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.

US Troops Leave Iraq: What Next?

US Troops Leave Iraq: What Next?

The last convoy of US troops left Iraq on December 18, 2011, marking the end of the nine-year US war in Iraq. But what does this ‘end’ mark the beginning of? In other words, what are they leaving behind: a fragile democracy and a still more fragile country that threatens to burst at its seams across ethnic lines? The question is, ‘What next’?

The US war in Iraq has been the costliest ever for the country—costing one trillion dollars in a mere nine years. At one time, the US had over 170,000 troops stationed in the country and over 500 bases. The American invasion was not merely against the tyrant regime of Saddam Hussein but against the man himself. Both were brought to a sudden brutal end. But what also ended was the peaceful co-existence of different Muslim sects and religious groups in Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US forces took over in Iraq.  The demographic population of the Muslim sects in the country, predominantly the Sunni Arabs, the Shiites and the Sunni Kurds, has undergone a change since the collapse of the Saddam regime. In Iraq, though the Shiites are in a majority and the Sunnis constitute 35 to 40 per cent of the population, the latter’s representation in areas like the army and the police is dismal—some three per cent and two per cent respectively.  Figures such as these reflect the kind of violence and hatred that has prevailed between sects in the country since the arrival of US forces on Iraqi soil ironically with an agenda to establish peace there. Who ever heard of continual bomb blasts and other incidents of violence in Iraq under the ‘tyrant’ Saddam Hussein? Who ever saw such mass migration of Shiites and Sunnis to areas of their own sectarian dominance in the ‘oppressive’ regime of Saddam Hussein? And who had heard of prosecution of the seven to eight per cent Christians in the ‘despotic’ regime of Saddam Hussein? Though differences existed between ethnic groups, they were never so violently expressed in terms of suicide attacks and unabated series of bomb explosions that threaten the lives of the common people.

 The ethnic hatred and violence we see today is shocking as it operates at various levels: there are the attacks against the US backed government, the violence against the US forces, Sunni attacks against the Christians and most worryingly the fighting between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The terrorist groups have unleashed a kind of violence unprecedented in the annals of Iraq. For thousands of years, the Sabians lived in Iraq with no threat to their lives but now they are migrating to Europe and America. Under Saddam Hussein, the main ethnic groups lived in Iraq as Iraqis first and foremost. During the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties, the Shiites of Iraq along with the Sunnis fought against Iran that is a Shiite-majority nation. But now, the Sunnis and the Shiites are locked in a bitter battle and the Sunnis are viewing Christians as collaborators of the US forces and targeting them. The Sunnis clearly feel marginalized in a nation led by a Shiite prime minster. For two governments in a row, the posts of president, premier and parliament speaker have been handed out to a Shiite, a Sunni Arab and a Kurd, all with deputies of the other two groups. But analysts warn that this is a dangerous trend. It has affected the working of the government departments and it come to determine who is chosen to work in parliament and government ministries, as well as the security forces. The common people in Iraq now complain of being kept out of services due to their ethnic and religious background.  So what is Iraq heading towards? And what can be done?

It is necessary that the world forum, the Arab countries and particularly Iran, which with its Shiite majority population can clearly influence Shiite dominated Iraq, do not take advantage of the chaos in Iraq to fulfill their own interests. The terrorist groups should not be allowed to use Iraq as a safe haven for their acts, which they will unless they are thwarted. There is little of trust between Sunnis and Shiites at present which does not bode well for peace prospects in the country. It is time the UN comes forward to rescue Iraq from the crisis. It should ensure that Iraq’s neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran, do not play a game across the Sunni-Shiite line to exert control over Iraq. We all know how the UN mutely watched as the US bombarded Iraq to curb Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction (later found to be non-existing). It is now time for the UN to make up for its earlier lapse—for being merely a spectator of the US show of might against Iraq. It can put pressure on Iraq to get its equation right: the ethnic groups must have representation in military, army and the intelligence equal to their population so that no group feels marginalized. After all, the UN has asserted its supremacy in the past with miraculous effects: it helped the people of East Timor and more recently South Sudan gain independence The UN must call a special convention on Iraq and use its authority to compel the Iraqi government to ensure equal representation for all people. This is the only way Iraq can be saved from disintegration and a new cycle of bloodbath now that the US is vacating Iraq.

Anna and the proposed Lokpal: Riders on a Horse with its Blinkers On

Anna and the proposed Lokpal: Riders on a Horse with its Blinkers On

Anna’s tirade against the Congress continues even as he renews his Lokpal campaign with vigor. Fully backed by the BJP and supported by the Left and other parties with whom Team Anna shares consensus on many issues, Anna is heading towards a showdown with the Centre and the Congress in particular. His digs at the Congress leaders have been on for some time. His regular digs at Sonia and now Rahul Gandhi, alleging that Rahul was responsible for what he saw as poor drafting of the Lokpal bill by the parliamentary standing committee, are in poor taste. Worse, he has not even spared the ailing Sharad Pawar. Anna Hazare's initial reaction to the attack on union agriculture minister Pawar angered many. Asked by reporters about his view on the attack on Pawar, who was slapped by a Sikh man, Hazare had said: "Was it only one slap?" At least Anna should have shown some respect and humane feelings towards a senior political figure of Pawar’s stature!

 His anti-Congress stance has suggested that he is on to some game plan to go after the Congress bigwigs. This is the kind of tactics that the masses associate with scheming politicians in general and not with reform-oriented peace-loving Gandhians who want to change the society for good. It has been clear that Anna is keen on latching on to a political hold of sorts. Note that he has repeatedly said that he would campaign against the Congress in the coming polls. His comments are often vitriolic and often it is surprising that one who is so vocal in expressing his political anger can even be seen as a Gandhian figure. Angry with the Congress for what he saw as not keeping the promise on the Lokpal bill and coming up with a poorly drafted bill, he retorted, “Yeh sarkar hai ki baniye ki dukan hai.” Using such an expression to vent his anger is improper to say the least. And what is wrong with the baniye ki dukaan itself? Does not it cater to all our needs? If the baniya closes shop, none of us will be able to have our meals in peace. And Anna would not be able to shoot his mouth off at will, as he does now (though he may say his regular fasts obviate the need for the baniya’s dukaan).

Coming to the proposed Lokpal itself, what is Anna up to? The proposed Lokpal has a narrow approach of fighting corruption, one that views the issue of corruption from the top down and fails to take into consideration the highly decentralised administrative structure in our country. With Lokpal acting as the one centralised institution to handle all cases of corruption—high-level scams to bribery among lower officials, it would be burdened with excessive functions. There would be diffusion of powers and the end result would be little of committed action and reform initiatives. The Lokpal would then need sufficiently trained personnel to carry out its functions. The proposed Lokpal wants to impose its authority from the top instead of involving the people and stakeholders in tackling corruption, especially corruption at the lower echelons. It is concerned most with the symptoms of corruption but what about the factors that give rise to it?

The proposed Lokpal’s authoritarianism cannot spell good for any democracy, leave alone a fragile and growing one like ours. We are reminded of the authoritarianism unleashed by the Emergency rule imposed by Indira Gandhi. After all, we still criticize the Emergency for its disregard to democracy and its authoritarian approach even though we got to see some benefits like regular attendance and discipline in offices and absence of lower level corruption. But the proposed Lokpal appears to tread on a similar path of authoritarianism and centralization without any real benefits. It appears to be moving like a horse in full speed with its blinkers on, with Team Anna riding on it: it threatens to mow down the unique federal character of our Constitution based on decentralization of powers; the independence of the judiciary in a democracy; and the importance of collective action in a society like ours. It even wants to bring the post of the prime minister under its ambit!

Much of the glorification around the proposed Lokpal is based on a misconception of it among the common people. People feel that once the proposed Lokpal comes in, the society will be free of corruption and all ills associated with it. In other words, it would be the advent of a sort of Ram Rajya (using the vocabulary of the BJP).  But what the proposed Lokpal is ultimately doing is biting off more than it can chew. And ultimately  it may give rise to a bureaucratic set-up smitten by the very corruption it hopes to address now!

FDIs in Retail: Opposing for the Sake of Opposing

It appears that the Centre is on the way to put the shutters down where retail FDI is concerned. Parliament started functioning on December 7 after the government gave in to opposition demands for a commitment not to operationalise the Cabinet’s controversial decision to allow 51 per cent in FDI in multi-brand retail until there was a consensus on the issue. Though the government has refused to reverse the decision, the conditions it has accepted are rigorous. The Left and the BJP have claimed victory even as the Congress blames it on coalition politics (‘Good economics does not always make good politics’).

 That the Opposition has literally forced the issue does not augur well for the UPA. It exposes the UPA’s weaknesses: it has simply bowed to the Oppositions’ demand, taking the easy way out and blaming it on coalition politics.

 To begin with, the government is not run on general consensus. The UPA has the people’s mandate to govern the country as it deems fit, not cater to the Opposition’s interests at every turn. But what is the rationale behind the opposition to FDI in retail? It seems opposition for opposition’s sake? The reaction reminds us of the time when the big retail chains like Reliance Fresh and more entered the retail market. There was a furor by political parties, with the BJP and the Left calling it anti-nationalist. Mamata Banerjee, who never likes to take the back seat on any occasion of protest, has been vehemently against not only the foreign MNCs but also our very own desi big-time industrialists (after all, she drove out the Tatas from Singur). The political commotion this time is, on the surface, to safeguard the interests of the common man but in fact it hasn’t been so. When the big stores entered retail, did the kirana stores shut down after all?

 FDI in retail is nothing to be scared about. It actually makes sense in the context of a growing and liberalized economy, an economy that cannot afford to get scared of increasing competition. What would entry of the FDIs in retail mean? It would mean better choice at every level. It would mean better availability of products, well-packaged and better quality products, competitive prices, accountability of those who sell with regard to what they sell for the consumers—the aam aadmi regarding whom everyone is so concerned. Consumers always benefit from competition, as they stand to gain. When competition is fierce, consumers are made to feel they get more for what they pay. And so we have ‘combo offers’ and other allurements that pay tremendous dividends at times. Entry of MNCs in retail would mean better payment options for customers, who may simply use their debit cards to purchase items for their weekly or monthly requirement without having to carry precious cash around all the time.

 The wave of globalization and liberalization is sweeping the world and any attempts to thwart it are neither possible nor necessary. Think about the way things were decades ago. At one time pheriwalas did the rounds in our villages and towns selling a variety of things, door to door. However, small shops or kirana stores soon entered the scene and they grew in plenty. Then came the bigger chains such as the Super Bazaars which at one time were very popular. Today it is the day of the mega retail chains. In every instance we see that the emergence of the new did not lead to a total collapse of what was. The kirana stores are still alive and kicking in every street, never mind the Reliance Fresh, More, Apna Bazaar and other retail outlets that are doing big business. The weekly markets, an old tradition, are not less crowded with the arrival of these retail stores and the emergence of the glitzy shopping malls. Each segment of the population has its own wants and demands, and it has its own outlet to cater to its needs. Ultimately it is the consumer who must decide what he wants and how he would like to have it. There have been cases where mega chains—the Subhiksha stores come to mind—have simply shut shop because the consumers rejected them! It is always the consumers’ choice. What right has the netas with their plush bungalows and luxurious lifestyles, who have exotic holidays abroad and educate their children in the choicest universities of the West; will they tell the aam aadmi that they must not shop at mega retail chains from abroad?

 The right and left parties are opposing FDI in retail for opposition’s sake. This should be seen only as a political gimmick. With no real concern for the aam aadmi who deserves better. It appears that our politicians do not even think the aam aadmi has the ability to think for himself and decide where and how he must buy what he wants!

India Demands a Return to the Past Glory

India Demands a Return to the Past Glory

We all know the movement being led by Anna is essentially one for rooting out corruption from public life. His motive, and that of his supporters and all the lay people who identify with his cause, is admirable.  For our society is so much ridden with the menace of corruption that it is not only affecting the moral values of the citizens but also affecting economic efficiency, causing income inequality and poverty. Corruption affects the people by diverting resources and holding back development. But is the problem of rooting out corruption as simplistic as Anna seems to make it out?

The word ‘corruption’ does not simply mean bribery or dishonest proceedings in public life but it means a perversion of integrity and moral depravity in values and actions. Our society is emerging to be a hotbed of selfish and misdirected values that are breeding an immoral way of life. Look at the state of our schools, the very institutions that educate our children for a better future—for themselves, for our society and for the civilization. Co-educational schools foster values that are seen as modern and advanced and therefore necessary by teachers and parents but these in fact are detrimental to the proper mental and even physical growth of children. Schools actually nurture a materialistic and superficial outlook to life in children which gets reflected in diverse ways: rebellion against parental authority, growing violence among children, lifestyle illnesses and depression, anxiety and other psychological disorders, adolescent sex and even rising teen pregnancies and abortions. All these are a direct result of the kind of education children are being provided in the schools and the kind of life teenagers in particular are being taught to lead. The emphasis in the schools is on a Western type of education and an imported culture that instead of focusing on building a healthier and value-based society, concentrates on engineering a society that is materialistic, opportunistic and greedy and relies on scientific and technological tools to fulfill its goal. On a broader framework, the same factors impact on the state of the society. Increasing intolerance and violence in society, abuse and exploitation of women especially in workplaces, a selfish and avaricious attitude to nature, our environment and life in general, are all vicious effects of a growing abnormal trend in society.

The Indian culture and society is many centuries old. It is based on a system of values that have stressed compassion, faith, tolerance, and exchange of ideas between various religions and cultures. But where are these values reflected in the society of today particularly in its educational system. In this regard, it is better to recall Lord Macaulay’s address to the British parliament on February 2, 1835, “I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation. ” It appears that the British were absolutely right in judging the Indian psyche, for that is how we have continued to be.

The loss in our societal values can be directly traced to a failure of our educational system to develop sustainable values in young people. India in ancient and medieval times was a land of plenty: it was famous for its wealth and glory, as borne out by the British and other nations and peoples in the past. What was responsible for this was its culture of education, the guru-shishya parampara, for instance, that believed in establishing a relationship between the institution and the teacher on the one hand and the pupil on the other that went beyond materialistic considerations. The students respected the elders and the teachers and imbibed spiritual values as an essential aspect of the process of being educated. These values lasted them a lifetime. The imbibing of values was stressed along with the emphasis on comprehensive instruction in various disciplines. India produced mathematicians, scientists, linguists, writers, philosophical thinkers and saints and religious men and women of note. There were the famousBhaskaracharya, Jyestadeva (who wrote the first calculus text), Madhava, Aryabhatta, Patanjali, Sushruta, Charaka, Panini and medieval scholars like Amir Khusrau and Dara Shikoh who can be rightly considered gems in the Indian cultural mosaic of their time. Shankara, Ramanuja, and later bhakti poet-saints like Kabir, Tulsidas, Tukaram and Guru Nanak were the product of a cultural tradition that emphasized on moral and spiritual values. Works by ancient Indian grammarians suggest that women were educated in the Vedic times. Gargi and Maitreyi are among the noted seers mentioned in our ancient texts. Razia Sultan was one of the first few women rulers of the world. Other famous women rulers were the Gond queen Durgavati who ruled for fifteen years and Chand Bibi. Nur Jahan effectively wielded imperial power and was recognized as the real force behind the Mughal throne. The Mughal princesses Jahanara and Zebunnissa were well-known poetesses, and they also influenced the ruling administration. Shivaji’s's mother, Jijabai was deputed as queen regent, because of her ability as a warrior and an administrator. In South India, many women administered villages, towns, divisions and heralded social and religious institutions. Mirabai, a female saint-poet, was one of the most important Bhakti movement figures. Some other female saint-poets from this period include Akka Mahadevi, Rami Janabai and Lal Ded.

The emphasis of the educational institutions was not on what we see today:  universities churning out graduates as mints do. We have hordes of mass-educated unemployed men and women who are value-less and jobless. That’s a dreadful combination, for such youth do not hesitate to resort to violence and use any unfair or immoral means they can find to exploit the vulnerable and earn easy money. Minister for human resource development, Mr. Kapil Sibal, has sought to introduce the CCE system that seeks all-round development of students. The students will have to develop their skills in different areas, rather than just simply memories bookish facts. It emphasizes on teachers desisting from using negative comments vis-à-vis the learner’s performance. It encourages learning through employment of a variety of teaching aids and techniques and involves learners actively in the learning process It aims at all-round development of the child’s personality. Students will be equipped to meet different life situations with greater maturity.

It is only a complete overhaul of the educational system that can ultimately produce a good set of values and culture in society. The western-imported education that we have in place today has clearly failed to inculcate abiding values in our youth. The dire need  is for a return to the past—our traditions in terms of the family values we have cherished over time and our  educational system in the past that not only provided instruction in various disciplines but was also devoted to fostering a cultural and social system that stressed the values of religion and tradition. We can go back to the India that Lord Macaulay so enviously described: an India without beggars and thieves, without corrupt babus and netas and without its breed of modern consumerists who put personal aggrandizement before any other cause.

By: Syed Ruman Shamim Hashmi,   Editor-In-Chief

Are Good Looks Overrated?

Are Good Looks Overrated?

Prof. Daniel Hamermesh, in his book Beauty Pays, has claimed being attractive pays—good-looking people enjoy more perks and higher pay packets than their plainer-looking colleagues. But his research has come in for a whole lot of criticism. After all, wasn’t that a rather sweeping statement, it was asked? And how do you say what is exactly ‘good-looking’ or ‘attractive’? Was not it perception-based (beauty lies in the beholder’s eyes)? Did it also not depend upon the kind of field or activity involved? It is expected that models, film stars, air hostesses be good-looking but what about secretaries, nurses, and people, especially women, employed in numerous professions and activities outside their homes? Do we really ‘need’ good-looking people in all these fields of activity? In a number of fields, including films and modeling, there are the plain looking ones who are more successful and earn more than their good-looking counterparts (has Amitabh Bachchan ever had the perfect looks and has Shah Rukh Khan ever been really good-looking though they are two of the most successful heroes of the silver screen ever). Though a lot of research and articles have emphasized on the ‘good looks quotient’, thanks to the media in particular which glorifies ‘good looks’ and everything associated with glamour, very little has been said for the other side.

Strongly disagreeing with Mr. Hamermesh’s research, many recruitment officers feel good looks have somehow been overrated in most fields. Looks have nothing to do with it, they say; it's completely skills-based. Persons who present themselves nicely and are well-qualified would do well in the workforce.  In truth, a lot of professional and other work requires talent and qualifications backed by a great deal of dedication to the job. Honesty and hard work are vital if one has to be a success in any field. Education and experience matter in the end.

It is interesting to note a few things in this debate. In this world of ours which is dominated by impulses of crass consumerism and superficiality, ‘looks’ are indeed overemphasized as a rule. Whether it be students in schools or colleges, office-goers in general or professionals, those who are seen to be good-looking are viewed and rated higher by others. The good looks vs. plain looks debate concerns the ‘fairer’ sex more than the other: girls and women face greater pressure to look good and attractive than boys and men, and it is so in almost all societies irrespective of their level of so-called ‘advancement’! The expectations are high and the cost of being unable to fulfill a certain criteria of good looks can be immense for one’s popularity, career or the coveted marriage proposal! It is therefore quite surprising that women have not more often seriously led the debate. Last but not the least, what about actually interacting with those plain janes who are involved in various professions and fields, and asking them what they feel about their jobs and the pressures as plain looking persons. The pressure is more; they need to show greater commitment and put their talents to greater use; their performance is also constantly evaluated far more strictly; and of course they have to work hard. However, what they do get in the end is well-earned recognition and rewards that are not dependent on their having or maintaining a pretty face through a rigorous regime of beauty treatments or even cosmetic surgery. They can make themselves indispensable to the organization and develop a lasting bond with their colleagues and earn recognition for being not only good employees but also great persons with some admirable qualities. After all, what matters in life is what one ‘is’, and not how one ‘looks’!

By: Syed Ruman Shamim Hashmi,   Editor-In-Chief