 |
|
On Record Right to die |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What India can do for NRIs by Anil Malhotra Speaking after receiving the honorary degree of Doctor of Law in Cambridge University, London, recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had advised young Indian students to “study hard and come home”.
Reflections
Diversities — Delhi Letter
Profile
|
On Record It’s a Divali gift, says Union Woman and Child Welfare Minister Renuka Chowdhary, referring to the new law for Protection of Women from Domestic Violence. In an exclusive interview to The Sunday Tribune, she says, “I am feeling overwhelmed. I am realising that there was such a huge unmet need for such a law. It is the answer to the unvoiced anguish of people”.
The law, according to the zestful and voluble politician from Andhra Pradesh, has been presented in a manner that the people should try to use it in its real matrix and not as an isolated instrument for misuse. “People often complain that dowry laws are being misused. But has that stopped dowry deaths? I am not justifying the misuse of the law but it works both ways. Stop burning your daughters-in-law and the misuse will also stop,” she says. Excerpts: Q: What was the need for such a tough Act? A: In Delhi alone, there were 8,000 reports of domestic violence last year. But there was very little the police could do because there was no teeth to the law. This Act has empowered them. Now there is a sudden spurt of activity in all the states and more and more cases are being resolved. I was on a call show in Hyderabad where people could dial on to the show and tell their problems. Of the 10 cases that we received that day, seven were set right. Q: How do you feel now that the Act is finally here? A: It is a feeling of hope that things will be all right...a relief, the healing of a lacerating wound. Q: What about fears about its implementation in letter and spirit? A: When we implement a law, we expect the civil society to use it in letter and spirit. We enact a law to set directions for society. There would have been no need for this Act if other laws had not been abused. Where is the law that says that a man can beat his woman? That a woman must keep quite even if her husband comes home drunk and rapes his daughter? That in-laws can sit and watch a human being burnt alive? That a man must have an educated woman, whose salary must belong to him but she will have no freedom? Where are the laws for all this, but they are being practiced, aren’t they? Why is society not standing up and questioning that? Q: There is also the fear of the Act being misused by women. A: May be. I cannot say it will never be misused. I am not the user, neither am I the victim. It is the individuals who use or misuse a law. But it doesn’t mean that we do not bring about the law. May be a woman will misuse it in her defence. I have never said that one gender is more pious than the other. But the law also has to be equitable. Unfortunately, according to statistics, 10 million girls have been killed in the past 20 years. Every six minutes a woman is raped and burnt. Your discriminatory households do not budget to feed their girl child. You allow children to get married before they are 18 years of age and within a year become mothers. There is a rising maternal mortality rate, an alarming infant mortality rate, child labour, paedophile... Our aim is to bring about a legal framework within which the civil society can comfortably live. The most terrifying task is to educate the so-called educated men who drive a Mercedes Benz but use the filthiest of abusive languages against their wives and children, daughters. Men who provide their wives designer handbags and sunglasses but accuse them of sleeping with their servants. I get at least one ‘Please-help-me’ call every single night. The other day a lady, a very well known person, wife of a very powerful man, daughter-in-law of a very powerful man, called me up crying. She told me how she was going through hell and mental torture every single day of her life. It is hard to believe that domestic violence can happen at those levels also. Q: Is it so difficult to understand how men can behave like that? A: It is the upbringing, the social condition that these men have been given over the years that they are the lords and the masters, beholders of all that they see. That the wife is a disposable and removable commodity. Look at their fate — women can be kicked out by their husbands, they have no right over their inheritance, they cannot return to their parents’ home. There was an incident when a husband kicked his wife out of their home in midnight after an argument. She had no money, no slippers. The husband did not even allow her to put on a dressing gown over the night dress. It is absurd that men want educated wives, barbie dolls with no brains so that they can kick and push them around and perform on order. But women are not some bandariyas at India Gate who will dance at their order. What we need is a decent equitable equilibrium in society. Boys must grow up in the knowledge that they cannot take women in their lives for granted. For that the mindset at home has to change so that children do not grow up seeing their fathers abuse their mothers, using filthy language. Q: How do you plan to spread general awareness about the law? A: It will be an ongoing process. The information, the awareness will be disseminated right to the grassroots level. We plan to involve everyone, including the media, the police, the district level officers, panchayats, common people, volunteers in awareness building. Q: What was the need to include live-in female partner in the law? A: The scope of the law is to address all women. How does a woman in a live-in relationship become any different from a wife? She is equally susceptible to violence. For, she may have been lured into a live-in relation with a promise for marriage. The morality of people is not my problem. Q: How easy or difficult was it to see the Act through? A: It was not an easy task. Our first aim was to bring the law in its stark nascent form. But the law is not static. There are several things that can be worked upon.
|
|
Right to die Recently, death of three persons in 10 days after observing Santhara, a Shwetambar Jain ritual of voluntarily embracing death by giving up food, has once again sparked a national debate on the right to die. Vimla Devi Bhansali (69) died after opting for Santhara on September 28 at Jaipur, followed by the death of Amar Chand Kaswan (70) at Ajmer and that of Sardari Devi Lunia (94) at Jaipur. This debate takes in its ambit the issue of mercy killing also. In 2005, two deaths in quick succession made world news. Terri Schiavo of Florida died on March 31 because she was left starving for 13 days in the US. Fifteen years ago, a heart-wrenching tragedy left her brain dead. The second death was that of Pope John Paul II on April 3. The two deaths have intimate similarities. The Pope’s refusal to return to the hospital despite being “informed of the gravity of his situation” again threw up the debate whether the critically ill patients have the right to spend their remaining lives on their own terms or they should be subjected to full-scale medical intervention. The pontiff preferred to remain at the Vatican on its third-floor apartment overlooking St. Peter’s Square. The debate acquired a new dimension when only about a month after the Pope’s death the world had its first case of recovery of a comatose patient after 10 years. In May 2005, Donald Herbert, a former firefighter, comatose for 10 long years in a US hospital, surprised everyone when he, all of a sudden, asked to speak to his wife. The Netherlands enacted a law in 2000 legalising euthanasia. Belgium followed suit in 2002. Switzerland allows suicide assisted by doctors and those having medical training, though euthanasia is not legal. In 1995, Australia’s Northern Territory enacted a law allowing euthanasia. It was enforced in 1996 but the Australian Parliament overturned it in 1997 and only four people were able to use it. In the US, the Oregon state approved a physician-assisted suicide law in 1994 which was implemented in 1997. Columbia’s Constitutional Court approved of medical voluntary mercy killing, but its Parliament has not ratified it. In Uruguay, mercy killing is not punishable if judges are convinced that it was done at the request of the deceased. However, if mercy killing is legalised, there are practical difficulties in its application. The possibility of its misuse is also tremendous. The crucial question is whether medical science has reached its apogee where a doctor can certify with certainty that the disease of a terminally ill person is incurable. Giving legal status to mercy killing will culminate in legalising suicide as both hinge on the concept of the right to die. An attempt to commit suicide is a punishable offence under Section 309 of the IPC. The Society for the Right to Die with Dignity has been agitating for the abrogation of this section since 1981. Its founder chairman, the late Minoo R. Masani, formed this society after he came across two complex incidents. A well-known American socialist leader, Norman Thomas, had been paralysed and wanted to end his life. Despite his wish, he was kept alive for years. The second incident concerned Gopal Mandlik, a resident of Pune, who wished to die. He made fervent requests to the then Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Morarji Desai to remove Section 309 of the IPC but his request went unheeded. Finally, in 1980 he put an end to his life. In 1994, the Supreme Court, in P. Rathinam v. India, held that the section was unconstitutional and void. It concurred with the Bombay High Court’s decision in Maruti Sripati case that the right to live included the right not to live. However, in 1996, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Gian Kaur v. Punjab, revised its earlier decision and ruled that the right to live did not include the right to die. The court was faced with a paramount question that if the right to die was a fundamental right, abetment of suicide was an act that facilitated the exercise of such a fundamental right and, therefore, could not be punished. The fact that dowry or custodial deaths often took place in the guise of suicide could make the situation worse. This argument is specious as the abetment to commit suicide can be made punishable without making attempt to commit suicide punishable. In England and Wales, there is a provision of up to 14 years of imprisonment for any body assisting a suicide though the attempt to commit suicide itself is not a crime. In 1999, Dr Jack Kevorkian was sentenced to a 10-25 year prison term for giving a lethal injection to Thomas Youk whose death was shown on the 60 Minutes television programme. In 1979, the Swedish right-to-die leader Berit Hedeby was incarcerated for a year for helping a man with MS to die. In 2000, a retired Norwegian Physician, Christian Sandsdalen, was found guilty of willful murder. He admitted to giving an overdose of morphine to a woman chronically ill for 20 years with MS who entreated his help. It led to the cancellation of his medical license but he was not imprisoned. He went up to the Supreme Court but lost. Dr Sandsdalen died in 2004. Curiously, his funeral procession was packed with Norway’s dignitaries. It is not likely that court will legalise the right to die or mercy killing. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the right to live with dignity is a basic feature of the Constitution. So it is mandatory for the state to make every one feel that one is very much needed. In March 2004, Thomas Master, an 85- year-old school teacher of Kerala hanged himself to death in Thrissur after the Kerala High Court dismissed his petition seeking permission to end his life. He likened the concept of right to die to the Indian concept of samadhi, or choosing one’s death after one has accomplished every thing in life. This incident redoubled his friend Kochouseph Chittilapally’s resolve to fight for the right to die. Chittilapally, then 54, said that he did not want to be a burden on any body by protracting his life artificially and he had fixed 70 as the cut off age to depart from this
world. The writer is Special Correspondent, News & Current Affairs Programme, Doordarshan, New Delhi.
|
|
What India can do
for NRIs Speaking after receiving the honorary degree of Doctor of Law in Cambridge University, London, recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had advised young Indian students to “study hard and come home”. At another reception, he lauded the British Indians’ ability to “integrate and adapt”, which he said, “was the key to the success of the Indian diaspora”. Globalising India is now the theme. But alas, we still want them to come back home to their roots. On January 7, Dr Manmohan Singh will inaugurate the fifth Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (PBD) in New Delhi. The Citizenship Act was amended in 2005 for a new form of Indian nationality, the holders of which are to be known as Overseas Citizens of India. The Indian Constitution does not permit dual nationality or dual citizenship, except for minors where the second nationality was involuntarily acquired. Indian authorities have interpreted the law to mean that a person cannot have another country’s passport simultaneously with an Indian one. Therefore, Overseas Citizenship of India is not a full-fledged citizenship of India and hence, it does not amount to dual citizenship or dual nationality. Likewise, acquisition of citizenship of another country by a citizen of India results in the termination of his Indian citizenship. An OCI card holder does not receive an Indian passport and has no other political rights in India including the eligibility for government employment besides right to vote in India. Thus, he does not fall in the category of dual nationality or dual citizenship. An OCI card only enables one a hassle-free visa for travel to the homeland. Further, he/she need not register with the police or immigration authorities. This is in contrast to the earlier PIO card. The concept of dual nationality, elusive though, is not a mirage. Issues like reciprocal arrangements with countries of current nationality of NRIs, rights of consular protection of their home country while the NRIs are in India and retention of foreign nationality with Indian citizenship should be resolved for full-fledged dual citizenship. The PBD will hopefully generate a debate to create solutions to such larger issues. Till then, it should serve as an effective platform for resolving current social issues of the Indian diaspora, specifically problems created by cross border marriages, divorce, adoption, inter-parental child abductions, spousal maintenance and property settlement. Laws should keep pace with the changing times. Surprisingly, the website on the 2007 Divas does not list these unresolved issues though they were discussed in the earlier PBDs. The Divas focus is not on what India can do for the NRIs, but what the NRIs can do for India. If we want increased remittance inflows back home, we must first create a hospitable climate for transplanting the roots. The call of return must not go waste. The writer, an advocate with specialisation on Family Law, has co-authored the book, Acting for Non-Resident Indian Clients (London, 2005)
|
Reflections It is interesting, how nature, at times, conspires. As I was developing this current piece of work, a young woman by the name of Rashmi came to see me. She presented me with her about-to-be- released, newly published book, Woman of Elements. Rashmi and I had met earlier too, when she had come with the suggestion that I write the preface of the book. But this meeting was different. I asked her the thought behind this book. She said — sufferings out of domestic violence: I asked, ‘who’? She said, ‘she’. I was taken aback. This is exactly what I was planning to write so that people understand the essence of the new law on domestic violence, before they rely on hearsay. Let me tell you what Rashmi told me. (with her permission). “Mrs Bedi, I woke up this morning, switched on music, drank a cup of tea, read the paper, tickled my son to wake him up and hugged my daughter awake. It was a beautiful morning — my everyday morning. But it wasn’t so for 10 years of my life — when I would wake up in cold sweat wondering what anger, what abuse, what violence I would have to face during the day. I wore full-sleeves and Chinese collars for 10 years to hide the bruises I carried on my body. Mine was an arranged marriage — I had been working as an advertising professional for 2-3 years prior to that. But violence against women cuts across the boundaries of class and social strata. Our biggest drawback as women is that when abuse takes place against us, we do not speak up about it. We hide behind “acceptability” and “decency”. We shrivel up in silence. I did not even tell my family, not for five years. My daughter was four when I first went back to my parents — with a broken rib and a smashed face. Not the first instance of violence — it was a common occurrence for me — but that was the first time that I sensed a need in myself to get out of this vile situation. But my husband came to my family — wept, begged, pleaded. And I went back. And I had a second child. My husband gloated, “Now you can never leave”. And the violence escalated. I had a mother-in-law in the house, but she added to the problems, “ma-baap toh pait kaat kar apnee betiyon ko dete hain”, “biwiyon ko to property aur paison ke baarey mein kuch batana nahin chahiye ” etc. Strange words coming from a woman who completely controlled the purse-strings of the family. And when faced with the violence meted out to me, she would respond with, “Toh kya hua? Jo tumhari kismet”. I had been given an empty floor in this large house in a posh South Delhi colony, with the not-so-posh words, “hamaari families mein to ladki-waalon se sab kuch aata hai”. So I worked — took up short projects and assignments and tried to build up a home — along with its furniture and everything else that came along with it. From the curtains to the carpets, everything came from my earnings. He did not pay for even a glass. As time went on and his violence and womanising got worse, it started telling on the children. My daughter, a brilliant little girl, became quiet and withdrawn. My son completely went into a shell. He would not speak — he would go into his own world when confronted with loud voices. He was put into the special needs section at the school that he was attending — not because he had any learning disability, but because of his emotional problems. I did not want to live anymore. I had died enough everyday. Then I looked at my children, and wondered, if I die, what would happen to them? I knew then that I would fight for my life and of my children. I somehow picked up courage and decided to leave with both my kids for my grandmother’s house. I earned my freedom after a very bitter and expensive struggle. Today I am a woman of all elements, i.e. Air, Water, Fire and Earth, who picked herself from ashes to rebuild along with my children...” This is what I have to say in relation to the new Domestic Violence Act (notified a few days ago). What if it had been there earlier? And Rashmi knew of it and took the courage to use it, then the husband and the mother-in-law either would have been forced to mend their ways or faced imprisonment for a whole year. Let me explain how? Under the new law, all these acts of domestic violence are specific offences, namely: physical or mental abuse for any reason; addiction, extramarital relationships, unlawful demands, harassment, threat, insult, ridicule, name calling, deprivation of economic or financial resources, alienation of assets etc. Anyone can complain for the aggrieved woman. The Magistrate can call concerned members of the household to be heard. He can counsel, direct or punish as the case may be. It is a civil, summary proceeding. Violation of orders can call for imprisonment of one year, fine or both. There is an essential provision for appointment of Protection Officers and NGOs as service providers. Homes could be visited for reporting or follow-ups. Rashmi could have got protection had this law come in earlier. Her children would not have suffered as much as they did. She could have continued to stay in her own home if she wanted. Her mother-in-law too would have come under home visits of the Protection Officer. All this is the new law. It is for women who genuinely need help. At no stage should this be used falsely by them. Magistrates and Protection officers are for justice and not pro-women and anti-men. They are there to prevent distress. |
|
Diversities — Delhi Letter If you are serious about finding out how very democratic are we or for whom is our democracy, its best to hear Mr J.M. Lyngdoh, the former Chief Election Commissioner. In present times, he is one of the few who can speak out fearlessly.
Delivering a lecture at the Founder’s Day of Jamia Millia Islamia here, he said that since our successive governments have been slavering over the Americans, senior bureaucrats have now to be re-educated by academics from Harvard, Syracuse and Duke. Consequently, what is left of our sovereignty as guaranteed under the Constitution, he asked. Three decades ago, we became stridently socialist and secular when politicians had started stripping the country and blatantly using communal politics for the elections. In current market economics for a, ‘socialist’ is a dirty word. But surely we have a democracy which is indisputably the largest in the world and we love to flaunt it. There is the turmoil of areas affected by militancy, i.e., 77 out of more than 600 districts in the country. The number keeps growing because politicians have no inclination to resolve local grievances. In the last Chhattisgarh Assembly elections, polling parties had to be inducted and evacuated by helicopter in the Maoist areas and polling stations had to be inundated with paramilitary forces. In Manipur, such forces, vastly augmented for election duty, have to literally recapture territory from the militants to set up polling stations. In Jammu and Kashmir, militants invariably threaten to kill intending voters. Mr Lyngdoh minced no words in elucidating what is wrong with the system. The alienation of the majority of the electorate, the below par representatives and their doings, the undemocratic features of the system and the social discord that goes with vote bank politics have allowed an increasing number of neo-liberal professionals to sneak in through the Rajya Sabha. These professionals are boldly formulating and executing economic policies on the strength of maintaining the 8 per cent annual growth rate, he said. He said policies are out of sync with the interest of the majority of the population. The Rajya Sabha has also seen an increasing flow of leaders of the corporate sector into public affairs. The new breed of tycoon representative has broken all parliamentary principles by using the institution to advance his own business interest… Whilst talking to him, I was taken by surprise to realise what an extremely low profile life he has opted to live, residing on Hyderabad’s outskirts. Asked about his activities the entire day, he smiled and quipped, “Well, I do a bit of cooking, washing my clothes, then there is so much to do in the house…do some writing too…look after my two dogs…” He seemed relaxed and at ease to be living far away from the maddening crowds and though he retired a couple of years back, but he doesn’t look older than 50 years. This could be because he comes across as completely straightforward with no contradictions between the head and the heart. Dalrymple’s book on focus After last week’s formal launch of William Dalrymple’s, The Last Mughal (Penguin) at the British Council here, there are more evenings coming up where he would be giving talks and lectures on the book and on the era in which it is set — 1857 when the Mughal dynasty was ebbing. On Nov 5 evening, Delhi’s popular joint, ‘Olive Bar and Kitchen’ will host an interactive session with William Dalrymple. Good, at least we are realising the importance of the past. If only history was taught in a more direct, approachable and conversation style, we would have been better equipped with the basics today.
|
|
Profile They are twins, now in their late twenties. They took to wildlife photography after graduation. The twins — Ajay and Vijay Bedi — initially completed a diploma course in Camera, Lighting and Computer Aided Movie but little did they know that one day they would make world headlines. Set in the misty mountains of the Himalayas, the film follows the life and love of two zoo-bred pandas, who were released into the Singhalila National Park forest in Darjeeling (North-West). From courtship to rearing of the cubs, the film gives viewers a glimpse of this mysterious animal. It was only after a two-year-long chase in the freezing cold of the Himalayas that the crew managed to get 100 hours of material. In the words of Vijay Bedi, “the most challenging sequences to the film were the mating of the Red Pandas, nesting and giving birth”. The courting and mating take place during January and February in sub-zero temperatures. It is
very difficult and hazardous tracking pandas in such conditions. Vijay says, “the camera team has to be lucky to be present at the right place at the right moment as females are receptive only for a single day in a year”. Wildlife specialists say, the female Red Panda gets pregnant only once a year, and this has put the species on the brink of extinction. There has also been poaching from Nepal side. The number of surviving pandas is only 1,500, according to a census report. The prestigious award to Bedi brothers, say experts, may help survival of young pandas in India in contrast to China where giant pandas have not been received much attention. Two years back, their documentary, The Policing of the Langur, was adjudged the best in the New Comers Category at Wild Screen Film Festival. Delhi’s growing monkey population interested Ajay and Vijay and they stumbled upon the idea of making a documentary as newspapers reported about the monkey menace. What made the venture interesting was that a langur was used to scare away other breed of monkeys. In the national capital, the monkeys were seen threatening people, raiding houses, schools, offices, hospitals and even airports. Ironically, the only remedy that was found effective was to engage the service of bigger and powerful langurs to drive away others. The documentary captures the colourful vista of man-monkey relationship in India, dating back to mythological times. The film is a captivating tale of veneration, tolerance and co-existence. Training for Ajay and Vijay for wildlife filming began quite early in life and in the thick of the jungle. Not only their father, Naresh, but grandfather, Dr Ramesh Bedi too was a pioneer film maker. The twins vividly remember spending most of their holidays in one national park or the other with their father. Wildlife film makers face lot of problems as first, it is hard to get financers and secondly, to find buyers. Also the filming of this nature needs sophisticated equipment and lot of time to spare. In case of Bedi brothers, financiers came easily and provided them a platform to participate in environment and wildlife film festivals. Their works include a film on wild asses titled, Rider of the Storm and First Out of Africa. Their documentary on Ongis tribes of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands has been greatly appreciated. The Wild Screen Festival which has entered its 26th year, proposes to help film makers from developing and underdeveloped countries. It is making a debut in India in January 2007.With nine award-winning films, it will be held in Chennai for three days from January 23 to 25. It will then move on to New Delhi, Kolkata and Pune.
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Talent of wildlife film making seems to flow in Bedi brothers’ blood. They proudly acknowledge that they inherited the mantle from their father, Naresh Bedi, the first-ever Indian to have won the Green Oscar in 1984 for his film Ganges Ghariyal (crocodiles of the holy Ganga). It was the proudest moment for the elder Bedi when the twins bagged what is popularly known as the Green Oscar for their film — Cherub of the Mist. It is a 53-minute movie on the endangered Red Panda of Himalayas.