|
|
|
|
|
India can’t part with territory
The rot at PPSC |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Curtailing cable cabals
Avoidable misunderstanding
The ponytail man
How much of the law should govern personal life?
The cycle of woman's evolution and retreat" Corrections and clarifications
|
India can’t part with territory
PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti has created an avoidable controversy, which is not only harmful for India but also for her own political interests. All those present at her power-point presentation on her “Kashmir vision” in Srinagar on Saturday were surprised to see the map she used, showing Aksai Chin and the Karakoram region as parts of China. Her slideshow had Jammu and Kashmir’s map superimposed on foreign currency notes. The state was shown as being under the control of three countries —- India, Pakistan and China. Being a senior politician associated with a mainstream party, she should be extremely careful about not indulging in any act which goes against the country’s officially stated line on such a sensitive issue as its borders. Whether she did it intentionally or otherwise is not known, as she has not clarified her position while reacting to the condemnatory remarks by Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and many others. The Chief Minister is right when he says that “this is not acceptable to us”. Any Indian who has the country’s interests dear to him or her will have a similar opinion. New Delhi considers the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, including the areas occupied by Pakistan, as an integral part of India. Pakistan has handed over a part of the Karakoram region to China illegally. India cannot accept it as Chinese territory nor can New Delhi ever give up its claim over Aksai Chin, illegally occupied by China. These are the issues on which all political parties, national as well as regional, should speak with one voice and support the official line. Anyone who indulges in an act that weakens the country’s national interests deserves to be condemned severely. The PDP leader has done a great disservice to the nation. Those who demand her party’s de-recognition on the question have a valid point to make. Mehbooba should know how to conduct herself when it comes to handling our national issues. That she has a soft corner for the separatists in Kashmir is known to one and all. It would be a sad development if she, too, starts behaving as these anti-India elements do.
|
|
The rot at PPSC
THE Punjab Public Service Commission stands discredited again. A vigilance inquiry has found that money had exchanged hands in the 2008-09 selections of 312 medical officers. The last Congress government led by Capt Amarinder Singh had unearthed scandalous PCS selections made during the previous Badal regime by the then commission Chairman, Ravi Sidhu, who was hand-picked by former Chief Minister Harcharan Singh Brar for the top post. The present commission Chairman and members were appointed by Capt Amarinder Singh as Chief Minister. Earlier, only the Chairman was indicted for corruption. This time it was team work. The latest vigilance findings, submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, have disgraced the commission, no doubt, but the Captain too has lost the high moral ground he once occupied on the issue of corruption. There will be few takers for his feeble attempt to remove the mud hurled at Chairman S.K.Sinha and others. He has rushed to question the vigilance team’s credibility without, perhaps, reading its 42-page report. Whether the report stands to judicial scrutiny is for the high court to see. Understandably, corruption is no longer an issue with the state Congress in general and the Captain in particular. The tendency of politicians to disregard merit and appoint cronies to key posts is destroying institutions. Universities, corporations and boards are packed with political loyalists. Secondly, the law-breakers often manage to find relief in judicial delays. Had Ravi Sidhu been given quick, deterrent punishment, the replay of sordid events might not have occurred. A public service commission is a constitutional body and its office-bearers are given security of service so that they can discharge their duties without fear or pressure. But job security should not be allowed to stand in the way of bringing the accused to justice. Inordinate delay shakes public faith in the system. In an otherwise murky scenario the Union Public Service Commission stands tall and clean. Its credibility has seldom been questioned. Why state bodies tend to stink deserves a serious thought. There is something definitely rotten in the state of Punjab. |
|
|
Curtailing cable cabals
CABLE
networks provide access to news and entertainment for a huge number of
Indians and are often the only viable alternative in rural and
semi-rural areas, since the cost of individual DTH services is too
high for most families, and terrestrial services are limited to
Doordarshan and other government broadcasts. Over 13 crore Indians own
television sets, according to one estimate, and the cable networks
provide access to most of them. The Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995, had laid the foundation of better management
and regulation of cable networks, but it needs more teeth. From time
to time, there have been allegations that these cable networks are
monopolies, especially at the level of various states. In some states,
the political hand behind cable networks is apparent. This has led to
situations where cable networks were blanked out during times when
news inimical to the political overlords was being telecast. The
monopolies must be broken up. More competition brings better service,
at better rates for the consumers. Union Information and Broadcasting
Minister Ambika Soni’s recent statement that the monopolisation of
the cable network system in some states, including Punjab, was not
acceptable and that the government would tackle this issue soon is
welcome. It is good that the need for such intervention is being
recognised by the government. As ever more people connect to multiple
channels through their cable networks, their interest needs to be
protected. Besides access, another contentious issue is content.
From time to time, there has been public outrage at the television
media testing and occasionally stepping across the boundaries of what
is acceptable. Even television news has come under a clout for
sensationalism and worse. The industry needs to make its
self-regulatory mechanism more effective so as to provide redressal to
aggrieved parties. Surely, good content, delivered through a
transparent and competitive mechanism, is not too much to ask for in
this day and age. |
|
|
Who finds a faithful friend, finds a treasure.— A Jewish saying
|
Avoidable misunderstanding
THE scenario of the judiciary overstepping its power of review and the sensitivity of the executive in having its actions interfered with by the judiciary was again brought out sharply with the comment of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh while inaugurating the 17th Commonwealth Law Conference at Hyderabad. The broad approach of the Prime Minister in this matter is not new (he has expressed it earlier also). But the sharpness and causticity this time was expressed strongly when he cautioned, “While the power of judicial review must be used to enforce accountability, it must never be used to erode the legitimate role assigned to the other branches of the government.” This is so notwithstanding the fact that the government itself is quite happy to let the Supreme Court supervise the CBI investigation in the 2G spectrum scam, hoping that this will deflect the demand for a JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) probe. Similarly, the government is not opposing the matter of foreign accounts of Indians being enquired into by the apex court so that it can avoid having to disclose their names to the public. The sharpness, I suspect, may have been induced by what, and I say with all respect, was the uneven sharp attack on the executive by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court (Justice Ganguly) while attending a conference of lawyers on “Gender concern in conflict zone”. He said, “It was shocking to see how the government allows and appreciates such ministers. Not only that, and also gives them a Cabinet post. It is not a dignified act. I would call it a shameless act.”The background reportedly seems to have been that in December a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court (of which Justice Ganguly was a member) had strongly castigated the action of the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr Deshmukh (now a minister at the Centre), in having stopped the police from registering an FIR against a moneylender, a relation of a Congress legislator. This action of Mr Deshmukh was certainly condemnable, and the Mumbai High Court had called it gross interference by the executive in shielding a private moneylender belonging to the ruling party. The Supreme Court had justifiably in its judgment rebuked Mr Deshmukh, saying that the Chief Minister should not have interfered with the criminal justice system, and this act was unconstitutional. The court imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh on the state government. I fully appreciate the action of the Bench (though it would have been more appropriate if the fine was imposed on Mr Deshmukh personally rather than on the state because it was the individual unconstitutional action of the Chief Minister — the state is a different personality). The above action of the Bench had been widely appreciated. But these strong and rather unprecedented observations from a sitting judge gave it a different contour and context, more so when the judge was speaking at a seminar on a subject which had nothing to do with the impropriety of the politicians. It was on a sober and important topic of gender justice. This was, and I say with respect, because many a time a sitting judge, even if he is rightfully indignant during the hearing, has been advised by elders to keep his cool. There is no denying that in the court many occasions arise when a normal person would lose his cool and feel like shouting, but the hoary wisdom of great judges is always to try and put a restraining hand on oneself. I remember an incident at the Lahore High Court where a rather short-tempered judge would go on interrupting the arguments of a senior mild-mannered lawyer by saying, “rubbish”. So, the senior counsel at the end kept his brief aside and very innocently addressed the judge, politely saying, “I hope your lordship is well because nothing but rubbish is coming out of your lordship’s mouth”. The message was conveyed strongly, though put in an apologetic manner. Even outside the court, the sitting judges are expected to keep the same restraint on their language – may be, unknowingly the Lachhman Rekha was crossed in this instance. Loard Atkin had long ago given a friendly warning, “Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct.” Also, the judiciary could, with some embarrassment, be reminded of its own conduct that the judges against whom allegations of corruption are being enquired into are still being allowed to sit in courts. But that is no reason why the great instrument of judicial review should be downgraded. Judicial review is inherent in a written constitution. Wherever there is a written constitution the supreme law is the law of the Constitution, and for even Parliament to accept that its powers are limited by the written Constitution is not in any manner to derogate from its sovereignty but only to accept that its sovereignty, like the sovereignty of the executive and the judiciary, is limited by the written Constitution. Politicians seem to think that the courts ought to give to all decisions of Parliament their seal of approval automatically. But that would mean being untrue to the oath taken by the judge, who can only uphold the lawful decisions, and cannot keep silent in the face of illegality. It also needs repeated reaffirmation that the mandate in the Preamble to the Constitution, “We the People”, empowers both the legislature and the judiciary equally. The transit legislature elected for a particular period cannot arrogate to assume the mandate of sovereignty of the people exclusively to itself. Humility in all three instrumentalities of the State and of recognition of their respective limited sovereignty will make it easier for the country to avoid any unnecessary
collision.
The writer is a retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi.
|
||||||
The ponytail man
Wearing a ponytail is no easy task in this part of the world. It is just not part of our culture. When I first took to this ishtyle, my wife dismissed it as “an ugly sparrow tail” announcing that she liked me in the turban more. My mother said I had to do a ‘ponytail’ one day as I was always living like an animal dirtying the house around. A female journalist in Ludhiana took a special liking to it. She would strategically sit behind me at the press conferences to take revenge from mankind. “All my life and especially in school, boys teased girls pulling their plaits or ponytails. Now , I can get back to all of them through you.” So, at press conferences, or wherever I saw her, I had to keep more attention behind than front. Beggars embarrass me the most. They take me as a rich NRI and keep calling, “Ammricaaa waale munde, kujh de ja.” At weddings especially in the villages, they are after you like anything. You can’t get rid of them by giving Rs 10 or Rs 50. They throw it back, “Ambricaa waale munde, dollar shollar de,” (American boy, we would accept dollars only). Once I was visiting a school in a suburb of Ludhiana for a news story. I had hardly stepped inside when a boy saw me from the window of his classroom on the second floor, “Look, gutt wala bhai,” (see, a man with a ponytail). His entire class and then students from other classes also perched out calling me “gutt wala bhai, gutt wala bhai.” When people say it is not our culture, I think of an incident in Jaipur, where a senior politician earned the ire of youngsters saying Malls were not part of Indian culture and holding hands while roaming around in such places was against our culture. He had to withdraw his statement when youngsters opposed it tooth and nail arguing India was a land of kamasutra and Khajuraho temples also. Now, holding hands has different meanings in different countries. A Canadian journalist visiting Punjab shared her dilemma with this writer. “Is being gay cool in India,” she asked. “No, why?” I asked. “I see men hugging each other on the streets and talking holding hands. Girls also hold each other’s hands and hug. Back in Canada, only gays do this.” I explained to her the Punjabi culture of men hugging each other and just holding hands, at times, playfully checking and exhibiting their strength, so typical of college youths.” She was surprised “Strange, girls and boys meant to hold each other’s hands walk at a distance while they playfully hold hands of their own gender.” When I explained, exhibiting love openly is not Indian culture and covering oneself completely in public was considered good morals, her male colleague left me speechless with another query. “I don’t understand what the real Indian culture is. There are decently dressed girls on the street but all girls on posters of films and advertisements are naked or scantily dressed. Which is real India and which is real culture?”
|
||||||
How much of the law should govern personal life? A few years later, in 1889, an eleven year old girl from Bengal, Phulmonee, died because her 35 year old husband, Hari Mohan Maitee, insisted on enforcing his 'right' to have sex on her. These two incidents are believed to have been the precursors of legislative change, leading to the Age of Consent Act of 1890, which raised the age of consent from 10 to 12 years. At the time, the debate was couched very much within the frame of marriage, and 'consent' basically related to consummation rather than to consensual sex outside of marriage - something that no doubt existed, but was not taken into account in the legislation of the time.
Can people really mature faster within one set of administrative borders and not in another? What is the logic of having a different age of consent in
Manipur, for example? Or what is the logic of making the age of consent different from the age of majority?
Today, things are very different. Consensual sex outside marriage - and indeed within marriage - is everywhere known to be a fact of life. But the legislation governing it is mired in confusion and tied up in knots. Men and women in India attain majority at the age of 18 - that is when they are eligible to vote, learn to drive, and so on. But the age of consent, or the age at which they can have consensual sex is 16, with some exceptions such as in the state of Manipur where it is 14. As if this were not bad enough, some years ago (in 2004) a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court suggested that the age of consent be raised from 16 to 18 in Kerala, to bring it in line with, as the judge then said, a legal system ' in which an age of 18 is used for other purposes - like the Indian Majority Act, the Contract Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, the Child Marriage Restraint Act and the Representation of People Act.' And to further confound the confusion, we now have a new ruling from the Delhi High Court - the same court that gave us the landmark verdict on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code - that fixes different ages of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, and different ages for different kinds of sex (vaginal/penile/oral/anal). Clearly the law can sometimes provide a great deal of entertainment and ever since the Delhi High Court verdict, the media has been full of calculations and speculations about who can have what kind of consensual sex at what age. This doesn't, however, take away from the questions that underlie these changes. There's little doubt the situation today is different from what it was in Rakhmabai's time. Young men and women grow up and mature faster, life has changed, sexual freedom and activity outside of marriage are more widespread, and alternative sexualities are being recognized. Legislation then, has to keep pace. But can people really mature faster within one set of administrative borders and not in another? What is the logic of having a different age of consent in Manipur, for example? Or what is the logic of making the age of consent different from, say, the age of majority? Why, further, should people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, be 'allowed' to have certain kinds of sex at one age, and not at another. Does anything change from the night you are still 17 to the day you become 18? And more, will people actually follow the rule of the law in their personal interactions? Or, put another way, how far can the law go into dealing with personal lives? There are no easy answers to these questions and the High Court has asserted that this is for parliament to decide, and to remove the confusion. Whether or not the confusion will be removed is difficult to say, but what is certain is that given the proliferation of child trafficking and paedophilia, the issues of what is consensual and when can consent freely be given, will only become more complex.
The author is director of Zubaan Books, an imprint of Kali For Women, the first feminist publication in India. She is a writer, publisher, historian and feminist.
|
|
The cycle of woman's evolution and retreat" WE do not know at what age Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. What we do know is, that, after tasting the fruit Adam blamed Eve for succumbing to the snake's trickery. In John Milton's Paradise Lost, he called her a snake. Since then women have to bear the brunt of sexuality for both the genders. Before the society acquired the 'civilised' status, women enjoyed far greater freedom and autonomy. For, they were revered as mysterious beings with magical powers who could produce children out of nowhere. The all-women clans of pre-Paleolithic era excluded men. Not only this, men were required not to kill any woman, and often not even female animals. Women cohabited men as and when required, and male children were sent off to join men once they came close to ten years of age. Ever since man understood the reason behind these magical powers of woman - himself- he brought her down from the pedestal. Since then sexual rights of a woman have been politicised- controlled under different pretexts by family, clan, society, religion and now the governments. In her controversial book Woman's Evolution ( Which was banned in all the Arab countries for obvious reasons) Evelyn Reed, US based communist anthropologist unraveled layers of deep rooted need in all societies to control woman's sexuality and gradually move from matriarchy to patriarchal system. As patriarchy prevailed, women lost right over their fertility, which became a subject of ownership for man, clan and at times a nation and its pride. Numerous fertility rituals, traditions and ceremonies across societies are echoes of that forgotten past, which the human societies like to wear as tattoos on their civilized-status. Woman added to the prosperity of a clan by adding more hands to till in the agrarian society- which lent justification to family's control over her fertility. The rapid industrialisation of the twentieth century and unprecedented developments in medicine and contraceptives freed woman from the burden of carrying children, returning the lost paradise to her. Having control over her fertility, the emancipated woman has been reasserting her larger role, tilting the balance in her favour. Despite all these developments, the politics over her fertility does not seem to end. Age of consent has a direct relation to a woman's age of fertility. In the twenty first century, as life is redefined completely with advancements and sophistication in choices of contraceptives, it is but absurd to debate what should be the age of consent for the young, which goes without saying centres around the woman. When ads of emergency contraceptive speak to the vulnerable girl every hour of the day, so much of debate over the issue leaves one confused. The draft Bill on sexual offences against children fixes the age of consensual sex at 16, and of non- penetrative sex at 12, which raises certain questions on the wisdom behind such conclusive decisions.
To begin with, The Ministry of Women and Child Welfare clarified that the need to bring this bill was realized to protect children from different kinds of sexual exploitation. But, it does not clarify what brought the wisdom to ascertain the age of consent at 16, and not 14 or 15 or 12 , as is the case in many other societies. Did the ministry engage sociologists, psychologists, and hormone experts to come to the age of 16 ( see box) , or the decision was based on a survey conducted to ascertain at what age adolescents can be considered mature enough to give consent for sexual act. What was the nature of sample, which age group, from which geographical area, rural or urban, rich-poor? There is no information on these accounts. Consensual sex is not a matter of biological maturing alone, several factors are at play to prepare an adolescent for sexual maturity. A girl working as labourer at 14, fending for herself, would have a different level of maturity from a girl pampered and protected in a public school life. Their responses vary in all other respects, including sexual maturity. Setting of early menarche in urban girls has also affected sexual maturity of adolescents, which needs to be taken into consideration. For over hundred years, Canada had age of consent fixed at 14. Two years back, the laws were changed under the assumption that younger adolescents at 14 were less capable of making healthy choices about sexuality than older adolescents at 16. These policies create hardship for those who are accountable for enforcement. Perhaps what is required is to educate the young about the right they have over their body and give more emphasis to sex education in schools rather than once again prepare a black and white draft for a very grey area.
|
|
Corrections and clarifications
Despite our earnest endeavour to keep The Tribune error-free, some errors do creep in at times. We are always eager to correct them. This column appears twice a week — every Tuesday and Friday. We request our readers to write or e-mail to us whenever they find any error. Readers in such cases can write to Mr Kamlendra Kanwar, Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh, with the word “Corrections” on the envelope. His e-mail ID is kanwar@tribunemail.com. Raj Chengappa,
|
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
