Saturday, December 28, 2013

Put Modi on Trial in a Public Court

Non-conviction does not necessarily mean the innocence of the accused. A court decides on the basis of hard evidence and if there is not sufficient evidence, the court has every right to give a no conviction verdict. But the absence of evidence does not mean that the crimes were not committed and the accused was not involved in those crimes.
Evidence can be tempered, witnesses can be intimidated, tactics can be used to discredit the victim and judges can be influenced.
In a Gujarat court, the state chief minister was recently given a no conviction verdict because the court did not accept the evidence submitted by the victim regarding the murder of her husband by a mob in the presence of active state police.
Modi, commenting on the verdict used an old Sanskrit proverb meaning “truth ultimately prevails” and justified his innocence, claiming that since the Gujarat genocide in 2002, he has been living in pain and agony.
Only a narcissist  and the psychopath is capable of making such a statement and once again the prime ministerial candidate of India has proved beyond any doubts that he belongs to a class of leaders who do not care about justice, truth or peace to achieve their political ambitions and objectives.
The genocide committed against the Muslims of Gujarat was a premeditated and well-planned event. A political party, the Bhartiya Janata Party, (BJP) with an ideology of hate against Muslims is in power in Gujarat. It has the backing of a non-political organization, the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, (RSS) that believes that India is only for Hindus (mainly upper castes). It believes in the establishment of Ram Rajya, which in simple English means a system of government where power would belong to those who are of higher castes. It promotes the idea of profanity of those who are not part of the Hindu caste system. It views the Muslim presence as the desecration of Mother India. It labels Muslims as enemies of the state and defines Islam a violent faith.
During his rule as Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, the BJP succeeded in promoting the RSS volunteers in all private and public sector positions. Thus, from judges to the peons and from district collectors to constables, the party succeeded in securing its presence in all crucial positions. There were few who did not toe the party line and they were intimidated into silence.
The court verdict should not disappoint the victims. It should only strengthen their resolve to fight an evil that would go to any length in securing its interests.
If the Judiciary in Gujarat is insensitive to the demands of justice, then people should act in solidarity with the victims. Let those who believe in the supremacy of justice and truth put Modi on trial in a public court constituted by the people and let all the evidence be presented to solicit a fair judgment. This is the only way, the truth would be allowed to prevail.
If the judiciary and bureaucracy refuse to uphold the truth, people in a democracy are entitled to act on their own in a peaceful manner. The judgment of a public court would have far-reaching consequences than the judgment of a judicial court. The public court may not have the political authority to execute its decision, but it would have the moral authority to prove that truth ultimately prevails.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Modi may or may not be the next Prime Minister of India

The latest assembly elections in five Indian states do not offer good sign for Narendra Modi of the Bhartiya Janata Party, the Prime Ministerial aspirant of India even though his party has been given the mandate to run Delhi, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Prior to the election, Modi was sailing smooth and he appeared a viable and formidable candidate for India's top job. But the election results have changed all that.
The reason: The emergence of AAP (Aam Aadmi Party, Common People Party) as a major player in India's electoral politics. The AAP that was formed on October 2012 contested Delhi's election and won some 28 seats out of 70 upsetting the BJP as well as the Congress Party, the two main political parties in Delhi. AAP is not composed of seasoned politicians. It is a party of common people drawn from all sectors of Indian's society. It does not enjoy the patronage of any religious establishment or big corporations. It is not based on caste, religion or region. Its main goal is to rid Indian politics and bureaucracy of corruption. The corruption that is bigger in size in India's history since the beginning. A corruption that encompasses every aspect of Indian society.
In this corrupt environment, it fielded candidates with no previous political background in general whose strength was their character and social service. Even in a district which is the stronghold of the Hindu fascist BJP, it fielded a Muslim candidate who mustered over 17,000 votes challenging the notion that a Muslim candidate can only contest the election only from a Muslim dominated district. The leader of the Party himself challenged the three-term chief minister of Delhi risking his entire nascent political career.
The AAP wants transparency in Indian politics. It wants democracy to serve people and not the politician. It wants to eliminate corruption in political circles by making it a crime. It wants to give people the right to recall their elected officials. It wants to create a public evaluation board to keep an eye on the functioning of political leaders and it wants public officials to represent their constituents and not lobbies. Its strength lies in the support of the people, average people who are never remembered by politicians once the ritual of democracy is over.
These are the ideals that more than 70 percent of Indian voters under the age of 35 identify with. It is this section of Indian society that supported the AAP in Delhi. AAP was pitched against the cadre of the world's most disciplined and dangerous secret organization, the Rashtriya Swayam Sangh (RSS) the fascist ideological organization behind the BJP and other similar outfits. It also faced the rank and file of the oldest Indian political party, the Congress. The party did not have an elaborate organization and unlimited secret funds that every political group usually spends in India. It refrained itself from buying votes on the election eve, a common practice in India, where millions of dollars are distributed to buy votes. Both the Congress and BJP supporters gave away hefty cash to their potential voters. Liquor was distributed freely on the eve of the night.
AAP contested only from Delhi, Had it fielded candidates in other states, the BJP would not have got the majority anywhere, because a great majority of Indian voters seem to be sick and tired of the politics of Congress as a party that is immersed in corruption and the BJP, a party built on the bones and the blood of thousands of Indians killed in communal riots. Since people did not have any alternative they chose the one they found was appealing to their religious emotions.
BJP's politics is the politics of hatred, corruption, and revenge, while Congress politics is the politics of deception and corruption. Both have presided over the destruction of minority rights systematically.
The decision of AAP to sit as opposition in Delhi is a good decision as this would give the leadership an opportunity to focus on expanding the organization in different parts of the country. AAP has presented itself as a value-driven organization and it has made it clear that it would not share power with those whom it accuses of being corrupt or communal. Rarely, one finds such stand-in politics. AAP knows that an overwhelming majority of Indians does not subscribe to caste and religion politics. It wants clean governance at all levels and it has no sympathy for those who play divisive politics.
AAP has the capacity to channelize these sentiments in the upcoming election of Indian parliament because it is run by people and not by leaders. Thus, the party would pose serious challenges to both the fascist BJP and the corrupt Congress. The fascist party has its own cadre and it probably would get their full backing. But those who want to see a corruption-free India that does not favor any caste or religion and that does not promote a particular class would be enthusiastic for AAP as they were in the just concluded elections in states where an alternative was not available.
It is this alternative that offers Muslims and other minorities an opportunity to identify with.  Because India in the political hands of those who believe in a corruption-free India offers the best hope for minorities including Muslims. In Delhi, the Muslims voted for AAP but not as enthusiastically as they voted for Congress. The BJP hardly got Muslim votes. But this would change in the upcoming Indian parliament election as Muslims cannot keep them isolated from what is happening in the country. AAP would be seen as an alternative to Congress as BJP has never been a choice of the overwhelming majority of Muslims. The BJP also does not want loud Muslim support as it would hurt its own upper caste, hate-filled interest groups, including many in the US who have sent millions to the murderous Modi.
Narendra Modi was hoping a smooth sailing in the national election. But things would change now. He would be forced to talk about the corruption in his own state and the violence his state perpetrated against Muslims and other minorities. The blood of the innocents would haunt him and AAP and its supporters would ensure that the communal politics, the hallmark of BJP, is not allowed to dominate the election agenda. On the strength of the masses, the AAP would make the corruption as India's top agenda and through choosing candidates who would ensure clean politics, it would emerge as one of the most effective players in Indian politics. A new India is about to be born, an India where Modi would have no place, an India, where the masses would rise above their caste and religions to restore the dignity to common men. Thus, Modi's dream to become Prime Minister of the country would evade him even though his party seems to be intoxicated with the victory in the four states.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Living Together: No Crime and No sin, Says the Indian Supreme Court

The Indian Supreme Court in a recent ruling asked the people of India (parliament) to frame laws protecting the rights of women and children in live-in relationship. It has ruled that such a relationship is neither a crime nor a sin.
One needs to look at the accepted definitions of Live-in, crime and sin before commenting on the Supreme Court ruling
Live-in relationship is defined as a living arrangement in which two individuals who are not legally married, live together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage but not accepted as a marriage by society at large.
Crime means an act committed or omitted in violation of the law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction or a serious offense, especially one in violation of morality or an unjust, the senseless, or disgraceful act or condition.
And sin is described as an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
In Indian law, fornication has not been prohibited. A man can have sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman over the age of 16 provided she consents to such a cohabitation. A person can also enter into adulterous relations with a married woman provided the husband has no objection. The Indian law intervenes only when non-consensual intercourse is committed with a married woman or with a minor. The Indian law also says that only a man can be proceeded against and punished for adultery, but the married woman cannot be, even as an abettor.
The Supreme Court has suggested that the rights of children born out of living together relations and women involved in such relations should be protected. In reality, the rights of men, women, and children must be protected regardless of the relationship among them. There is no need to have separate laws to protect the rights of people in this relationship as long as the law respects the equality of all Indians regardless of their background.
There are certain inalienable rights that cannot be denied to any individual. Among them are rights to live and to choose one's own lifestyle. However, no one in society has a right to weaken or destroy the primary social institution that is the foundation of human civilization, i.e. the family.
Long before the emergence of the modern state, it was the family that provided support to its men, women, and children, most of the times in a patriarchal arrangement but at times in a matriarchal situation too. The family was and is the human necessity as the life of an individual starts in a condition of total dependence upon others and ends in a situation of total dependence upon others. The family had rules and roles assigned to its members, especially the rules pertaining to conjugation and reproduction.
Humans had two options to select rules and roles pertaining to the family. Either they draw their own rules based on their likes and dislikes or they accept the rules given to them by a higher authority, God, Almighty, objective, and neutral who does not take sides of any gender or ethnicity or race.
It was the second option the humanity accepted and adopted a definition that ensured the continuity of roles assigned to various members of the family.
One of the fundamental rules in the divinely guided definition of the family dealt with the relationship with men and women. It was accepted that the conjugal relationship between a man and a woman should always be within the confines of marriage on the basis of contractual or sacramental ties witnessed by the people and approved by society. The purpose was not only to secure the interests of the couple, but also the rights of their children and other relatives.
Physical relation established outside these rules was considered illicit and a major sin carrying severe penalties. The purpose was to protect the dignity of both men and women and help them discipline their sexual urges and social responsibility in a meaningful manner.
Now, after some 8,000 years of recorded human history, we are back to where we began our human journey. Whose definition should we accept in defining the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman, i.e. the definition we as a human being evolves based on our limited knowledge, interests, and experiences or the definition received through divine guidance?
The Supreme Court said that people through their elected representative should define a family. It has also given a verdict on the 8,000-year-old wisdom of humanity that living-in without binding contractual or sacramental relations is neither a sin nor a crime.
The Supreme Court is not a lawgiver, it is a law interpreter and the decision that the live-in is not a sin or a crime is beyond its jurisdiction. It cannot give verdict on issues it is not competent to talk about. The Supreme Court follows the constitution that says that it would respect the religious beliefs of people. Hence, when it says that that live-in relationship is neither a sin nor a crime, it is showing disrespect to the people’s belief.
One of the definitions of crime describes it as an act in violation of morality or an unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition.
In the eyes of the religious community of India or the world, physical relationship not based on a contract or sacrament is unjust, senseless and disgraceful from the perspective of their belief. Hence, by giving its verdict in this matter, the Court is again violating the constitutional clause that demands respect to the belief system of the people.
One should hope that the religious communities of India, regardless of their denomination would look into this verdict seriously and assert their right to make laws that would ensure the sanctity of marriage and family.