whether it is the Center or the State that should be doing more of the governance). Paragraph And why should they? Resources flow in the form of direct and indirect taxes. A portion of this is then mooched off by a bloated bureaucracy and similarly bloated political administration as over-head (the cost of President Tai’s foreign trips for example or the long entourage that accompanies every minister), another portion is used to maintain boondoggles like Air India whose principal reason for existence is to be the free luxury carrier for IAS and ministers and their families. Yet another portion goes to fund entitlement schemes and subsidies, most of them designed to maximally benefit political pressure groups.Whatever little is left over, well yes, that then goes for funding what the government ought to be doing—building and maintaining common infrastructure (roads, highways, schools, defense etc). Almost as an afterthought. Paragraph Whenever any player in the political game, and remember this player is almost always doing this out of compulsion, tries to change the extant culture and attempts to unfetter the markets from regulations, there is a concerted push-back from across the political spectrum. Paragraph In order to get the public approbation for maintaining the status-quo, two archetypes are sought to be created. Paragraph One is the focus of compassion, the Rakhee of Baazigar, holding to herself two fatherless offspring. The other is the all-powerful villain, the predator, the Madan Chopra, who wants to not only take away everything the hapless widow owns but also wants to see her take a shower. Once the conflict has been framed in such a simplistic black-and-white manner, the end-game lies simply in appealing to the sentimental “Ma Mati Manush” core of the country, and more often than not, the original mover of “reform” panics at the groundswell of opposition and the river keeps flowing as it always has. Paragraph This time too, we see the same hoary “anti-market” story template being re-used for “FDI in retail”, as predictable as a Madhur Bhandarkar movie. The object of compassion is the “kirana” shop-owner and Madan Chopra is “foreign investment” and his accompanying “deep pockets” and “efficiency in procuring and transporting goods”. The moment he is allowed in through the door, “kirana shops will go out of business because Walmart will do in India exactly what it did in the US” (this usually followed by a copy-and-paste from an anti-Walmart site) and finally, horror of horrors, “the market will be flooded with Chinese goods.” (the last to be said with great outrage, similar to how they say in “Clerk”, “Doctor ne feees maangi hai”). Paragraph This narrative is of course a lot of Ravinder Jadeja. As I had pointed out in a post about a year ago, the concept of a “foreign” company, in today’s integrated global economy where parts, labor and capital are sourced from different parts of the globe, makes no sense. (“Corporations do not have countries, they, like JLo, have only bottom lines”). Second, not all foreign companies are Walmart and using the classical Walmart business model as a dart-board for FDI in retail is disingenuous. Assuming though that all foreign investment in retail is Walmart, there is the assumption that Walmart’s business model can be applied as is Indian markets with the same effect on local business that makes Walmart such a bogeyman. Not to speak of the other assumption, namely that Indian-owned retail chains cannot adopt Walmart’s business model themselves (they have a better chance of doing it than Walmart, at least initially), once again assuming it is a silver bullet for all types of markets. (Again I have elaborated on this in that old post). Or that Indian-owned retail chains would not sell “cheap Chinese goods” because being desi, they are somehow more socially committed or patriotic. [Please read the old post for a greater elaboration of these ideas] Paragraph The thing is that with markets, no one knows what may happen. Will kirana shops be totally wiped out as retail chains step up their activities? I doubt that will happen, the ones who are able to best leverage local conditions and markets will survive and flourish. What I do know, because it is common sense, is that increased competition will help consumers and prices will go down. Some say that procurement prices for farmers will go up but then, as this article says, it won’t be as big a blessing as being touted. Why? Read the reason. Paragraph While he welcomes the government’ s plans on foreign retailers, Mr. Jakhar said the policy change will only result in a small benefit to most farmers. In most Indian states Walmart and other stores will be required to buy produce through a monopolistic distribution system that compensates farmers poorly for their produce while benefiting a vast array of middlemen. Paragraph “It’s a blessing but it’s not a big blessing,” he said. As an organization we have been saying these large corporations have to purchase directly from us. If they go through the middlemen, it won’t make a difference. Paragraph The crux of the problem lies in the agricultural marketing laws of most Indian states that forbid retailers from buying directly from farmers without going through designated wholesale markets or paying a tax to those markets, according to Mr. Jakhar and other agricultural experts I have spoken to in the past. While the national government has been asking states to amend those laws to allow for direct purchase of produce from farms, most have not done so because the traders who control the wholesale markets have significant political clout, they are also a big constituency of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, which opposes allowing foreign retailers into India Paragraph The problem, if you note, is not capitalist Bob Christo gone amok. On the contrary, the problem stems from regulations that have been put in place inhibiting the free buying and selling of goods, enforcing a monopoly by official fiat ostensibly to protect a powerful voting constituency. The patriarch government, once again, to the rescue. Not. Will all kirana shops survive? If prices do go down, some will not. So what should the government do in this particular case? Nothing. ( I mention in this case because some regulations I believe are necessary and what those are I shall leave for another day. However they should be nowhere close to what we have in India today) What can the people do? Everything. If you feel compassionate towards kirana shops, do keep buying at a premium. There are many people (not a whole lot though) in the US that refuse to buy at Walmart, drink coffee from Starbucks on principle and invest in only socially conscious companies. Nothing prevents you from manipulating the market by regulating your own demand. Set an example. Compassion, like charity, begins at home. Paragraph But we know you won’t do it. You will go to the place where prices are the lowest. Why? Because you are a human being. It’s the same reason why, despite having shaken your head in sympathy, you never stopped using MS Word just so that typists would not lose their livelihood (I remember long lines of typists sitting in Gariahat, busy all through the day, who have now all vanished since no one comes to them for typing official letters, resumes and theses). It’s the same reason why you never stop to think what happened to travel agents in these days of direct online purchase of air tickets from airlines and easy online comparison shopping (Again some travel agents survive, many do not.) Paragraph Nature is governed by Darwinism, or the survival of the fittest, and when government tries to step in and egregiously alter the natural scheme of things, things go south. If our compassionate society had fallen for the Left’s party line of “Computerization would lead to apocalyptic lay-offs in every sector of the economy and lead to Uncle Sam controlling India through software” (which was a very very popular and emotive argument decades ago), then, well we know what would we have missed then. If there is anything that captures perfectly the schizophrenic craziness of our national discourse, it is how at the same time, there is both opposition to the government withdrawing subsidies for LPG (“It will increase prices”) as well as to FDI in retail, even though that will, in all likelihood, bring down prices. Why? Because, we feel that subsidies are our right (“Don’t we pay taxes? Don’t we deserve some money back?If we don’t get our money back, someone else will take it.) but the operation of a free market, without overt (intentionally italicized for emphasis) government restrictions , is not.

Mamata Moodswings

|| Shame India || India is being lead by a Mauni Baba who can not speak but has team of mauka prast like SP, BSP, NCP, DMKP and lawyers like sibbal, chidambram, jaiswal, raja and kalmadi who have looted through 2G, CWG, CG etc.Hindustan janta hai. And now this lady of bengal often termed as tigress roars or losing her breathe . We, The People of India, so helpless! What a Government we are fortunate to have? Looking at the response and comment people are making on other news than this news where govt is at stake, it only depicts that Indian people has not only lost faith, they have forgotten politicians. Days are not far when people will say, Mamta who? Sonia Who? Manmohan who? Advani who? Thumbs up to India's British Raj Netas in 21st century. Keep on doing this. I feel happy in a sense that it's nothing but they are digging their grave faster. They say Arab spring, sooner we will see Indian spring. Hope to see it soon...