|
|
|
|
|
Defusing the age row
Drug menace in jails |
|
|
Bulls and a race
India’s decision on Rafale
Dosa do’s and don’ts
The Supreme Court's rulings may have deemed live-in relationships legitimate and the tradition of Gandharva Vivaha may have lent it social legitimacy but in the 21st century, judicial pronouncements continue to view live-in relationships with a blinkered perspective
|
Defusing the age row
The
Supreme Court deserves to be commended for the manner in which it has settled the dispute over the date of birth of the Army chief, General V.K. Singh, in the official service record. With the right mix of judiciousness and well-meaning diplomacy it has disposed of a writ petition filed by General Singh while at the same time taking care not to embarrass him. Yet, Justices R.M. Lodha and H.L. Gokhale exercised a degree of firmness that enhanced the prestige and dignity of the court. The Tribune which had carried a six-part series delving deep into the issue in an incisive and dispassionate way is particularly relieved at the appropriate end to this controversy. Prolonged litigation could well have led to washing the dirty linen in public and would predictably have affected the long-term morale of the armed forces. By its expeditious resolution the apex court has nipped that possibility in the bud. While making it clear that the question raised by General Singh was not about the determination of his actual date of birth but related to the recognition of a particular date of birth by the Defence Ministry in the official service record, the bench told General Singh unambiguously that while the bench was not questioning the General’s efforts to reconcile the records he would have to abide by his commitment and honour his letters of 2008 and 2009 accepting the date of birth as May 10, 1950. Justice Lodha told General Singh’s counsel that the court could interfere in such decisions only if the order suffered from perversity or it was grossly erroneous. “We don't think in this case we should interfere,” he added. The bench protected the General’s sense of honour and upheld his integrity when it said “We want to ensure [that] as Chief of Army you continue to serve the country as you did for 38 years. This verdict should not come in your way. Wise men are those who move with the wind. We take pride in having [an] officer like you. Credit must go to you.” Amid speculation, it is now up to General Singh to decide whether he continues in office till the end of his term at May-end or he puts in his papers prematurely. In either case, it would be apt if his decision is duly respected and not dragged into a fresh controversy.
|
|
Drug menace in jails
If
a Director-General of Police in charge of jails says that 70 per cent of the 18,000 prisoners in Punjab are drug addicts, then something is seriously wrong with the way prisons are run. Jails are supposed to be well guarded. If still banned drugs can be slipped in for the benefit of jail inmates, is not the DGP supposed to take corrective measures rather than just sharing his startling information with the media? Drug peddlers are obviously allowed freedom to carry out their deadly business even inside jails and the police is either helpless or in collusion with criminals, perhaps with blessings from the top. If the jails cannot be freed from the drug menace, how can society be? Or have the jail authorities given up on drug smuggling in the belief that the prisoners cannot be prevented? To be fair, the jail authorities in Punjab also try reforms by making prisoners dance to popular Punjabi tunes and organise musical concerts to exibit their talent. Some try yoga to make inmates’ bodies a little less rigid and less dependent on drugs, while others organise sports events and teach them self-employment skills to cope with life beyond jail. The challenges before the jail managers are certainly formidable. They have to cope with a shortage of space, staff and funds. The police administration and the judicial system, it seems, are run with the sole objective of filling jails. Letting off deviants with a warning or a slap or two is not much in vogue. Community service is almost unheard of. Most prisoners are under-trials and it can take years before their guilt is established. No compensation or punishment to erring cops if innocents are kept behind bars. This has encouraged the police to pick up ordinary people on suspicion and judges to deny them bail. Trials drag on for years. Inspections of jails, if at all carried out, have proved ineffective to rescue innocents from hardened criminals or both from drugs. There is no dearth of volumes on jail reforms. The will to change the system is missing.
|
|
|
Bulls and a race
The
spectacular bullock cart race that is the flagship event of the famed rural games at Kila Raipur in Ludhiana has come into conflict with the law. It need not, provided those who frame rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as well as the Punjab Government and organisers of the event come together to ensure no animal is treated “unreasonably”. The scope lies in the Act itself, which avoids going into specifics of what comprises cruelty, and concentrates on “reasonableness” in the treatment that animals are subjected to. In fact, it uses the word “reasonable/unreasonable” at least 20 times in the text. Under the Act has been created an Animal Welfare Board of India, which actually goes into framing of specific rules to prevent cruelty. The board’s job is, thus, interpreting the spirit of the law. A look into how the ban on bulls as “performing animals” came about is revealing. Animal rights activists in the 1990s built pressure to ban organised fights among animals, particularly bulls, which were indeed cruel. There were court cases too. Finally, in 2011, the Ministry of Environment and Forests through a notification added bull to a list of five animals — bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions — that cannot be exhibited or trained as “performing animals”. The “performance” ban has now been extended to racing, too. This technical hurdle could be overcome by bringing out a separate notification for bulls, which may distinguish between fights and races; even lay down rules and mandate official supervision for the races. But that would involve a whole lot of case-building, wherein comes the role of the Punjab Government, which should realise the importance of the event that is today a global icon for the state. The organisers on their part could promise complete probity, which should not be difficult given the intense media attention paid to the event. As for what is “cruelty”, that could be left to the “reasonableness” of the arbiters, just as the Act does.
|
|
|
If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom. — Robert Frost
|
India’s decision on Rafale
First
it was the United States that got annoyed and now it is Great Britain’s turn to ask some tough questions about its India policy. Ever since the French Rafale fighter has been declared the lowest bidder in the multi-billion dollar contract to provide a new generation fighter for the Indian Air Force, a debate is raging in the UK as to what has gone wrong with David Cameron’s charm offensive in wooing India. His visit to India in 2010 was widely viewed as highly successful. He made all the right noises in India about Pakistan and terrorism, and the UK-India ties finally turned a new corner. The Cameron government has also decided to give India £1.4 billion between now and 2015, amounting to almost 1 per cent of Britain’s own £159 billion debts. But when it came to the much-sought-after Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract, France was the winner and the Eurofighter, produced by a consortium of four nations, including Britain’s BAE systems, the loser. Apparently, saying right things and giving aid doesn’t get you any influence in New Delhi! From the very beginning, this saga has been rather interesting. Last year in April, India rejected bids by Lockheed Martin and Boeing (along with Russian and Swedish bids) for the $10 billion-plus contract for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft, despite extensive lobbying by the US military-industrial complex, supported by President Barack Obama himself. Nothing works better in New Delhi than a put-down to the US — and that was quite a snub indeed! Instead, New Delhi shortlisted Dassault Aviation's Rafale and the Eurofighter consortium's Typhoon. There were extensive field trials, and technical considerations ostensibly drove the final decision. But the dismay in Washington was widespread and to some extent understandable, given the investment that the US has made in cultivating India in recent years. As if to underscore the importance of this development, the US Ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer, also decided to announce his resignation at the same time when the decision on MMRCA was being made public, though he insisted that his resignation was related to "personal, professional and family considerations". At a time when the political dispensation in New Delhi was embroiled in a host of corruption-related scandals, it used this decision to insulate itself from charges of favouritism towards America. To its domestic policy critics, the government signalled that despite all that the US military-industrial complex could do, India refused to budge. To its foreign policy critics, there was a signal that New Delhi remained in thrall to no one, not even the US. The UPA government had been viewed as being too cozy with the US and there were signs of discontent within the ruling Congress party itself on this score. Some of the revelations by WikiLeaks about the pressure on New Delhi during the negotiations over the US-India civilian nuclear pact had put the government in a difficult position. The decision on MMRCA allowed the government to make a case that it was its own master. The focus then shifted to the French-British rivalry over Rafale versus Eurofighter with the French coming out on top. Dassault Aviation, Rafale’s French manufacturer, will be entering into commercial negotiations with India over the next few months before the final deals are signed. But this is a company that has been struggling to get foreign buyers, so it would be keen on signing the contract more or less on Indian terms. Deemed as expensive and not cutting edge, the Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, Morocco, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland have all turned Rafale down in the last few years. India, in more ways than one, will now be subsidising the French defence sector. India’s decision was clearly influenced by the price factor as the EADS Eurofighter Typhoon is a much more expensive venture. But technology transfer was clearly another guiding factor with the tender stipulating 50 per cent direct offset obligation for the winning bidder. The Indian Air Force’s familiarity with French Mirage 2000 aircraft would also have helped, as Rafale is operationally and technically similar to Mirage 2000. India would be buying the aircraft over 10 years with 18 Rafale jets being built in Dassault plants in France and 108 will be assembled by Hindustan Aeronautics in India. Coming just before French elections in which Nicholas Sarkozy is trailing, this decision will boost his campaign. No wonder, Sarkozy was euphoric suggesting that “France is delighted at the decision by the Indian government…It will include important technology transfers guaranteed by the French government.” At a time when major European countries are drastically cutting down their defence budgets, the defence sector needs external help to survive, and the Indian decision will be a big help to France. Dassault was quick to react, saying that it is “honoured and grateful to the government and people of India”. In Britain, on the other hand, there are fears of job losses at the BAE Systems which owns 33 per cent of Eurofighter. The deal has been described a “major win for France, and a major loss for the UK.” The UK government, at least publicly, is still hoping that New Delhi could yet reject the French offer and turn to Eurofighter. This is India’s largest defence contract at a time when its defence modernisation programme has been attracting a lot of attention. The fighter levels in the IAF have dropped to an all-time low of 32 squadrons compared to an official level of 39.5 and desired 42 squadrons. The IAF is desperate to replace its ageing fleet of MiG-21 fighters. At one level, the seeming transparency of the process should indeed be heartening to those who have been puzzled by India's inability to get its defence modernisation programme on track for some time now. For a usually lackadaisical Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) this is a welcome change. After years of returning unspent money, the MoD last year not only managed to spend its entire budget but also asked for money to spend on capital procurement. And now with the movement on MMRCA bids, it is clear that the ministry wants to move swiftly on new defence procurement, relegating its ultra-cautious approach to the sidelines. But there is a larger question that still needs to be answered. Major defence purchases are not an end in themselves. Ideally, they should be a means of helping a nation achieve its strategic objectives. It’s not readily evident what strategic objectives of India are being served by choosing Rafale over Typhoon. One can only hope that the Indian defence establishment is not missing the wood for the trees!n The writer teaches at King’s College, London.
|
|||||
Dosa do’s and don’ts I
marvel at the evolutionary journey of dosa from household staple diet to one of restaurant exotica. A few decades ago, you could see a typical scene being enacted in many joint families in South India. While one lady would stand at the stove flipping over dosa after dosa for the hungry army, another would feed age-appropriate bits into waiting mouths amidst tales of gods, demons, kings and magicians. For a middle class South Indian family, a dosa is a mundane ‘tiffin’ item. It was not considered guest-friendly because you had to cook it one by one and the lady of the house would then have to spend forever doing it. For that reason, it did not find favour on the Tamilian menu for ponnu-parkal or visits by the prospective groom and his family to the girl’s house. Ponnu parkal fare usually involved idlis and vadais with the odd boondi laddu thrown in — all of which could be mass-produced in advance and served to several people simultaneously. The production could even be the handiwork of Mani Mama’s discreet catering service in the next lane. Why couldn’t the dosa also be sourced from the caterer then? That’s easy. Warm dosas landing in large numbers on the table while the Kanjivaram-clad ladies have been in the drawing room all along --- this would be a dead give-away! You don’t want the groom’s family to know that the caterer has chipped in at all! When South Indian restaurants first set up shop in the Tricity, the traditional and authentic varieties on the menu were lapped up mainly by non-Punjabi resident doctors working in the PGI, hill-bound tourists taking a break or Malayali families yearning for a taste of home. Local residents demanded the paneer dosa and were often unwilling to try anything else. The paneer dosa was the passport to the Punjabi palate. Today, the concept of a ‘dosa dinner’ has captured the imagination of Punjabis who want to ‘eat light’ — so, the nei roasts and paper cones are popular choices. A ‘Chinese’ dosa is cuisine assassination, but inevitable in this era of confused taste-buds. The family dosa, a table-length wonder to be demolished amidst giggles and guffaws, is a perfect photo-op that lands neatly onto Facebook albums the next day. The parcel dosa, bun dosa and ribbon dosa are the offspring of an illicit but exciting relationship between batter and stuffing. The restaurant dosa crammed with veggies, nuts, sauces, spices, chutneys or cheese is pretty common now. But an innovative Bengaluru restaurateur reportedly served up a gilt-edged dosa recently — the dosa is covered in varq of gold (for Rs1100) or silver (for Rs110). I am not sure I would enjoy strips of metal amid dosa-bites, though. Are you looking for a dosa that does not look like a sandwich, a pizza or a burger? Home is your only bet. Make sure a ready-to-cook dosa packet is handy, though, because Shanta Mami has stepped out in tracksuit and trainers for her evening walk after announcing that dinner will have to be oats and
milk!
|
|||||
The Supreme Court's rulings may have deemed live-in relationships legitimate and the tradition of Gandharva Vivaha may have lent it social legitimacy but in the 21st century, judicial pronouncements continue to view live-in relationships with a blinkered perspective
Recently two crimes committed by women were in the news. In one case Zarzoliani, an Indian who had moved to New Delhi from Manipur killed the Nigerian she was living with on discovering that he had been siphoning out all the money in her bank account. All this came to pass in 2008. The other case was that of a woman who beheaded her former lover unable to tolerate the harassment he was putting her through. He demanded sexual favours from her and forced himself on her in the presence of her children, emboldened perhaps by the fact that she had been recently widowed. She felt there was enough provocation to sever his head, and having done so, marched to the nearby temple carrying the head with her. Perhaps, she meant to discuss her action with the highest authority she recognised, but before she could enter the temple, the long hand of the law intervened, having been alerted by bystanders. Women betrayed Western concept? The court awarded a seven year jail term and a fine amounting to seven lakhs to Zarzoliani. It remains to be seen what the verdict will be for the second woman who beheaded the man making her life a living hell. What needs serious scrutiny however is the preachy stance adopted by the court while delivering judgement. Justice Rathi's proclamation in the trial court that live-in relations "were alien to our nation" and viewed as "immoral" in society is clearly out of line. His opinion that live-in relationships are a fad generated by western cultural influence needs to be examined seriously. In order that civilised societies flourish, we need unbiased and progressive judgements that are well thought out and objective. This is important as the choice of words in the public sphere of dissemination remains significant and creates huge ripples.
Wrong signals Justice Rathi's disapproval of live-in relationships is extremely strange, to say the least. He begins by acknowledging the Supreme Court's ruling on such relationships as legitimate. Next, he signals the enormous distance between the Supreme Court and himself when he goes on to advocate what he posits as an authentic understanding, namely that live-in relationships are not only alien to our nation but also faddishly immoral. He also frowns over the fact that the Nigerian's family knew nothing of his live-in relationship with Zarziolani. We need to address all these issues. It is perhaps true that socially and legally sanctioned relationships between men and women remain in the eye of public scrutiny and increasingly marriage has become not only a social contract but also a legal one. Yet women have lived in predominantly patriarchal societies, where most rules have usually erred in favour of men. It needs to be reiterated that women have been often enough victims of marriages conducted in the presence of God, court and community and none of these institutions have been able to ensure that no harm befalls women.
Biased understanding So arguably, the only morality that is sought to be monitored in a live-in relationship is "sexual." This control over women's bodies has a long history and is both primitive and chauvinistic. Pronouncements made by our judges from a position of authority, take on a life of their own in the public sphere. Significantly, they set several little wheels of socially sanctioned and sanctified patterns of behaviour into motion. The little wheels gather great momentum and often tend to spin out of control. So as concerned social scientists, it is essential that we take cognisance of the dangers posed by such public utterance, since this often colours and defines an understanding of popular mores. We also need to remember that the boundaries that once existed between public and private matters are being continuously redrawn in modern societies. Domestic violence, once overlooked as a private affair is now viewed as a crime and adultery has slid down the ranks being viewed now as a civil offence instead of a criminal offence.
Archaic laws Justice Rathi needs to be reminded that the jurisprudence he practices is deeply influenced by the West. Most of our laws have been framed or modelled during our interaction with the West. Some of these laws are archaic and have remained so for over a hundred years, (witness the commotion that reading material that was contained in a banned book generated at the Jaipur Literary Festival 2012) though the world has shifted and twisted and reinvented itself so many times over since the nineteenth century. It is possible to argue that Justice Rathi draws synergy from Justice Katju's pronouncements in an earlier case. A news item on the net mentions a court ruling wherein Justices of the Supreme Court Markandey Katju and T S Thakur delivered a judgment in which they upheld the use of the term "keep" to describe the status of a woman whom a man maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purposes and/or as a servant. Adding insult to injury, the bench dismissed a review petition filed by The Mahila Dakshata Society which objected to the use of the word "keep" to describe a woman who was not married to the man in question. The use of the word "keep" was termed appropriate by Justices Katju and Thakur, despite reservations expressed by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaisingh. Justice Thakur, in fact, inquired facetiously whether the word "keep" ought to be substituted with "concubine."
Inappropriate terms These two court proceedings in our premier courts, details of which are available on the Internet, expose patterns of thinking and articulation that have not changed over several generations. In fact, it is more than a little disappointing that Justice Katju who keeps letting us know how well read and well informed he is, finds the use of the term "keep" appropriate to define a woman who provides sexual favours to a man and is not his wife. Perhaps, this is because his point of reference is confined to the working of feudal societies in Russia and Europe, represented in 19th century fictional narratives wherein sexual relationships outside of marriage were viewed with disgust and horror. Also, in the light of his rather simplistic allusions to Mary Magdalene and Amrapali, as instances of publicly reviled women, (one reformed by Christ and the other by the Buddha, according to Justice Katju) in a discussion pertaining to Sunny Leone's entry into Indian visual media, one shudders to construe how he would have described Magdalene and Amrapali, had they suffered the singular misfortune of not having their own names to fall back on. Maybe our Justices need to be acquainted with the etymology of these terms. "Keep" and rakhel (which Indira Jaisingh posits as the Hindi equivalent of "keep" during the court proceedings) are words that are extremely insulting and derogatory, as they tend to objectify women. Both words come from an older usage and from a social space in which women's status was on par with chattel. This was at a time when women had few legal rights and were not citizens of a modern body politic. Language is a rapidly evolving system of signs in which words and meanings continue to draw and produce meaning within evolving societies. It should therefore be incumbent on the formulators of justice to view this aspect with due seriousness when they write judgements and before they dismiss pleas out of turn. Hidebound ideas about women, spring from a training steeped in a colonial, imperial and hierarchical society and airing views such as have been expressed, detract from impartial and unbiased judgements. Katju, Thakur and Rathi would definitely benefit from revisiting the Manusmriti which records eight types of marriages as extant possibilities. Feminists have objected rightly to Manu's reductive positioning of women as persons requiring protection from the patriarchy of fathers, husbands and sons all through their lives. One could argue that Justice Katju, Justice Thakur and Justice Rathi subconsciously follow a hoary patriarchal tradition set in place by Manu.
Historic tradition Yet, when it comes to the crunch, the Manusmriti seems far more liberal in its extrapolation of social practice when it describes "live in relationships" as one more variant of marriage. In a section which classifies and describes eight types of marriages, the fourth type of marriage is identified as Gandharva Vivaha. The term Gandharva Vivaha is used to describe a relationship between a man and woman who choose each other without the consent of family, friends or society at large. The Gandharva Vivaha is in effect a private consensual contract that is given due social legitimacy. It is not really very different from partnerships of personal choice which include sexual transactions as in contemporary "live-in relationships." Justice Rathi must incorporate into his world view, the historic tradition of live-in relationships that have been validated in our country. He also needs to recognise that evolved societies come about as a result of a great deal of exchange and interaction. Justice Katju needs to urgently update his vocabulary and analyse closely the complex patterns of social behaviour that our age has thrown up and familiarise himself with the new rights that the Constitution enshrines for its women, so that he no longer needs to fall back on archaic expressions that belittle women and render them without due dignity. And while he works on this to emerge as a better role model, he needs also to explain exactly who is better suited to demand the expunging of archaic sexist words such as "keep" and "rakhel" if not a women's collective, especially since he has failed women so completely in his office as arbitrator. This matter must be placed for discussion before a larger bench. Surely there should be no dearth of justice for women in India's Supreme Court? (The writer is associate professor, English, at Sri Venkateswara College,
|
|
| 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 | |
It is a terrible thing to kill another human being, yet as both women have demonstrated, if we modify the adage a bit, "that the earth does have her furies in women provoked!" The woman in the first case was enraged by a betrayal of trust and in the second instance the recurring violation perpetrated by an ex-lover could no longer be endured. In another age and time, such acts by women would have been termed as perverse and unwomanly. Living as we do in a more rational age can we hope for equitable and fair pronouncements from the judiciary?