|
|
|
|
|
Judgement
on Godhra It’s
Libya’s turn, now |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another
G-20 talk show
Prejudices
against judiciary
Two
views on corruption
Asian-Women
|
|
It’s Libya’s turn, now
The
protests that began in Benghazi, the second biggest city of Libya, a week ago against the rule of Col Muammar el-Gaddafi have shaken the power structure of this Arab country by its very foundations. The situation in its capital, Tripoli, has become chaotic with many government buildings, including its parliament, on fire. The furious protesters, demanding an end to the 40-year autocratic rule of Colonel Gaddafi, tore down and burnt his posters seen all over Tripoli. Security forces had no gumption to stop these people from expressing their disapproval of the Gaddafi regime in this manner. A large number of people have lost their lives as government troops used helicopter guns to silence the agitators. But this brutal way of handling the unrest has not dampened the determination of the pro-democracy forces. The protesters are gaining ground with many top officials tendering their resignations one after another. The most prominent among them is the Justice Minister of Libya. A senior military officer, who refused to order the gunning down of unarmed protesters, has been removed from service. Libyan ambassadors to the UN, the Arab League, India, China and some other countries have dissociated themselves from the beleaguered regime. Colonel Gaddafi made a brief appearance on the state television to dispel the rumour that he had resigned and fled to Venezuela. The truth, however, is that he is no longer in command of the situation today. His son, Saif el-Islam Gaddafi, is running the show. But his arrogant behaviour will only worsen the trouble in Libya. His use of provocative language like “We will take up arms … We will fight to the last bullet” justifies the call for regime change. Libya is not Egypt or Tunisia, as Saif Gaddafi wants the world to believe. But the reality is that more blood has been shed in Libya than what happened in Egypt or Tunisia, where the dictatorial regimes have fallen and the process for a democratic set-up has begun. The day is not far off when Libya, too, may have a similar change. Autocratic rulers in West Asia cannot remain in the saddle forever with the powerful wind for democracy blowing in the region.
|
|
|
Another G-20 talk show
The
G-20 summit, which ended in Paris on Saturday, has left India’s concerns largely unattended. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s attempt to push the issue of black money parked in tax havens was fruitless. The rising prices of commodities, including food and oil, which contribute to growing social unrest in developing countries, including the Middle East, did figure in the talks. World Bank President Robert Zoellick urged the Group of 20 to “put food first in 2011” but the leaders spent most of their time bickering over how to measure imbalances in global economy. At the end, they agreed on guidelines to identify trouble spots which could trigger another global financial crisis. The original forum, G-8, was expanded to include rising economic powers like China, Brazil and India, to tackle the 2008 global financial meltdown. Now when the emerging economies are growing fast while Europe and the US are not fully out of the woods, the focus has shifted to regulating banks, managing growth and recovery and preventing the recurrence of a financial shake-up. Imbalances have cropped up as global growth has been driven largely by relentless American consumption, which has benefited China the most. As the US has piled up a huge deficit in the process of helping financial institutions and providing a stimulus to industry, it has increasingly questioned the unfair trade advantage China has gained by keeping its currency undervalued against the dollar. The low value of the yuan boosts Chinese exports. This issue was at the centre of the G-20 debate in Paris. China accepted the compromise on measuring imbalances on the prodding of France and Germany. The guidelines avoid a reference to irritants like currency valuation and foreign currency reserves held by China. In this debate India has played the role of a passive participant since, according to Finance Minister Mukherjee, it has not contributed to “the build-up or persistence of global imbalances”.
|
|
|
It is easy to get to the top after you get through the crowd at the bottom. — Phillip Adams
|
Prejudices against judiciary PAKISTAN Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary made an interesting point at the Commonwealth Law Conference at Hyderabad. He said that the democratic government, which replaced military rule in his country, did not make or nullify the acts and actions of the military rulers. Justice Chaudhary suffered a lot at the hands of Gen Pervez Musharraf, then the sole wielder of power. The countrywide agitation by the Pakistan lawyers restored him to his office. In the process, the Pakistan judiciary became independent. But without punishment to those who derailed the system, no example can be set before the people who do not respect the rule of law. I agree with the chief justice that a nation must undo the wrongs that a ruler might have done to the constitution or to the legal system in his or her regime. This, however, is dependent on the successor’s commitment to values, justice and fair play. India too had a bitter experience when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi amended the constitution and took illegal steps during the emergency. The Janata Party, which came to power after defeating her at the polls, nullified all the changes she had effected. Yet it failed to punish Mrs Gandhi’s Cabinet colleagues or pliable officers responsible for the excesses they had committed. The Shah Commission did a commendable job to bring out the wrongdoings. It also named those who committed the crime. But Mrs Gandhi returned to power before any law court could punish anyone of them. She, in fact, took action against those who had not obeyed the unconstitutional authority residing in her son Sanjay Gandhi during the Emergency. The mere undoing of the wrongs is not enough. The culprits must be brought to book. Otherwise, they would again become instruments of tyranny. This is precisely what happened when Mrs Gandhi assumed power for the second time in 1980. She brought back her obedient officers and tainted ministers; some of them are still there in the Manmohan Singh government. Chief Justice Chaudhary was quite right to assert that it was the judiciary that brought an end to the constitutional deviations in Pakistan and restored the rule of law. I do not know whether his claim on the rule of law is justified because lawlessness in certain parts of Pakistan is disconcerting. Yet he could not punish the guilty. Maybe, that would have meant taking action against General Musharraf who was the President and enjoyed immunity because of the office he occupied. Still the Chief Justice could have initiated some steps to bring him to book. This would have served as a notice to future rulers. I think Justice A.K. Ganguly hit the nail on its head. He remarked during a hearing of the Supreme Court that “no government wants a strong judiciary.” He was, no doubt, referring to the “cancer of adjournments.” In a phone-tapping case, only one witness had been examined during the last four years. But his remark has validity. Yet, if I may say so, the manner in which some judges ingratiate themselves with the government, they convey a wrong message to it. A high court judge, who is now in the Supreme Court, admitted that his visit to Delhi could not be complete until he had called on members of the judicial presidium. Justice Ganguly did well to reprimand Union Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh for pleading to get two important cases related to NREGS wages in the high courts of Hyderabad and Bangalore bunched together and heard in the apex court. The petition was dismissed by Justice Ganguly. Incidentally, Mr Deshmukh was pulled up by the judge some time ago for using his influence as Chief Minister to prevent the police from registering a case against a money-lender. Most recently, Justice Ganguly lamented Deshmukh’s place in the Union Cabinet, given that the apex court had pulled him up for misuse of position. Strange, the Prime Minister has taken no notice of it. The tug of war between the executive and the judiciary is nothing new. It was there even during the time of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. He was furious when the Supreme Court declared the Zamindari Abolition Act ultra virus. Not long ago, then Speaker Somnath Chatterjee refused to accept the Supreme Court’s notice. He said that the court had no right to examine the issue that fell in Parliament’s jurisdiction. A few weeks ago, the government said the Supreme Court could not examine the suitability of Mr P.J. Thomas once he was appointed Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). This time the court had the upper hand when it asserted its power of judicial review. The Commonwealth Law Conference cautioned against the use of judicial review to erode the legitimate role assigned to other benches of the government. Indeed, Parliament is supreme since it represented the people. But independence of the judiciary cannot be diluted in a democratic society. The government has the tendency to arbitrariness. The prejudice of the executive is visible by the negligible allocation made for the judiciary. It is a quarter per cent of the budget outlay. One chief justice after another has pleaded for more courts to clear the backlog of cases. How can 16,000 courts in the country dispose of about 2.4 crore cases pending? The other point that Justice Chaudhary raised on the double standards the West followed on subsidies is pertinent to our part of the world. The developed countries, which control the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), often take the developing countries to task for giving subsides to their farming sector. Yet, strangely, some developed countries, including America and France, give billions of dollars as subsidy to their own farmers. Initiating the debate, Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia said there was need to adopt a minimum core-approach with a focus on the people below poverty line. Eminent lawyer Kamal Hussain from Bangladesh was more forthright. He equated human rights with the people’s right to livelihood. I think the Prime Minister had the last word when he said that a sound legal system based on the rule of law is a “major determinant of a favourable macro-economic
development.”
|
||||||
Two views on corruption WHO cheats? That is a question posed by two well-known economists, Levet and Dubner. Then they go on to answer: Well, just about anyone where the stakes are right. You might claim that you don’t cheat, forgetting the time you cheated! The golf ball you nudged out of a bad lie or, ‘forgot’ to sign for the last drink in a crowded bar. Cheating may or may not be human nature, but it certainly is a prominent feature in just about every field of human activity. Levet and Dubner claim that cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less. So it isn’t just the lowly babu who pockets a few thousand to move a file, or the high-profile bureaucrat or mighty minister who collects a large sum to clear a project or take a portion of an illegal building or a doctor who takes entrance exam on behalf of a duff candidate for his entry into a medical college for a few lakhs. From teachers who want to show better performance of their class to cricket players in match fixing, or an athlete who takes a drugs to win a medal, to sanctioning the change of land use, or reducing the import duty to favour a cartel etc, bending rules in the process, cheating is across the board and the list is endless and the spread is far and wide. Executives and other dignitaries cheat out of an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Whatever the incentive, whatever the situation, dishonest people will try to gain advantage by whatever means necessary. To them a thing worth having is worth cheating for. The corrupt people, like thieves, have a bonding amongst them. They cover and protect each other. Thus a Defence Secretary Bhatnagar when charge-sheeted by the CBI in the Bofors case was sent as Lt-Governor, placing him beyond the reach of the long, but palsied arm of law. Prosecution witnesses, the whole bunch of them, in corruption cases can turn hostile, if the incentives are right. Where there are pools of corruption and malfeasance, even non-swimmers can safely dive in: without the fear of drowning. When the environments are clean and chances of being found out are high, there is a disincentive for cheating, but where the chances of being pointed out are low or absent, one may commit murder, knowing that get-away is easy. There is a tale, ‘The Ring of Gypes,’ from Plato’s ‘Republic.’ A student named Glaucon offered the story in response to a lesson by Socrates. He told of a shepherd named Gypes who stumbled upon a secret cavern with a corpse inside that wore a ring. When Gypes put on that ring he found that it made him invisible. With no one able to monitor his behaviour, he seduced the queen and murdered the king and so on. Glaucon’s story poses a moral question: could any man resist a temptation of evil if he knew his act could not be witnessed! Glaucon thought the answer was no, while for Socrates the answer was yes. Such are the two views on
corruption.
|
||||||
Asian-Women Asian women bear the brunt of standing apart in countries of their immigration for wearing distinct symbols of religio- cultural identity. As torch bearers of culture, they are pressurised by their community to carry these symbols. Caught between these extremes — women drag the issues of cultural- identity to courts of law. Kishwar Desai
Recently
David Cameron, the Prime Minister of UK created shockwaves when he said that he thought the policy of multi-culturism has not worked in the UK. Instead of encouraging people of different cultures to live in mutual respect, by allowing each community to maintain its identity, he said, it had led to further segregation. The fact that he made the speech in Germany did not help (as Germany has already admitted to collapse of multi-culturism)— nor was it a particularly good idea to deliver it when right- wing groups were staging their own protests in the UK. But, did he have a point ? And how difficult is it to integrate into the western mode of life, for those who are concerned about their own culture or religion? In this context, do Asian women have a particularly difficult time with issues of integration? Usually, Asian women and girls living abroad have to maintain a fine balance between tradition and modernity; no matter how hard they try, it leads to misconceptions due to the weight of conservative values placed upon them. I recently saw a news item about speed dating amongst UK based Muslims (mostly Pakistani). Nice concept, I thought, at least this way they will be able to meet youngsters from opposite sex of their own age. To my shock (and horror!) I later found that most of the boys were looking for ‘simple’ girls who wanted nothing more in life than getting married and producing children. The girls were, on the other hand, were not only looking for interesting men, but having been exposed to a British life, had ambitions beyond being domestic goddesses. Therefore the report concluded, many of the boys would go back to Pakistan and find girls who would fit the bill. And many of the girls would end up with compromised dreams. The flip side of the coin is another fact — recently a spate of allegations has broken out in the UK accusing young married Pakistani men of grooming underage British girls for sex. The alleged reason for this phenomenon has been provided by a Muslim member of the House of Lords who maintains that this is the alarming effect of forced or incompatible marriages; men brought up in the UK go back home and marry women whom they think will make good ‘housewives’ but cannot relate to. Finally, they end up in extra-marital affairs or grooming young white girls. I am not sure if this is meant to make us feel sorry for the men. But if I juxtapose the two stories, one can only sympathise deeply with Muslim Pakistani women who seem to be caught between the two worlds, excoriated by the fact that they have to live in an ‘alien culture’ (even though they are British born and bred) hanging, like Trishanku, between the two worlds. But wouldn’t this be true for all Asian women living away from their home country? In fact, women are usually the most affected by displacement, migration and identity loss, while little is said about their turmoil except to romanticise it in novels and films. Yet, they are seen as the home-makers and the torchbearers for the next generation. Therefore they have to nurture their culture and religion and keep all the symbols of faith and identity alive. It is a tough battle, especially when they may have hopes, dreams and aspirations which might not fit into the strait-jacket they are required to wear by their families. For instance, while many men are able to deal with the physical and outward signs of migration by wearing Western clothes, Asian women, and now even girls, are often still seen in their salwar kameez, sarees, veils, hijaabs and burkhas — making them an obvious and easy target of discrimination. Yet, these very symbols are seen as being important and worthy of being protected and at times, as in the case of UK schoolgirl Shabina Begum, who went to court, but lost, the right to wear her jilbab in school (see box) fighting a very public legal battle for. Perhaps most people cannot comprehend how difficult it is to wear cultural or religious symbols in a country where none are encouraged. And especially where these symbols are often looked down upon, as the UK Prime Minister pointed out, as a sign of separation. In a more relaxed society, such as India, different linguistic and religious communities carry on with the business of living with their own symbols and rituals –and indeed , even within their own ghettoes. Should there be uniformity –or should we allow a thousand flowers to bloom? At the same time, should we also be careful that it is all being done out of choice and is not (as was suspected in the Shabina Begum case) an imposition ? Some years ago, in the UK there was a striking example of a young Sikh Welsh girl who fought a legal battle against her school for the right to wear the kara. Fourteen year old Sarika Singh was told by the Aberdare Girl’s School that she could not wear her kara because the school had a ‘no jewellery’ rule. The case was fought for her by the human rights organization , Liberty. A petition was handed over to the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, which was backed by 150 gurudwaras, 200 Sikh organizations, and even 70 non-Sikh bodies. This is one of the very few cases where an Asian girl has fought and won her right to wear a religious symbol. As Sarika’s lawyer pointed out, 25 years earlier the right to wear their turbans was conceded to the Sikh men by the law lords in the UK. She also pointed out that it was as important for Sarika to wear her kara as it was for Monty Panesar, the cricketer, to wear his. A rather curious comparison. However, for a woman or a young girl to assert her right to a cultural identity is equally difficult. Cultural symbols could be considered as important as religious symbols are for an immigrant community, and the case of Sunali Pillay of Johannesburg comes to mind. She had taken the Durban Girl’s High School to court because she was prevented from wearing her tiny gold nose ring to school. The case went all the way up to the highest court in South Africa, the Constitutional Court, and the final ruling was in her favour saying ‘no child should be prohibited from displaying cultural symbols of choice.’ But, there are still some who would argue that David Cameron has a point. Each community, when it migrates to an alien land should integrate into the new country, even if it means giving up cultural and religious symbols as is encouraged in France. In this war over identity and culture, more and more women, their bodies, their attire, their behavior and their intellect are now becoming the battleground. London based Kishwar Desai
is the author of Witness the Night, winner of the Costa First Novel
|
|
The battle over a long coat
This was a leading case contested at House of Lords on the legal regulation of religious symbols and dress under the Human Rights Act 1998. Shabina Begum, of Bangladeshi origin but born in the UK, aged 16 at the time was a student at Denbigh High School, in Luton, Bedfordshire. Though, four out of six parent governors were Muslims at the school, which had pupils of other faiths, it wished to be culturally inclusive. Hence, the school uniforms incorporated trousers or skirts, and Pakistani or Punjabi shalwar kameez with optional khimar (headscarf). The uniform was decided upon in consultation with the local mosques, religious organisations and parents. For two years, Shabina Begum attended the school without complaint, wearing the shalwar kameez, but in September 2002, after the death of her parents and under the influence of her brother, a member of radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, she went to the school and demanded that she be allowed to wear the long coat-like garment- jilbab. In the opinion of Begum and her supporters, shalwar kameez offered by the school was relatively close-fitting with short sleeves, and was therefore not compliant with the requirements of Sharia law. Shabina refused to attend the school for three years. The school’s supporters argued that if Begum was allowed to attend classes wearing jilbab, other pupils too would feel pressure to adopt stricter forms of Islamic dress. Begum, with her brother, issued a claim for judicial review of the school’s decision of not letting her wear the
jilbab. The claim was made on the grounds that the school had interfered with her Human Rights to manifest her religion along with her right
to education. Begum lost the case in the High Court but later won on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The school appealed against this decision, and the case was heard by the Judicial Committee of The House of Lords. The House of Lords ruled in favour of the school on the ground to protect the rights of other female students who would not wish to be pressured into adopting a more extreme form
of dress.
|
|
|
| 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 | |
