Redefining secularism.

                          Lokpal and reservation appear to be two completely different ideas and no sane person would think of marring them together. But then politics is art of possibilities. In it's haste to play to minority galleries ahead of UP election congress seems to be determined to redefine notion of secularism.
                          Debate about reservation always seems to be focused on “to whom” aspect and in post Mandal era we seem to have given up on the question of “why reservation”. Dr. Ambedkar wanted reservation for scheduled casts on the grounds of historical discrimination against them and to ensure social justice.Whether reservation is the only and correct way of providing helping hand to the deprived scheduled cast can be seriously debated however no right thinking person would disagree that helping hand  was indeed required. In principal helping hand is provided to make sure that in Independent India there is level playing field for the historically deprived section of society.
                         Body blow was delivered to this logic when VP Singh decided to bring OBCs under reservation umbrella. By including OBCs we have deviated from agreed upon principal of reservation. Reservation cannot be provided to a community just because majority of the people from that community did not find their way up the economic ladder. There has to be beyond reasonable doubt evidence that social discrimination did not provide level playing field to the particular community and hence they were not able to find they were up. I do not think OBCs come clean if put to test on aforementioned criteria.
                           As if this was not bad enough congress and other “secular” political parties are raising their pitch for providing reservation to minorities. Our constitution does not permit reservation based on religion and that makes lot of sense for a secular democracy like India. Besides many Muslim casts already fall under OBC category.
                            Was there a social discrimination against Muslims at any point in pre and post independent India? Did Muslims comprise of oppressed class at any point in time? Didn't they rule many parts of India for more than 200 years? How can community which once belonged to ruling class claim to be victim of social injustice? Is it not true that defiance to give up Madarsa education and refusal to embrace modern mainstream education is the root cause of lack of job opportunities for them?
                          It’s true that vast section of Muslim population lives well below acceptable living standards and so does the vast section of Hindu population (even ones which do not fall under any reserved categories).Does that mean Muslim should be given reservation? If yes then why not include economically weaker section of society irrespective of their cast and religion? If poor from Brahmin or a Kshatriya cast cannot be brought under reservation because that goes against principal of reservation then same logic disqualifies Muslims.
                         There is one more dangerous repercussion of religion based reservation that is conversion. In India barring few states such as Gujarat conversion is legal. There is serious polarization of opinion on whether change of religion should be permitted. Allegations and counter allegations are often made by both the parties. Religion based reservation would definitely incentivize conversion from majority to minority religion and in turn would act as fuel to the fire in an already confrontational problem.
                          Secularism essentially means separation of church and state. In an ideal secular democratic liberal polity, which India must strive hard to become one, there should be no place for religion based quota. Lets hope this  petty politics of religion based quota is defeated and  pseudo secular forces do not succeed in making necessary constitutional amendment.

Anurag Choudhary.

Alright Anna Hazare is not Gandhian so was Gandhi himself one?

Anna Hazare's comments about beating up durnkards in village and his reaction to Pawar slap episode have raised many eye brows.Intellectuals ,pundits in media are writing columns questioning these "non Gandhian" methods of Hazare.

Basic question that comes to my mind is what does being a Gandhian mean? Does it mean unconditional comittment to non violence ? By this rule if a person happens to induldge in any kind of violence himself or  supporting violence then he immideatley disquallifies from being Gandhian.Every statement issued by Anna Hazare nowadays  is scrutinized against Gandhian benchmarks of absolute non violence.

Alright now lets put Gandhi himself to those stringent benchmarks of non-violence and lets see if he comes clean.

1) In South Africa Gandhi used to run  a news paper named Indian Opinion.During British offensive against native rebellions (Zulu War)  Gandhi wrote many columns in Indian Opinion urging Indians to  participate in Zulu War and he also tried to persuade  government to accept support of Indians in their war effort.Finally Gandhi had to just settle for working in ambulance corp as government rejected his overture of Indians helping in combative effort.

2) Many of you might not know but Gandhi was ardent advocate of  India and Indians supporting Britain in world war 1. He also actively recruited Indians to fight for British in world war 1. Recruited Indian soldiers were obviously not going to employ non violent means to change the heart of British foes.

 So to much of our astonishment  we find that Mr Gandhi himself was not full proof "Gandhian". If Gandhi himself was not Gandhian then its foolish to expect Anna Hazare to be one.

Anurag Choudhary.

Bail and jail!

LAW minister Salman Khurshid is right when he says that bail is a rule, and jail is an exception.
However, the minister seems to be only concerned about top businessmen not getting bail.What about the common people to whom bail is denied? Those who do not have access to eminent advocates to push for their right to bail? As law minister, Khurshid should be more worried about people who unfairly spend years in lockups for alleged petty crimes. His claim that locking up businessmen will harm investment is also objectionable as upholding the law of the land without worrying about the repercussions is the duty of the judiciary. The government should focus on providing a conducive environment to attract investors and let the judiciary take its course in dealing with tainted businessmen.

This blog is also published in Indian Express http://www.indianexpress.com/news/activevoice/860788/0

Anurag Choudhary.

Are we demonizing and singling out Maya?

We all are going gaga over Maya spending 685 crore on Dalit memorial , we all are outraged by the idea of this extravagant spending on a memorial which in our book is complete waste of tax payer's money.
We have every right to do so but let me ask one question is Mayawati  the only politician guilty of such acts ?
Are we less moved by stupendous spending in news paper and TV adds by all political parties.Is it because that's more sophisticated way of projecting and advertising politics? What if Mayawati feels building Dalit memorial is symbol  of Dalit empowerment and reaching out to her supporters. Are we so deeply enraged because Mayawati does it in blunt and unapologetic manner.
Identity politics is reality of India and every political party has equal share of it.If it is okay for congress party and Gandhi family which rules it  to name various government welfare programs after Rajiv Gandhi , Sanjay Gandhi ,Indira Gandhi  etc then why is it not okay for Mayawati to build her own statue.
Two wrongs don't make one right that's why we should not indulge in demonizing Mayawati while providing silent approval to sophisticated advertisements of other politicians.If we do so then we will be accused of elitist hypocrisy.

Anurag Choudhary.

JanLokpal a frankenstein's monster?

      Is middle class backing creation of Frankenstein monster?

Couple of months back architect of Janlokpal bill Prashant Bhushan and Arundhati Roy announced from common platform that liberal economic policies post 1991 are root cause of corruption. Left leaning thoughts of Arundhati Roy should not surprise anyone however Prashant Bhushan's view must ring alarming bell to middle class.Prashnat Bhushan and his father Shanti Bhushan are architects of proposed anti corruption legislation of Janlokpal and hence their opinion about root cause of corruption calls for greater scrutiny.

Are liberal reforms really root cause of corruption? Was corruption not rampant in pre-reform socialist India? Isn't ever growing Indian middle class more prosperous thanks to stupendous rise in employment opportunities created by our entrepreneurs? Do we want to go back to the days when state would punish you for accumulating wealth (even by legitimate means) by imposing 97% income tax? Do we want to go back to the dark era where you had to wait for years to get a phone connection, LPG etc? Isn't it true that all the Facebook using techies working in air conditioned offices of IT companies, clicking like button of "I support Anna Hazare" message, are creation of post 1991 reforms?

Economic liberalization essentially means less state intervention to facilitate ease of business which in turn results in more and more job creation. School of thought which opposes these reforms believes in more state control.

If we are in agreement that pre-1991 inspector raj was biggest obstacle in India story , if we agree that we need more reforms and less state control then we should give second thought to backing creation of omnipresent super-cop proposed in janlokpal bill. Adding one more complicated layer of unaccountable bureaucracy in name of janlokpal is not going to work. Middle class backing of janlokapal which in all likelihood will bring back inspector raj is like supporting creation of Frankenstein Monster who will take on its own creator.

Middle class in India is extremely apolitical, cynical/suspicious about every institution, agitated by corrupt bureaucracy and has very little or no faith in electoral process.

Much of this wide spread cynicism with establishment is justified. Urban middle class is also staunch supporter of meritocracy. This is the reason why middle class finds resonance with Hazare lead anti corruption movement. Drawing room discussions are unanimous in terming all politicians corrupt , all elections won by paying money to poor voter and hence they feel it is impossible to expect politicians to take steps in cleansing the system and eradicate corruption. Hazare lead movement provides a perfect platform to frustrated, enraged and cynical (with establishment) middle class. Anna Hazare echoes middle class apathy with electoral process and along with anger against growing number of scams.

Anna Hazare famously said if he was to contest election he would lose his deposit because matdar (voter) is not jagruk (aware) and she votes for a saree or a liquor or few hundred rupees. So here is the simple man with unimpeachable integrity, courageous to take on state, echoing the blunt sentiment which was till now only limited to drawing room discussions. He was obviously going to strike a chord with people. His movement is perceived to be apolitical , their goal is to create unelected , super powerful lokpal with honest credentials who will punish corrupt netas, judges and babus.Underlying assumption is , since the selection criteria for this super-cop include unquestionable integrity, disassociation with political parties, superiority of intellect he is going to be unbiased and quick in punishing crooks. Middle class is over joyed by this idea of super cop or lokpal as they feel our judiciary is too slow (if not corrupt) to punish any corrupt politician and hence we need a quick fix institution to correct it.

Are all politicians corrupt? Are all elections won on basis of money muscle? Is every poor voter is out there to sell her vote?

Don't we also have honest politicians like former Prime Minister Vajpayee, A K Antony, Nitish Kumar and Narendra Modi? Are we not mocking 84% voter turnout of West Bengal in recently concluded assembly elections when we say people vote for saree or few hundred rupees?

No sane person would oppose anti corruption agitation or no sane person would support Government's blow on our right to dissent and protest. All I am saying is tarring all politicians with same brush and showing apathy and disrespect towards electoral process is not going to lead us anywhere. We need more administrative reforms, economic reforms, electoral reforms coupled with transparency in election funding, stupendous increase in number of judges ,easy access to justice, judicial accountability and lokpal but not the kind of single all powerful ombudsman proposed by team Anna.

Overhauling of existing institutions is need of the hour not creation of unaccountable institutions on top of that. Talk of reforms and overhauling sounds very boring to the ears of people who are now excited by quick fix utopian solutions proposed by janlokpal team. Those solutions look lucrative but lack essential checks and balances enshrined in our constitution.

Janlokpal violates principle of justice, which separates investigating authority from judiciary so that judiciary can objectively assess findings of investigation.

When a judge issues a judgement, somebody will be looser and it is highly likely that some losers will try to use whatever means available to malign the judge and that means may very well be Lokpal if judiciary is brought under purview of lokpal. Independence of judiciary is like a fertile soil which allows hundreds of flowers to flourish, few weeds will also grow in same soil however those weeds should not become pretext for killing the very soil in which beautiful flowers blossomed.

It must also be said here that our parliamentarians are by and large responsible for current perception of people about parliament. Parliament should be place for high quality debates on various issues which concern people instead over the period of time it has become place for petty political battles ,extreme confrontational politics, opposition and ruling parties locking horns , lack of participation by MPs , frequent walkouts. These days all parties frequently boycott parliament but their spokesperson participate in discussions organized in television studios. Why can't they have more civilized and quality discussion inside the house. I was extremely delighted to listen to quality speeches given by Arun Jaitley, Sitaram Yechury and Sushma Swaraj in recent times. This must not be aberration and needs to happen on regular basis. Both opposition and ruling parties must weak up now because if they don't vacuum is going to be filled by activists like Anna Hazare.

I would like to finish by adding word of caution to the arrogance displayed by some protesters. No individual is bigger than nation. Neither Gandhi was nor is Hazare. There needs to be caution to wind here ,honesty and noble intention riding on the popular bandwagon of frustrated and legitimately enraged group of people, does not provide authority to arrogate themselves to thrust upon nation a draconian legislation which lacks essential checks and balances. Contrary to rhetoric of Kiran Bedi Anna is not India and India is not Anna.

Anurag Choudhary

Supreme Court comes dangerously close to providing aura of legitimacy to Maoist Violence

"People do not take up arms, in an organized fashion, against the might of the State, or against fellow human beings without rhyme or reason.

Guided by an instinct for survival, and according to Thomas Hobbes, a fear of lawlessness that is encoded in our collective conscience, we seek an order.

However, when that order comes with the price of dehumanization, of manifest injustices of all forms perpetrated against the weak, the poor and the deprived, people revolt. That large tracts of the State of Chattisgarh have been affected by Maoist activities is widely known. It has also been widely reported that the people living in those regions of Chattisgarh have suffered grievously, on account of both the Maoist insurgency activities, and the counterinsurgency unleashed by the State."

No this is not from Arundhati Roy's article in op-ed page of news paper ,it is excerpt from Supreme court order against SPOs of Chattisgarh (salva judum).Chattisgarh government recruits local tribals as special police officers to counter ever aggravating Maoist insurgency. A PIL was filed by activists like Swami Agnivesh , Ram Chandra Guha and SC termed SPOs as unconstitutional and ordered Chattisgarh government to stop all SPO operations and unarm all SPOs.

You may agree or disagree with merits of SC judgment to abolish SPOs however what is extremely disturbing is ideological bias shown by SC in its 58 page order.Language used in the this order comes dangerously close to providing aura of legitimacy to Maoist violence. In every sentence of the order where SC mentions Maoist violence it also mentions violence by state in the same breath. Stated principle of Maoists is to overthrow democratically elected Indian state with the help of guns. Maoist ideologues always try to hide behind tribals however on numerous occasions Maoists have wreaked heinous havoc on innocent tribals, blown up ambulances, hospitals, schools and every possible infrastructure that state tries to build for betterment of tribals. Thus claim by naxals and their intellectual ideologues that they are fighting for people is pretty hollow one .

In another attempt SC tries to blame globalization for this insurgency

"The problem rests in the amoral political economy that the State endorses, and the resultant revolutionary politics that it necessarily spawns. In a recent book titled

“The Dark Side of Globalization” it has been observed that: (SC puts a paragraph from the book here) "

"That violent agitator politics, and armed rebellion in many pockets of India have intimate linkages to socio-economic circumstances, endemic inequalities, and a corrupt social and state order that preys on such inequalities has been well recognized.”

As you can see Maoist actions are termed as "revolutionary politics" and privatization policy is attacked as "amoral political economy" and blamed for spawning Maoist insurgency. You may try to put it in as much politically correct words (to avoid contempt of court) but this is unfortunate rationalization of naxalism by apex court of India and an insult to innocent sufferers of barbaric Maoist violence and demoralizing for brave security forces fighting against it.

"The root cause of the problem, and hence its solution, lies elsewhere. The culture of unrestrained selfishness and greed spawned by modern neo-liberal economic ideology, and

the false promises of ever increasing spirals of consumption leading to economic growth that will lift everyone, under-gird this socially, politically and economically unsustainable set of circumstances in vast tracts of India in general, and Chattisgarh in particular."

"The justification often advanced, by advocates of the neoliberal development paradigm, as historically followed, or newly emerging, in a more rapacious form, in India, is that unless development occurs, via rapid and vast exploitation of natural resources, the country would not be able to either compete on the global scale, nor accumulate the wealth necessary to tackle endemic and seemingly intractable problems of poverty, illiteracy, hunger and squalor. Whether such exploitation is occurring in a manner that is sustainable, by the environment and the existing social structures, is an oft debated topic, and yet hurriedly buried"

Here SC gets extremely critical of liberal economic policies. Judiciary is very important pillar of our democracy but it has absolutely no business in trespassing policy matters which are best left to executive. Executive is elected by people and therefore should have only and last word on deciding which policies are best for people. Judiciary can and must step in whenever policies deviate from constitution .Our founding fathers have very intelligently established this separation of power in the constitution and this extreme judicial activism passing adverse comments on a particular ideology (neo-liberal economic policy) is not at all healthy for our democracy.

Whether liberal economic policies proved good for India may be debated (though prosperous results are there for everyone to see) however supreme court is not the place for those debates let alone taking sides of one policy while writing off the other one completely. Supreme court can strike down any act formed by legislature on the grounds that it is unconstitutional , not because Judges believe state must pursue particular ideological path.

Same judicial overreach/activism can be seen in SC orders in Noida case and formation of SIT on black money. Black money order is also another document while reading which you get feel of reading literature on Marxism. Let me put one more excerpt from SC order this one related to black money.

"In addition, it would also appear that in this miasmic cultural environment in which greed is extolled, conspicuous consumption viewed as both necessary and socially valuable, and the wealthy viewed as demi-gods, the agents of the State may have also succumbed to the notions of the neoliberal paradigm that the role of the State ought to only be an enabling one, and not exercise significant control. This attitude would have a significant impact on exercise of discretion, especially in the context of regulating economic activities, including keeping an account of the monies generated in various activities, both legal and illegal. Carried away by the ideology of neoliberalism, it is entirely possible that the agents of the State entrusted with the task of supervising the economic and social activities may err more on the side of extreme caution, whereby signals of wrong doing may be ignored even when they are strong. Instances of the powers that be ignoring publicly visible stock market scams, or turning a blind eye to large scale illegal mining have become all too familiar, and may be readily cited."

One more instance of SC taking gloves off and pulling no punches back in an ideological leftist assault on capitalism. Contention here is not about whether socialism or capitalism should be way forward for India, that debate may go on forever but for Judges of apex court to castigate one ideology while endorsing other in such a blunt manner in consecutive judgments is very disturbing trend.

Anurag Choudhary