Verdict against Jayalalithaa - justice delayed, denied or just misplaced?

Tamil Nadu chief minister and AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) leader Jayalalithaa was finally convicted in a disproportionate asset case. It was an 18-year-long battle. The FIR was filed in 1996 for the financial irregularities she and her aids committed during her first stint as CM of Tamilnadu (1991-96). For the last few decades, misuse of public money has become a norm in the Indian political class. Corruption is very rampant at all levels in every state and at the center, no matter which government is in power. Therefore, these recent judgments especially this one and the one about the former Bihar CM Laloo Prasad Yadav can be considered landmark judgments in the political history of India, if this trend continues. I am sure that no one can deny the importance and need of strict vigilance and robust mechanisms to catch and punish corrupt politicians and other administrators. This can help to tame the rampant corruption which has become a norm in India.

The judgment which was delivered a few days back took almost 18 years to come, and this is a session court, now the convict can appeal to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court. It took 18 years for one court to deliver the judgment so imagine how much time it will take for this case to go through all three courts. Such a long delay in delivering judgments is a serious problem of the Indian judiciary system. Jayalalithaa was doing a very good job as a Tamil Nadu CM when this judgment came. If one takes a look at central government data her state is a leading state based on many indicators that measure the progress of Indian states. The hysterical reaction of her supporters after her arrest was also a real shocker for me, some of them even took the extreme step of taking their own life as they could not tolerate the news of their beloved leader's arrest. Such delayed delivery of justice does create unique situations like this and at the same time raises some serious questions. What is the real purpose of punishing any convict? Is it just to hurt them? Is it to make them realize their mistake and then give them an opportunity to reform themselves by correcting those mistakes? Is it to set an example for others so that they don't dare to commit the same mistake? Is it to eliminate them from society (in the case of capital punishment)?

It all comes down to what is the purpose of punishment and does such delayed delivery of justice serve that purpose? Are we punishing the same corrupt Jayalalithaa who committed this crime? Was she already a reformed person when she finally got punished? If she has already realized her mistake and is a reformed person then what purpose does this delayed punishment will serve? Due to the nature of the legal structure in India, she will now apply to a higher court and then come out of jail on bail so there is a doubt if this example will act as a deterrent to other politicians? She was relatively new to politics when she made this mistake and that's why it might have been easy to convict her. Otherwise, these politicians and corrupt bureaucrats are so clever that they rarely leave any evidence of their corruption, which is why it is difficult to convict them in any criminal case as there is no direct evidence to prove their crime. There is no doubt that it is good to see that such judgments are finally coming, but the judiciary has to make these decisions fast. Justice delivered in time can have the desired impact on the perpetrator and victims. If it is not timely, then one wonders if delayed justice is justice at all. I have no sympathy for Jayalalithaa for the crimes she did but I feel bad for the people of Tamil Nadu who were getting good governance and now feel cheated by this judgment as they feel that the system unfairly targeted only their leader. The judiciary needs to remove this doubt from people's minds by delivering verdicts promptly. Also, targeting politicians only from certain political parties is a political prosecution as you are at risk only when you are not with the ruling party, either in the state or in the center. There are thousands of people waiting in jails for their trials and this is a very serious problem. Government and judiciary should work together to resolve this problem.

So in this case, it is not clear whether justice is delayed, denied, or misplaced (delivered at the wrong time). I don't think it is denied as she got punished for her crimes but the other two scenarios are also equally disturbing. I ask this question because I am really concerned about the delay in delivering justice. I think that it defeats the whole purpose behind it. These types of incidents remind me of a poem in Marathi, I can’t recall the exact poem as it is, don't remember its poet but I think it was something like this,

A lawyer meets a 65-year-old lady outside the court after the judgment was delivered in her favor punishing all 10 people involved in a gang rape against her. He congratulates her and says that she must be happy that finally justice is delivered, she won the case, and all culprits are finally punished. She says, "Son, I am happy if you say so. But really I don’t know whether to be happy or sad, this gang rape was done on a 16-year-old girl, 5 of the guilty lived a normal life and are already dead, 3 of them are so old that they can’t do anything on their own, this punishment doesn't mean anything to them, remaining two are doting grandfathers for their grandkids, now I am feeling bad that they will go to jail and those kids will miss them, and as far as that girl is concerned she already suffered enough because of this crime, lived her adolescent life in guilt, shame, and trauma, she waited for this justice too long but she is now a grown-up woman who learned to live her life with this scar, but if you say so I am happy as I won this case and finally justice is delivered"

Justice delayed is justice denied. Only time will tell if this is a new beginning to end corruption or just an arbitrary incident that will be only used as a tool to intimidate political opponents.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:

1. Jayalalithaa sentenced to four years in jail, fined Rs. 100 crore

2. Jayalalithaa conviction: 16 persons commitsuicide

Fight for building memorials on public property in India

Recent agitation by RLD (Rashtriya Lok Dal) and its sister organizations to convert a government bungalow into a memorial for former prime minister of India Chaudhary Charan Singh has created a lot of controversy. This incident initiated a fresh debate on whether we need any more memorials at the cost of public money and space in India. This is the same bungalow where Ajit Singh used to live as an MP recently and where his father (Charan Singh) also lived for most of his political career. This is not the first demand to convert any bungalow or government property into a memorial of some political leader. It has been done in the past by various political parties and governments to honor their own leaders, they use public money and property to do this. There are several memorials for all politicians from the Nehru-Gandhi family (Pundit Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi). There are memorials for politicians like Jagjivan Ram, Kanshi Ram, and MGR. The list is too long to include here but I guess readers got the point that I want to illustrate here. In India, there are several statues of so many leaders, and there are various buildings, roads, and gardens named after these leaders, these things are built using public money and land. So in that respect, this demand of having one more memorial for Charan Singh doesn't sound unreasonable.

But the real question here is, does a country like India need any more memorials and can it afford to have so many of them? With so many political parties and so many popular leaders in different parts of the country, there will be always a demand to build some memorial for some leader. Wastage of public money and land will continue forever if no one tries to stop this practice. Once we allow one political party to build a memorial for their leader at the cost of public money then it is very difficult to stop others from doing the same. This is what happening right now. Charan Singh memorial supporters are asking the same question, so many leaders have their memorial in Delhi then why not one for Charan Singh also? I am sure it will be difficult to convenience them, but this trend needs to stop. The government should make some rule that no more memorials will be allowed in anyone's name from now onwards, no matter which family, or party the person belongs. No more memorials at the cost of public money and property, period. If any political party wants to build a memorial for their beloved leader, let them spend their own money. No more public money for such projects.

Why not have a common memorial place for all former prime ministers? Teen Murti Bhawan in New Delhi can be converted into such a place. Every former prime minister can have a place there and we can pay tribute to all of them in one place. Why a separate building for a memorial for each one of them? Space is very limited in all Indian metro cities, it is a serious problem in big cities like New Delhi and Mumbai. Why waste the land to build memorials when we need more schools and hospitals? The amount of money that is being spent on maintaining these memorials is another issue. The recent successful Mars Orbiter Mission cost around Rs. 450 crores, if we compare the amount of money that was spent or is proposed to be spent to make some of these memorials then we can understand the futility of building them. For example, a statue of BSP leader Mayawati (~680 crores), and a proposed memorial for Sardar Patel (~2600 crores), these figures are way higher than the cost of the MOM mission. This is a classic case of misplaced priorities. I fail to understand why these people think that it is a good idea to waste public money like this? The time has come to put an end to this memorial feast at the cost of public money, I hope the current government takes a tough stance on this issue and sets a good precedence.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:

1. Why no memorial for Chaudhary Charan Singh, asks Ajit Singh

Mangalyaan - Amazing success story which can inspire entire nation

India's successful completion of the Mars orbiter mission (MOM) or Mangalyaan is an amazing success story that should inspire every citizen to think big and dream big. India became the first Asian country to do so and the first country in the world to do it in its first attempt. They achieved it with a very tidy budget of 75 million USD, one can compare it with the budget of the recently released Hollywood blockbuster film Gravity, made with ~$125 million budget. This success story is no doubt a golden page in the history of ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization). One can surely debate whether India can afford to spend so much money on such projects when millions of its citizens live below the poverty line, but for me, this is not the subject of discussion here. This question should be asked when political parties spend millions of dollars of unaccounted money for their election campaign, they spend lavishly for accommodations, foreign trips, or building memorials for politicians. There are many occasions and incidents where this question will be relevant but I think this is not an appropriate question for this occasion. 

I think everyone from India will agree that there is no dearth of talent in India. Actually, we produce so many talented people that many of them leave the country as they don't find suitable opportunities that can utilize their talent properly. Brain drain is a constant problem for India. Because of the lack of proper opportunities many people look for jobs outside India, some willingly and some unwillingly leave their motherland in search of better opportunities. Therefore, these achievements have great symbolic importance also, they have the potential to inspire the entire nation. These types of events can act as a catalyst to instill confidence in youth that they can dream big and those dreams can be achieved in their own country. I am glad to see the nationwide excitement over this success.

Even though this is not a political issue, concerned political parties are bound to make an effort to gain some political mileage out of this event. Actually, such occasions are an opportunity to show bipartisan national pride by all political parties but unfortunately, this doesn't happen in India even on such occasions. Former prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh dared to fund such an ambitious project, and he announced it during his Independence Day speech in 2012. This was not the result of some overnight effort or one-man leadership. It took two years of hard work by many scientists and others supporting them to make it successful. ISRO scientists need to be congratulated for their tireless efforts and dedication. The due credit should also be given to the former UPA government for their efforts. If we don't hesitate to blame them wherever we feel they made a mistake, then we also should not hesitate to give them credit whenever it is due. It will be very unfortunate if we see any political fight over Mangalyaan's legacy. 

Hopefully, this success story doesn't stop here, and it gets replicated in other areas too. A country like India with such great talent and natural resources can achieve a lot if it can utilize its resources properly. I want to end this post by congratulating all people (including scientific and nonscientific staff) involved in this project, you all did a great job and deserve all the praise you are getting, thank you very much for your efforts.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Orbiter_Mission
2. Mangalyaan: India's race for space success

Let's teach religion

Religion is a very sensitive subject for many people. Very often people get very emotional or passionate while talking in favor or against religion. Many different religions are practiced in the world, some are very ancient (like Hinduism) and some are relatively new (like Islam). They differ from each other in various aspects, some of their rules and rituals are radically different from each other. Occurrences of communal tensions in different parts of the world between the followers of two different religions are also very common. All religions claim that they teach love and compassion toward people. They also say that people who are fighting among themselves or spreading hatred in the name of religion don't understand the true essence of that religion. At the same time, radical groups and fundamentalists are present in each religion. They are present in every country and section of society where religion is a dominant force. These radicals claim that they are the only people who understand the true meaning of that religion and claim to be the authorized flag bearers or true followers of that faith and call all others fake, compromised, weak, or misguided followers. On the other hand, people who criticize organized religion call it a totally outdated concept that has done more harm than good to humanity. So, there are many different views about religion and its role in society, and academically it may make an interesting topic to study. 

There is no doubt that religion plays a very important role in many people's lives. For some, it is so important that their lifestyle and personality are dictated by their religious beliefs. If religion is such an important subject why don't we teach it to kids as we teach them history and arts? Please listen to this very wonderful talk by Dan Dennet from where I borrowed the title of the blog. Why don't we present children with all the historical facts and figures about each and every religion that is practiced today? Let them know the unbiased version of the history of each religion (including their own), and let them understand the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of it. In the current system, they get very biased knowledge about their own religion and the rest of religions from their own family. Many times this information is so biased that it creates a false positive image of their own religion and a false negative image of other religions in their minds. This image is then magnified by people like politicians and religious radicals who use these sentiments to misguide youths for their own benefit, this then creates fanatics who do something terrible under the name of protecting their own religion. 

Why can't we teach religion as a subject in schools? Why can't we have unbiased, logical, and fact-based discussions about each and every religion? After all, everyone who believes in religion says that their religion can stand any type of scrutiny or test, so why not put them on such a test. This will help kids from being misguided by people from their own religion as well as clear misconceptions about other religions. This might help to bridge the gap that we see among followers of different religions and maybe we could avoid communal clashes. I know I am stretching it too far but I believe once people are equipped with the right information they might be less prone to make wrong choices. Our job should be to provide unbiased information and expect it to produce desired results. I believe this is worth a try and the concerned people should think over this topic and come up with some plan. Nowadays sex education is becoming a part of many school curricula, finally, many countries are agreeing to the fact that it is necessary to give youths a proper sex education. Sexual activity is a very important part of human life, so giving proper information about this subject at the proper age will benefit students. Same way if religion is such an important aspect of many people's lives why not take a similar approach in this case also? 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. Let's teach religion — all religion — in schools-TED talk
2. Letting go of God-TED talk

Why rights of minorities matter in any civilized society?

The rights of minorities in any society are very often a controversial or sensitive issue. This minority can be a particular gender, religious group, people of a particular sexual orientation, people with different abilities, or any group that belongs to the majority. Historically, most rules and traditions are designed to suit the needs of the majority. If we look at various cultures around the world we can easily notice that the majority rules, their needs, and concerns always prevail. A few examples to cite in this regard are; most musical instruments or electronics are designed keeping in mind right-handed users, in some sports (like boxing, football) the commercially available kit is designed mostly suitable for males, the laws related to food and marriage are mostly reflect majority's preferences, one can look around and can find many examples like this. The main point here is that the majority always gets their way just because of their statistical dominance, one can not ignore them just because of their number. But then what happens with the minority? Who will care for them and why? Don't they also have their own needs and requirements like the majority? Of course, they do, and these are as relevant as the needs or requirements of the majority. At least a civilized society thinks in this way, and that is why it is the job of the majority to be sensitive towards the minority's needs and requirements. But this doesn't mean there should be a policy of minority appeasement. Appeasement of any section of society is wrong, doesn't matter if it's for the majority or minority. Being sensitive towards the rights and needs of some sections of society is different than appeasement.

As I said, most of the time majority's rights are protected just because of their statistical dominance but the minority doesn't have this number advantage, so they are always dependent on the goodwill of the majority. Even in any democracy majority always rules, they have the strength of numbers on their side. In a scenario where there is a substantial majority and a weak minority (as far as numbers are concerned), it is easy for the majority to ignore the rights of the minority. But fortunately, this is not what happens in most of civilized and developed countries. We can see that in most cases enough care and attention is given to protect the minority's rights and address their grievances. Actually, the treatment offered to minority groups is often an indicator to see how developed, civilized, and sensitive that culture is. Another issue related to this is that minority communities tend to live in more cohesive manure to protect their identity or for the sake of their security. Knowingly or unknowingly they form a minority vote bank which becomes a politically attractive option for political parties. Every party tries to lure such vote banks as they know their votes come in a bunch. This may start minority appeasement and vote bank politics. There is nothing wrong with sticking together to protect your interests but when this turns into vote bank politics then things become complicated and may turn ugly. Often this vote bank politics creates polarization in society where every party tries to cater demands of their own vote bank. No matter how rational or irrational those demands are they become part of local or national politics and then the whole political battle is turned into pity vote bank politics. Many irrational demands are accepted just to keep their vote bank happy and this becomes a vicious cycle from which neither political parties nor voters come out. As much as I support minority groups for their demand to have equal rights in any society I oppose this vote bank politics, no matter which party is engaged in it. Also in the name of protecting your own identity any group or religion should not pressure the government to allow some age-old, outdated, and discriminatory traditions. Any type of discriminatory practices and animal cruelty should not be allowed under the name of religion, traditions, or culture. 

The rights of minorities are a very important issue in any country. It represents tolerance and inclusiveness. All minority groups should get proper representation so that their voices are also heard while making any important decisions. A clear distinction also should be made between protecting minority's rights and minority appeasement, both are not the same. I hope that our political fraternity and common people both understand the importance of this issue and act accordingly. Our society will be more vibrant, progressive, and tolerant if we learn to listen and respect each other's values and ideas. The sooner it happens better for us.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Why don't I subscribe to any of these "isms"?

There are many sets of ideologies in the world, for example, there are so many 'isms' with which people like to associate themselves; communism, socialism, capitalism, theism, atheism, and so on. These isms include some sets of principles and ideas. These associations result in labels like communist, capitalist, theist, or atheist. Most people who follow these ideologies try to defend their own ideology as if that is the only best way for the progress of the entire human civilization. Many of them try to convert it into some sort of cult movement. This is what I don't like about any organized religion or cult movement or for that matter any of these isms, they all try to impose their own values and principles believing that they are only right and whatever others believe is wrong. Capitalists think any welfare scheme is socialism, socialists and communists think that every industry sucks worker's blood and loot customers, atheists think that all who believe in the concept of god and religion are stupid, theists think that all atheists are evil, etc. These boundaries and differences between these isms are becoming so rigid that many times people belonging to different groups can not come to any consensus even for the betterment of their country. They keep on fighting with each other just because some of the proposed solutions or ideas don't align with their ideology. Actually each one of these ideologies or 'isms' has some good and some very bad aspects, one can pick good points from each of them and implement them for the betterment of our society, but this can happen only when people who associate themselves with these ideologies learn to listen to each other's ideas patiently and try to find a common middle ground.

All these 'isms' or different religions or groups are human-made things. We created these ideologies during various stages of human civilization. Some of these were needed at that time because of particular situations in society, and many of them served their purpose when they were introduced. But slowly these things were converted into some 'ism' or some cult movement and they became rigid, almost like an organized religion with rules for dos and don'ts. Once this rigidity is introduced then there is no scope for discussion as any serious question is considered a challenge to the basic fundamentals of that ideology. Any questions about the core principles of that "ism," no matter how relevant, are considered blasphemy. Once questioning is barred these 'isms' are no different than any cult movement and I don't want to be a part of any cult movement. Every ideology or 'ism' is full of some great ideas, together they can deliver a lot of good for our society but only some populist features are used that are only beneficial to limited sections of society. This only helps to create a loyal political base (a vote bank). As every coin has two sides, every policy can be used for the betterment of society or just for political gains. When the focus shifts from society's benefit to political benefit then we witness the disaster where a certain policy that was introduced with noble intentions becomes a populist measure just for political gains. 

I like many ideas that come from many of these "isms," and I endorse them without being bothered about from which ideology they come. For me, the idea is important not its source. I choose to follow principles that I find logical. I use very simple criteria to review them, maybe this is the reason I don't subscribe to any of these "isms" because I believe in something from each one of them. I am a capitalist who supports the open market, I am a socialist who supports social welfare schemes for the needy sections of society, I am a communist also who believes in the rights of workers and in their fair share in profit, etc. If we think of ourselves as humans first and also look at all others as humans without associating any tags or labels with them then I think we can look beyond these artificial boundaries created by all these "isms" or ideologies. This will help us to listen to each other without getting mad at each other and maybe we can agree on many points. Each of these groups claims to work for the betterment of society, so, they should collaborate rather than fight with each other. Fighting just to prove each other wrong is definitely not going to do any better so let's unite and go forward, we have a lot of work to do.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

What is this Love Jihad?

When I heard the term "Love Jihad" for the first time a few weeks back, I thought it was from some movie based on terrorism or something like that. I didn't know that this was the term coined by some members of the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. When I came to know that this is a political issue, then I got curious, and I read more about why they are using this term or what is the logic behind it. I also came to know that this was not the original creation of UP's BJP unit, but it was also used previously in other states like Kerala, Karnataka, and Gujarat. So, what does the term "love jihad" refer to? Currently, it is used to propagate that there is some group of Muslim young boys who get trained in some institutions especially to target young girls from other faiths (especially Hindu girls) and convert them to Islam by luring them into a love trap. This is the whole concept behind this love jihad political drama. Yes, it is a purely political drama, that is why it is specially used in states that are prone to communal polarization. 

Forceful conversions of people from one religion to another religion is a serious matter, and there is a law against such forceful conversions. So, forceful conversions are already illegal and there is a law to prosecute people who engage in such activities. I wonder what this love jihad stuff is going to achieve apart from religious polarization and harassing people doing inter-religious marriages. At the same time, we should also know that the Indian constitution gives every citizen the freedom to choose their own religion. Every conversion is not forceful but it is also true that forceful conversions do happen and this issue should not be taken lightly. It is really sad to see that this issue is getting heavily politicized. If any issue gets heavily politicized many other unrelated dimensions are added to it and then it becomes very difficult to find any solution to it as involved political parties don't want to settle the issue for their own political benefit.

The word 'Jihad' means struggle or resisting according to Wikipedia. It seems this word is mentioned many times in Quran but I wonder how people managed to link love with this word? No doubt that many times there is struggle or resistance involved in a process of winning someone's heart but this term is definitely not referring to that process. It seems the purpose behind the creation of this phrase was to attract media attention and target Muslim youth. Concealing one's social or religious identity to win someone's love is not a new phenomenon, there are many movies where central characters do these things and during my teenage and college years, even I have seen many people doing such things. The point I want to make is that this is not something new or something associated with only a particular religion or community. People do all kinds of silly things in love, it is even said that "everything is fair in love and war" but forcing anyone to change their religion is neither love nor jihad. 

Forceful religious conversions or cold-blooded murders of people because of inter-caste or religious marriage are very serious issues. Forcing anyone to change their religion against their will or killing anyone just because they married someone out of their community is a crime. These things should be dealt with under respective laws. Politicizing these issues to create communal tension is not going to help anyone but political parties. So let's look at the real problem and try to solve it rather than make it another unresolvable political dispute that only divides people based on religious lines.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]