Right to Recall: Step towards better governance or disorder?

Recently media's favourite Gandhi topi boy started off a discussion on electoral reforms. Yes I am talking about Mr. Anna Hazare who has enjoyed a lot more than the supposed 'fair-share' of the lime-light. He has talked about getting rid off corruption and also Congress to put it frankly. But now he has taken up the topic of electoral reforms. This topic as good as it may sound does not quite ring a bell with many people. There have been many attempts through out history to make elections better and fairer but most of them have failed and there are many reasons that can be attributed to this failure. But none of them would have managed to influence these reforms so much so that they end up being failures, unless and until they did not have people behind them.

Electoral Reforms basically aim at ensuring that the people get their 'money's worth'. Some of the electoral reforms that Mr. Hazare has been so overwhelmingly talking about are The Right to Recall and The Right to Reject. These rights have been tried out by many nations and in most of the cases, there has been a gross misuse of them. But why does it so happen? The reason is fairly simple to decipher. A democratic country functions on the simple concept of people choosing their representatives and ensuring that they work for them. My statement is ensured by elections which happen both for the purpose of electing representatives and also for throwing them out. History has repeatedly proven my latter statement to be true.

Governments have repeatedly fallen and so have representatives for the simple reason that their policies failed to bring about the result desired by the electorate. And that is how a democracy should and must function. So then what is Mr. Hazare trying to say by bringing up these issues of Right to Recall and Right to Reject. According to him, he would like the electorate to enjoy the option of having a Right to Recall. What is Right to Recall? Right to Recall is a constitutional right that can be given to citizens of an electorate so as to recall their representative and hold a new election to elect a new representative. In short it is basically removing a representative from office before the regular elections and then holding an election to get a new representative.

It is done by holding a signature campaign/election of sorts where in if around 30% (number varies, it is 5% in some countries) of the people sign the campaign to recall the minister than a new election is held and in this new election, the people have the option of either continuing with the present minister or voting for someone new. Thus in short it is a long and tiresome process and not to leave out the expenses part of it. A process like this though is called the epitome of democracy is meant for developed countries with adequate funds to spare and an electorate which is educated in political matters and thus not influenced a lot by ideological leanings, religion, place etc.

Electoral exercises like these should only be seen as a very distant dream in a country like ours for the simple reason that we haven't reduced poverty to below 5%. It is amusing to see people talk about this exercise with such fervor while at the same time it is this group of people who strong arm the government on issues of inflation, which is affecting the poor sections of society terribly, and poverty which according to them is simple an example of the government failing to do what it was meant to do.

Hence with so many problems like inflation and poverty already in front of us, it would only be a Koalemos' dream to have such a huge project implemented in India without even understanding and taking care of various other problems like poverty and a politically illiterate majority. Thus this is nothing but a desire to ape the west (a term that I am personally against) without taking an appropriate look at the real situations that affect the electorate in their daily routine.

Into the Theory of THE CIVIL SOCIETY

There has been a debate raging on the Lokpal issue for few months now and every time that the JanLokpal is questioned, its supporters start talking about what the civil society is doing against corruption and question the people who have taken a position against theirs. This statement of civil society et al has continued to amaze me for years. Who does the civil society comprise of? Who is allowed in it? What's the definition of it? Are there societies that are uncivil? If there exist such societies, then how are they surviving when their very existence is frowned upon by the remainder of the people? These are the many questions that have always found an adobe in my mind and however much I try to do, I am unable to shoo them away or to find an answer to them.

Thus quite recently, when I questioned a tweet that asked, what the civil society should do now that the government had sent the Lokpal that it had formulated to the Parliament, I was taken back into that part of my brain which had held this question for years and continues to hold. How is one to come up with an exact definition of the civil society? A fellow twitter user tried to answer that question of mine by tweeting to me that 'Everybody who works for public interest objectives, not national, not profit, academic, etc' forms that civil society. I was quite amazed by this answer. For many new questions had arisen in my mind by just looking at that one statement for under a minute and the questions were some that I had never thought needed answers.

One question was, Isn't public interest also a part of national interest? Another question that surprised me was that then are all the educated businessmen who work for profits and in turn provide employment to people and manufacture goods and services which are provided to millions at affordable rates, generally, part of the uncivil society? And what about the politicians who despite having vested interests at times work for the national well-being? Do they get an entry into this narrow definition of civil society? And what about the people who lack even a very basic education? Are they allowed to be included in this sphere of Civil Society that we have created for ourselves?

What about the people in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and others which have been marked as the world terror hubs? Will they count as being civil? I don't know for the definition that my friend gave is extremely inadequate to smuggle these people into the boundaries of civil society. What about Anders Breivik who despite being a product of an advanced and developed society went on to kill over a hundred people in cold blood? Will he find a place into civil society? When questioned about this, people tend to label those engaging in activities like Terrorism or killing others as uncivil and criminal. My question to them is, what about the CIA, RAW and other such agencies that at times have to kill people for the greater good? Will one label them as agencies of the Civil Society? Wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

These questions are difficult to answer but some people define Civil Society as any society that follows a set of rules and regulations. A few questions that I would like to ask are, who makes these laws? And since there are different societies practising their own norms, rules and regulations as such, would one classify a society say for example, a society that is involved in stoning people for say adultery, would one classify them as uncivil? Who gives people the right to make this distinction between societies. Every society has its own culture which allows different practices to be followed. Thus it is not up to an individual to label societies as civil or uncivil.

And even as we talk about culture, I can't help but mention the culture of cannibalism which as gruesome and as cruel as it may be, it is still practised in some remote regions of the world and quite recently a few serial killers were also caught who practised it. Thus we may label these individuals as insane but the groups who practised it have been practising it for generations because that is what their culture is like. Hence would it be right of us to categorise them into a small category?

I personally am of the belief that there are only societies which cannot be further classified into smaller groups for the definition of these smaller groups would need to be absolutely accurate without any room for error for the subject political science of which this is a theory is not an exact science and thus any classification which is exact in nature would oppose the very basic theory of why political science is not regarded as an exact science.

The societies in turn may vary due to the various rules and regulations followed in each of them. However there is a common link in all of them, for the people in them and not societies themselves can be divided on the basis of different values, fields and areas like professions, religion, level of development etc. Thus these societies have a certain limit beyond which dividing them would only alter the definition of these various concepts.

Another noteworthy thing while the topic of civil society is being discussed is that though these groups which the people are divided into may be many but they are all inter-linked and at times even overlapping for example a working parent would not only be classified into a category which denotes his/her profession but also in a category which denotes parenthood. Furthermore, the category of parenthood can be further classified into that of mother/father, single parent and even the category of single parent can be further divided into single parent (mothers)/ single parent (fathers). Hence, as stated before, these categories are not absolute in nature and can be divided into as many as possible but within a definition that has some legal acceptance behind it. For example the definition of civil society is not clear like many other concepts in political science but the one issue that differentiates the concept of civil society from all the other concepts is the grey area. This grey area is very big and thus the legality of the definition comes into question. Thus it is no surprise that many political thinkers have refused to accept the concept of civil society.

Thus, the various definitions that are given to each concept in political science needs to have some level of similarity in them and must also discuss a topic that is of common interest. For no concept in political science has only one definition. And if there exists a definition which is absolute in nature then it challenges one of the very basic rules of political science i.e that political science is not an exact science. Hence as for me, I refuse to accept and recognise the concept of civil society due to its vagueness and big pockets of grey areas.

The Time After The Blast

A couple of days ago, a tragedy struck us. Three blasts rocked Mumbai and with it also the country. Nothing could be done about it. News channels aired their favourite 'Are you safe?' programs while papers came up with ridiculous headlines which instead of showing sympathy and support to the victims commercialised their agony. Ministers claimed that it wasn't a failure of intelligence, some questioned that claim while the others simple said that during their rule the number of such incidences were limited and advocated a zero tolerance policy for Terrorism. It didn't bother me what people had to say about the incident. What bothered me was what they did about it and how they helped the people in need.

      I am very happy to say that I wasn't disappointed as the human spirit awoke as the news about the blast spread and people offered their help to the stranded. Social networking sites were full of offers to people to give them a ride home, offering a place to stay and people even from the overseas tweeted to the stranded telling them that they would call the folks of the stranded due to the mobile network being down and all. Nothing more could have been done to show how united the people were. The terrorists only succeeded in revoking those sentiments of unity and sympathy which were not seen on the faces of news anchors as they went into commercial break after having had a chat with their correspondents on the death toll.

      The topic #mumbaiblasts became a worldwide trending topic on Twitter for a couple of hours while tags such as #offer2help came up as people tagged their offers of help and sent around a message to the masses. Some of the stranded responded to the tweets and they were taken care of. People took out their cars and drove up long distances only to help a person stranded at a temple reach home. This simple act of kindness gave me an absolutely strange feeling as I looked on in delight as offers to help flowed.

      The common Indian politics started soon after with many a people blaming certain communities for the tragedy that struck us all. This one thing infuriated me the most and I lashed out at those who were trying to incite communal hatred. Of course they had their own reasons which they childishly tried to prove right in front of us as me and a couple of my friends questioned the very logic behind each of them and proved them wrong. Many a friends of mine on Twitter asked me to not respond to them but then I couldn't help it and gave the irritants a piece of my mind. However trolling continued.

Source

      Even as the twitterati offered help, news channels went from celebrity to celebrity asking for their opinion on the blast. That according to me was very immature as no person with a rational mind set would support blasts aimed at civilians and true to rationality all condemned the blasts and offered their condolences and sympathy. One thing that did strike me was that the very next day, the city came to a halt quite to the delight of the terrorists whose aim of bringing the city to a stop had been fulfilled. Roads remained empty and offices, schools and colleges recorded the lowest attendance ever. However I did go to college.

      Even as I entered the college there was an eerie feeling. Two souls looked at me as I showed the watchmen my ID and entered the campus. The basketball court was deserted quite unlike normal days when it has people playing and at times talking to each other in groups. Rain poured down as I traced my steps to my lecture room. It seemed like silence had indeed invaded the place. A teacher replied, when asked why the college hadn't declared a holiday stating that the Principal thought that by declaring a holiday they would only be ensuring that the terrorists get what they want i.e. the ability to bring fear into our minds. I sat in my class and talked to five students out of a class of hundred who were present. Only one lecture took place that day.

      What my principle said was indeed true. These acts of bombings had always been meant to bring fear into the minds of the people. Even as leaders visited the victims and talked policy, the roads remained empty. The crows circled the sky as cops wearing raincoats stood at various points eyeing each and everyone who passed them. The terrorists would be caught shortly but what would happen? They would be given a 'free and fair' trial and then they would stay in prison courtesy the Government of India. Next day the city returned to normal as cars honked at each other and students responded with a 'present' to the attendance call. Nothing should ever break this spirit of our again like the way it was broken on that day for till we are here we must refuse to bow our heads to terrorism.

The Concept of Clean Politics

Source

      Politics has always been a key element of our society. Without it, it would be hard to even establish whether a society even existed or not. Its a concept that is said to be as important to society as oxygen or water is to mankind. Everything that has ever defined us and the world that we live in has been influenced by this eight letter word. On the one hand it started two world wars and on the other insured the peaceful settlement of the Suez Canal dispute. So now that you come to see of it, politics is morally colourless i.e it can result in wars or solution of disputes peacefully.

     The concept of politics became famous thanks to Shakespeare and his play Caesar. I was taught the play in tenth standard and it was also my first brush with this concept. Since then the concept has fascinated me. It is so intriguing that you can achieve so many things with this one word and its careful usage. Its a tactician's dream. For ages people have planned and conspired against each other, no wonder the world is in shambles today. We have to deal with multiple threats like terrorism, rival countries and a relatively new concept known as rogue countries which I can use to describe the failed state of Pakistan which uses a dual policy. One that is anti-terrorism and the other pro. Of course it is a hide and seek game to prove the latter.

Source

      So has politics ever been clean or has it always involved those small dirty tricks that seem to be white on the outside and black like a kettle on the inside. It is confusing while at the same time we have the answer in front of us. It is like asking whether a man has ever lied in his life. Now we don't know about everyone but we can make the most likely assumption that every man has lied in their life at least once. And so it is. We take two possibilities and choose an option that is more likely and that is that politics had been a dirty business since the very start. And there is no better example to start with than that of Caesar himself.

      Caesar was murdered because he was becoming too big. He was overshadowing others and was starting to seem like a threat. Thus he had to be done with and so he was murdered, murdered by his most trusted comrades, Caesar's story went onto become epic. However there is one thing that is worth a mention here. As we see that as Caesar became powerful, the number of his enemies also increased and this is true to every individual who rises high and has a massive public support system. So he was murdered for political gains and thus it proves the fact that since ancient times politics has been a dirty business.

Source

      We are further convinced of this when we look at the recent examples of Libya and Syria. I have explored Libya in a previous post and thus I won't be discussing it and instead I would take Syria as an example. Syria has been a dictatorship for a long time and it's people have been denied their rights for a long time. Hence it was quite natural that a tipping point be reached and thus at this tipping point the public anger overflowed from the pot. Widespread stirs and agitations took place and they were put down. The authorities used every resource that they could to fight the very same people whom they were meant to help in their quest for progress. Its a tragedy if you look at it closely.

      So we have the answer that we wanted. Yes politics has always been a dirty business. Always some interests are involved. But does it mean that this black and white picture of politics can't be given a make over and turned colourful like the rainbow maybe. Well I would say that this black and white picture can't be turned into a rainbow-colourful but it certainly can be lightened. Colours can be added and the baggage attached to the word 'politics' can be lost. But it doesn't start just like that. No one individual can do it. It has to be a community's work. It is like a society garden. Everybody needs to plant the seeds, water them and take good care of them if flowers are to bloom and happiness to come.

      How can one do it? Well it is simple. Grab your paper and get your pen, and pen your worries on it. Just direct your feet to the sunny side of your mind. I took that line from a song but how does it matter, the message goes out loud and clear. It means that you should write what worries you. Put it down on a piece of paper while at the same time suggest things or steps that can be taken to improve the situation and that would be you doing your bit. So as I finish this article I look at my TV screen and see the farmer agitation and I hope that I can do something about it. With that hope I shall again take to my laptop and pen another article but till then this is me signing off and hoping that things come out well.

Justifying the crackdown at Ramlila Ground

      On June 4th as the clock ticked form 11:59 PM to 12:00 AM the Delhi Police stationed itself at the Ramlila Maidan. What was to follow was to be dubbed as one of the worst incidents ever to happen in a democracy like India. Allegations were made against the government. People warned that we were returning to the Emergency Era. The Delhi Police had raided the maidan, many protesters were injured and Baba Ramdev was taken to Dehradun. 

      The crackdown received criticism far and wide. BJP President Nitin Gadkari said, "Home Minister P Chidamabaram has replaced General Dyer who had massacred peaceful agitators in Jallianwala Bagh during the freedom struggle". LK Advani termed this police crackdown as "naked-fascism". Human Rights groups demanded answers from the government.

Source

      All in all the government was cornered but not even for a moment did anybody think about all of this from the government's point of view. Maybe it was the sudden excitement that people found themselves surrounded by or maybe it was the collective anger that people had for the government. Nobody was happy. Rising prices, corruption and what not. Something had to give. And thus the government found itself to be a lone woodcutter in the forest, surrounded by hyenas ready to tear apart the woodcutter. 

      I admit that the crackdown may have been a little too harsh but it was what was needed. I believe that the constitution grants the government the right to crackdown on such protests if it feels that it may disrupt civil peace or cause civil unrest. I feel what the government did was totally justified. If you come to think of it all, if any damage had been done to public property had the protest gone out of hand thenn who would have had to pay for it? We would have had to pay for it from our pockets. Our taxes would have been used to pay for it all and I for one refuse that my money be used to pay for damage caused because of a Baba whose total net worth is over a 1000crore Rupees. 

      Another argument that the people raise is that 'Women and children were harmed'. I find this argument to be the dumbest of them all. Doesn't everybody go about claiming that women and men are equal? So why this special reference to women alone. It's a bit strange now that I look at it carefully. And the children. It is unfortunate if any children were hurt but at the same time only the parents are to be blamed. I have to still meet a single parent who would take their child along to such a place when they know that the issue is going to get very political. Of course many would defend the parent's action by saying that the parents took the child because their future was at stake. OK fine if at all the future of their child was at stake even then I would say that not a single person I know would take their child to such a place. They would go themselves but not a single parent would allow any harm to come to their child.

      After the crackdown, we saw BJP protesting against it. A clip of Sushma Swaraj was being aired by news channels which showed her dancing to supposed patriotic tunes at Rajghat. She defended herself aggressively by asking whether it was a crime to dance and sing patriotic songs at a place like Rajghat where the father of our nation was cremated. Even if we allow patriotic songs but still dancing at a place like that is condemnable. That is a place where one should remain silent and show his respect for Bapu. And however much you claim that you were simply singing and dancing to songs in praise of the motherland, it does not explain why you had the urge to dance to whatever patriotic song that you were dancing to at Rajghat. There is a time and place for everything. I for one regard it as a clear cut insult to me and to every Indian because of the special place that Bapu holds in our society.

Source

      Many critics of the government compared the India under UPA to China. I for one find this comparison both silly and childish. It is strange that people are able to criticise the government like that and still say that they are living in China. I really doubt if in China people are even seen or heard of after they have made such a statement against the government. Comparing this incident to the Tienanmen Square protest or to the Tahrir Square protests is nothing but an insult to those protesters who bravely fought their regimes in the hopes of having a better tomorrow. I don't think that this crackdown evoked any feeling of being that helpless that one compares it to the those valiant protests that happened in China and Egypt respectively. People claimed that all the politicians had Swiss bank accounts. That statement too is dumb. Did they go and get the bank statement of those individuals? Why do people insult politicians just like that? Agreed that politicians are public servants but still you do not own them. Our democracy can be best described as a restaurant where the Prime Minister is the waiter and he has to come at one call as soon as he is summoned by any Tom, Dick and Harry. What the people do not understand is that he has got much more important things to attend to like administrating this huge country of ours.

      One of the many factors that makes me critical of Baba Ramdev's protest is the fact that the man travels in private jets even though he has taken sanyas. This one thing alone makes me not want to believe whatever he says. Besides, what is left of a fast after you have taken some honey and lemon juice? Also not to forget all this fasting was like holding the government to ransom. I for one wonder what would happen if an unstable person tomorrow undertakes a fast saying the government must bomb some country for all the atrocities that it is committing on India by means of terrorism. If the fast gets good publicity then many idiots would also join the protest. At that time a crackdown would be needed. We can't simply bomb a country and then hope that they won't nuke us.

      This fasting incident made my Grandma nostalgic. She told me that when she lived in West Bengal, almost every single day there would be a strike or a fasting by a group of workers wanting a rise in salary. They claimed that they were being made to work a lot and not being a paid a fair amount. What was the result? At times when the strike would go on, the company would go bankrupt and shut down. Hence all of them would lose their jobs while the Union Leaders were taken care of by political parties with vested interests. A similar thing is happening in India. Every single day somebody goes on a fast for some issue or the other. He is endorsed by celebrities who at times simply fail to understand the fact that adding their name to such a campaign would have a broad effect and many people would join in the fasting without actually being aware of what the core issue is.

      Thus all in all, promoting such things is not going to be beneficial to anybody despite whatever people may claim. I hope this article succeeded in telling you guys that if you want to protest against something then fasting is not the way to go. You can do rallies. Sit at the pavements and shout slogans, protest. But this thing of holding mass protest is not good. It won't do the country any good. Police forces would be diverted to ensure that these protests don't turn violent or to ensure the safety of the leaders from things like ensuring the security of the common man, terrorism and robberies. So even though the constitution grants us the right to protest but it is up to us to understand, be reasonable and to protests in a way that does not hurt the economy, administration or anything for that matter. If we are to all grow old together in this great country of ours then we must find ways to let out our anger against the government in respectable and acceptable ways.

Education...Nah! Tuitions...Yeah!

Guess who topped the twelfth grade exams?

1. The student who had his hand up with a well-thought intelligent answer in class! 
2. The student who was not seen or heard in class.

      You are forgiven for making the mistake selecting option 1 because we are talking about the Indian Education System. What should a developed education system lay emphasis on? The child's all round development but in India the education system is meant to lay emphasis on studies and studies alone. Studies are emphasized regardless of the fact whether the child is interested in the subject at hand or not.

      In the exams, the child who is always active in class, answers questions and is recognised by the teachers as a good student gets average marks while students who are not heard of manage to get excellent marks because the examiners give marks only to the answers which are good enough to be introduced in any guide. They do not see whether the child has understood the fact or simply mugged the answers.

      I am not ridiculing the entire tuition system. I understand that at times tuitions are needed for subjects like Maths and even for languages that you haven't learnt before like French or Russian but I don't understand the logic behind having tuitions for subjects like Political Science or Psychology. Is there a need? No student can be so dumb that they won't understand what is being taught in the class in the above subjects.

      What I don't stand for is that you go to college and then go for tuitions mug those huge answers that are given by your coaching classes and then just print them out on your examination sheet word to word and then end up topping the exams. I know many people who didn't take tuition and who got average marks and I also know people who took tuitions and got good marks. It is upto you to decide who to respect. I respect the one who didn't take tuitions and got average marks. They are the ones who will do well in abroad where there are is no tuition system. So for all those who didn't take tuitions, you did better than the rest.

Psychology of Views and Decisions

      What is the routine that you wake up every morning to follow? I bet it involves reading the newspapers. Sure it does. What are you nodding your head for? OK? So you open the papers and what is the first news that you read? Killings, rape and violence. In simpler words it is all the things that the world would be better without and also that you would be better without every morning. After all it is much better to wake up every morning to read happier things. But do the papers realise that? I don't think so.

Source

      Regularly they feature events that are not so pleasant to either the eye or the emotions on the front page and we like the silent people read them, go through them and the worse it is the better. At times it seems like we have been taken over by a sinister evil that wishes to see all the gory details so brilliantly highlighted in the newspapers. We do not have any control over it.

      But how did it grow so big in the first place that even our superior organs like the brain can't overcome him? Well it is simple now that you ask. It has grown. All the rubbish that we fed it acted like nutrients for it and it bloomed. There are few things in this world and life that we can do.

      And it is these things that we do that define us. Also there are those things that we don't do that define us. As such we are surrounded by options, options good or bad. However what we need to look at is: what is it that we have done and or will do and what would their consequences be? Can they be put into the 'good' circle or the 'bad' circle.

      Whatever we do may not have its effects immediately but it will in the future, you can be sure about that. Thus every time we do something or decide to do something just give it a second's thought and view all the paradigms attached to it. That is all you need to do to lead a good life. Once you have analysed everything, you will choose the right option automatically.