Making Changes in law. Democracy or Mobocracy.

Making Changes in law. Democracy or Mobocracy.

Parliament's prime duty is to make legislation for the country. For that it needs to debate and see all pros and cons of new proposed law  including problem of implementation.

In this sense/ aspect our legislating capacity seems not up to the mark. It is generally carried away by emotions and sentiments of the day and of public. Our main constitution itself has been amended more than 125 times in short span of 65 years. But we need not go back this much. Illustrating recent examples are sufficient.

Take the example of  clause/ section 66A of IT Act that is  struck down by SC. By this section an anomaly was created where in what was not criminal in print and electronic media was made criminal on social media. Now drafter of the legislation themselves saying section was poorly drafted. Was all this was not obvious while making the law. 

Take example of non legislative decisions also.In this aspect see the fate of  ban on Nirbhya documentary. No sane voice was heard during the debate except that of people like Javed Akhatar etc. Ultimately ban turned out to be non-enforceable.Take another example of hue and cry over release of Masart Alam. We can understand it from ignorant public but same scene in parliament ?. All voices, including PM, without taking in to account legal aspect and what was happening before Mufti became CM ?. Was it not the duty of HM to tell the nation what is correct position.   

Now come to mother of all controversy, Land Bill. ( I think previous to this Hindu Civil Code  Bill must have raised such debate in Nehru's time).

Before we come to merit of 2013 Bill or present ordinance etc. Need to amend a Bill ( which was not opposed by present ruling party) within a year of its passing is itself shocking. Does it mean while passing the bill all aspect were not seen or discussed. We could understand if the present amendments, were same as BJP  had proposed earlier but could not get it passed because of lack of majority or voted against the bill. But the fact BJP had supported the Bill.

Now coming to the merit of amendments. We fully agree that rural people should move away from agriculture. Presently, there is disguised-employment ( work without productivity) in agriculture or rural economy. We also full agree that considering the small land holding and large number of farmers involved consent clause seems to be impracticable. Same can be said about social impact assessment, which is generally done on fictitious/ unreliable project report. It is game to include more and more people as project affected persons.

But the solution is more dangerous than problem. This way farmers are forced to sacrifice whatever little assets they are presently having. Ruling class says  amendments are beneficial  for farmers. Now if some thing is better for farmer why farmer will not give consent for it ?.

Basically, landowner, where land is considered as a factor of production, should be made as shareholder in any project on land. Be it in  road or railway or any manufacturing activity. We can leave purely public goods like science laboratory or defense establishment where no revenue will be generated from such share holding. But wherever revenue is likely to be generated, be  it by govt or private, some way of ownership in project must be insured for farmers. 

Further, even commercial activity can be divided in two parts. One is like dam which has to built on existing river or road/ rail which has to be built between existing cities and can not be located elsewhere. Another is factory etc. which can be located any where ( of course cost and market are consideration but it is not essential, it only  affects profitability). Law for the first type should be different from second one.

Any commercial activity will surely affect one group positively and another group negatively. You can not ask to sacrifice the  loser for  another group which is likely to benefit. It is cross subsidy.Why not encourage experiments like Magarpatta of Pune  where in farmers themselves developed city. 

Intention here is not to discuss pro and cons of a particular bill or clause.  But parliament should pass the law with full discussion. We should give a thought, why a British law  made in 1894 continued for 119 years and our bill needs amendment  in a year. 

We should not turn democracy to mobocracy.

Dehli to Srinagar via Patna.

After winning Loksabha and some assembly elections by BJP, its strategy seems to be failing. The way things have unfolded for BJP in Delhi, Patna and Srinagar give rise to doubt about Modi-Shah duo’s capacity to lead BJP and nation in a Statesman like spirit.

(If it is so, what was reason for its earlier victory – people’s delusion with coalition politics and weak congress leadership, which gave BJP advantage? And it is possible that when they are confronted with other more capable leaders and local / regional parties BJP’s weakness in strategy is exposed.)

Coming straight to Kashmir, now it seems BJP has repeated the mistake of delaying the decision. In Delhi it was delay in calling the election and in Kashmir it was about forming the government. ( so that its effect should not be felt on Delhi election.)

This begs the question – Is the BJP in agreement to what is happening in J&K for last 10 days but does not want to acknowledge it in public (and wanted to happen it after Delhi election). Modi has already said- what is stated in public and what is in the interest of nation or required to run the government is two different aspects. His U turn (for better) on ADHAR project is an example of this sort.

What has been stated by Mufti in his first press conference- giving thanks to separatist and Pakistan for peaceful election-  and then demand for mortal remains of Afzal Guru (by PDP MLAs) and release of Masarat Alam. All seem to be coherent policy of PDP, addressed to constituency of his party that is Kashmir valley (It is as simple and clear as AAP party’s announcement of subsidy on Electricity and Water- fulfilling the election promise). BJP’s strong reaction is addressed to its constituency without any seriousness about it.

And if alliance is to continue- I think it will/ should continue for national integration- we should be prepared for such more action on part of PDP. (Though BJP says it has got assurance from PDP of non-recurrence of such decision)

As the opposition to view of PDP’s action and terming it antinational is well documented and publicised in mainstream media, I do not wish to elaborate it.

What is to be understood/ realised that there can be a different, other than held by us, perception on Kashmir. Every argument has counter argument- argument is that PDP released the Alam, counter argument is, judiciary ordered for release and detention was illegal (Further his and others release has happened earlier also). What is coming out in public domain, leaves only charge on PDP of not re- arresting him.

We say release of Alam is betrayal of public who has participated whole heartily in election. Counter argument is PDP won the election in Kashmir valley and pro nationalist BJP got 2-3 % vote with 0 seats. (More voting was done to ensure BJP does not win elections. Congress has better record who won seats in all three parts of J&K.)

That leads to question who is/are Alam and others, separatist/ terrorist or political prisoners. This is the critical question.

Can it be said that because PDP has different perception it is anti-national. Or state government/ regional parties should not air/ influence foreign policy issues. But then same is being done in Tamil Nadu (Sri Lanka), West Bengal (Bengla Desh) and accepted by Centre.

Further, BJP says action of PDP is outside CMP and asks PDP to concentrate on development (this will solve problem of Kashmir), PDP says it is part of CMP and says there cannot be any development without peace.

Argument/counter argument will go on  and BJP has to decide, whether it wants to seize the historic opportunity to enter Valley and change mind set of Kashmiri people or snap the relationship, that will be advantageous to PDP (in Kashmir) and for BJP ( in rest of India) but valley problem will continue forever.

Even though public posture is giving signal in other direction I think and wish and has feeling Modi/ BJP is taking Vajpayee’s mission a step ahead (But do not have courage to say publicly and it is here Modi is different than Vajpayee and short in stature). Already spokes persons are defending the BJP-PDP alliance on the line of BJP-Akali Dal alliance (earlier many of Akalis were sympathetic to Khalistan movement and so on) and hope to, what has been achieved in Punjab, achieve in Kashmir. They already have converted one separatist- Soz to election fold and they should continue this mission and be courageous enough to say so.

If it is not so, after 1948 (taking it to UN), 1971 (Breaking Pakistan which gave rise to anti India feeling to new generation of Pakistan) it will be third time (not honouring /working with elected government) we will be mistake on Kashmir policy.

For last 68 years we have been saying that since Kashmiri people are participating in election, there is no need of Plebiscite on Kashmir as promised by us. Kashmiri separatist do not buy this argument, saying election and plebiscite are two different issues, and to begin with rest of India should have faith on peoples and peoples elected by them.( Can we dream of a day when we can have Scotland type referendum where in, people rejected call for independence from UK).

Can we accept this challenge.

Nirbhya-India's daughter.

It is once again same self-defending reaction by Government and Society.

“It is conspiracy to defame India”.  

As far as I remember the same arguments was echoed long back against Satyajt Ray’s film “Pather Panchali” who documented India’s poverty.   

I have not seen the documentary nor going into merit in arguments for and against the banning the documentary. But I understand it is one of the 7 or 9 documentary prepared or to be prepared internationally and not unique for India or for defamation of India. We have reacted in the same way when Obama, commented on religious intolerance in India, in a long speech in USA while assessing the world situation and making a remark about India at the end of speech.

Any way we must understand all are commenting /will comment from a point advantageous to them. NDTV who was to broadcast documentary is showing all reactions against ban, while Times Now (for reason unknown) is making all hue and cry why documentary was made at all. Who so ever is taking position for and against it may be taking for its own sake. Which position is correct cannot said.

Why we should feel or conclude, any observation not liked by us is against us.

Further, we should be able to distinguish what is against state (power) and what is against nation. In this respect the case of not allowing Greenpeace activist to go to England for briefing British Parliamentarians about plight of Advasis, due to activities of a British company, is still fresh in our mind and case is sub-judies.

What is more shameful -documentary or justice could not be delivered so far.

In this respect it is also a commentary on parliamentary democracy, who plays to gallery but does not show any intention of basic changes. Remember, Verma Commission after Nirbhay case or Jan Lokapal and so on. Situation is not unique to India Hitler commented in the same way in his autobiography about German Parilaiment.

I won’t comment much but only say it is time to introspect  our  gender biases and social priorities-WHY WE (MAN) ARE ABLE TO PURCHASE A MOBILE OF RS 15000-20000 BUT WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTRUCTION OF TOILET WE ARE SHORT OF MONEY.

J and K Agreement.

It seems agenda for governance between PDP and BJP in J&K has gone beyond the agenda of political parties forming the rules for sharing the power. It has entered in the area of central government (like treatment of refugees, LOC etc) and RBI (all lending to be priority sector for 5 years) and so on.

While reading I felt as though it is international treaty entered between Ruler of independent Kashmir and Indian Government something like agreement of 1948. 

The agreement needs more scrutiny as effects of these will affecting/ binding on future state govt. and central government.

How perception differs, is to be realised while we mainstream citizen feel BJP has compromised its position on Article 370 for power, in an interview NC leader and ex-cm Omar Abdulla says, article 370 is part of basic constitution and India and Kashmir agreement and BJP cannot do anything about it. Reviewing article 370 means revisiting India and J&K agreement of 1948 ( and is BJP ready to do that ?).

Same way he blames PDP (we blame BJP) for diluting position on AFSPA which they had promised to abolish within 1 year of coming to power. He also states that abolishing AFSPA is purely in the hands of state government and PDP has abdicated this power to centre who will never repeal the act.

On other political and social issues also he says nothing is new and they have been part of Governor’s address for last 10 years. In fact he blames PDP to compromise on promise of “Self Rule” in Kashmir for the sake of power.

While rejecting the claim that BJP-PDP alliance is like North and South pole together, he said as far as my understanding goes ( of science) if  two poles come together it is total catastrophe, I hope it is not so.

Black Money

Out of many future tense sentences, lot of them on Black Money. My take is as below.

 Subject of Black Money is once again has come to centre stage with Arun Jaitely promising very stringent law on it in his Budget speech.

Whether law will be realty and whether it will be able to tackle the problem?

Considering the previous experience of behaviour of political parties (irrespective of being in power or in opposition), including the attitude on Lokpal, before and after passing the law, it is certain that this law will face  the same hurdle during  the passage and after the law becomes law ( if at all) as faced by Lokpal.

Whatever posture and action we are seeing presently is due to pressure generated by Anna movement and Supreme Court orders.

My view is first it will face the hurdle in passing, the way woman’s reservation is facing. And even if it is passed it will face the hurdle in the enforcement/ operationalization the way lokpal is facing.

Why it is so?

Basic thing is, those who are showing intention to pass the law (politician) are in fact in greater need of it, to win the elections. Thus electoral reforms are pre-requisite for law on Black Money. Similar is the case with Bureaucracy/ General public who need it for getting admission, appointment, posting and promotions. This is also true of Industry who needs it for getting clearances and promoting crony capitalism.

Ultimately all money reaches Political boss. Thus if electoral reforms are undertaken, administrative reforms and other changes for industry and for general public will not be far off.

This may smoothen the passage on law on Black Money or if need for generating Black Money is gone, who knows we may not require this law at all.

On the other hand, socially we need to discourage and criticise display of money and stop alluding the people who display money but do not have known source of it. In fact we should ask transparency in expenses and source of money.