Category Archives: Politics

Civil Services, Politics, Society

End the IAS : Part II

This is the second part of a three-part series of articles written in response to Mihir S Sharma’s article titled ‘End the IAS‘
____________________________________________
Sharma makes two other charges that are related. He says that, firstly, IAS officers are generalists, lack knowledge, and therefore, secondly, make blunders. He further corroborates that he seldom pays for those blunders. One additional consequence of such generalist experience is the lack of innovation that besets our policy sphere.
The generalist versus specialist debate is old. The issue has been raised many times before expert committees and commissions even before independence. On each occasion, the generalist service at the top management has been given a thumbs up because of the TINA factor (there is no alternative). Although Sharma says that this generalist civil service is based on ‘Victorian public school principles’, the same is far from true. I am sure he used the word Victorian as a metaphor for foreign and old, but how does being foreign and old make the administration of a ‘fiendishly complex’ country difficult? As a culture, our history is millennia old, but the major sustainable and structured steps to simplify administration and regulate life by rule of law and science came during the tiny sliver of time under foreign rule. It is for this reason that many of our systems and structures are still based around those inventions and discoveries that occurred when sovereignty was with the island nation and not with us. It is precisely the complexity of our inherent society coupled with the complexity of modern life that a generalist service can bring a sanity out of chaos today. It is patently untrue that all high positions of the government are taken up by the IAS. With passing years, many of the positions usually held by the IAS officers (called cadered posts) are increasingly going to specialists. The vast majority of the public sector undertakings (PSUs or government companies) are now manned by specialists, drawn from their own cadre. Many technical organisations like the revenue services, the railways services and others have specialist officers or groupings of them (Boards) at the apex level, to guide operations as well as make policy.
I will take the example of the state of Himachal Pradesh, a place I know a little better than some other places. There are many departments that are traditionally headed by specialists. Thus, the agriculture, horticulture, public works, irrigation, health, animal husbandry, electricity, even higher education departments/organisations are headed by people from their own cadres, or specialists. There has been no study that shows that the performance of these departments are any better. By its very nature, the specialists would have many advantages over the gypsy IAS that roam around. The specialists are certainly more knowledgeable (in theory) due to their decades of cultivated passion in one focussed area. They know the people through which the work is to be done. They are psychologically relaxed knowing that they have stability of tenure (that has ranged, in one department, close to twenty years at the very top!). Hence, they can plan and effect that plan. Knowledge would lead them to the latest innovations happening across the world – the latest patents, the best seeds for planting, the latest techniques in building bridges and skyscrapers. But we all know, that does not happen. We all blame our government hospitals manned by specialist. The airlines run by specialists. The colleges and universities ruled by knowledgeable specialists that have written hundreds of double-blind-peer-reviewed papers in their lifetime.
Contrast this with the positions of the IAS officers. As per a Times of India article ‘68% of IAS officers have average tenures of 18 months or less’. Once posted, thus, they have to hit the ground running. One senior officer was going on a holiday for Dussera. He left by train with his family, got a call regarding his new posting while having his first tea on the train, got down at the next station where a vehicle was rushed, leaving his family behind on the train. He joined work the next morning, and conducted elections to the Lok Sabha in his new district. Another officer, running one district, was leaving home for a holiday. Again, on another train, he got another call. He rushed back to join as the Collector of another district. To take a personal example, I was the Collector of one district for one month. Next time I was posted to another district, I counted my tenure in units of months – this month, I have to get this done, the next month I would have to get that done. IAS officers, due to the very fleeting nature of engagement with a position, are an impatient lot. He does not always have domain knowledge, does not know the officers and workers of the concerned organisation and does not have stability. Add to this fleeting nature of tenure, the multiple responsibilities that most IAS officers  have to bear. All IAS officers in most points of their careers have adjusted such multiple responsibilities. It is not a happy affair, but but a part of the job that must be done. Frequently, an officer would come to a meeting whose briefing file would be handed over to him at the door of the meeting room as he steps in – he goes through the papers in the best manner he can, and tries to do justice to the need of the hour. My own daily schedule is a maddening rush from one office to another, one meeting to another, dealing with issues fluently like a Casanova would deal with women – with passion and attention while one woman is with you, with lesser detachment when the next damsel demands your energy. Given the stark shortage of officers, bestowing of additional responsibilities is the only way organisations can be run and managed. The generalist nature of the IAS helps. One senior officer described the IAS as aloo (potato) – you can put it in any soup, sabzi, biriyani, parantha or what have you! If you have specialists manning leadership positions and have a crisis of HR in hand, how would you have them manage affairs? How can Director Agriculture, for instance, step in the shoes of Director Horticulture should there be such a requirement (do recall that in Himachal Pradesh, as I described earlier, both these positions are with specialist officers)?
So, one might ask, if the generalist is no better than the specialist, but only suffer from additional handicaps, why should we not post specialists to all leadership positions?
The reason would be that the generalist officer has a lot of exposure and experience of not just the concerned department, but of other organisations. Having seen a lot, he has a lot to put on the table. The very trait that is ridiculed is the benefit of the generalist. One day he learns how to grow fish, the next day he learns how to grow corn. When he learns how to raise cows, he knows how to champion extension work in the village. Before the IAS officers gains in seniority and sits in the reviled air-conditioned rooms (as if all others are sitting in non-air-conditioned rooms), he has seen the farmlands, the badlands, he has met the sweaty farmer and the dockyard goon, the respected retired Colonel and seen the pathetic school toilets. He has worked as mediator, as an advocate, as an activist, as a rebel, as a dutiful soldier, and frequently, as a discarded has-been. By the time one rises to join the policy level, the IAS officer is the only of its kind that has rubbed shoulders with the outcaste as well as industry captains, the broken man waiting for a decade for justice as well as the be-wigged lordships (okay, no wigs, but lords all the same), the struggling karyakarta as well as the muscleman-turned-minister. Such variety gives a unique perspective to the generalist officer that cannot be earned through focussed journey in a narrow field.
One can find examples on either side, but innovation may be expected out of someone who has seen a wider world than from someone who has seen less of it. India presently ranks 76 in the Global Innovation Index, an annual survey of 143 economies/states. To blame 4800 offices in a nation of 125 crore people for this dismal ranking is to place too much confidence in the IAS and too less in the nation. Nations like UAE, Kuwait, Montenegro, Serbia and Jordan, and certainly China (rank 29) are much ahead of us – nations that are neither known for their democratic spirit or the robustness of their bureaucracy. As a culture, we are always looking for a shortcut, be it in education or job-seeking. Cultivating the innovative spirit cannot come naturally in such an environment. What we call jugaad are but science experiments of primary schoolers. They may save money (the primary objective on most occasions), they don’t earn patents or money, or generate jobs and revenue (beyond a point). India has not seen a Nobel prize in science since C V Raman (Physics, 1930, the year of the Salt March). Most of our Information Technology companies are service companies for other organisations – it is but a rare occasion when a software or a hardware product natively developed in India has seen a modicum of success (Hotmail is an American product, co-developed by a programmer born and brought up in India; it is not an Indian product). It would be instructive to see if specialist officers have better innovative spirit than generalist officers. One wonders if any survey or research has been done in this regard. In the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, it seems logical to expect innovation from an impatient gypsy than from a bored artisan.
In governance, innovation can be of two essential types. The first kind of innovation is operational innovation. This is where you change a form, a process or a system that does the same thing better or faster and more easily. This keeps on happening every day in the field. Sustainability and replicability of such steps are the real issues rather than the lack of such innovative steps. The second kind of innovation is policy innovation. In this you create a new system or a new world. You disband a Planning Commission. Or you prescribe a new system of railways (like the Bibek Debroy panel is advocating). Such innovations go further, but may hit a roadblock with change in the political winds. Many of the policy innovations have seen major structural or financial adjustments with the change in the government in New Delhi last year. This is, again, not a bad thing. Firstly, it is democratic. Secondly, this enables experimentation with different models, and the discovery of the best one. Of course, governance is not all serendipity. It is conscious but tentative steps into the unknown, with bonafide public interest at heart.
Sharma talks of the Uber example. Uber is a tech company that has developed a mobile app that enables registered drivers and cabs to be used by clients. It is a virtual marketplace bringing together supply (cars and drivers) with demand (transportation). Uber started operating in Bangalore, India, in August 2014 and accosted controversy within four months wherein a female client in New Delhi alleged that she was raped by a driver using the Uber service. Sharma points out the ‘colossal idiocy’ of the response of the government of closing down the Uber service. One does not know, but he seems to allege that this spark of idea came from an IAS officer. Let’s presume that, indeed, a generalist officer was behind this decision. The facts of the case (Uber service, or other services of its kind are unregulated; they are falling foul of financial as well as transport regulations; the driver of the taxi did not even have a driving license and had a criminal record, hence internal scrutiny was lax; Uber has been in controversy across the world earlier and has been banned, variously, in many countries; the Nirbhaya gang-rape case happened only two years back in New Delhi only, and the political firmament was fidgety) were such that one could have taken any decision. In public administration, at times action is decidedly better than inaction; the Uber case was one acute example. Sharma’s ‘colossal idiocy’ statement, if anything, is self-reflective.
Sharma talks of blunders and mistakes. The only person who makes no mistakes is the person who does nothing. Frequently, inaction itself is a blunder. At times, inaction is criminal, as an ex-Prime Minister is lately finding out. The present political and administrative ethos is one of too much scrutiny and fault-finding. We had heard of policy paralysis. This would be a natural state of things should every mistake of today is searchingly criticised with the wisdom of hindsight. Noah Vosen (a character) says is perfectly in The Bourne Ultimatum (2007): “You know as well as I do decisions made in real time are never perfect. Don’t second-guess an operation from an armchair.” Any action or innovation can go two ways – some may be liked by some, others disliked. The real touchstone of any action is justice – does it do justice to the cause for which an action is intended? If the answer is yes, the action is right, despite controversies. The problem is that such answers are not instantaneous. Big dams were a hit in Nehruvian era, and were called modern temples. Those were the days of big dams everywhere. By 1997, about 40,000 dams over 15 metres height had been built across the world. But dams are unpopular now. They cause forced migration, ecological damage, financial distress, and we are lately realising, even geological turmoil on a large scale. Policy decisions are judgment calls. Some win through them, some lose. Unless a nexus is established with ulterior motives, policy decisions per se are never wrong. They may be inappropriate. Attribution of criminality in the absence of established malafide is unjust. It causes policy paralysis. Policy paralysis causes greater damage to economy and the nation than even mild corruption.
But do IAS officers escape accountability in case of decisions proved wrong? This is what Sharma alleges. Far from it. IAS officers are routinely removed by the political executive for perceived rights and wrongs. Although cases of Durga Shakti Nagpal and Ashok Khemka are championed as examples of wrongful removal, such removals are very normal. More officers are removed for doing things rightly than doing them wrongly. The issue is not lack of accountability. The issues are how to measure it and fix it, and once that are done, to implement it. Of course, IAS officers cannot be removed from service for policy wrongs. That is not only improper, but unconstitutional (again, Sharma would come across some legal hurdles). A CEO, when removed from one company, swiftly finds employment in another. The same may not be true of a generalist officer who has forgone earlier opportunities of financial ingratiation, and thus must be protected. But officers are routinely removed from their positions, and DO pay for wrongs when they are perceived. Most rapes that reach primetime television are followed by suspensions and transfers of various officers, including generalist SDMs and Collectors. Uber India CEO is not suspended or transferred or sacked for a rape under his watch. There is more accountability in public service that in many other areas of public or corporate life of India.
Civil Services, Politics, Society

End the IAS : Is it a solution?

“By whatever constitution India may be ruled, no government will be able to ‘do without District Officer”

– (Simon Commission Report, 1928)

“End the IAS”

– Mihir S Sharma

This article is a searching response to another article by Sharma that said that the IAS must go. The article appeared on June 5, 2015, in Business Standard.

 

____________________________________

PART I

 

The IAS is akin to the top management of an impossibly large and complex entity called India. Every large and complex entity needs administration without which it would return to chaos, the natural state of things. This administration is provided by a system that may vary in shape and complexity depending upon the master it must serve. Easier to manage societies like pastoral and tribal societies require fewer people to manage, and fewer laws and rules to guide their day to day life. Life being simple, the structure around life is simple. The inherent Brownian motion in society would create more complex systems as populations grow. Life now being complex, the structures around life would be complex.

This administration is normally called bureaucracy. Weber, one of the founders of modern sociology, was one of the foremost thinkers on bureaucracy:

“[His] interest in the nature of power and authority, as well as his pervasive preoccupation with modern trends of rationalization, led him to concern himself with the operation of modern large-scale enterprises in the political, administrative, and economic realm. Bureaucratic coordination of activities, he argued, is the distinctive mark of the modern era. Bureaucracies are organized according to rational principles. Offices are ranked in a hierarchical order and their operations are characterized by impersonal rules. Incumbents are governed by methodical allocation of areas of jurisdiction and delimited spheres of duty. Appointments are made according to specialized qualifications rather than ascriptive criteria. This bureaucratic coordination of the actions of large numbers of people has become the dominant structural feature of modern forms of organization. Only through this organizational device has large- scale planning, both for the modern state and the modern economy, become possible. Only through it could heads of state mobilize and centralize resources of political power, which in feudal times, for example, had been dispersed in a variety of centers. Only with its aid could economic resources be mobilized, which lay fallow in pre-modern times.

– http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/weber12.html

Weber’s model of bureaucracy was essentially based around six principles, all of which are still valid today.  Of course, Weber was not the only thinker to either analyse bureaucracy or to define it. But let’s keep this discussion less theoretical and more practical.

Thus, when Sharma says ‘end the IAS’, one answer could be – yes, by all means do that. But whatever replacement you have in mind, would be another bureaucracy. You may call it management, managerial ring, cloud nine, abra cadabra, or what you will. It will still remain a bureaucracy. Of course, one can devise the new bureaucracy differently. One can change this bit and that bit. But it would still retain its DNA as a bureaucracy. Talking of change, cannot the present system be changed? Of course it can, it has and it does! The only unchanging thing is the fire in the hell, they tell me. Without again turning this into another history lesson, the post of the Collector or its equivalent have seen changes in power, responsibilities and mandate constantly before independence. Post independence, the whole civil service changed, starting from the name itself (from ICS to IAS), the colour of the skin of the men and women manning (womanning?!) the service, bosses (from Queen to the President, certainly a change of sex as we mostly have male Presidents), language of official discourse (from purely English to English mixed with vernaculars), attitude (from colonial to democratic) and others. The list of the statutes that name the Collector, or more recently, the Deputy Commissioner, is myriad. With each such naming, the Collector and others are statutorily required to take on new responsibilities. Were there any other such office on which such responsibilities could be bestowed, they would have been. So long as we have nation states, we would have someone heading them. So long as we have lesser units like our states, we would have someone heading them. So long as there are districts, we would have someone heading them. So long as we have sub-divisions, we would have someone heading them. So long as we have villages and towns, we would have someone heading them. Oh, lest I forget, so long as there are companies, we would have someone heading them too. The cobbler shop, the restaurant, the school, the hospital, the everything – leadership is required at every level that must be provided by someone or something (although I am not sure Artificial Intelligence will be given leadership positions within the next fifty years).

So yes, the IAS may be banned theoretically, but it would be replaced by its doppelganger.

But only theoretically. “The services known at the commencement of this Constitution as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service shall be deemed to be services created by Parliament under this article”, so says Article 312(2). Articles are the provisions of the constitution, and they are of two types – those that can be amended/deleted, and those that cannot be amended/deleted, as they fall foul of the basic structure of our constitution. Evolving from earlier, the doctrine of basic structure was robustly threshed out in the Keshavananda Bharti case, and the federal structure of the constitution is universally agreed to be part of this. I am not sure if the Supreme Court has specifically enunciated if the IAS and IPS are part of basic structure, but they are part of the very fabric of the federal character of our nation – and the federal character is a basic structure. As we saw earlier, a provision that is part of the basic structure, cannot be amended/deleted.

So, the legal situation is this. Firstly, IAS and IPS are constitutional services, and hence sacrosanct. It is not impossible but difficult to amend the constitution. Very difficult. But stop. IAS may also be part of the basic structure (I am just saying maybe) of our constitution, and that CANNOT be amended (again that is not entirely true. You would need to pack up half the judges of the Supreme Court and tell them to say that the federal structure is not part of the basic structure, and if they say so, lo and behold, it is no more a basic structure. Then you can amend the constitution in the normal way, which as we saw earlier, is not a very easy thing to do).

Thus, if Sharma is to ban the IAS, he will have a few legal hurdles to cross. But let’s be romantic, and not be bound by the mores of fallible men. The history of mankind is a jamboree of the unthinkable. The Arab Spring of 2010 and thereafter saw the socio-political foundations of more than a dozen countries cast asunder by tidal waves of emotions in the hearts of the young and the restless.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven! (Wordsworth)
I want to be young. The funny thing about our constitution is that it still harbours many provisions that the Supreme Court has already termed unconstitutional! Sample Article 368(5) that says “For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article”. The legislature, in its constituent role, can make any change, any provision in the constitution – including the very amending article (368) itself! Or so it wishes. The Supreme Court says, cool down – you cannot make or unmake anything.
But the constitution itself is a historical document. It was born in a context. It is not even very old, and already pockmarked with a hundred changes. One can think of a time when this constitution goes and another comes. Pakistan already is having its third constitution post-independence. The famed unwritten constitution of England is mostly documented. It has a Supreme Court it did not have earlier. Nations come and nations go. It is a haughty man that thinks that anything created by man cannot be undone. Or that man and mankind itself cannot be undone. There are more things in heaven and earth, dear men of law,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Sharma is right. The IAS can end, damn the legal hurdles.
But why should it end?
_________________________
Politics, Society

Whither Social Harmony?

Leave a comment

Education has been held up as a single panacea for all social ills. The championing of education, with valid merit in most cases, is universal and profound. The many advantages and the many positive externalities make education seem like the single shining point of light in the midst of gross societal chaos. In India it has taken curious routes – this championing of education – and the following random points are mere pointers at the total chaos in our understanding of this phenomenon:

  1. BooksThe value of education and knowledge is ingrained in and through religion, myth, ritual and a general cultural ethos.
  2. It is not without reason that our cultural history is sprinkled with systemic and individual efforts of devotion to knowledge, efforts that generated a whole social ethos closely related to the Brahminic culture. This association became so close as to become a metaphor – the brahmin is a synonym for a knowledgeable man.
  3. Quite conversely, this ethos of knowledge survived among its practitioners by systemic denial among others. A whole system of proprietorship was evolved, developed on the foundations of crafted religion and morals – a system that sanctified such knowledge as divine, and hence, only practitionable only by the chosen elite. The corollary was ignorance of this knowledge (this is never to allege that Brahminic knowledge is the only form of valid knowledge and knowing) among the vast majority.
  4. Independent India paid handsome homage to the value of knowledge, to the utlity of demolishing this structure and system of denial, to the logic of social benefit through dissemination of knowledge. And this homage was occasioned by and met with Herculean efforts at being an Ostrich. Our contemporary history is a peaen to our myopic objectives, of compromising the future for the present, of sacrificing the many for the few. This period saw our allegiance to the notion of education and to the practice of hypocrisy. Sixty years of ‘freedom’ and our social indicators are a mess when compared with the numerous success stories drafted at around the same time.
  5. Lately, our service sector is showing a stupendous buoyancy, and a few shrewd observers have commented that our penchant for and success in white collar jobs has much to do with this social ethos that generated today’s crop of achievement. There is confusing and controverted thinking involved here – while most deplore the low social expenditure of yore, many celebrate today’s achievement as a fallout of yesterday’s investment, however minimal.

It is obvious to find that as a society, as a polity and as individuals we have still not been able to define our approach towards education and knowledge, our committment to the idea of education as a panacea, and to its utility as a tool of social engineering.

Many a times I am personally perturbed, however, when eduation is thus championed as a panacea. Many months back during the Foundation days, we had the occasion to write essays on different topics. I chose a topic that assumed much the same in its very title – it said ‘Social Harmony is Possible Through Universal Education’. I wanted to counter this assumption, and hence I wrote my essay as a rebuttal to that assumption. I am presenting here that article to forward my arguments.

Social Harmony is Possible Through Universal Education – A Counter-View

Corruption, Politics, Society

Saurabh Kalia and the martyred men – in search of justice?

3 Comments

Quite a few days back I got an email from a former classmate presently working in Hyderabad in a company called Google. It was one of those chain mails that keep crossing the cyberspace defying all laws of physics – there is no kinetic friction to slow down the messages. I am reproducing the message for your reading pleasure:

Being an Indian, I request you to read this mail to the end…

Saurabh Kalia, who died during the Kargil WarLt.Saurabh Kalia of 4 JAT Regiment of the Indian Army laid down his life at the young age of 22 for the nation while guarding the frontiers at Kargil. His parents,indeed the Indian Army and nation itself, lost a dedicated, honest and brave son. He was the first officer to detect and inform about Pakistani intrusion. Pakistan captured him and his patrol party of 5 brave men alive on May 15,1999 from the Indian side of LOC. They were kept in captivity for three weeks a nd subjected to unprecedented brutal torture, evident from their bodies handed over by Pakistan Army on June 9, 1999.The Pakistanis indulged in dastardly acts of inflicting burns on the Indians with cigarettes, piercing their ears with hot rods, removing their eyes before puncturing them and breaking most of the bones and teeth. They even chopped off various limbs and private organs of the Indian soldiers besides inflicting unimaginable physical and mental torture. Af ter 22 days of torture, the brave soldiers were ultimately shot dead.A detailed post-mortem report is with the Indian Army. Pakistan dared to humiliate India this way outing international norms. They proved the extent to which they can degrade humanity. However, the Indian soldiers did not break while undergoing all this nimaginable barbarism, wh ich speaks volumes of their patriotism, grit,determination,tenacity and valour -something all of India should be proud of. Sacrificing oneself for the nation is an honour every soldier would be proud of, but no parent,army or nation can accept what happened to these brave sons of India. I am afraid every parent may think twice to send their child in the armed forces if we all fall short of our duty in safeguarding the PRISONERS OF WAR AND LET THEM MEET THE FATE OF LT.SAURABH KALIA. It may also send a demoralizing signal to the army personnel fighting for the Nation that our POWs in Pak cannot be taken care of. It is a matter of shame and disgust that most of Indian Human Rights Organisations by and large,showed apathy in this matter. Through this humble submission, may I appeal to all the civilized people irrespective of colour, caste, region, religion and political lineage to stir their conscience and rise to take this as a NATIONAL ISSUE? International Human Rights Organisations must be approached to expose and pressure Pakistan to identify,book and punish all those who perpetrated this heinous crime to our men in uniform. If Pakistan is allowed to go unpunished in this case, we can imagine the consequences. Below is the list of 5 other soldiers who preferred to die for the country rather than open their mouths in front of enemy.

Since I was an Indian, I read the mail till the end. The mail was followed by a truncated list of names of people who had bothered to ‘associate’ themselves with the cause of getting justice for Captain Saurav Kalia and the other martyred soldiers. This mail gave rise to many feelings, and I shall try my best to put words to them.

  • Was the outrage perpetrated against Saurav an outrage against humanity, or against India? If it is the former, the question remains why does it require my being an Indian to read and appreciate the narration? What if I were a Pakistani?
  • Why does this death acquire such poignancy? Because Captain Saurav Kalia was a Commissioned officer? Because he was young and promising? Because just a few days before his valourous death, he said on NDTV after conquering a (Tiger?) Hill “yeh dil maange more” (or was it someone else? Please correct me if you know more, and please bother to tell your source)? Because the media, which always needs stories, made it much bigger than it would otherwise have been? What about the hundreds dead in the same conflict in the summer of 1999?
  • Why does the death appear so gruesome when we KNOW that justice and humanity are rotten excuses in the filthy world of statecraft? Should someone think statcraft is dispensable, what then is the alternative? Civil war with human life “nasty, brutish and short”?
  • What is the motive behind such arm-chair activism (which, ironically, is the same thing that I am indulging in!)? What is patriotism, after all? Why must one support the army if one is a patriot? Is such activism a penance for the accepting the luxuries of life while the jawans battle weather and foe to ensure our safety?

The recent movie Rang de basanti seems to have done what scores of patriotic songs could not have done. Once every blue moon comes a chapter in the life of the nation that seems to capture the mood of the nation, or perhaps moulds that mood into an expression. Lagaan did it. So did, on a smaller level Gadar and Swades. While this is not the forum for discussion on the merit of the movies, it does seem to be the case that the silver screen has an effect upon the youth of this country that few other things have. And I wonder, if this latest chain mail that knocks on patriotism, is just another thoughless but emotive expression of that mood.
Khoon se khelenge holi, ‘gar watan mushkil me hai
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil me hai….

Politics, Society

Justice denied

1 Comment

One primary premise of jurisprudence is that just not only should justice be done, it should be ‘seen’ to have been done. Unfortunately, often what passes of as legal justice is a travesty – this is true as much of India that comes burdened with a billion strong population and a colonial baggage, as of USA where the kangaroo court at Gitmo Bay gives ammunition for all lovers of liberty. And this travesty of justice comes to focus all the more in the recent acquittal of the murderers of model Jessica Lal.

In late February a judge acquitted all the accused in the murder case, castigating the shoddy investigation in the process. The Delhi Police took umbrage, and inspired by the massive public outrage, posted an appeal for retrial to the Delhi High Court, detailing 92 counts of how the previous charade of justice obfuscated on many of the prosecution’s evidences and arguments. Not to say that the Delhi Police did any good job. Their attempt at investigation is a comedy of errors with tragic undertones for the victims of the acquittal. Honestly, not much was expected from an investigation agency that comes circumscribed with a thousand pressures – and given that the accused murderer was the son of a Congress minister in Harayana, it could be expected from the beginning that justice would be denied, or hampered with. Unfortunately again, this is not the first time that such high profile murderers have got scott free. The recent BMW murderer (please consult the details by searching on Google), the Salman Khan incident wherein he bashed his SUV into sleeping people killing one on the spot in a drunken stupor, etc are just the tip of the iceberg. Of the numerous occasions where not so famous people, but powerful nontheless, have worked their zeal in putting justice off-track, the less said the better. It is true perhaps that the lady of justice is blind – it is true she cannot see injustice. Yes, it is an apt symbolism perhaps. Justice has always been the preserve of the rich and the powerful, in any case…

The good news is that the latest event has roused a public conscience that was in slumber. Perhaps something good will come out. Perhaps the high and the mighty in this democratic country have not forgotten an old motto:

vox populi vox dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God).