|
|
|
|
|
Farming and research
Jat politics |
|
|
MNS growing in clout
West Asia in ferment
Clash of cultures
Policemen charged with heinous crimes like torture and fake encounters often go scot-free or get away lightly and the mechanism to bring them to justice has failed to win over public confidence
|
Farming and research
Having sustained an average annual growth rate of 3.5 per cent in agriculture for the past five years, the Prime Minister now wants to set a goal of 4 per cent for the 12th Five-Year Plan. Not an unachievable target if the country sets its mind to it, in policy as well as action on ground. One significant impediment the Prime Minister has pointed out is the gap in transfer of existing farm technology to the farmer. We are not able to teach every farmer the optimal practices that give much higher yields in research fields. Krishi Vigyan Kendras and their sub-centres are set up across the country, but their number and staff, and, more importantly, motivation remain far from adequate. While in wheat and rice the average yield in India is not even half of the world’s top-producing countries, in tea it is near the highest. It is not a coincidence that tea is produced by large private companies. The experience of contract farming, where successful, has been similar. Scientists of the contracting companies make frequent visits to farmers’ fields. The government’s machinery too has to turn proactive. Rather than wait for a poor and unaware farmer to come and raise questions, agri-scientists need to be sent out to check on fields. All this, however, won’t make much impact on productivity in agriculturally developed states such as Punjab and Haryana, as they are well near the yields possible under the present conditions. Yet, compared to the world, even these can be increased by up to 90 per cent, which would make a tremendous impact to the country’s total food output. But that would need the much-awaited second “green revolution”, for which the complacency in research has to go. Punjab Agricultural University, which can barely pay salaries to its scientists today, needs Rs 200 crore annually, according to the state government. This, and other funds for research and agriculture infrastructure, must not be denied. |
|
Jat politics
The Haryana government excels in mishandling Jat issues and agitations. Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda, himself a Jat, ceases to act rationally when it comes to dealing with members of his own community, which constitutes 30 per cent of the state population and is a strong vote bank to nurture. He forgets that he has a legal duty to ensure the smooth flow of road/rail traffic passing through the state. The economic cost of delays apart, ordinary people are made to suffer for no fault of theirs. Neither the Chief Minister nor the Jat leadership seems unduly concerned about their plight. Be it the Mirchpur incident in which Dalits were subjected to caste violence or Khap Panchayats ordering “honour killings” of lovers defying caste barriers or social boycott of their parents, the Hooda government has often not been found up to the task when Jats are involved. Last year when the Jats resorted to their favourite mode of protest, which is to stop trains and vehicles, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had to tell the government to clear the rail tracks. The Supreme Court stepped in to order the smooth supply of essential items, including water, to Delhi. To defuse the crisis, the Haryana government set up a backward classes’ commission to consider the Jat demand for reservations in government jobs. The Jats in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have been declared “backward”. In Haryana the Jats are a socially dominating community and its members occupy top positions of power. Not only the Chief Minister, but the Leader of Opposition is also a Jat. Both compete for Jat votes. It is also a fact that Jats engaged in agriculture have lagged behind in the race for riches. Instead of pushing their children to achieve excellence in education or learn skills in demand to climb up the economic ladder, they see in job reservations an easy solution to their problems. The unrest among the Jats is symptomatic of the larger crisis in agriculture, which needs to be addressed at the state and Central levels — and beyond
Haryana. |
|
|
MNS growing in clout
The results of the recent municipal elections in Mumbai, Thane, Pune and Nashik have established that the founder of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), Raj Thackeray, has emerged as a major player in state politics six years after he broke away from the Shiv Sena. Raj is no longer a mere spoiler. He is a leader with a future. In contrast to its showing as a fledgling party in 2007, the MNS emerged this time with 28 seats in Mumbai, 21 more than last time. In Pune, the party won 29 seats, 21 more than what it had won in the 2007 civic polls. But what took the cake was its performance in Nashik, where the party emerged as the single largest with 40 seats out of 122, with the city mayor expected to be from it. What should worry the Shiv Sena most is that in the Mumbai poll, the Shiv Sena’s vote share at 21.3 per cent was only marginally better than the MNS’ 20 per cent. As it appears, with Bal Thackeray in declining health and the mantle of the Shiv Sena ultimately to fall on his son Uddhav, the latter would be hard put to staving off an exodus from the party to the MNS whose leader is far more charismatic and endowed with strong organizational skills. Shrewd as Raj Thackeray is, he has appropriated the halo of a true defender of the Marathi manoos (sons of the soil) and while the local Maharashtrians have long looked upon Bal Thackeray as the ultimate defender of Marathi pride, Raj is looking beyond the octogenarian to the time when Uddhav would be in command. He has already forged a cosy relationship with the BJP’s Narendra Modi through whom he may well pitch for the Gujarati and other non-Maharashtrian vote in the next assembly elections. Just before the civic elections, Bal Thackeray had held out an olive branch to Raj to return to the Shiv Sena fold but there is little prospect of the two estranged cousins Raj and Uddhav coming together. In the battle between the two, Raj apparently has a clear edge. |
|
|
A prudent question is one-half of wisdom. — Francis Bacon |
West Asia in ferment
Recent weeks have tested India’s West Asia policy with India being compelled to juggle its national interests and simultaneously exude a “responsible stakeholder” image. India’s UN vote on Syria buttressed the latter. New Delhi’s defence of its energy and broader equation with Iran was reflective of Indian geostrategic interests. The latest incident of an Iran-Israeli proxy war being allegedly played out on Indian soil should prompt a serious look at the impasse with Iran. Some have portrayed India’s dilemma in a zero-sum fashion. They assert that if India’s principal partnerships are with Washington and Israel, India should stop “fence-sitting” and openly gang-up against Iran. Fortunately, the government has eschewed such impetuous claims and persisted with its de-hyphenated posture between the two rival camps. Surely, the Indo-US partnership is not so transactional that only a conforming New Delhi will satisfy Washington? What recent events underscore is if India does not formulate a sophisticated framework for the region, its postures will remain tentative or susceptible to pressure. And to craft a sensible West Asia posture, New Delhi needs to dispassionately analyse the West’s conflict with Iran. The Iranian question at its heart is about accommodating a rising power into the regional order. Tehran, given the formidable military capabilities arrayed against it, has decided that to stave off an even more hostile West, a nuclear weapons option must remain open. The deeper issue then is of Iran’s search for security and survival, and not non-proliferation. To his credit, even Mohammed ElBaradei, a former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is mandated to scrutinise the nature of nuclear programmes, recognised that Iran’s nuclear question was fundamentally a “security issue”. Alternatively, observers who view the impasse purely through a technical non-proliferation prism will fail to perceive the insecurity that underlies Iranian behaviour. And, if we incorrectly decipher Iranian behaviour, the policy prescriptions offered either lead to a conflict escalating to a pan-regional war or ill-designed containment policies that shut the door on serious diplomacy. Months after receiving an October 2011 offer for talks in the P5+1 format via the European Union (EU), Iran has now responded saying it is “ready for dialogue” and called for “fundamental steps for sustained cooperation”. If both sides are sincere about clinching a deal, then negotiations on the nuclear issue should be supplemented with a broader engagement strategy. What does the US want? The present US strategy can be traced to the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which declared that the US would use “military force if necessary” to ensure the “free movement of Middle East oil” through the Persian Gulf. Though the Carter Doctrine was originally conceived in response to the Soviet thrust into Afghanistan and the loss of an allied regime in Tehran after the Iranian Revolution, American geostrategy kept expanding in pursuit of a pan-regional sphere of influence. Some argue that the intervention in Afghanistan and the second Iraq war was an expression of this policy. The contemporary impasse would not have arisen had the Iranian regime capitulated paving the way for American primacy. But the resilience of the Iranian state and elite has made a Tehran-Washington modus vivendi impossible without the US scaling back its regional ambitions to make some space for Iran. As part of a deal, the US would seek guarantees on Iran relinquishing its use of extremist proxies in pressuring Israel and other Arab regimes, a mutual commitment to keep the Persian waterway open, cooperation in stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, transparency on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. From Iran’s perspective, it would seek regime security, acknowledgment of Iran’s status as a player with a voice on regional security matters and access to globalisation with all its trading and financial benefits. Is there common ground? Two former American diplomats recently argued, “Both Iran and the United States want stability in the region – particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan; the end of terrorism from Al- Qaida and the Taliban; the reincorporation of Iran into the international community; and no war.” Evidently, the logic for security interdependence exists. In fact, Iran attempted an opening with Washington twice in the past decade. Iran cooperated in the 2001 anti-Taliban operations, and subsequently made formal overtures in 2003. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration official, later described Iran’s offer as “a serious effort…to lay out a comprehensive agenda for US-Iranian rapprochement.” A combination of strategic inflexibility, ideological hostility and sheer exuberance prevented a change in American posture. In the ensuing years, while America’s position on the ground deteriorated, Iran’s perception of its own relative rise increased. Even if the price for an Iranian bargain might have gone up, a geopolitical settlement remains the only viable alternative to another Cold War. Admittedly, domestic politics has made compromise difficult. Obama’s initial instinct for diplomacy soon gave way to a coercive policy that merely hardened Iranian resolve. If the Obama administration cannot be seen bargaining with Iran in an election year, it certainly does not want to risk an escalatory conflict at this stage. Iran’s latest proposal for talks might have come at an apt moment when Washington too is seeking to de-escalate tensions. Iran’s domestic evolution has also become a factor. Though a theocracy with the Shiite clerics at the political helm, important strands of Persian nationalism and secular culture remain robust across Iranian society. President Ahmadinejad has sought to rely on Persian nationalism rather than the declining legitimacy of clerics to buttress the state’s authority and prestige. A close confidante of Ahmadinejad, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, recently asserted, “Iran needs to remove the mullahs from power once and for all and return to a great civilisation without the Arab-style clerics who have tainted and destroyed the country for the past 31 years”. Apparently, Ahmadinejad is trying to promote a secular state in Iran. The ongoing ideological struggle for Iranian statehood would impact its foreign policy and the intensity of the Shia-Sunni chasm across West Asia. If Ahmedinejad succeeds in crafting an honourable deal with the West, the clerics’ authority within Iranian polity might decline further. Iranian parliamentary elections this March will indicate the evolving balance of power between the nationalists and the Islamists. It is unlikely, however, that the West can exploit these cleavages to hussle the Iranians. But it would hardly hurt if the byproduct of a grand bargain with Iran produces a secure, modernising and less ideological state. How should India position itself amid the impending strategic bargaining between the US and Iran? Those who argue for India to stop “fence-sitting” are inadvertently promoting a return to the bloc-based system of the Cold War era. History has consistently shown that attempts to increase security at the expense of other countries are rarely sustainable. India should advocate the principle of an open, inclusive and plural security order for West Asia. And if New Delhi is truly imaginative, it would introspect on the prospects of creating a new bridge between Washington and Tehran. The writer is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Alternatives, |
||||||
Clash of cultures
Tom Stoppard’s visit to the recently held Jaipur Literature Festival reminded me of his play India Ink that I saw at the Aldwych Theatre in London’s West End. At Broadway, if the drama critic of The New York Times dislikes your show, you are dead. So, producers try hard to keep the critics out till the show is ready. This was not the case at West End. In spite of the flak that Tom Stoppard’s play was a caricature colonial history, I went to see it especially owing to my memories of Felicity Kendal, the heroine of the play and sister-in-law of the famous actor, Shashi Kapoor. It was at Gaiety Theatre in Shimla many decades ago that I had met the Kendals who were the inspiration behind the drama company, Shakespeariana, that travelled the country staging plays in schools. As kids, we used to spend Sunday mornings here relaxing on the terrace, watching crowds go by. It saddens me to see how a rare example of Gothic architecture was allowed to go to seed. I still get an empty feeling and a sense of nostalgia when I remember the plays that were staged there. I clearly recall Ivory Merchant directing Othello, a scene from which formed the plot of his first film Shakespeare Wallah (1965) with Shashi Kapoor, Madhur Jeffrey and Felicity Kendal as protagonists. It is through their travels in this film that we see the cultural changes in India from the old to the new, from the love of English theatre in the subcontinent to the wildly popular genre of the film. Cultural imperialism and intellectual encounter form the impetus behind the film which turns out to be a deep inspiration for Stoppard’s India Ink, a play that he wrote for Felicity with whom he was living at that time. It almost seems that Felicity has been the inspiration behind his impeccably non-judgmental views in the play that takes us back and forth between the 1930s and the mid-1980s in India and England, exploring the unexpected juxtapositions and cultural conflicts in the changing values of art. The past is continuously rewritten, creating a moving exploration of intimate lives set against one of the greatest shifts of history, the emergence of the Indian subcontinent from the imperialist grip. I am particularly reminded of scenes at the railway station at Jummanpur, Dak Bungalow, and the “punkhawalla who sits outside and flaps the thing by a system of rope and pulleys.” The enthralled comments about England by Nirad Das, the hero, take us to the Chelsea of Turner and the Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood of Bloomsbury and of Goldflake cigarettes. He reminds me of the 1930s intelligentsia, extremely nationalist yet obsessed by English culture and manners. Flora (played by Felicity) tells him: “What you think is my point of view. You deserve the bloody Empire.” She echoes Lord Macaulay, who spelt out the future of Indian education in clear terms: “Indian in blood and colour but British in tastes, opinions, morals and intellect.” Was this not true of many who were swept off their feet by anything English? Such are the results of domination and submission in which cultures are trampled and institutions undermined, with the indigenous turned into a complex hybrid. Stoppard has lent to the play a quality of compassion and emotional honesty, especially his depiction of India of the 1980s where the characters enter the colonial space in which the native is hemmed in but simultaneously encouraged not to remain in slouching subservience to the coloniser. Stoppard’s presence at the Jaipur festival was, in a way, the celebration of parallel history, a coming to grips with our intercultural considerations, a multiple time and space giving rise to an account that is an amalgam of India of the colonial and the post-colonial era. Seen from the present perspective, it seems there is no past about colonialism. For accentuating the pastness runs the risk of obscuring the continuities and discontinuities of trans-cultural influence, the pre-requisite of living history. |
||||||
Policemen charged with heinous crimes like torture and fake encounters often go scot-free or get away lightly and the mechanism to bring them to justice has failed to win over public confidence
In 2010 a total of 58,438 complaints were filed in the country against police personnel, an increase of 6.5% over the previous year. Inquiries were instituted in 22,157 cases, which is 37.9% of the complaints. Cases of police misconduct that occur on a regular basis are torture and violence, disappearance of persons, corruption, failure to observe the due process and non-registration of the first information report (FIR). In India the mechanism to handle complaints against the police exists in the form of internal vigilance cells at the headquarters and inquiries by gazetted officers in the districts. For serious cases of criminality there is the crime branch and for corruption by police officers needing investigation there are vigilance departments in the states. However, their effectiveness has remained debatable and their outcome has failed to regain public confidence, primarily for two reasons: lack of accountability of these internal oversight arrangements and political interference in the functioning of the police. A report of the National Police Commission (1977) concludes that some of the points of criticism cannot be satisfactorily eliminated by the mere issue of instructions because they are linked with essential attitudes and approaches and the “administrative culture” developed in the day-to-day working of the police. The Supreme Court judgment (number R. 639/06, 22 September 2006) aims at insulating the police administrators from inappropriate pressure and acknowledges that the police administrators have the authority and responsibility for the administration of the department while being accountable to the law and the people. The objective is to devise a supervisory mechanism, including Police Complaints Authorities, without a scope for illegal and irregular interference with the police functioning. Many states have established Police Complaints Authorities by legislation or a government order, though only in a few states like Assam, Uttarakhand and Kerala these exist on the ground. Democratic policing Like many other Asian and African nations, India has experienced authoritarian colonial rule wherein the police was merely a tool of oppression with the government with the rules and accountability measures devised to serve this end. Although India today is the world’s largest democracy, the police in India is still imbued with a ruler-supportive ethic – one that encourages the police to do the bidding of the political leadership rather than to stand as an impartial guardian of the people’s democratic rights. The ruler-centric working culture is so ingrained in the fabric of the police organisations and administrative levers are so designed that sometimes even well-meaning and honest supervisory officers begin to consider it a part of their job mandate to cover up or remain mute spectators to transgressions by officers with patronage of people in power, leaving the existing oversight bodies scratching only the surface and mitigating their deterrent effect. In terms of existing oversight bodies, apart from the administrative and judicial mechanisms, India has human rights commissions at the state and national levels, Lokayuktas and the State Vigilance Bureaus. The Philippines is the only country in Asia that has four kinds of police oversight mechanisms: Human Rights Commission, anti-corruption agency, ombudsman and specialised police complaints organisation. Japan and Singapore are equipped only with a single government agency dealing with complaints against and inspection of government officials. However, in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) maintained by Transparency International, Singapore, Japan, India and the Philippines occupied 4th, 17th, 72nd and 131st position respectively in the year 2007. Japan and Singapore do not have any civilian police oversight bodies, yet the police in these countries maintains a reasonably good record due to adherence to the norms of democratic policing. Countries like India and the Philippines with two or more civilian oversight bodies attract high attention and concerns regarding police brutality, corruption and/or inefficiency. Therefore, in order to ensure democratic policing in India, along with police accountability measures, steps to insulate the police from political influence needs to be given serious consideration. Oversight mechanism While the experience in South Korean highlights the fact that despite the constitution of a regulatory mechanism for the police, there has been no improvement in police functioning due to lack of independence to these bodies. Countries like the UK ensure that these bodies function in a totally independent and objective manner. The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) in the UK is a publicly funded organisation that makes sure complaints against the police are looked at fairly. The PCA supervises the investigation of serious complaints. The PCA has the power to recommend that the police force begins disciplinary proceedings against the erring officer. The PCA oversees investigations into cases such as a death in police custody or incidents involving police firearms. The chairman of the PCA is appointed through an open advertisement just as it is done for the Chief Executive Officer of a private sector enterprise. The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is an independent and non-police mayoral agency. It is empowered to receive, investigate, hear, make findings and recommend action on complaints against New York City police officers alleging the use of excessive or unnecessary force, abuse of authority, discourtesy or the use of offensive language. Investigations are conducted impartially by the board’s staff, which is composed entirely of civilian employees. Complaints may be made by any person, even if he is not a victim or a witness. Dispositions by the board on complaints are forwarded to the police commissioner. As determined by the board, dispositions may be accompanied by recommendations regarding disciplinary measures. In terms of overall civilian oversight mechanisms of the police, the case of Hong Kong is a very good model. In this model complaints/investigations of acts of minor misdemeanour handled by the police department itself are monitored by one body while investigations of serious nature are supervised by another independent body with more statutory powers. The Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) of Hong Kong is an effective oversight mechanism which monitors and reviews investigations carried out by the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO). More severe police malpractices are dealt by the Internal Investigations Office (IIO) of the Hong Kong Police under the supervision of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The ICAC is an external civilian oversight organisation armed with its own statutory investigation powers. Some of the features of the Hong Kong model integrated in the provisions of the Supreme Court order of Septmber 22, 2006, for the setting up of Police Complaints Authorities with civilian members can be a way forward in developing oversight bodies in India. Police Complaints Authorities are to be set up at the district level to look into complaints against officers up to the level of DSP and State Police Complaints Authorities at the state level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of SP and above. Serious crimes While the police authorities could receive broad powers to conduct investigations of serious violations such as custodial death, torture, rape and corruption/extortion, it may not be possible that they would be able to handle all complaints. Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district levels can be mandated to monitor complaints/investigations of minor nature with internal complaints/vigilance cells of the police. A reformed internal oversight of the police, which is more transparent and accountable, can look into such complaints. Decisions about which agency should investigate complaints should be left to the police authorities. Transparency can come by keeping the public informed and by publicising the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings on the internet. Accountability can be ensured for internal investigations by setting clear standards for police conduct and effective monitoring by an external oversight body. While there is undoubtedly need for such a mechanism and euphoria has been created in the police, the media and the public by the Supreme Court order on the setting up of such bodies in India, there are certain concerns that have to be kept in mind. Too much should not be expected too soon from the Complaints Authorities, as it takes time to produce results. To function efficiently, even infrastructure and buildings for such bodies would take several years to come up. Another concern would be the post-appointment conduct of the members of these authorities. There would be apprehensions that these members may start misusing their authority and the authorities may slowly begin to act as another power centre. While the oversight body is meant to make the police accountable, it is also equally important that accountability measures for the members should be created. While reforming the institutional system of the Indian police, it is important that the police makes sincere efforts to present itself as a democratic force. The writer is the IG(P) in Punjab. He has authored the book “Policing: Reinvention Strategies in a Marketing Framework”
The effective and impartial functioning of oversight bodies largely depends on the manner in which the members of the complaints authorities are selected and rotated, their functional autonomy, their self-sufficiency in terms of infrastructure and operating expenses.
n
Ensure independence of these agencies by giving them their own investigative wing, staff, infrastructure and resources guaranteed by the law. n
Give them teeth as the key concern is how binding their recommendations are. n
Review membership of the authority periodically to see if it is representative of the community so that it enjoys the confidence of all sections of the community and the police. n
Take care to ensure that no one interest group dominates the proceedings. n
Majority of members, especially of the district-level complaints authorities, should not hold any other office of profit and they should receive emoluments from the authority’s budget. n
Make members fully accountable for the actions undertaken by the authority.
Although India today is the world’s largest democracy, the police in India is still imbued with a ruler-supportive ethic – one that encourages the police to do the bidding of the political leadership rather than to stand as an impartial guardian of the people’s democratic rights. |
|
| 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 | |
