|
|
A
Tribune Special Exit
polls: Only after the last phase of polling |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Collegium
for status quo Profile On Record
|
|
Exit polls: Only after the last phase of polling
There
was a huge uproar recently against conducting opinion polls before polling after a news channel showed landslide victory for the Nitish Kumar-led NDA government in Bihar. Even the Election Commission is in favour of banning such an exercise. In fact, the Commission, in a letter to the Law Ministry, asked that an ordinance be issued urgently to amend the existing law on opinion polls so that it is banned. It is of the opinion that such polls tend to cause prejudicial effect on the voters’ minds. In 2009, Parliament amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by inserting section 126 (b) for legally sanctioning a ban on exit polls during the poll process so that their results cannot be published or telecast till the last vote is cast. The opinion poll was left out then, but the Union Cabinet had also decided to ban it. The move to accord legal sanction followed a failed attempt by the Election Commission in 1999 to impose such a ban on the exit poll which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that it attracted the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It made a terse comment that support for it by political parties does not lend any legal sanction to it and added that the Election Commission had no power to enforce such a ban and could do nothing if its ban order was not complied. However, the amendment to the RP Act, 1951, has not been challenged so far. There is unanimity among political parties that opinion polls should be banned right from the date of the election notification. The 1999 Lok Sabha elections had ignited an intense debate on the science of psephology as never before. The debate veered round two issues: credibility of these polls, and propriety of allowing them during the electoral process. The two issues are independent, but unfortunately they were mixed together. Conducting opinion polls is neither a new phenomenon nor a questionable exercise; even Roman emperors did it to ascertain people’s views. But in a democracy it becomes suspect when it is done at the time of elections. The new phenomenon of ‘paid news’ has made the exercise more suspect. In the modern era, its history goes back to 1824 when two newspapers in the US, The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian and The Raleigh Star, organised ‘Show Votes’ to assess the political inclination of the electorate in the presidential election which was to be held that year. Later, magazines also started conducting such polls. The Farm Journal (1912) and The Literary Digest (1916) were the first to do it. These polls were not meant to elicit public opinion on political issues but to gauge political preferences of pollsters. No claim was made for the method used to be scientific. Hired canvassers were sent to people or newspapers published ‘straw ballots’ and asked their readers to fill them out and mail in. In mid-1930s, a more accurate and scientific method called ‘sampling’ was developed. In it, a small percentage of people of a group are questioned and their responses are analysed to determine the whole group. That this method was decidedly superior to the old straw ballot system was demonstrated copiously in the 1936 US presidential election when The Literary Digest predicted a landslide victory for Republican candidate Alf Landon over Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt. The forecast proved to be wrong and preposterous, while the poll conducted by George Gallup using the new technique made accurate prediction that Roosevelt would win hands down. Public opinion polling as a journalistic exercise has its genesis in a syndicated newspaper column, introduced by George Gallup and Claude Robinson, describing the findings of sample surveys of American public opinion on various issues. All this became so popular that the UK and France also followed suit, and predictions made in the elections when it was used for the first time in Britain in 1937 and in France in 1938 were nearly accurate. Soon it spread to other democracies in the whole world. In India, the Indian Institute of Public Opinion, headed by Eric da Costa, hailed as the pioneer of public opinion polling in India, conducted such a national poll for the first time before the 1957 general elections. Since then, it has been going on, and several new organisations have also started this exercise. The question is how far does it influence voters, and whether is it legally permissible to ban it? The Election Commission banned the exit poll without examining the legal position and got rebuke from the Supreme Court. The right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution can be curtailed only on specific grounds mentioned in Article 19 (2), and this apprehension of influencing voters is not one of those grounds. The Supreme Court has ruled in Bennet Coleman that there cannot be any other ground for curbing this freedom. However, in Union v. Motion Pictures Association, it rejected the prayer of cinema hall owners that the order to compulsorily screen scientific and educational documentaries by cinema halls curtailed their right to freedom of expression as it is in the national interest. Moreover, the Supreme Court has not struck down any legislation for violating the basic structure. Free and fair elections are vital for a democracy and in a multi-phase election, results of such opinion polls may cause fresh polarisation of votes. Thus, a new legislation is needed to restrain the concerned agencies conducting such polls from declaring the results till the last phase of polling is over as in most developed democracies. However, one cannot overlook the fact that exit polls also help the democratic exercise. Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked with both Republicans and Democrats in the US, asserts that such surveys are “so reliable that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in the third world countries”. In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down. And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Victor Yushchenko the presidency. The Election Commission should also evolve methodologies for holding elections in a shorter span, not staggered in several phases over a long period of
time. The writer is a senior television journalist based in New Delhi
|
Collegium for status quo
According
to reports, the Supreme Court Collegium, at a meeting in New Delhi on October 28, 2010, has decided to put on hold its decision to review the two-decades-old transfer policy that the Chief Justice of a High Court must be from outside the state. Is it not appropriate to have a Chief Justice from outside? The debate has been initiated. The peers have voted. I beg to differ. I feel that a Chief Justice from outside the state is good for the court. He inspires greater confidence. The system gains. The supporters of the motion say that the outsider does not know the local Bar. He is not familiar with the local ethos, laws and officers. He does not even know his colleagues. Nor the members of the district judiciary. His tenure is usually short. Thus, a Chief Justice from outside is unable to provide an effective leadership or leave any imprint on the court. Is it really so? I think, not. If the peers are right, no Judge from a court outside the capital should be elevated to the Supreme Court because he shall not be familiar with the members of the Bar in Delhi. Equally, no one has ever suggested that since a Judge in the High Court has not dealt with the different provisions of law being followed in various states of the country, he will not be able to decide matters in the apex court. Why are we adopting a different yardstick in the matter of appointment of the Chief Justice of a High Court? Undoubtedly, a person who sits in judgment over another human being has to be made of sterner stuff. Absolute ability and impeccable integrity are essential. And I have no doubt that the judges as a class are men of distinction. They inspire confidence in the minds of people. The growing number of cases in courts bears testimony to this fact. Yet, human imagination knows no limits. It is infinite. And it is all the more so in case of a man in court. The fears in the mind of such a litigant, howsoever unfounded, need to be allayed. And human beings are bound to have frailties. All of us have certain inherent weaknesses. Our own likes and dislikes. Resultantly, a recalcitrant litigant may entertain doubts about the impartiality of the Judge. It may be that the suspicions are mostly unfounded. But as a result of even a wrong perception, the system suffers. With an outsider at the helm, the situation is different. The goddess of justice is blind. In a court, what matters is the cause and not the counsel. What matters is the case. Not the face. The fact that a person from outside is not familiar with anyone augurs well for the institution. It brings a perception of greater objectivity. It is assumed that an outsider has no favourites. Conse-quently, there is no suspicion of favouritism. Small things provide a surer foundation for faith in the system. A greater guarantee of justice. And as for the knowledge of local laws, we are broadly governed by uniform codes of procedural laws. The states are undoubtedly different. Even the language and dialect differ. But the laws are almost identical. Authoritative pronouncements of the apex court on almost every issue are available. It requires no great acumen to pick up the minor difference in the provisions being followed in any state or court. Actually, the library shelves in all the High Courts are packed with reports of the decisions delivered by the Supreme Court and the different High Courts. These are referred to regularly. By the time of elevation as a Chief Justice, the Judge would usually have a nodding familiarity with the views of different courts on almost all the important issues. The peers lament that there is a "cult of sycophancy"; "caste, religious and regional factors have, unfortunately, been known to play their role even in the administration of justice"; or that the "collegium system" is "no more than a division of spoils implying that the way it works is 'you take my man, I take yours' rather than selecting the most deserving." I think, it is not so. The mere fact that six distinguished Judges feel that way, makes a sad commentary on the system. Hopefully, it is not suggested that only sycophants are chosen. Actually, most of the Judges today are a product of the 'collegium system.' I have serious reservations about the suggestion that a "Chief Justice with a year's tenure or little more in a High Court cannot possibly form his own independent and informed opinion in the matter of selection from amongst the members of the Bar" or that "the Chief Justice has perforce to rely upon and follow the advice of some of his colleagues" I venture to say that for the one with eyes and ears open, even six months can be sufficient. The Chief Justice is expected to be a good Judge of men and matters. He has to be quick and decisive. Of course, things would be different if, as Fali S. Nariman says, he is "expectantly waiting-in-the-wings to be pulled up!" Otherwise, you do not need years to spot and pick up talent. And there is nothing wrong with even consulting the colleagues in the court. I feel that the able have nothing to fear. They would like to prove their mettle anywhere. The weak alone can be afraid of exposure. Transfer as Chief Justice is like a travelling tourist. If you go to a better place, you think of improving your own. If not, you give new ideas and improve the court. Movement is a good remedy. It will save the system from
stagnation. The writer, a former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, was also Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court. For the debate on the subject, see
www.tribuneindia.com
|
|
Profile
The
Infosys Award carries the highest cash prize for scientific research in India — Rs 50 lakh for each of the winners. The award is an annual feature that recognises outstanding contributions by scientists, researchers, engineers and social scientists in India. By recognising and rewarding extraordinary accomplishments, the award aims to elevate the prestige of pure and applied sciences research in India. The award hopes to fill a gap to inspire young Indians and to help scientists continue their good work. Research in pure and applied sciences in India, despite stellar achievements in recent times, has not been given the encouragement, support and recognition it deserves. The six winners will be felicitated in January by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at a function in Mumbai. Besides cash, the award includes a gold medal. First in the list of this year's winners is mathematician Chandrashekhar Khare. He will be honoured for his fundamental contribution to Number theory, particularly his solution to the "Serre conjecture". It is about the analysis of symmetries as the ones coming from elliptic curves, rather than circles. Number theory is one of the central areas of mathematics that often establishes connections between analysis, algebra and geometry. Historically, connections can be traced back to the work of the great Indian mathematician Srinivas Ramanujam, who discovered completely new number and whose ideas eventually led to the modern revolution in Number theory. The Serre conjecture, formulated by Jean-Pierre Seree, one of the greatest living mathematicians and winner of the Abdel Prize, postulates one such connection between modular forms and representations of Galots group. The conjecture is strong enough to imply, among other things, Fermat's last theorem, a problem that had remained unresolved for more than 300 years until it was solved by Andrews Wiles a few years back. Partly in collaboration with Wintenberger, a French mathematician, Prof Khare settled the Serre conjecture in the affirmative. His work is a major breakthrough in the field with many spectacular consequences and many new ideas introduced in it are expected to determine the field for years to come. Born in 1967, Prof Khare grew up in Mumbai. After completing his early education in India, he went to the University of Cambridge for undergraduate studies which he completed in 1989. Khare's graduate work was done in the California Institute of Technology where he worked on Number theory. After obtaining Ph.D from Caltech in 1995, he returned to India to work at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. In 2005, he moved to the United States, first to the University of Utah and then to the University of California at Los Angeles where he is now a professor of Mathematics. He received the Fermat Prize in 2007 and a Guggenheim fellowship in 2008. He was an invited speaker at the International Congress of Mathematicians held in Hyderabad in August 2010. Forty-two-year-old Prof Khare is bright, having a razor sharp mind. He is as if a computer fitted in his brain, say his colleagues. In 1999, he was named the young scientist of the year by the Indian Science Academy. A resident of Mumbai, he completed his undergraduate education from Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge University. He finished his thesis in 1995 under the supervision of Haruzo Hida at California Institute of Technology. His Ph.D thesis was published in the prestigious Duke Mathematical Journal. He had jointly worked with prominent mathematicians, C. S. Rajan and Dipendra Prasad. He started his career as a Fellow at Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research.
|
|
On Record
He
sits dressed in a traditional salwar kurta and quotes Hazrat Ali (Prophet Mohammad's esteemed assistant) at the drop of a hat. While he talks in his mellow, husky voice, singers Hans Raj Hans and Jasbir Jassi, who are there to pay him a visit, listen and nod their heads in agreement from time to time and touch their ears whenever a guru or teacher is talked about. Ghulam Ali has to be the most popular meeting point ever for the soul of classical singing and the nazakat of the ghazal. He is the master of the art of gifting the ghazal the many finer nuances of classical singing, while still retaining its own independent identity. Of course, with the murkis and intricate vocal patterns of the Patiala Gharana (he was tutored by Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan Sahab and also got his name from him) thrown in, Ghulam Ali's voice became that ultimate masterpiece which is revered and is presently a rarity the world over. The Tribune chats up with him on the sidelines of the Kapurthala Heritage Festival. Excerpts: Q: You started training in classical music and then moved on to singing ghazals. To what extent has classical training helped you as a ghazal singer? A: Classical singing is the root. Whatever I sing is owing to my classical training. My feeling comes from it. I have even used Western classical music, but the colour I gave it was my own. Q: There's a lack of ruhdari in the way people sing these days. Do you agree? A: Singing is God's gift. How you treat it depends on your understanding. If you take a yellow dupatta and line or dot it with a bit of golden here and there, you make it look elegant. If you fill it with lots of green and black and multi-coloured beads, you kill its basic beauty. It's the same with music. Those who chose the latter option, miss the basic point in music. Ruhdari is all about that. There are many who run after pop music these days. But that one is just about easy beats. It makes you jump. Everything about it is physical. It doesn't touch you mentally. Q: There's a difference in the way music was perceived earlier. There are no more candlelit mehfils or people who are crazy about poets. Does that make you sad? A: To recreate the old magic, people have to take out time, listen and learn. Ghalib, Mir, Saudai, Sahir Ludhianvi are all big people. Shiv Kumar Batalvi is the Ghalib of Punjab. People are, certainly, cut off with literature. But rather than being sad, I am content with the fact that I'm doing my bit. What makes me sad is my own follies. If I listen to something I sung in the past and realise I could have sung it better or more accurately, that makes me sad. Q: What role do music and musicians play in the Indo-Pak peace initiative? A: Music and musicians bring people together. Politicians make their own moves. But music binds. A guy in Mumbai and another in Iran love me equally. The only connecting link between them is the music they listen to. Q: Do you feel loved in India? A: Oh immensely. Q: Any special incident that touched you? A: During a visit here, a Delhi friend of mine brought his kids and emotionally declared, "Bhai Sahab should be around when I die." I said "I'm right here. Go ahead," (laughs). India is all about meethe log aur meethapan. Q: When we look around, there is no one who carries forward your style of singing the ghazal. Does the lack of an heir in the ghazal bother you? A: The world is full of people who listen to me. Lene wala kala ko le hi leta hai. I just tell people to stay true to art and singing. Rest depends on them. Q: As for contemporary scenario in music, what is the need of the hour? A: Propagation of music and academies. We have got the raw material. The right kind of propagation and training is needed for the right kind of music to survive. Also, this generation needs to stay connected to literature and truth. Music is incomplete without both of these. Hazrat Ali used to say, Ye mat socho baat kaun karta hai, ye socho baat kya karta hai. Q: How did you meet them (Hans and Jassi)? A: Ask him. (He points to Hans Raj Hans). Hans says, "I undertook a long journey, in 1986, to watch him perform in London at the White Chapel Road. Have been charmed ever since." Q: Did you ever perform together? A: "I don't sing in front of him," Hans
quips.
|
||
|
|
| 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 | |
A
