Hygiene Rule in Norway, Rational? No way

Hygiene Rule in Norway, Rational? No way 

In Norway, the Norwegian Child Protective Services have taken away from an Indian couple, Anurup and Sagarika Bhattacharya from Kolkata, their children — a three-year-old son and one-year-old daughter placed in foster care. The measure was taken as the couple was not bringing the children up properly. That is, they were feeding the children with their hands and the infants slept in the same bed as the parents!

What is so very wrong in feeding children or infants with one’s hand? Or in teaching them to eat with their fingers?  In India and other countries of Asia especially South East Asian and Arab countries as well as in African countries, eating with the hand is very common. It is a religious and cultural aspect of life. For centuries, that is the tradition in these countries.

Eating with hands is perhaps the most practical and sensible way of eating. The food is easy to hold and carry to the mouth when we use the hand. Importantly, you are able to verify the temperature of the food before putting it into your mouth and in this way one can avoid burning the mouth in case the food is too hot. For children, in particular, this is very necessary. It is safe for children because there is little chance of overfeeding.

For children, it is a process of experimenting and learning to interact with their food. This is the way that they can develop a sense of liking for what they eat. It is said that children dirty their clothes and surroundings and make a mess when they eat with the hand! Parents are over fastidious and constantly attend to their children when they are eating, for instance, wiping their lips after every bite. This actually irritates children who develop a dislike for meals.

Encouraging finger feeding helps children develop independent, healthy eating habits. It gives babies a measure of control over what they eat and how much. Sometimes they'll eat the food, sometimes not, and all that is an important part of the children learning self-regulation.

Eating with hand is more scientific than eating with the spoon and the fork in hand. The human body is laden with bacteria of many kinds, in different parts of the body—on the skin, in mouth, intestine and so on (the normal flora). The largely harmless bacteria that give us protection from the outside environment or from the ‘harmful’ bacteria are first given to us from birth and the touch of the mother’s skin and hands. It is important to maintain this bacteria culture for better health and immunity throughout life. By getting too hygiene conscious and using spoons and forks for a long time, the pattern of this culture gradually changes or there is loss in the amount of normal flora in the gut. One then loses one’s immunity to environmental bacterial pathogens. If such people are suddenly exposed to harmful bacteria, their immunity collapses and they become victim to various infections. It is worthwhile to note that the people of the very hygiene-conscious west are most sensitive to allergies, rashes and infections like gastroenteritis when they go to travel other parts of the world. On the other hand, poor people who live in very ordinary conditions or the slum people do not fall prey to infections that easily.

Licking fingers produces more saliva which helps to digest food faster.

Eating with the fingers gives a rare satisfaction, as the contact between the person and the food is maximum here. As Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, the last king of Persia, once remarked that eating with the spoon and fork was like talking to one’s beloved through an interpreter!

Eating with the hand is a much more sensual experience that adds touch to sight, smell and taste. It is thoroughly ecological; and it breaks all social boundaries.

Coming to the West’s criticism of eating with the hands, it seems to be ignorant of the fact that there are rules to be observed in eating with the hand in different religions and cultures. Indians and most other people eat only with the right hand and not the left hand, for hygienic reasons. The hands are washed thoroughly. The West insists on using spoons, knives and forks probably because it is not aware of the concept of washing hands before eating. In the Western culture, use of water is not necessary for the purposes of washing—washing the hands, whether its before or after eating; having a bath; or even washing hands after answering the call of nature. It is even mocked at when an Indian chooses to use water instead of the toilet roll when in the West. Interestingly, Indians can be seen to rinse their hands and mouths after meals even when they use spoons and forks, or even when finger bowls are provided or when paper or cloth napkins are given. It may also be noted that the Western way of using the fork and knife is considered the right eating ‘etiquette', even though when it comes to hamburgers, pizzas, and French fries the Americans and the Europeans are not shy of using their hands.

The emergence of cutlery as in the West can also be seen as an attempt to establish class distinction - and to place one culture above all others.

If eating with the hand is so unhygienic, what about breast-feeding children. Mothers, especially after the birth of their infants, do not constantly wash their breasts with water and soaps but still continue to keep the child close to the body and feed it. Aren’t there unwashed bacteria on the skin? Why do doctors insist on breast feeding then, especially in the West?

The other issue that the Norwegian state has raised is that of parents sleeping with their little children. This is a social and cultural aspect common in India and other countries. Traditionally, children are not pushed away from their life-giving parents, especially the mother, and towards ‘independence’ right from the time they are born. Our children do not sleep alone right from a few weeks or months after birth, as if it is an ordained law. Parents do it in the West and modern Indians ape them for the simple reason of convenience. Parents want to be intimate with each other minus the child’s presence for obvious reasons.

Even among animals or birds, care is provided to babies and young ones for a long time in some cases, as in the case of elephants. As researchers have noted, many modern parents need to watch the kind of attention mothers of chimpanzees, for instance, give their young in order to love their children better. Making babies and little children sleep alone is not going to make them more independent; it only makes them feel insecure as they are left uncared for and unloved (especially at a time when they are most frightened—in the night).  Apparently, in the West, ‘sleeping together’ has only one meaning attached to it. So even when a mother sleeps with her infant or a father sleeps with his little son, it is objected to as being akin to some kind of sexual abuse in the making. What this shows is a diseased mentality that is obsessed with perversions, that has to interpret every show of affection or bonding as a possible perversion.

In Norway, what the Child Protective Service has been doing has been much criticized. The Service is a powerful body charged with protecting the rights of children living in difficult family situations. But there are many reports of excesses.  A UN report in UN in 2005 criticized Norway for taking too many children in public care. The amount was 12,500 children and Norway is a small country.

The question is also as to what happens to these children in public care. Who can love and provide for children better than parents? What is the state of these children once they grow up? They would feel emotionally and psychologically severed from their parents and cut off from all familial ties that are fundamental to the healthy growth of individuals.

To what extent can the state interfere in private lives? It is undemocratic, illiberal and downright authoritarian when the state forcibly takes away children who are growing up in secure environments with both their parents providing them security and love.

                                  By: Syed Ruman Hashmi

                                          Editor-In-Chief

                                             www.newsleaks.in

Live-in-relationships: Tearing values apart !

A recent judgment by a trial court has noted that live-in relationships have become a fad visible only in urban areas and the fact is that they are seen as ‘immoral’ in our society.

In the West, live-in relationships have become a way of life and in India, where the fashion is to imitate the West; live-in relationships are becoming a fad especially among urban Indians who are much influenced by the Western trends. The tendency of all those who want to protect themselves as democratic, liberated and intellectual (that is, like the ‘Westerners’) is to support the new trend and criticize those who oppose it as ‘repressive’ and ‘backward’. It has been the fashion of the urban Indians, including the English media, to support this Western trend unflinchingly as an expression of an ‘open’ society. However, they are quite ‘closed’ when they are asked to explain the many negative effects of such relationships which studies, especially in the West, have revealed from time to time.

What do live-in relationships imply? In a simple sentence, they mean two people living together as husband and wife but without marriage and without accepting any of the duties and responsibilities that are associated with marriage.

It is an ‘easy come, easy go’ temporary relationship formed with the sole objective of gaining pleasure without having any obligations and duties towards each other. But in reality, it is a trend that harms the individual and the society, the live-in partners as well as their offspring, the present society as well as the society of the future.

The social effects of live-in relationships hit out at the basic building block of individual relations and the society—the family. Such relationships are a rebellion against the enduring edifice of the family and the values it represents—love and affection, commitment, stability and security, a sense of togetherness, sharing of responsibilities, upholding of sanctity of relationships, harmony between family members, respect for elders and an enduring understanding of what it means to live healthily and happily as a team. Such relationships are increasingly hitting out at the role of the man as the responsible father who provides care, security and guidance to the family as a whole and especially to his children. As rightly stated by some researchers, the ‘father’ is increasingly become an ‘extinct species’ in the West.  The ‘modern’ women themselves who opt for it end up being burdened with numerous pressures—physical, sexual, emotional and psychological. Then again, there are the children born to them.

These children cannot be always simply aborted at the outset or given away to orphanages. As the West itself acknowledges now, the children need to be brought up in a stable, secure manner with all the advantages of a ‘family’. But when the ‘family’ unit does not exist, how are these children to get the advantages of a family? They grow up diseased and distorted physically, emotionally, mentally and socially.

According to a study in The Journal of Law and Economics in 2010,there is indeed a very significant link between out-of-wedlock births and rates of murder and other crimes. Children born out of wedlock are receivers of lower educational and other resource investments from their parents, which means that they are more likely to commit crimes.

They are emotionally weak and insecure, unstable in their social interactions, unable to form relationships based on loyalty, and without any understanding of the importance of values like trust, devotion and commitment (which they have not experienced in their home environments). They indulge in sexual activity at an early age, spend time away from their single parents, and once they become adults, have children out of wedlock and engage in criminal activity. Interestingly, the effect of these on boys is greater, at least in the early years.

Live-in relationships do not leave their ugly trace just on the present; they also impact on the future. It has been found that the absence of married parents leads to intergenerational illegitimacy.

The US is the pioneer in establishing the many new fads and lifestyles popular in the West that have attacked the family and other values that form the foundational structure of the society.

However, ironically, it is the US President Barak Obama himself who has been keen to point out that such trends have a negative impact on the society.

He has highlighted the gravity of high out-of-wedlock birth rates and the importance of marriage in his book The Audacity of Hope. He boldly states what the people in the West, who are proud of their modern lifestyle, and those aping them in the East, would not like to read. He says, “Children living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out.

And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners…. In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.”

The imported trend of live-in relationships is rotten and most unhealthy for individuals and the society. Those who support such live-in relationships especially in transitionally Asian societies like India believe they are forward-looking and progressive because of their ‘liberated’ approach. They may speak vociferously supporting such relationships; they may deride those who do not support such relationships. But just ask the men among them whether they would like or allow the closest in their family—their mother, daughters, sisters—to live in such relationships.

They will react aggressively to even such a suggestion! Live-in relationships do not benefit the individuals or the society in any manner; instead, they are harmful in more than one way. They are thus a useless and dangerous trend!

Live-in relationships is based on all those concepts that are valued in modern societies for their own detriment: a  materialistic outlook in life, a mechanized way of thinking, a pleasure-loving orientation in life; emphasis on the ‘here’ and ‘now’; and an overemphasis on the body and its pleasures.

The desire for liberty has resulted in diminishing of responsibilities of adults towards each other, as seen in live in relationships. Marriage involves commitment towards each other, towards each other’s families. It is the bedrock of the society: it makes the society stable and secure; it helps the society endure; and it keeps the society healthy from many points of view and beneficial for mankind—today and tomorrow.

It teaches individuals to care for each other and share with each other. It teaches men and women how to build relationships of love, trust and devotion and teaches these values to the children who are forever watching their parents and emulating them.

                                                                               

                                                                                         By: Syed Ruman Hashmi

                                                                                                   Editor-In-Chief

                                                                                                     www.newsleaks.in

The Book of Hatred and Salman Rushdie’s Visit

The Book of Hatred and Salman Rushdie’s Visit

The upcoming visit of British Indian novelist Salman Rushdie to India has rightly created a stir. Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, first published in 1988, is ‘famous’ for its attack on Islam. The novel contains blasphemous references with reference to especially Prophet Muhammad and, perhaps as intended by its author, brought him a lot of attention and created a controversy in general.

Talking of books and controversies, there are a few things to note. The book Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler has been banned in Germany. Russia banned the book in March 2010 in an attempt to combat the growing number of Nazi sympathizers in the country. It has been defined as ‘extremist’ and outlawed. The book has been condemned for its militaristic outlook and for justifying discrimination and destruction of non-Aryan races. 0.It is seen as reflecting ideas which, when implemented, started World War Two. It sets out a doctrine of German racial supremacy and ambitions to annex huge areas of the Soviet Union and deal with the ‘Jewish Question’. So enlightened countries have banned Mein Kampf and the West (read America and the UK) do not seem to mind the ban but when countries like  Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Thailand ban the book, they are said to be backward. It is amusing that while some books are not seen as objectionable, others are though both may be offensive to religious and cultural sensibilities. Here, the communities involved seem to matter. For instance, take the book The King’s Torah. The highly controversial book, the King's Torah, written by rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, attempts to justify killing of non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances. The summary states that "you can kill those who are not supporting or encouraging murder in order to save the lives of Jews". It also suggests that babies can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat. But what is the reaction to this kind of a book? There were demonstrations to protest detention of two rabbis who endorsed the book! The US and the West in general have been silent about it. Mein Kampf is racial and it can be banned but the King’s Torah, which is an actual ‘call to terror’, is fine. Likewise, when Salman Rushdie brings out The Satanic Verses, the West condemns countries that ban it and goes on to support Rushdie’s effort as an expression of one’s freedom of expression. There are double standards here as anyone can make out.

Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar wrote books like Bunch of Thoughts and We, Our Nationhood Defined. In the latter, he has been in praise of Hitler even while supporting the Zionist movement. Golwalkar states,  "The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's rights. There is, at least, should be, no other course for them to adopt.” But Golwalkar is the ideal of the RSS and BJP who, however, are the first to protest where there is the slightest hint of any insult to Hindu religion and culture.

More recently, India in January 2012 asked BBC to apologize for the Jeremy Clarkson show in which the presenter, Clarkson, made controversial comments about India’s history and culture, including its food and clothing, trains and toilets.

Clearly the book by Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of all Muslims. The government has banned Rushdie’s book but it says it cannot cancel the visit of the author. It needs to be noted that even the NDA when in power did not lift the ban on the book even though it is composed of right wing parties who have attacked on Muslims sentiments on many occasions. The controversy surrounding the visit has, however, given us the opportunity to view afresh attempts especially by writers and artists to hurt the religious and cultural sentiments of the people and destabilize the peace of a society. Where Rushdie’s writings are concerned, they present ideas and views that hurt the foundational values of the society without contributing anything meaningful. The mockery of Islam and Muslims by Rushdie consistently is directed at mere amusement and cheap publicity. But it is not only Islam that is the target of his attack.  The Satanic Verses insults other religions and communities as well and political and royal personalities.

In the book, Rushdie charges his British benefactors as an incestuous people and calls the British filthy names. A book that is full with the choicest abusive terms, some phrases newly-concocted by him with his ‘brilliant’ imagination, he has insulted white women in general as those who are to be used sexually and thrown over. There are derogatory sexual references to specific women including Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (‘Maggie’) and the monarch of Britain: ‘the Queen’. It also contains references to hurt Hindu religious sentiments though few seem to be aware of this: he insults Hindu gods and goddesses. Words like lecherous, drunken and flighty are used with reference to Rama and Sita.

The author Raold Dahl rightly launched an attack on Salman Rushdie’s work, calling him a “dangerous opportunist”. As he said, this type of sensationalism did get the book to the top of the best-seller list "but to my mind it is a cheap way of doing it”. But this is probably the way books by Asian writers in particular have won media attention in the West. The Satanic Verses was honored with positive reviews. It was a 1988 Booker Prize Finalist and won the 1988 Whitbread Award for novel of the year.

So in no way have Rushdie’s writings ever provided anything healthy to the development of society or its literature. He has only hurt sentiments of the people and abused religions and cultures. But then, it is taken as being very liberal and democratic to welcome Rushdie and allow him to express himself. If one does not want to do that, the society or community is ‘fundamentalist’ and should be mocked and suppressed. Those who oppose Rushdie’s ‘ideas’ and views have no freedom of expression.

In the garb of freedom of expression, one cannot attack the foundations and core values of a community just to amuse a few or create publicity for oneself and preach hatred and violence. Freedom is freedom only when it recognizes its limits and responsibilities. Here man has to take a lesson or two from Nature. The ocean flows unfettered and free, even wild, and in its own zest. However, the moment it transgresses its boundaries there is bound to be a catastrophe for us, whether a cyclone or a tsunami. When its crosses its boundary, it is harmful for all life.

Freedom of expression or speech does not mean one can say or do anything; there is always a restriction in the expression and use of freedom. There is, for instance, freedom of movement but that does not mean anyone can walk into a military zone or any security installation that allows only restricted entry. When writers or artists attack communities or values, they reveal not only a lack of character and maturity on their part but also an intention to create unrest in society. Individual perversions cannot be let loose in the name of freedom of expression and allowed to create chaos in the social fabric of a nation or among communities. The vilest form of attack that any writer or artist or scholar can perpetrate is an abusive attack on other religions, cultures and languages and on women of other communities.  

Wild Past Still Haunts the West !

Wild Past Still Haunts the West !

There have been violent attacks over the years on Asians and people of diverse religions and cultures in the West. They have given rise to the belief that the West has never really been rid of the baggage of violence and intolerance that it has been carrying over the centuries.

One may say, the West’s history of bloodshed and violence still haunts it. It is a history of racial intolerance and gore: the Saxon and Norman invasions, the Crusades, centuries of bloody colonization by the Europeans over the peoples of the Americas and Asia in the name of establishing culture and civilization, the many wars between the European powers themselves and the two World Wars.

 The increase in racial attacks in recent years—whether it be the post-9/11 attacks in the USA or racial attacks against Asians, particularly Indians, in the UK or attacks against Indian immigrants in Australia—reveal  that the so-called ‘tolerant’ and ‘civilized’ West is increasingly manifesting its insecurity through intolerant, ‘uncivilized’ acts of violence. Let’s take the many instances of attacks which either have been directed at symbols or places of Asian religions and cultures or involve direct attacks on people of Asian descent. What they all do is express resentment towards the ‘alien’ religions and cultures which are, needless to say, non-White and non-Christian.

There has been a ban on Sikhs wearing turbans in drivers’ license photographs in France and in clubs as in New Zealand and army’s ban on turbans and beard in USA.

The assaults on Islam, especially symbols of Islamic culture, have been many and varied, such as the recent banning of the hijab in France. The Western argument is that covering of the face is subjugation of women and a disrespect of women’s rights. Never mind what the women themselves, who wear the hijab as part of their religious and cultural attire, actually feel. And never mind that the very people who are opposed to it allow and adopt a covering to the face in the form of a mask when there is the slightest panic of a swine flu virus spread.

 The attacks on persons of Asian descent by individuals and groups have grown to such an extent that it has become a daily occurrence. The post 9/11 attacks on persons of Asian appearance with a beard or turban and the racial attacks against Indians in Australia immediately come to mind.

Attacks by members of right-wing extremist parties reveal the racial and ethnic hatred in the West against non-white cultures and peoples. The attack on a summer camp on the island of Utoya in Tyrifjorden, Buskerud,  organized by AUF, the youth division of the ruling Norwegian Labour Party, was carried out by Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian right-wing extremist, who opened fire and killed 69People. It was the deadliest attack in Norway since the Second World War. He was against the immigration policy of the Labour Party which he felt had allowed immigrants especially Muslims to settle in the country.

Bombs were thrown at a Hindu temple and an Islamic centre in New York and three other locations recently by Ray Lengend who unabashedly said he did what he did because,  among other things, he was upset over being denied entry into the Islamic centre to use its bathroom! The killer of the Indian student Anuj Bidve in Manchester on December 26, Kiaran Mark Stapleton, has stated that his violence was part of a gang initiation process: he had to prove to violent dons that he was capable of cold blooded murder and who a better victim than a harmless young Indian student. The request on banning the Bhagavad Gita in Siberia is by a Christian Orthodox church group that sees the Gita as extremist.

Food for thought here? The most extremist form of violence in the twentieth century was unleashed by persons and powers of extremist ideology in Europe and not in Asia. What can match the fascism of Mussolini or Hitler’s Nazism and its hatred of Jews in terms of intolerance?

 The attack on Iraq and the ‘war on terror’ unleashed by George Bush saw unprecedented violence by one country on others in the name of safeguarding civilization and peace in the world and finishing off terrorism and terrorists. The war started off on the basis of lies: Saddam Hussain never possessed WMDs —an argument that was extended as the basis of initiating the war against Iraq.

Not only that, the ‘war on terror’ itself somewhere became terrorizing as civilians populations, that is, countless innocent men, women and children, were made the targets of bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the ‘war on terror’ attacks, the  terrorizing BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system, nicknamed daisy cutter, a 15,000 pound (6,800 kg) conventional bomb, one of the biggest ever, was dropped by the US even though these bombs were terribly lethal and could cause immense damage to people in these areas in general. Not only this, the treatment of detainees from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq in places like Guantanamo Bay was terrorizing to say the least.

 The West is still haunted by its history of violence and intolerance, and continues to harbor a sense of superiority and a penchant for exercising double standards and favoritism. The transfer and annihilation of Arabs in Palestine has been the policy of Zionist Jews since the late 1800s. And in recent times, with Israel’s invasion of Gaza, the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing has been displayed to the entire world in all of its horrific manifestations. But the US only reiterates its commitment to Israel as an ally and Israel’s right to defend itself. US impose sanctions on Iran and Europe has agreed to impose an embargo on Iranian oil. But the United States does not have a comprehensive embargo against North Korea which scores bad on many counts, whether in terms of its potential threat to the US and its allies, South Korea and Japan; its attempted nuclear proliferation, nuclear weaponry and missiles; and its human rights abuses and its extensive gulags.

The necessity is for the West to understand that the fear of being colonized by Asian populations and its hatred for ‘alien’ communities and cultures is wreaking havoc in Western society as its stands today. A growing racial insecurity is driving groups and individuals to express themselves in violent ways. This no way does credit to the West that has always projected an image of itself steeped in liberalism, rationalism and racial tolerance. It is time for the world to question the veracity of this ‘image’ and make the West answerable to the victims of its culture of violence and hatred.

By: Syed Ruman Hashmi

       Editor-In-Chief

      http://www.newsleaks.in

This News Link

http://www.newsleaks.in/wild-past-still-haunts-the-west/

Lok-sabha-passes-the-lokpal-bill

Lok-sabha-passes-the-lokpal-bill

The Lok Sabha in Delhi passed the anti-corruption Lokpal Bill, which delivers a new national ombudsman with nine members to investigate charges of corruption among government servants, after an eleven-hour debate by a voice vote. However, the Lokpal will not be a constitutional body, as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) did not have the numbers to get the Constitutional (116th Amendment) Bill, 2011 passed, clause by clause. The government required 50 percent strength of the Lok Sabha and two-thirds voting from the members present which it could not get (both conditions need to be satisfied to amend the Constitution). With 10-15 Congress MPs mysteriously disappearing from the house, the government failed to win requisite majority to give constitutional status to the Lokpal.

The bill now travels to the Rajya Sabha, where the numbers are stacked against the government. The Lokpal bill was passed shortly after the Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Left MPs walked out.

The Lok Sabha also adopted the whistleblowers protection bill.

Meanwhile, Anna Hazare has started a three-day fast for a strong Lokpal on December 27. He has refused to end his fast undertaken even though his health has deteriorated. However, the fervour apparent in Delhi was not visible in Mumbai, as a surprisingly low turnout marked his three-day fast.

What made a huge difference in the parliamentary debate was the speech by Pranab Mukherjee, the current Finance Minister and leader of the current Lok Sabha. He found a contradictory position had been taken by the political parties. They say that the parliament is supreme but, on the other hand, they share the stage with the civil society. There is nothing wrong in engaging with the civil society but the stand taken by the civil society that everything has to be their way is not correct. He chose the points systematically and changed the mood of the house. He added, “This Lokpal Bill may not be best, but it is good. It doesn’t mean we should give up good to achieve best.”

The whole issue of the bill being debated in the parliament and its passing by the parliament has immense significance. The reason why democracy has survived in India strongly is that we have institutions that have kept it alive. There is the judiciary, the media, the CAG, the EC and others that have acted as watchdogs to ensure that democracy survives. The parliament has been made a stronger institution over time. Anna’s insistence on the Lokpal issue is a wrong precedent in the sense that it has tried to dictate to the parliament from the streets. It is true that ultimately the people’s interests matter the most in a democracy but there is the parliament to ensure that it happens. The parliament cannot be bypassed in a democracy and laws for the country cannot be dictated by individuals or teams from the street. The stance of the opposition that has disrupted the parliament in protest again sends the wrong signals. It will only demoralise the democratic institution. Disruption is not the way to run the parliament, as Pranab Mukherjee has rightly pointed out. The government is not insensitive to the demands made from outside. But the system of democracy cannot be allowed to fritter away. After all, in a democratic institution, laws are passed by the majority. One cannot get a consensus of all parties or all groups concerned. Here, it is relevant to note that the main opposition party, the BJP, did not walk out of the parliament. Somewhere it appears that Pranab Mukherjee’s speech did make an impact on the NDA. The NDA understands the relevance of the parliament and its sanctity in spite of its attempts to disrupt the parliament. It is the parliament where laws are passed and the government is run. Today it is the UPA that is in power but tomorrow it may be the NDA; in other words, it may be the NDA that may be left to deal with a similar situation in the future. If the civil society is allowed to challenge the authority of the parliament today, then the same may happen when the NDA may be in power, for instance. It is recognizing this that in spite of all opposition, the NDA has not actually supported Team Anna with respect to its opinions and attacks on the sanctity of the parliament. Team Anna member Arvind Kejriwal has attacked the parliament as the basic democratic institution of the country. He not only stated that he has little faith in the parliament (when in actual fact the parliament has been paramount in India in upholding its democratic credentials), but also questioned the significance of the parliamentary democracy as it operates. With questions like “Can it ever deliver India out of poverty, corruption and illiteracy?” and “Is this Parliament really supreme?”, he has attempted to shake the people’s faith in the parliament which is tantamount to an attack on the foundations of democracy. Such comments by Team Anna members are not be taken lightly. But our parties and other civil society groups have been loath to criticise such comments for fear of appearing to oppose the anti-corruption agenda of Team Anna and for fear that they themselves would be labelled corrupt. Kejriwal’s comments, such as his statement that he tends to have more faith in Lord Shiva than in the parliament, are unnecessary and tend to introduce a religious angle into a struggle that should be aimed at strengthening the democratic and secular credentials of our society.

Team Anna members have courted controversy regarding many matters, including the functioning of their NGOs and financial aspects relating to the PCRF fund. The Income Tax Department has sent notices to the two NGOs run by Team Anna member Kiran Bedi to find out whether they are engaged in commercial activities. She was in the news recently for allegedly inflating travel bills and overcharging hosts. Arvind Kejriwal had received income tax notice for clearing dues. Kejriwal, a former Indian Revenue Service (IRS) official, was asked to pay Rs 9.27 lakh for violating the service rules by not fulfilling the bond conditions which required him to serve the department for three years. In August 2011, Booker prize winning author and civil rights activist Arundhati Roy alleged that an NGO run by Kejriwal has received a donation of USD 400,000 from the Ford Foundation in the past 3 years. Arvind Kejriwal has since admitted that the NGO Kabir he runs, along with Manish Sisodia, did receive funds from the New York-based Ford Foundation, but pointed out that it had stopped about two years ago. To compound matters, there is also the fact that donations poured into the Public Cause Research Foundation’s (PCRF) coffers as Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption brigade took on the government. It has been revealed that the NGO received over Rs 2.94 crore between April 1 and September 30, 2011. However, a lot of the amount, some Rs 42 lakh, came from “unknown sources”.

The audited accounts come following allegations made by former Team Anna member Swami Agnivesh, a former colleague of Kejriwal, that the latter diverted money from India Against Corruption (IAC) fund to his own NGO. Kejriwal allegedly deposited Rs 70-80 lakh from IAC fund in his own NGO. The money was raised as donation to IAC. Considering all this, it is high time the government and the judiciary set up an inquiry about NGOs associated with Team Anna members that are getting funds from outside. For, if corruption is to be checked at all levels and in all places, as Team Anna vehemently insists, the effort should begin at home.

Quota within the Quota: What’s the Hassle?

Quota within the Quota: What’s the Hassle?

Is it a case of a storm in a tea cup? The cabinet has cleared 4.5 per cent sub-quota for minorities within 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions.

The centre’s decision is to have an immediate impact on admissions in IITs/IIMs/NITs, AIIMS and 44 central universities and educational institutions. Muslim leaders, intelligentsia and social activists have welcomed it as a positive step towards justice to the minorities especially Muslims who are educationally and socially backward—the Muslim OBCs in particular. The CPM has demanded that the quantum be 10 percent and not 4.5 percent. But the BJP has dubbed it a pre-poll stunt, a move that will cause a ‘civil war’ in the country.

But why is this quota within quota being opposed in the first place?

There is no question but that the Muslims among the minorities are among the most educationally, socially and economically backward sections of the population in this country. It is therefore that the Ranganath Mishra Committee had asked for 10 per cent reservation for Muslims and 5 per cent for other minorities based on economic and social criteria. The 4.5 percentage in the minorities’ sub-quota, allotted under the OBC quota, means that those who would benefit would be actually the socially and educationally backward and not others. So what if this percentage belongs to the minority groups and not the dominant majority group? They are socially and educationally backward nevertheless.

The backward groups that will benefit here are those people who have been systematically oppressed over centuries. They have been denied political power, positions of status and prestige, and socially suppressed. Under centuries of Muslim rule in India, those who held power were always the royalty, nobles, zamindars, moneylenders and other who were members of the forward groups in Muslim society. The forward groups had traditionally held power or had been favoured by the ruling class.

Those who were denied a good social status and kept out of the political framework were actually the backward groups—the Ansaris, the Julai, Teli, Kasai, Khumra, Kunjra, Dhobi and others— who had been suppressed by the ruling class and forward groups for a long time. So much so that they had their own places of worship and they could not freely mix or intermarry with the forward castes. They have over time suffered discrimination at the hands of the diminant Hindu groups as well as their own brethren. These groups were again the victims of the partition of the country in 1947 when communal violence ripped the nation apart. While many of the forward castes among Muslims moved over to the newly-formed Pakistan, the backward castes were left behind. They suffered the brunt of the communal ire directed against the Muslims. Now, if after centuries of oppression, these backwards groups can hope to look for social and educational equality, why is it being seen as a move that will result in a ‘civil war’? Should they be denied equal social and educational opportunities just because they are Muslims, as the BJP and other groups seem to hint? That would amount to discrimination (in offering reservation for the OBCs) based on religious grounds. If OBCs need quota for social and educational advancement, then all OBCs need them, and not just Hindu OBCs. If the BJP can agree to reservation for Muslims in Karnataka and Bihar where it runs the government, then why should it object if the centre provides OBC minorities a sub-quota of 4.5 per cent?

For a long time in India now, the forward castes or groups—both Hindus and Muslims—have had a honeymoon. They have favoured only the forward castes when it came to power-sharing or granting favours of land and other forms of wealth. Even the mainstream freedom movement was one led by members of forward castes from both the Hindus and the Muslims. After independence, efforts have been carried out to provide the socially and economically backward Hindus reservation in educational institutions and government jobs. Now, there is an attempt to provide the backward groups from the minority communities a similar opportunity. Why, then, so much opposition? Is it because some parties and groups want the minorities to remain backward? To be oppressed socially and economically while the majority community moves on towards advancement, taking the OBCs among them along?

The center has boldly taken a step in the right direction by granting minorities a quota within a quota. For it is high time the socially and economically backward among all communities are given their due without discrimination.

The Lokpal Bill Controversy

The Lokpal Bill Controversy

On December 22, the government finally introduced the controversial Lokpal bill in the Lok Sabha. The bill that envisages creation of anti-graft institutions at the central as well as state levels with a provision for including marginalized sections including minorities as members. A separate bill was also introduced for amending the Constitution to confer constitutional status to the proposed institutions. Both the houses would meet on December 27-29 to discuss the legislation.

The draft legislation states that the bill proposes to establish autonomous and independent institutions—a nine-member Lokpal at the central level and Lokayukta at the state level. The bill proposes to bring the prime minister under the purview of the nine-member Lokpal but with specific exclusions. The Lokpal has its jurisdiction to include all categories of government officers and employees but the investigation is to be done by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Fifty per cent of members shall be from amongst Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), minorities and women (a corrigendum was brought with the bill, to include the provision for minorities).

The responses to the draft legislation have been varied and quite surprising in some cases. Anna Hazare dismissed the legislation as weak. Team Anna expressed the view that the bill would make the ombudsman a puppet in the hands of the government. Many political parties opposed the move. The Bharatiya Janata Party was opposed to the minority quota provision, calling it unconstitutional. It said the bill violated federal principles as it amounted to dictating to states to establish Lokayuktas. Parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal said the government was bringing the bill under duress and for the fear of agitation by Anna Hazare. Lalu Prasad, who strongly fought for the inclusion of minorities in the bill, strongly opposed the bill saying it was not enough to tackle corruption. He also opposed the inclusion of the prime minister under the Lokpal’s ambit. He demanded that ex-MPs should not be included within the Lokpal. He also slammed Team Anna and asked the government not to get cowed down by threats of fresh protests.

The draft Lokpal bill, it seems, has satisfied no one. There are a few issues that need to be pointed out but first, the introduction of a separate citizens charter bill in parliament. While some civil society groups have welcomed it with reservations, it has failed to please Anna who said it was too centralized and failed to check corruption at the lowest level. He wants it to be part of the Lokpal bill. It appears that Anna wants anything and everything to come under the purview of the proposed Lokpal. He wants the prime minister under the Lokpal’s purview without any condition whereas this is not feasible, as national security matters have to be excluded. Then take the CBI. The draft bill does not include the CBI under the Lokpal’s purview but instead gives it a separate inquiry wing. The Lokpal can also refer cases to the CBI for further inquiry. But Team Anna has called for its total inclusion under the Lokpal. The BJP has suggested splitting the anti-corruption wing of the CBI and bringing it under Lokpal. Parties like the SP and the RJD are opposed to the CBI being under Lokpal or splitting it. The government wants to keep administrative control over the CBI. The draft bill says the CBI will report to the Lokpal on cases referred to it by the anti-graft commission, which seems fair enough as the CBI sees cases of not only corruption but also other criminal activities. It does not make sense to place the CBI in a body that is concerned only with the aspect of corruption. Some parties suggest splitting the CBI’s investigative and prosecution wings and placing the latter under the Lokpal. But this will only hamper the effectiveness of the functioning of the CBI as a single unit. A solution would be to grant greater autonomy to the CBI so that it can have greater independence and accountability. This would work to the benefit of all concerned

(the Election Commission, for instance, has benefitted with the move to grant it greater autonomy). But certainly, the CBI has to be placed outside the ambit of the Lokpal.

There is the reservation where the Lokpal members are concerned. The reservation for minorities in Lokpal was added in the government’s bill at the last minute after political parties demanded it. The SP and RJD were most vocal in raising the issue of reservation for minorities, supported by left parties. Needless to say, the BJP has protested reservation for minorities in Lokpal. Surprisingly, Team Anna has been silent on the issue of reservation, though the demand for reservation had come from other quarters of civil society. But why? Anna, with his broad agenda to root out specifically corruption but also other ills from society, did not think it worthwhile to constitute a united force, a Team Anna, that would represent various sections of the populace. How many dalits, backward classes and minorities find representation in the Anna team? It lacks the representation of those people who are the greatest victims of corruption and social oppression in general—the SCs and STs, backward classes, and minorities. After all, is Team Anna, the force that has rocked the government of the day and mobilized the people of the country on the course of a revolution-of-sorts, just an assortment of faithful followers of Anna who do not represent the oppressed and marginalized sections of the society? What is its credibility then, if it is going to represent just the well-off classes of society—the so-called ‘liberalised’ and ‘secular’ intellectuals.

Any solution to addressing the Lokpal controversy is not possible as long as the government and the parliament kowtow the line of Team Anna fearing opposition in terms of rallies and hunger strikes involving the people at large. The Congress, which has been somewhat passive in responding to Team Anna’s perpetually offensive mode of demanding, has now asserted itself with vigor. It has recognized the need to be emphatic and assertive if not aggressive. It has systematically listed out the action taken by the government to combat corruption. Sonia Gandhi has vowed she would fight for Lokpal but without succumbing to threats of political retaliation or agitations a la Anna’s style of social activism. The bottom-line is that neither the government nor the parliament nor the country can function as per the diktat of any one person or group, even if it is the ‘indomitable’ (dictating and uncompromising) Team Anna.