Friday, September 27, 2013
Right to Reject or rejecting the ‘Right’ ?
The Supreme Court of India (27th September 2013, Friday) gave the verdict that if a person is not allowed to cast negative votes in an election, it would "defeat" the rights of the citizens as ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution and passed an order to the Election Commission of India, asking it to include the "none of the above (NOTA)" option in voting machines and ballot papers to ensure a vibrant democracy.
The bench gave the verdict on the reason that the "Article 19 guarantees all individuals the right to speak, criticise, and disagree on a particular issue. It stands on the spirit of tolerance and allows people to have diverse views, ideas and ideologies. Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21 ie, the right to liberty".
Unfortunately, the interpretation of Article 19 in conjunction with Article 21 of the Constitution of India by a bench of Supreme Court of India is nothing but the failure to comprehend the essence of the constitutional provisions and the very political process that brought about the constitution itself.
It has to be punctuated that the Indian Constitution is not airlifted from moon or mars, rather have been created by the political process that the nation experienced during the first half of the last century. It is to be accentuated that the constitution is the product of the endless and ceaseless agitations and political fights waged under the leadership of various political parties and trade unions ‘across time and regions’ and not the gift of anybody nor did it emanate from the revelation of any jurist or any so called legal luminary! After all, law is not a fundamental branch of knowledge but only an application of the theoretical concepts of political science, economics and other fundamental streams of social science!
Analysing the substantive questions raised by the verdict, it is quite translucent that the bench has not been motivated by the essence of and the insight provided by, the constitution. If the "right to reject all candidates" is the true embodiment of Articles 19 and 21 which give a citizen the right to criticise, disagree and freedom of expression, that very right should be made equally available to reject that very "right to reject all the candidates" itself along with all the other candidates! If that is the essence of these articles then the sequence repeats infinitely and the so called expression of disagreement will be fulfilled no more than asymptotically!
Apart from that, how does the exercise of "right to reject all the candidates" characterise and epitomise the ‘right to criticise and disagree or the right to freedom of speech and expression’? If anybody disagrees with any or all the candidates or wants to express, such very disagreement/expression is manifested through his candidature and not by any other behaviour. It is only in this manner that one individual can demonstrate the disagreement or exercise the freedom of expression. Exercising any other option as like the one suggested by the court will not amount to the demonstration of any disagreement or the articulation of any freedom of expression against any of the candidates in the fray but only add up to the rejection of the election process and eventually the political process and the constitution itself! Hence, the verdict of the supreme court, if implemented will only result in the de-politicisation of the nation building exercise and its eventual corporatisation which needs to be trounced at the very earliest.
The suggested reading material:
Paul Krugman, “A Country is not a Company”, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1996 (Page 40-51).
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Kudos “OPEN” Magazine
The editorial team of the OPEN magazine needs to be appreciated for their daring yet excellent work regarding the publication of the Niira Radia tapes of 2G Scam. It showed the spine to publish it in a meaningful manner though OUTLOOK also published few conversations, in an edited manner notwithstanding. All media, except them, chose not to give any coverage for this issue. If anybody published anything later, they all are compelled by the pressure from the public that stemmed from the publication of transcripts by OPEN.
It needs to be probed at to what were the real motives of the media groups to shroud it completely. It is not because of the fear of loss of advertisement revenue, crystal clear. Advertisement is given not out of charity. Advertisers want reach and if media have circulation/viewership, then even hostile advertisers would come with advertisements to whatever media for their own benefit. Hence the argument of advertisement loss will not cut ice. It is speculated that the recorded transcripts number more than 5000 centering around 50 persons and there it lays the real reason for the powerful media groups’ exceptional behavior to conceal everything.
See the telephone transcripts published by OPEN at: http://http://bit.ly/f4t7ui)
Visit at: www.santhoshtv.in
It needs to be probed at to what were the real motives of the media groups to shroud it completely. It is not because of the fear of loss of advertisement revenue, crystal clear. Advertisement is given not out of charity. Advertisers want reach and if media have circulation/viewership, then even hostile advertisers would come with advertisements to whatever media for their own benefit. Hence the argument of advertisement loss will not cut ice. It is speculated that the recorded transcripts number more than 5000 centering around 50 persons and there it lays the real reason for the powerful media groups’ exceptional behavior to conceal everything.
See the telephone transcripts published by OPEN at: http://http://bit.ly/f4t7ui)
Visit at: www.santhoshtv.in
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Cover for bed-fellows (Niira Radia tape controversy)
The Hindu, the most respected and reputed newspaper in India (to this author), willy-nilly engaged in an act of providing cover to those editor-cum-shop owners (Barkha Dutt, Group Editor NDTV; Vir Sanghvi Editorial Director, Hindustan Times etc.) of Niira Radia tape controversy. Its editorial (Wednesday, Nov 24, 2010, See at: http://bit.ly/fRywtq) re-dressed the disgraced media persons in the Niira Radia tape controversy just as “power players” and provided them safe escape at least in the real estate of The Hindu editorial! (See for example an excerpt from the editorial. “……The recent publication of officially intercepted phone conversations between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians and power players in Delhi suggests…”) The editorial should have said that the officially intercepted phone conversations were between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians, senior media persons and power players in Delhi.
The person who wrote the editorial has every right to express whatever opinion he has but has no right at all to hide facts. It hid the fact that the conversations indeed included senior media persons. After, the media persons included in the conversation were re-dressed and categorized as just power players. Still, he can hide facts since he has the freedom to do that. But then it cannot be argued that he is fulfilling journalist duties and exercising rights of media. That editorial person, who ever he may be, must be reminded that he is also engaging in a ‘lobbying’ of sorts, an activity he vehemently lashed through out in the editorial.
At the same time The Hindu needs to be congratulated for publishing the article of Priscilla Jebaraj, “The spotlight is on the media now” (See at: http://bit.ly/e7jIwH) in the same page where it published the editorial under scrutiny.
So there is a conflicting behavior. In the editorial, disgraced media persons were given a cover, but in the leader page article they were stripped off!
At the end of the day, the curiosity is to know what is the real opinion of The Hindu. Did it want to take a soft approach to their colleagues in other firms and at the very same time want to relay the strong message that they do not want to give a cover for those ‘editor-cum-shop owners’? But please, The Hindu, always remember that the editorial has more gravity!
The full text of the editorial is given below:
No reason to fear JPC
So enormous is the scale of the 2G spectrum scandal and so widely dispersed and influential are the dramatis personae that ordinary instruments of investigation may not be enough to get to the bottom of the affair. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has come up with three key findings. First, that the Telecom Ministry under A. Raja deliberately ignored suggestions from other branches of government on the manner in which spectrum was to be allocated to new players in the 2G space. Second, that as a result the exchequer suffered a presumptive loss of anywhere between Rs.60,000 crore and Rs.179,000 crore. And third, that more than the factum or quantum of loss, the real scandal lies in the manner in which the first-come-first-served rules were re-jigged in order to cherry pick some companies for allocation. The recent publication of officially intercepted phone conversations between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians and power players in Delhi suggests that the role of a number of industrialists and others also needs investigation. The CBI's handling of the case thus far does not inspire confidence, even if the Supreme Court were to monitor the progress of its investigations more closely. And, although Parliament's Public Accounts Committee normally reviews CAG reports, the sheer complexity of the 2G scandal and the number of official and unofficial players means a more comprehensive examination of the kind a Joint Parliamentary Committee could conduct is warranted.
Given the public's sense of disgust with the scale and extent of corruption, the Congress ought to realise that its objection to a JPC is being seen as a tacit admission of guilt or, at best, a certain unwillingness to allow the guilty to be exposed. The longer the stalemate continues, the more this perception will gain ground. That is why it is essential that the Opposition demand be conceded forthwith so that the probe can begin and Parliament can start functioning again. For over a fortnight now, no legislative business has been conducted in either House, thanks to the JPC gridlock. Disruptions and adjournments in the monsoon session cost over 45 hours of legislative business in the Lok Sabha and as many as eight question hours in the Rajya Sabha. The 15th Lok Sabha had started on a propitious note with the Speaker and the political parties agreeing to work extended hours and also to restore bipartisanship and credibility to an institution increasingly paralysed by political conflict. The United Progressive Alliance government with its stubborn refusal to yield on the JPC must take a larger share of the blame for breaking that consensus.
Visit at: www.santhoshtv.in
The person who wrote the editorial has every right to express whatever opinion he has but has no right at all to hide facts. It hid the fact that the conversations indeed included senior media persons. After, the media persons included in the conversation were re-dressed and categorized as just power players. Still, he can hide facts since he has the freedom to do that. But then it cannot be argued that he is fulfilling journalist duties and exercising rights of media. That editorial person, who ever he may be, must be reminded that he is also engaging in a ‘lobbying’ of sorts, an activity he vehemently lashed through out in the editorial.
At the same time The Hindu needs to be congratulated for publishing the article of Priscilla Jebaraj, “The spotlight is on the media now” (See at: http://bit.ly/e7jIwH) in the same page where it published the editorial under scrutiny.
So there is a conflicting behavior. In the editorial, disgraced media persons were given a cover, but in the leader page article they were stripped off!
At the end of the day, the curiosity is to know what is the real opinion of The Hindu. Did it want to take a soft approach to their colleagues in other firms and at the very same time want to relay the strong message that they do not want to give a cover for those ‘editor-cum-shop owners’? But please, The Hindu, always remember that the editorial has more gravity!
The full text of the editorial is given below:
No reason to fear JPC
So enormous is the scale of the 2G spectrum scandal and so widely dispersed and influential are the dramatis personae that ordinary instruments of investigation may not be enough to get to the bottom of the affair. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has come up with three key findings. First, that the Telecom Ministry under A. Raja deliberately ignored suggestions from other branches of government on the manner in which spectrum was to be allocated to new players in the 2G space. Second, that as a result the exchequer suffered a presumptive loss of anywhere between Rs.60,000 crore and Rs.179,000 crore. And third, that more than the factum or quantum of loss, the real scandal lies in the manner in which the first-come-first-served rules were re-jigged in order to cherry pick some companies for allocation. The recent publication of officially intercepted phone conversations between a corporate lobbyist and a raft of politicians and power players in Delhi suggests that the role of a number of industrialists and others also needs investigation. The CBI's handling of the case thus far does not inspire confidence, even if the Supreme Court were to monitor the progress of its investigations more closely. And, although Parliament's Public Accounts Committee normally reviews CAG reports, the sheer complexity of the 2G scandal and the number of official and unofficial players means a more comprehensive examination of the kind a Joint Parliamentary Committee could conduct is warranted.
Given the public's sense of disgust with the scale and extent of corruption, the Congress ought to realise that its objection to a JPC is being seen as a tacit admission of guilt or, at best, a certain unwillingness to allow the guilty to be exposed. The longer the stalemate continues, the more this perception will gain ground. That is why it is essential that the Opposition demand be conceded forthwith so that the probe can begin and Parliament can start functioning again. For over a fortnight now, no legislative business has been conducted in either House, thanks to the JPC gridlock. Disruptions and adjournments in the monsoon session cost over 45 hours of legislative business in the Lok Sabha and as many as eight question hours in the Rajya Sabha. The 15th Lok Sabha had started on a propitious note with the Speaker and the political parties agreeing to work extended hours and also to restore bipartisanship and credibility to an institution increasingly paralysed by political conflict. The United Progressive Alliance government with its stubborn refusal to yield on the JPC must take a larger share of the blame for breaking that consensus.
Visit at: www.santhoshtv.in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
