|
|
Coping with climate change
No college for them |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Primetime tamasha
N-agenda after Obama visit
A blouse for Indira Gandhi
Women have to continually live with the threat of sexual harassment. Rajesh Gill deliberates whether the passing of the Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill will make working women breathe easy Working, but not recognised
|
Coping with climate change
For most people climate change fails to ring a bell. Doubters become bolder when even claims of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (headed by Rajendra K. Pachauri) concerning the Himalayan glaciers are challenged in newspapers like The Sunday Telegraph of London. To broadbase climate research the Indian Network for Climate Change (INCC) Assessment has brought together some 250 scientists from 125 institutions to gather evidence of climate change impact in India. Their latest report, released on Tuesday, projects a temperature rise of 1.7-2 degrees Celsius in India by 2030. The INCC study is confined to the Himalayan region, the North-East, the Western Ghats and the coastal areas. The micro view is being taken as India is a vast country and the impact of climate change varies from place to place. The finding that apple production in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir is expected to fall by 2030 and beyond should ring the alarm bells and prompt the authorities to prepare for the change. Besides, people in the hill states will increasingly become prone to diseases like malaria which are common in the plains. Then, there will be a marginal rise in rice production in the coastal areas of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. The INCC must hasten research into climate change impact on agriculture and water in Punjab, Haryana and UP to meet growing threats to food security. Two other studies — one commissioned by Greenpeace titled “Blue Alert: Climate Migrants in South Asia” and the other by the UN called “In Search of Shelter” have warned that climate impact on subsistence herding, farming and fishing will force millions of people to flee areas faced with rising seas, floods and drought with the increased melting of the Himalayan glaciers in 40 years. The climate-induced effects need not cause panic but do warrant long-term planning and action to meet the challenge. |
|
No college for them
It is a matter of deep concern that most Indian youth discontinue education after the age of 15. The debilitating result is that out of the 333 million literate youth population, only 10 per cent are graduates while a whopping 76 per cent are matriculates or below. Considering that a matriculation certificate does not guarantee one even a peon’s job, most of these youth are condemned to engage in low-paid menial jobs. It is necessary to analyse the reasons behind this sorry state of affairs and apply correctives. Some drop out after school because they are just not good enough in studies to be able to get the high marks required to get admission in a college. But in most cases the reason for dropout is sheer poverty due to which even a 16 year old has to think of earning the daily bread for the family instead of “wasting” time on an “unproductive” pursuit like education. This mindset must be changed fast. The 2009 National Youth Readership Survey reveals even sadder statistics about women. Whereas 56 per cent youth males are literate, the percentage is as low as 44 per cent in the case of women. A son and a daughter are on an equal footing in the eyes of the law of the land, but as far as society is concerned, it would rather have the girls stay at home and do daily chores. The cutting edge of India ’s growth will be blunted if the malady is not remedied. One silver lining is that OBCs have been doing well in studies. They make up 40 per cent – the maximum – of the literate youth. However, the quest for knowledge has not reached the Scheduled Castes (23 per cent) and the Scheduled Tribes (10 per cent) adequately. For all-round progress of the country, it is necessary to take every section along and make it grow to its maximum potential. Education is the key which can open many locks. It should be available to each and every youth of the country. |
|
|
Primetime tamasha
Television audiences will continue to see the popular reality show ‘Bigg Boss’ at prime time, in spite of the efforts of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry which wanted the slot of the programme changed to a later hour. The Bombay High Court, acting on a petition filed by the affected channel, Colors TV, has issued a stay order on the I&B Ministry’s directive till Monday. The I&B Ministry had also asked Imagine TV to change the broadcast timing of the show ‘Rakhi Ka Insaaf’. The charge against both shows is of broadcasting ‘objectionable’ content and the ministry said it had received many complaints against the shows. This is the first time that the I&B Ministry has ordered a schedule change. Earlier, it had confined itself to suspending the telecast of offending channels like Fashion TV and AXN for a specific time. Television has often been a battleground between censorship and free speech, and the I&B Ministry derives its authority from the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. It has been active in issuing notices and advisories for the alleged violation of the programme code, although its latest action has been seen as a knee-jerk response. To assuage the fear of the government playing the “big brother” and imposing censorship, the I&B Ministry should enforce its guidelines in a transparent and fair manner. On the other hand, the TV industry too, should self-regulate, and avoid airing content that caters to baser instincts of audiences. Many who watch TV do find such programmes offensive. Yes, they do have the option to switch them off, but that is not the only answer. The industry at large and programming executives should keep in mind that society at large has certain levels of tolerance, and would do well not to promote vulgarity and obscenity, lest they attract action. Those who handle a powerful medium like television should do so with a sense of responsibility. |
|
|
The only thing a heated argument ever produced is coolness. — American proverb |
N-agenda after Obama visit
India and the United States have travelled a zigzag route in their nuclear relationship. The Clinton administration pursued non-proliferation as its primary agenda with great zeal. It singled out India for being inveigled into its policy to “cap, then over time, reduce and finally eliminate” nuclear weapons and their means of delivery in South Asia. That policy became irrelevant after India, shortly thereafter followed by Pakistan, conducted its nuclear tests in 1998. India was then subjected to the full panoply of sanctions, which denied it access to high technology from the US in the nuclear, space and defence sectors. India’s related organizations were also placed on an “Entities List”, and prohibited from receiving allied goods and services. Indeed, employees in India’s blacklisted organizations could not attend even academic meetings in the US. The efflux of time, however, saw the rigours of these sanctions and their ambit being slowly eroded, especially during the Bush administration. The cornerstone of its pro-India policy, much to the distress of the non-proliferation lobby in Washington DC, was the Indo-US nuclear deal. President Bush pushed it through a skeptical US Congress and then an equally unconvinced 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group in Vienna. Though signed in 2008, the nuclear deal has yet to be consummated for various legal complications that are being sorted out. It is against this backdrop that the high profile Obama visit and the joint Indo-US statement issued thereafter needs to be evaluated. So, what was their nuclear agenda? It is recognizable in two parts — policy declarations or statements of intent made and the more substantive agreements reached. At the declaratory level both countries pledged to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament ideals. More specifically, they identified the need to establish a meaningful dialogue among the nuclear weapon states, reduce the salience of ultimate weapons in national security doctrines, and strengthen the existing norm regarding their non-use. How these unexceptional objectives would be achieved was not mentioned. How, for instance, can the salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines be reduced? A commitment to strengthen the norm against the use of nuclear weapons is too airy a precept. Incidentally, only India and China have proclaimed their adherence to a no-first-use of nuclear weapons doctrine, but all the other powers, including the US, find themselves unable to make this commitment. Consequently, an air of unreality permeates these declarations. Proceeding ahead, the joint statement highlights the danger of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons or materials; hence they the need for cooperation to secure these materials. Steps taken in this direction, however, should not prejudice access to nuclear energy to meet the ends of energy security. But this is the current dilemma excoriating the international system; a reiteration of this dilemma without discussing how it should be addressed is wholly egregious. There are several other statements of this genre. Both countries have pledged to ban the production of weapon-grade nuclear materials, but the elusive Fissile Materials Control Treaty (FMCT) designed for this purpose has been under discussion for years in Geneva. Further, India reiterated that it will continue its moratorium on nuclear testing, and the US has affirmed that it will ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that has been languishing in the US Senate since 1996. A two-thirds majority in the US Senate is required to ratify the CTBT. But after the recent American elections, the Democrats have a wafer thin (51 to 49) majority in the Senate, highlighting the impossibility of President Obama pushing through this measure. At this stage there is no reason for India to take a call on either the FMCT or the CTBT. Coming to the substantive agreements reached, the two countries have decided “to realise the full potential of their strategic relationship” by addressing the knotty issue of high technology transfers. The US has agreed to remove all Indian organisations, except the Atomic Energy Commission, from its infamous “Entities List”, which shall make it possible for them to access items needed for its high technology-related programmes. In furtherance of this modality, the US has also decided to support India’s membership of four major export control regimes — the NSG, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. The NSG and the MTCR are concerned with regulating the transfer of nuclear and missile technology. The Australia Group regulates the trade in biological and chemical agents and their precursors, while the Wassenaar Arrangement deals with exports of conventional weapons technology. Membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an essential criterion for entry into the NSG and the MTCR. Since India has not joined the NPT and has no intention of doing so, the US will have to do heavy lifting as it did when the Indo-US nuclear deal was brought before the NSG. The critical difference is that President Bush in 2008 was much more powerful than President Obama is at present. On the last occasion President Bush was able to steamroller his way over the opposition of several NSG members, including China. Will President Obama be able to do the same? Especially when he is simultaneously opposing China’s move to offer a nuclear deal to Pakistan. Apropos of this, the NPT membership is not a criterion for joining the other two export control regimes — the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. But India would need to harmonise the items listed in its present export control laws with that identified by these two regimes, which can be negotiated. India needs to make a concerted diplomatic effort now to enter these export control regimes. It has managed to get a foot into the door after years of being treated as a pariah by the international nuclear regime. That opening should not be squandered away by either neglect or
insouciance. The writer is associated with the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. |
|||
A blouse for Indira Gandhi
MY first meeting with Indira Gandhi happened sometime in later part of 1950s when the Gandhi boys, Sanjay and Rajiv, were in the Doon School and their mother was a frequent visitor to Dehra Dun to see them. Sometime she came alone, while on other occasions she accompanied her father, Prime Minister Nehru. Indira Gandhi was my sister Neel Kamal’s idol; she admired Mrs. Gandhi’s dress sense and the elegant way she draped her saree. “You are a journalist and could easily meet Indira Gandhi,” my sister insisted that I took her to see Mrs Gandhi. I had met Pt Nehru earlier on a couple of occasions but somehow didn’t have the chance to meet Mrs Gandhi. The opportunity came a week later on 19th November when both Nehru and Indira Gandhi were visiting Dehra Dun and were staying as usual in the Circuit House. My sister was quite excited and eagerly looked forward to meeting Mrs Gandhi. Unknown to me, she had knitted a blouse for Mrs Gandhi as a birthday gift. As a total stranger, I was somewhat hesitant in making this present to her but my sister reassured me that it was ok. “People do give presents on birthdays,” she argued. My sister and I arrived at the Circuit House around 10 a.m. Those were the balmy days when the dreaded word, “security”, had not made its entry in the political jargon. If you wanted to meet a VVIP, you just went and met him or her. Circuit House animate fixture Ram Prasad accosted me in the verandah. “Aap Panditji se milna chahate ho,” he asked. “No, mein or meri behan Indiraji ko happy birthday karne aayen hain,” was my answer. Indira Gandhi had not yet come out from her room, and no one had the permission or courage to disturb her. Ram Prasad seated us in easy cane chairs and asked us to wait for Indiraji to come out. Presently, Mrs Gandhi appeared and noticed us; my sister and I stood up and went towards her. I introduced myself and my sister, and then we both said in unison “happy birthday, Indiraji”. Mrs Gandhi was not a wee bit surprised; she smiled and said, “thank you”. Then like a conjuror my sister took out a small packet from her big hand bag, and opened it with a flourish. Out came a beige woollen blouse, and my sister mustered courage to say that this was a birthday present that she had specially knitted for her. Mrs Gandhi was somewhat surprised and perplexed. Before she could refuse, I interjected to say that my sister was very good at knitting and could knit blindfolded. Mrs Gandhi smiled and graciously accepted my sister’s humble gift and profusely thanked her. Ram Prasad appeared from nowhere with a tray carrying coffee. We sipped the beverage and chatted for a while before we took her
leave. |
|||
Women have to continually live with the threat of sexual harassment. Rajesh Gill deliberates whether the passing of the Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill will make working women breathe easy
Therefore the most significant feature of the proposed Bill is that it has a comprehensive coverage, which is likely to benefit all women who are in employment. Further, it is not only the women employees who can seek justice under the provision but even other women at a workplace, like students or service recipients would also benefit in case of sexual harassment at workplace. Whether in villages, towns or cities, men in a patriarchal set up that we have always had, are not used to having women around, especially surpassing them in efficiency as colleagues or using their authority at superior positions. There have been numerous cases since the implementation of 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act in which women sarpanches and members of Panchayats, especially when they were assertive and non obliging to male members, have been "taught a lesson" by the men around by humiliating them in full public view. After the Vishakha case, it was made mandatory for all public sector organisations, including universities, to have actively functional bodies known as Gender Sensitisation Committees against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH). But in reality, these have hardly been functional in most of the cases. If the proposed Bill comes into force as an Act, this provision shall certainly get teeth. But there is no need to over-estimate the Act. Like most of other provisions, such as Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Protection of Women against Domestic Violence etc., this provision too shall be liable to misuse. In fact, this Act has already evoked a mixed response with a strong apprehension among men that women are going to misuse the provision against men in order to meet their vested interests. Instead of brushing such fears under the carpet, there is need to counter them, debate them and build public opinion so that the objectives for which this Act is being formulated, can be met. These apprehensions can be effectively handled provided the "Internal Complaints Committees" the Bill talks about, are methodically and judiciously formulated. As per the proposed Bill, these committees shall have to discern the malicious complaints, and identify the genuine ones. Persons of high integrity and calibre need to be engaged for the job so that justice is not denied but delivered. The most crucial aspect of the acts of sexual harassment at workplace (as elsewhere) relates to the fact that such an act is always committed in complete privacy, generally when the relationship between the person committing it and the victim is either fiduciary or that of super ordination. In such cases usually there is no witness and it is extremely difficult to produce direct evidence by the victim. Consequently, while the victim, for want of witnesses and evidence, generally chooses to remain silent (not complain) for the fear of getting stigmatised, the person committing the act gets encouraged. But it is important that the proposed Bill has taken up a comprehensive definition of "sexual harassment" from Vishakha case, encompassing sexually coloured remarks, sexual advances and gestures etc., apart from actual physical acts, thus coming to the rescue of thousands of women who are persistently harassed at workplace not necessarily with physical acts but through sexually flavoured gestures or remarks, coming so naturally from men. Of course, in modern job environment, it is common for women to mix around with men, have live-in relationships, now legalised, and be comfortable with the advances of men. But the point is that no man has a right to force himself upon a woman who refuses to take it. Several judicial pronouncements in Indian courts have categorically ruled that even a prostitute has a right to privacy and no man has a right to force himself upon her against her consent. The proposed Bill reminds us, especially men, that it is time we mind our language, at least at the workplace, show some professionalism and look upon women at workplace as human beings. The recent cases involving complaints of sexual harassment by women officers in defence services against their male officers have generally aroused a backlash blaming the presence of women at workplace as mind polluting. It is time our men build up strong minds along with strong bodies. Let us hope that the Act giving protection to women against sexual harassment at workplace comes into force and enables women to give their best professionally, not fearing men while using elevators, or while working with them in subordination or as colleagues. But for that women, especially at the bottom of the hierarchy, shall have to be educated about the legal provisions regarding their protection. Finally, there is no need for men to fear because it is not only their women colleagues or subordinates who are going to get protection at the workplace, but more importantly their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers too. The writer is Professor and Chairperson, Department of Sociology and Department of Women's Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh.
Landmark judgment
Bhanwari Devi, a Saathin of a development programme run by the government of Rajasthan, was fighting against child and multiple marriages in villages. She tried to stop the child marriage of Ramkaran Gujjar's infant daughter, who was less than a year old. The marriage took place nevertheless, and Bhanwari earned the ire of the Gujjar family. In September 1992, five men, including Ramkaran Gujjar, gang raped Bhanwari. Unable to get justice, women groups had filled a petition in the Supreme Court of India, under the name of 'Vishakha'. The Supreme Court judgement, which came on August 13, 1997, gave the Vishakha guidelines. This case brought harassment at the workplace into the public glare. It recognised sexual harassment at workplace under Indian jurisprudence for the first time. The order also set guidelines for the prevention
and redressal of this malaise. Recently the Union Cabinet gave the nod to the Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill 2010 for introduction in Parliament.
|
|
Working, but not recognised Amidst the news that the government is contemplating a law to prevent harassment of women at workplace on the lines of Vishakha Judgment, the discussion among feminists has again shifted towards ameliorating the condition of working women.Co-incidentally Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are also being discussed. There is a need to do an analysis of how facilitating working women, affects almost all the socio-economic indicators. The assumption that, in the process of socio-economic development,women increasingly enter the modern sector, permanent, full-time wage employment does not hold— at least not for the time being. Increases in labour force participation rates have so far not been matched by improvements in job quality and the working conditions of women have not led to their true socio-economic empowerment. The share of women that is employed but still is unable to lift them and their family above the US $1 a day poverty line—the so-called working-poor share—is higher for women than it is for men. Out of the total number of 550 million estimated working poor, around 60 per cent or 330 million are women. Women have a smaller likelihood of being in regular wage and salaried employment than men. In economies with a high share of agriculture, women work more often in this sector than men. Women's share of employment in the services sector also exceeds that of men. Additionally, women are more likely to earn less than men for the same type of work, even in traditionally female occupations. The analysis of the three indicators (status, sector and wages/earnings) shows that women are more likely to find employment in the informal economy than men, outside legal and regulatory frameworks, with little, if any, social security benefits and a high degree of vulnerability. As a consequence, women have a higher share in the number of working poor in the world. Adding the 330 million female working poor to the 77.8 million women who are unemployed means that at least 400 million decent jobs would be needed to satisfy women's demand for decent work. It is probably safe to say that even this is a conservative estimate and if one were to address the issue of women who are voluntarily outside the labour force, the deficit for decent work opportunities for women would be even greater. One theory which has been put forward to explain women's relatively low wage levels is the human capital theory, which relates wage levels to the levels of human capital (education, training and skill). Women are said to have a lower average level of education and training because of poor education sector prevailing in most under-developed and developing economies. Even if policies exist (as in the sub-continent and China), they are poorly targeted and do not reach the needy. Creating adequate decent work for women is possible only if policy-makers not only place employment at the centre of social and economic policies but also recognise that women's problems in the world of work are even more substantial than men's. Unless progress is made to take women out of working poverty by creating employment opportunities to help them secure productive and remunerative work in conditions of freedom, security and human dignity and thereby giving them a chance to work themselves out of poverty, the UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving poverty by 2015 will not be achieved in several regions of the world.
|
|
Implementation of the Bill will be the responsibility of the Central Government in case of its own undertakings/ establishments and of the State Governments in respect of every workplace established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by it as well as of private sector establishments falling within their territory. Source: www.pib.nic.in |
|
|
|
| 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 | |
The