Diplomatic Pressure Points

               

''EVERY NATION OFFERS A NEW LENS TO LOOK AT THE WORLD.''

Fibromyalgia owe a lot to the application of the idea of Pressure Points while fighting with red fellow entities of the category. Discover it earlier or the front shift may threaten the existence. It can afford to keep a distance with those who constitute fast chemical reactions and visible differential. Still unknown how it was conceived, its nomenclature offered me a ripe ground for analogy. It informed me to attend those terminal clusters of nerves which are eager to talk to me. It can still make a channel to put in place the joules where they are far more needed.

One wonders, how much amount of calories, if not joules, have been consumed in MEA offices to locate Diplomatic Pressure Points.  Though it may not be invidious in tone, but such queries may come up from those who will constitute posterity.  Why a single tool was our roulette? Diplomatic cortisone were put into self contradictory use while pressure points were not located at all. Should there be resurrection of such middling theory? Are we suppose to create a pantheon? The answer is NO.

Pursuance of the idea of Pressure Points was always needed in independent India and is still potent. No place for tenuous actions and those who are habitual of it under the umbrella of romanticism, need to sit on back benches, It can hardly be sustained anymore.

How to figure out such pressure points? Do we need a lexicon of our own or just put ideas directly into actions using the internationally acceptable collections of diplomatic channels? The later is far more feasible and reasonable. Well only then we can have our own version of Realism.

Are we capable of contributing into any kind of "Old-New-Would be" Global order or can we even react to it without looking for a shoulder. History knows very well which kind of collective action survived and which one was not even born.

How shall we compartmentalize those who are our guests. Not all of them wiling to come to our house and discuss "Pressure Points." But lets give a thought to locate them ourself.

The World is an organic entity.T here are organs with in which contains numerous hierarchies. Are there diplomatic pressure points located somewhere? Maybe. But arbitrariness is not going to find that. They say arbitrariness has an all season affair with Idealism. This is a bad affair and it took a while for Indian diplomatic class to find it out.

Hierarchies, which matters to us, are organic in nature too. They attract each other. We know the levels of hierarchy very well and often are aware of those which belong to others. But when we put them on the desk of policy making, we locate the "Pressure Points.''

Lets talk of strings of cardinal nature, which are in our hands. They need to be stretched to every General Compartment with requisite exclusiveness. There exist three such compartments, if seen in broad sense. We need to invest different strengths, lengths and flexibility into each of them. Those strings which gets connected to the North compartment ("The Developed" compartment and the "Multilateral" compartment) will be having fibers of trade imbalances, less bargaining powers, more show offs, never to offend, have a click etc at least till the time we reach there to sit in the same box. The new feature added into it by India is to attain nuclear capacities in both the forms and to stand neutral on certain internationally volatile episodes irrespective of where the developed group moved. This deserves an appreciation as seen recently in the context of Arab Uprising.

The next string is attached to those who are our buddies, close on chronological progression charts. They are the natural friends sometime and bilateral otherwise. They are competitors as well Collective action is chosen idea if willing to remain in reliable existence. We suffers from same ailments ( developing, socio-politically vulnerable, new to globalization etc.) and thus pressure points are easy identifiable. Never stay cross with your neighbors and close friends as they help you first in emergencies is something we have learnt. Its easy to be proximal with those who are like us and no opportunity should be missed to strengthen that. India opened up to it mainly in post-cold war era, but remained hesitant in initial years. I see it as Biggest Failure of Indian Foreign Policy since independence. Shock waves can be felt till now. The instrument which we selected to deal with such, was devoid of any mechanism of peaceful dispute resolution, collective action and any efforts to put forward a new global order. The action now is On, but need to be fuelled regularly and protected from getting fibres of first string.

The third compartment which we should hold close to our heart is the one where pressure points directly talks to us and we need not to locate them. They are present in open for everyone. Leadership if offered, need real world substantiation. Here is the extreme competition. They have wide spectrum to choose from. What exclusive can we offer to them? Aid has least money multiplier essence in such cases. Pressure points here need very careful handling in socio-political arena as they have developed inflammation in few cases. Black Continent is inflamed in parts. Pressure points alone will not serve the purpose. But does that mean the treatment meted out on them need to be same as those of others of our position? No. In fact this can be the playground of our own form of realism. Has anybody worked upon it? Is baccalaureate enough to choose such handlers. The "organic hierarchies" may hold the key.

 After this broad division, the time is to locate the pressure points in organic hierarchies existing within the nations. These will be central while crafting bilateral rapport. The first step required to identify which group of institutions is on top and which one on the bottom. Is it political, social, economical or military? Though all of these need to be attended but thanks to realism we know where we need dense relations and where just a touch. In this process, our domestic hierarchy shouldn't matter. We have done enough of this hogwash in past.  We love songs of democracy, liberalism, egalitarianism, human rights but lets sing them at home, preach them at home. Don't be a teacher to sovereign nations. Though visible in recent past , such tendencies need further materialization.

At the level of political intersection, we need to make it clear that opposition club shouldn't hate us. This pressure point deserve utmost care. The domestic ideology at this level need no exhibition . Let's get them in any way. Don't articulate some exogenous force if we fail to befriend this club. Our efforts should dominate against all odds. If nuts and bolts of this pressure point taken into serious consideration, this will be biggest success.

At the level of Economy, things may seems easy. But there is an unlocked area. How can we enlighten and enliven the left to centre to those who believe in it, and Non-involement to those who want it. The later has got more space and support but earlier is still profound in its existence at home and thus should be put to best use. Aren't we waiting nations to suit us some time in future? This is close to failure, if not exactly.

China knows best to play at this level. Indian representation and officials are slow on this. We need bifurcation in our presentation to bring them home. We don't hate Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro, but shall we invite them? Obamas, Merkels,Cameroons of the world knows why they are our friend, but do we know why our one packet illustration of economy is outdated. Let’s be Nehru with likes of Chavez and Manmohan Singh with likes of First Brazilian Citizen. Can we move forward with this dichotomy and convince them? This is the real confrontation. It can be tackled if those in the front knows how best to package and market it. Aids and Agreements are pain killers, not the Pressure Points. There exist enough of such points which we still need to devise.

At Social and Cultural level, Pressure Points are copious . Instead of showcasing our stratification here, we need to work upon how it can attract stratification of other nations. For this, lets first accept their stratification without prescription. Put to diplomatic use our multiculturalism and diversity. Film Festivals, Cultural Shows, Visits of Parliamentarians is surface anatomy. Pressure Points lies beneath, so more labor is needed. The opportunity is to make their homogeneity love, believe and respond to our heterogeneity. Few reddish black patches exist on both the sides but we need to cover them. Public Diplomacy is still not for us in most of the cases. At home, this poor baby is malnourished. Barring very few cases, amicability rests with political class and not with social classes. Cultural Exchange is not Social Exchange. The medium of exchange in later is far more soulful and comprehensive than first and will find satisfaction with whole than just a segment of social class. How can we deal with this category of  most widespread pressure points, the hope lies with us.

 We let demise of these pressure points into oblivion in the first few decades of our Foreign Policy Operations. The onus lies on personalities. Their personalities were to reality in core, ours not. To put it other way, there should never exist  Pressure points with representatives. If they do exist then we need to not let them proliferate in any form. That's most alarming thing to be kept open. Foreign Policy is not just a domain for few good cozy friends of same social strata, its a space where nations need to be cozy not just their representatives. Those who operationalised the first part of independent India's Foreign policy, knows what this distinction is and  what catastrophe can we have if we fail to acknowledge this distinction. We have received fall outs in the past due to this. Better we read the nations than just individual minds. The theater of conduct and thus chances of higher grades increases in former case. It needs a Statesman to recognize such pressure points, not just outcome of a mechanical electoral process.

Gaurav

Chandigarh

Rahul Gandhi: India’s young political enigma

“Leadership is action, not position.”

India’s youngest political heir Rahul Gandhi is all set to lead India’s oldest National Party, the Indian national Congress in the forthcoming 2014 Lok Sabha elections. However, instead of focusing on the policies and the paradigm shift from the older Mrs. Gandhi to the vibrant Rahul and the Congress strategy to get the requisite numbers or the policies that may be adopted, the question doing the rounds is whether Rahul Gandhi is the perfect candidate to lead the Congress and is he Prime Ministerial material? This isolationist targeting of one individual speaks volumes about the immaturity of the Indian mentality. I am yet to witness like treatment to other members of the Indian National Congress or any of the members of other parties being questioned and scrutinised to this detail.

Rahul Gandhi, an active participant of the first family in Indian politics is one of the favourite subjects for the Opposition here in India. The youth leader is popular for being a recluse in assuming key positions in the government preferring Party responsibility to direct governance. Many of the Opposition leaders consider the young scion to be a ‘recluse’ shying away from media attention and a man who does not want to assume official responsibility.

Unfortunately the media portrayal of the junior Gandhi has been graphical but never complete. This demure gentleman has a different style of working and an attitude that typically defies conventional Indian Polity. What the common man is aware of is that he is famous for lashing out without reservations against the Mayawati government when the need arose. He has been vociferous in his advocacy of the plight of the farmers in Maharashtra (The famous Kalavati case in Parliament made headlines at that point) The Congress leader has ensured that he has consciously turned down every offer to be a part of the Cabinet. And this is where the conflict in our story occurs. The Indian populace is acclimatised to the notion that if their leaders are not working with a formal position in the centre, or if they aren't a part of the erstwhile Cabinet committee either they are not worthy of it or they aren’t too confident of yourself. In the case of the young Gandhi, people have been quite blatant in assuming the latter, a proposition which is only a sign of hasty judgement for a leader who has spent less than a decade in politics.

Rahul Gandhi has invited media attention not only as a politician; read the New York Times 1989 edition and you will see a prejudice against him even as a young lad. His entry into St. Stephen’s was perhaps the first of many controversies to follow. The Times of India newspaper simultaneously and quite sensibly took the lead stating the controversy over Rahul's entry into St. Stephen's “is indicative of how insensitive our social reactions have progressively become.” Much later when he entered the political fray the hullaballoo was raised as to whether he had completed his degree or not, the irony being that educational qualifications are not a constitutional pre- requisite for any candidate standing for the elections. Much later the issue died a natural death. Some believe it is the price you pay as a celebrity. I think it’s the peril of being a Gandhi.

In 2004, when he was chosen by his mother as the candidate from Amethi, the speculation started as to whose footsteps would he follow. Would he be an aggressive male version of his grandmother Indira or his soft spoken yet firm politician father Rajiv? The second inconsequential question was why he and not his equally charismatic sister Priyanka had been chosen to contest the elections. It was stated in The Guardian that some political commentators  believed that the main effect of Rahul Gandhi's run for office would be to stop the decline of the Congress party in Uttar Pradesh. Rahul won with a thumping majority. Unfortunately, different sections of the Indian diaspora be it the Opposition, the media or the people have always been comparing the heir- apparent to the legacy that he carries with him. What we fail to understand is that each politician has his own USP. By comparing the various generations of politicians and the class of politicians this family has produced, we are only committing a reprehensible error. Where Pandit Nehru lived in the comfort of luxury, Rahul too lived a privileged along with the knowledge that his father and grandmother had been brutally assassinated and the additional awareness that almost half the country did not accept his mother only due to her Italian origin. Hailing from a family that has gifted the country with three Prime Ministers, it is difficult to keep up with the tenor of the Indian polity especially when your vision is a long term goal where the rest of the political class is worried about the immediate benefits.

If one observes at the outset, defying convention for the better is something the Nehru-Gandhi clan embellishes. Motilal Nehru was a moderate who believed that Indians should play a part in politics whilst under the British stronghold on India. He believed in moderate politics and is reported to have even told his son that this was the best solution. Jawaharlal Nehru on the other hand pursued aggressive nationalism and held close the idea of a Free India. Post –independence India had NAM under the aegis of Nehru, a concept which the world had not countered until then. His daughter Indira earned the title, ‘The only man in the Cabinet’ for her grit and determination. The analysts wrote her off after 1975. Her comeback was least expected but nonetheless it happened. Her son Rajiv was a politician forced- in- the making it seemed on the face of it but very soon the Indian mise-en-scène changed and he was the fresh face of the Indian democracy. Bofors marred his tenure and with the tragic death of Rajiv Gandhi India lost another part of this family’s legacy.

The reason behind listing the varying personae of the Gandhi family is to bring to the reader’s notice that each generation is surrounded with a different circumstance, a different outlook and each one pursued a different path towards the same goal. Each made their fair share of blunders and history is witness that each of them emerged as better leaders. In the case of Rahul Gandhi, notice that he prefers to work at the grass- root level, something most politicians should be doing but really aren’t.

Why grassroot politics is essential:

The theory of Bharat versus India may not be accepted but no one can refute the fact that there exists a divide between rural and urban India and urban India itself is further divided into the privileged and unprivileged factions. Amidst all this comes a politician who believes the best way to win the confidence of the people is to be among them, away from the limelight.

To quote the man himself, “If the country is to be changed, it cannot be changed from the top, it can be changed from the ground level. Policies can be from the top, ideas can come from the top, thoughts can come from the top, but their implementation has to be at the level of municipalities, panchayats and wards” Much to the chagrin of some of my readers I find nothing wrong in this ideology. In fact I find it the hallmark of a true leader. The need of the hour is to connect with the proletariat in order to get the system working.

Opposition and criticism especially in Politics is inevitable but revulsion to the name not the policy is unacceptable. The South Asian Mail recently quoted a senior BJP leader’s statement on Rahul Gandhi comparing him to a wedding horse. The statement which received sharp criticism from the Congress reads, “The horse is always stuck at one place. It does not move. Similarly, Rahul Gandhi also does not move. Many efforts are being made to get him to do something, but he doesn't. Some try to push him but he still refuses to move. Till the time he isn't ready, how can Manmohan Singh do anything? This is the crisis today.” The crisis unfortunately is less with Rahul Gandhi’s methods of functioning and more with the Opposition’s expectations from him to function in a stereotypical fashion in a typecast political rut.

What has various leaders disgruntled is not this young leader’s choice to refrain from assuming a post in the Government but their inability to understand why he has chosen this path. A politician may make a Cabinet but the Cabinet is not the only criteria to be a certified excellent politician. Unfortunately, many seem to disagree with this proposition. The wanton hype created by right wing leaders and their loyal party workers has almost ensured that masses have already a pre- conceived notion that this young leader may not their best choice. If one consciously spends some time to read through you will come across these following oft- neglected facts :

• In 2004, in an interview to George Iype, Rahul Gandhi’s mission statement was, ‘I will create a new brand of Indian politics.’ And he did. According to the DNA newspaper, the number of Youth members grew from a dismal two lakhs to a whopping twenty- five lakhs under this same dark horse. A resurrection of a nearly defunct organisation led to a positive difference in youth participation, a facet of party politics that most others quite regularly neglect. The IYC in Tamil Nadu (a non-Congress – ruled state if I may add) itself saw 12.5 lakh youth joining hands with the young leader.
• This young leader believes “Truth’ is the most important principle in politics.
• His method of open membership in the Youth wing of the Congress has ensured that people interested in becoming members are inducted directly into the organisation. The aim is to increase the cadre-base and to empower the youth of the country by helping them enter the political sphere. Those criticising him could possibly take note that with the Parliament home to octogenarians and septuagenarians what India currently needs is maximum young blood in the political fray and that can only happen if there is someone who knows the political arena like the back of his hand. The Congress has left that responsibility to Rahul Gandhi. In fact the other parties should perhaps follow suit in the interest of the nation.  

The reason behind this article is to bring to light that a politician without a Cabinet position is capable of creating a difference. Talk about the Gandhi family and 1975 comes into the picture.  What many have quite clearly forgotten is the family's positive contributions in the pre- Emergency and in the post Emergency era as well. 

This heir apparent has made his fair share of mistakes but how can any politician learn without making a mistake. For now we need to give him some space to bloom independently rather than live in the shadow of his family’s past. He has already proved his mettle with the young people in the Congress, and it is his class of non- media loving people oriented politicians that India needs today if we really need want a progressive state.

For his part Rahul is no political accident. His lifeblood in that sense is politics. What is unacceptable is trying to fit him in the mould of the ancestry he belongs. Unfortunately, politics is not determined by your lineage but your performance and just like the others even Rahul Gandhi should be judged by his performance in the years to come. I find it miserable that each time I tweet about the young leader I am countered with baseless allegations filled with sarcasm and dry humor in bad taste. Rather than speculating on whether he would make a fine Prime Minister for it is time to take cognizance of his vision and his interest in furthering grassroot politics and youth participation. If he prefers to follow his path without receiving the limelight on the National front so be it. Judge him on his methodology not his name.

"Do not be led by others,

awaken your own mind,

amass your own experience,

and decide for yourself your own path."

                                                             -The Atharva Ved

May be its time to let this young leader choose his own path.

To end this piece I rephrase what the 1989 Times of India stated,

'Whatever be any party's disagreement with Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s (*or any of the previous of the Gandhi) policies, they should not be brought to bear on his offspring.''

Katherine. A

The writer does not bear any affiliations to the Indian National Congress or any other political party. The views expressed are personal.

The Socio - Religious (Dis)- Connect

Social Networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have become the beehive of unwanted activity of late buzzing with social, political, and religious abuses. This is obviously due to provocative hate mongers spread all over these sites.  These serial abusers are actually fuelled by different and rather terrifying sources be it political or otherwise. Their intention and goal is to incite negativity in the people by attacking the most sensitive thing i.e. religious beliefs. Some do it for political advantage, others to cause a ruckus, whatever the reason it is simply unacceptable. What is disturbing is the fact that some choose to be unaware of this situation.

From the experience of the last few months on Twitter and Facebook, I have realised the fact that what we were taught in black and white in school days is totally opposite to the real condition of Indian politics, meaning of freedom of expression, and the way of governance in all its practicality. What I have and I am sure you too have read is the opening lines to the Preamble, "We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic and to secure to all its citizens . . ." Have we truly accepted secularism? Well I can't really vouch for it because I am not treated as an equal because of my religious beliefs. You may ask, Why? Take the example of my own brother who has been at the receiving end of a lot of public hatred and all because he chose to use his freedom of expression and support the political party of his choice. Which party and why is really not the concern here. The point is he was targeted on the basis of him being a Muslim. My question is, should my religion be my impediment in exercising my freedom of thought expression? I am a teenager who has just stepped in the virtual world relating his bookish knowledge trying to find a connect between the virtual and the real world. There are two different questions in front of me: Were my teachers who spent hours unravelling the definitions of those words to me, wrong? OR has the definition of  Secularism been altered by people over time?

Many of us had come across these types of situations in our journey through social networking sites, which is increasingly getting converted to the means of social disconnecting site. I am not an addictive user of Facebook though, once I did come across the hate mongers, my curiosity was aroused. I wanted to know what they were, but little did I know that my curiosity would pay me so heavily.

                                                                                                                                                       

The blasphemous film trailer on the Prophet Mohammed was revolting was debated and caused violence in many places. As a believer in Islam I was hurt by the visuals. But amidst all this dishonour that people had brought my religion I was also brought face to face with another positive side of reality. It was heartening to note that amidst all this anti – religious sentiments of a few is the equivocal rebuttal by not only Muslims but by people from other faiths who reacted sharply to this incident. It would take long to mention all so here is just one of the reactions that of a Hindu brother, Nitish Bhardwaj who tweeted: "The Anti- Islamic video is such a disastrous misuse of the right to expression that it SCARES me. Those responsible are the sick pathetic fiends.

This incident was highlighted globally so everyone knows but do you know that there are many more such pages created each day and millions of people are viewing pages that have been created with a view to stir anger and hatred to members of different ethnic and religious groups. More blasphemous materials related to religions are constantly being circulated on many of the Facebook pages by fanatics. Everyone knows that we love our Prophet (PBUH) and our Holy book Qur’an more than our life just like a Christian would hold his faith and a Hindu would guard his. The distasteful targeting of people on the basis of religion is only filling young people with anger and hatred towards people of other faiths and beliefs. Young people are led to believe twisted ideas. These social networking sites are only adding fuel to the fire. I have come across the images of Qur’an in the gutter, and its burning photos on Facebook and what I am waiting to ask these people is, “What have you achieved?”

I don’t know who would want to spread so much negativity, but I hope they are reading this, because I want to tell them that they cannot and will not achieve anything. For you if it seems a rare case but, if you think carefully an ocean is created drop by drop. Where are we as a global community headed? If  you think carefully these miscreants could have been intelligent asset of the country and the world at large, but they have lost their way being paid and misused by wrong peers and wrong company. They represent unnecessary trivia in such a way that the youngsters can easily accept it to be right.

We as a country have accepted secularism on paper, now all we have to do is to inspire our young people to accept this principle and condition them in a way that they are not easily influenced by these miscreants who are waiting to spread hatred and unrest by using religion as a weapon.

Shabab Anwar

The writer is a young Doctor in the making keenly interested in Child Psychology. He believes his ultimate aim is 'To Serve The Society, Giving Voice To Voiceless.'

Caution: Protect your online identity

We emerge into this world with nothing to hide. But we are born into a complex human society, and it soon forces us to cloak ourselves in secrets. In the 'Real' world we choose to hide many aspects of ourselves from the world: finances or romances, opinions and frustrations, imperfections and bad habits basically any information we believe is sensitive or personal information.The longer our lives, the more private information we accumulate.

Today the internet threatens us to strip us naked. We are broadcasting our most sensitive and important secrets and keeping that information available on the internet which is easily accessible  all. Today internet is collecting picture of our identities and our lives and allows others to aggregate those information. 

Life has changed to a great extent in the 20th century. The internet is filled with the stories of youngsters who “tweet” their lives away, broadcasting their most intimate thoughts, feelings, and circumstances to anyone who will pay attention. The current world of internet is built on the relationships between exhibitionists who will do anything for fame and voyeurs who find their actions fascinating. 

Social media such as “Facebook” “Twitter” rely on their users’ eagerness to share information, both intimate and mundane, in real time. Twitter is a fact-sharing machine, “It is said that you lie to your friends on Facebook and share your secrets to strangers on Twitter.” We must think twice before we share something online to anyone. Current culture is all about flaunting and showing off your gadgets, how many credit cards you carry, how many followers you have on Twitter, how many likes and comments you receive when you post a picture or update your status, how popular you are on social networks, and the Internet is one of its most prominent engines.

We must believe that privacy has value. Privacy protects our families and our peace of mind. Privacy is a strategy for shielding resources from thieves and our children from predators, it is a prudent business tactic for negotiations, and it is an important social tool when meeting new people. 

Our personal information has become a commodity and just who is exposing you online. Social networks like “Facebook” and “Twitter” makes huge profit and their balance sheets are weighed in billions. Have you ever wondered who are their main resources of your income? Their income depend upon how many users are online and how many new users sign up for them daily, weekly, and monthly. It is YOU and your personal information which you share online. Your friends are not the only people examining your Facebook or Twitter page. companies search social networks to screen employment candidates. In fact from estranged friends or relatives to absolute strangers all have a keen eye on your social page. Today even the law has given information a certain evidentiary value. Remember, why your employer warns you on posting your companies private information and even photos of the office events online. It is to prevent any information to leak on-line and avoid any further rumours about companies internal environment. 

Who is exposing you?

You Did It Yourself

The Internet’s function of self-publication has revolutionized the way that humans communicate with each other. If you don’t believe that, spend a day with a teenager and see how she uses Facebook, Twitter, text messaging, instant messaging, to stay in touch with friends both near and far. 

It is time to get dressed now. Identity theft is considered a crime across the world. It could make you bankrupt. Everything is done online now a days. In a fraction of second you can transfer millions across the world via Online Banking transaction. And in other case a fraud can lead you in trouble and your bank balance could be swept away by hackers online. We into banking world asks our customers to be aware of fishing. It is a serious challenge to the cyber world.

       

Remedies: Follow the billboard rule.

“THE BILLBOARD RULE”

This simple rule, also known as the mom and grand mom rule, requires no software. If you would not want people to drive by your billboard and see something posted there don’t upload it. The minute you feel any hesitation with anything posted remember to pull it down immediately to avoid any further hassle. 

Rest we all are mature enough to differentiate what information to be shared and what shall be kept private. 

Always remember anything in the virtual world is subject to susceptibility.o

Tarique Anwer.

EFFECTS OF NEO-COLONIALISM

 The admission, cardinal occupation in Hegelian Dialectics and a substantiation of Dependency Theory comes in far less breathless mode for the idea of Neo-Colonialism than its almost ubiquitous  logically modelled tautological termination. Where the allotment is non-amplified and where not? Does the umbilical relation with method of investigation or empiricism, afford to ignore Historicism?

The impact of Neo-Colonialism estuary was never intended to be homogeneous owing to predominant nature of local soil. Extension in categories is without push when third law of Newton enters. How geographical segmentation authenticates Cause-Effect analysis, is very peculiar to Neo-Colonialism. Embracing the whole spectrum of theoretical and practical framework makes the vision holistic one. Domination can't be offered to either as there exist very rich interdependence in the categories of tools employed.

Both, gradual and rocket propelled, supply of Democracy by Liberal World Polity as being fit into every local demand of human rights and self-rule is the central etiology for metamorphosis of Neo-Colonialism Into a NEW GLOBAL ORDER.  Its in least dilemma, thanks to attached provisions of  automatic manipulation of essence if not nomenclature. Options are not given, only solutions. The response got differentiated from being institutional success of experiments in some South/South-East Asian states to application of monetarism filled injections into stubborn infantile democracies of newly independent states of Africa post 1960s. The former experiments though still struggling to prove it on public policy and proportional representation facets of this idea. Projected as last resort of every civilized society, Democracy was made to lose deliberately and intentionally, in efforts to inculcate the diversified ideas of existence (ethnic/communal) in these newly independent states(who were among the first subjects of Neo-Colonialism) because as an idea of governance, it was implicitly( overt in some other cases) fueled by Imperial-Comprador ruling class nexus, Neo-Patrimonialism, Clientalism, Persistence of arbitrary border divisions, Military coups, Elite pathology, Augmented social cleavages  and Authoritarianism. But no fuel was ever made available, either by nationalist elite leaders or those who initiated the process, for its fruitful application at domestic front. The civil  wars of 1970s (Angola, Mozambique), 80s (Liberia, Somalia), 90s (Algeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone), beginning of 21st century (Ivory coast, Darfur) projected the conception of such polity to be either out of context for thesis states or pathologically manifested. For multiplication of wrongs, the disinfection process got initiated in the hierarchies of various International Conferences, World summits, UN collaborations, further alienating the subject masses from an appropriate engagement with their desirable idea of leadership and norms of governance, something which is core of democracy. This diversion of Life Forces from internal to external factors only contributed to lubrication of Mechanical Instruments Of Neo-Colonialism than organic growth of grass root democratic arrangements. A Fundamental right of SELF RULE was taken away without much realization on anybody's part.  On other end of string, well framed opportunities was lost by the biggest Intergovernmental Organisation on this planet from realizing the soul of World Parliament on number of occasions, something which would have pushed this assembly of democratic ideas to a palpable level.

The glimpse of Cold war chicanery and sophistry found their appearances motivated toward such ends of Neo-Colonialism which were quite "in-hand" ties with its other characteristic. Resistance from backyard (Latin American countries), Arabian Peninsula, South/South-East Asian states through measures like NAM(NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT) were further diluted by planting economic and military (CENTO, SEATO etc) ideas in these regions which till date is breathing normally in MENA segment of world. Reincarnation after collapse of Socialist citadel isn't much different.

Political Processes of such arrangements never got completely meta morphed into a defunct instrument in some of Asian countries like India which further left no ground for experimenting with other form of rule.  This was a kind of vindication to speak for, though in far more louder pitch than reality.

Economically, how shifting of economic thoughts from International Keynesianism to Neo- Liberalism and Monetarism, had its stems in domestic economic conditions of erstwhile colonial master states ( when idea of Welfare state failed to meet the aspirations of middle and working classes in these countries, the tool was changed to Neo-liberalism considering it to be panacea) than anywhere else in the world, rotate between  16th-first half of 20th century  productive economies and a stagflation suffered unproductive economic activities of post 1970s period.  Both the eras of these economic thoughts were never a demand driven supply for underdeveloped states. Implementations of neo- economic paradigm through well opinionated institutions like IMF, WORLD BANK, UNDP, all over the world was meant to meet the ends of neo-colonial masters than the upliftment of vast poverty ridden population of south. The very regional models of these institutions (ADB, ASEAN etc.) have the same game played among the states of South. Big dominate small here as well even if small has more natural resources. If empiricism is the best way to reality, the anticipated magnificent economic outcomes have eluded to appears on the horizons of countries in south even after trillions of dollars were stashed into the deep pockets of MNCs and corporate speculators which never gets transformed into EQUAL amount of employment opportunities and GDPs in subject states . Neither did the much sought after domestic model of economic activities was allowed to take birth. The debated attachments of technology and management who wear the face of New, have actually been the outmoded products for neo-colonials, rendering nourishment of indigenous R&D in competitive over-nourishment and financial undernourishment. THE RECIPIENTS AND BENEFICIARIES ARE DIFFERENT IN THIS ARRANGEMENT. A form of RAW-MANUFACTURED equation hasn't ceased to exist.  Back home are the common citizens in grip of Austerity measures who have now started feeling the back-heat of Neo-Colonialism, be it PIIGS or any other developed state in North. Channelization of funds under the banner of Climate Change is just a mirror reflection of foreign aid and its impact,  something which alone has the capacity to describe the whole idea of Neo-Colonialism. Such aids which has brought every kind of pleasures to the FAVORITE heads of  former colonies, doesn't even trickle down to third layer of social and economic strata of these countries. Its not a Dichotomy where Forbes List of Billionaires is on one end and Hunger Index is on other, ITS A CONTINUUM.

The two fabulous debutantes   in the club are China and India. Though struggling hard back-home for penetrating livelihood options into the lives of millions of poor natives, they have their hawk-eyes glued on Dark Continent, Latin America and some other regions of Asia ( CAFTA is assumed to be the biggest FTA in the world with trade equation in the favor of China through  manner of conventional colonial "input-output" equation.). The Institutions of Bilateralism, Multilateralism and Diplomacy seems to have their ends somewhere in the gulf of Neo- Colonialism than in their original domain.

The Cultural and Psychological offspring of Neo-Colonialism is someone which has been brought up and raised by almost every country without any hesitation except a little cry from right-wing holders. Be it "Philippine Idol" or "Indian Idol", this kind of intrusion doesn't seems to ask for more in return when seen from the eyes of a common man. The "POLICY OF ASSIMILATION" of some of erstwhile colonial masters still can be referred to if one want to inquire about WHAT LIES BENEATH.  The native way of life, medicine, dance, exhibition of human emotions has got itself tagged under "CLASSIC" in most of its birth places. Is it an alternative way of addressing a human and societal ailment or just defunct, such positioning of inheritance speaks itself for the disposition already caused. The official propagation and manifestation is in the name of CULTURAL/PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, but equipment of measurements like " trade imbalance" are yet to be discovered and projected here. The Humanitarian interactions ( UNESCO-OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO INTERNATIONAL PRIZE FOR RESEARCH IN LIFE SCIENCES or various known personalities of west as ambassadors of UN bodies like UNICEF) and the Idea of Humanity are the machinations here. "The White Man Burden" or "Project Civilization" were well discreet in their means and ends, so for future picture, the inevitable comparisons can yield some result.

Gaurav

Chandigarh

India

Progressive Media: A posse ad esse (from possibility to reality)

"The era of defamation hath arrived," said the Minister. 

"No my lord, ‘tis the era of the Media….," replied the journalist.

The past two weeks have seen more than one politician resort to the aid of the judiciary against the guardians of the Fourth estate. A lot many journalists cried foul and pleaded the right to free speech and expression, principles embodied in the Indian Constitution. As citizens of a free country whose side are you on? This seems to be the major dilemma these days.

Before we can get to that it is important to understand what really is expected from a free and responsible media.

The phrase ‘freedom of the press’ dates back as early as the year 1644 at the height of the English Civil war when John Milton advocated the right to the  freedom of press in his celebrated speech Areopagitica, one of history's most influential and impassioned philosophical defences in favour of this hallowed freedom. In a Miltonian eloquence he defended this right which has long formed the principles and today are the basis for modern justifications of the right to free press.

Fast forward media history to the year 1947 and we see a new sense of urgency to put it in the words of Jo Bardoel and Leen D’Haenens. The American Press was ascribed with a new responsibility instead of a right. Four years of concentrated discussion and deliberation culminated into the Hutchins commission report 1947. The report attributed the new ‘Social Responsibility theory’ to the Media.

Now, the Hutchins Commission Report laid 5 pertinent principles on the Freedom of the Press:

·      The media should provide a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day's events in a context which gives them meaning.
·         The media should serve as a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism.
·         The media should project a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society.
·         The media should present and clarify the goals and values of the society.
·         The media should provide full access to the day's intelligence.

This report led to a forked theory of media responsibility where absolute liberty was pitted against responsible freedom. The Libertarians believed that this was a form of curtailment of freedom of the Press because for them responsibility opened the tiny window of accountability and accountability would further pave way for government intervention which was ‘unacceptable.’

Having given this background we move further home to India. The freedom of press in India was largely curtailed in the pre – independence era under the Vernacular press Act 1878.  Post –Independence India perceived a new sense of liberty and a ray of hope. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution wanted to ensure that by no means was a citizen to live in the fear of punishment for expressing himself freely.

Part III of the Indian Constitution provides for certain fundamental rights bestowed on the citizens of the Indian Republic.

Article 19 (1)(a)  reads “All citizens shall have the righ to freedom of speech and expression”

Clearly this included the right to the freedom of the Press as well. Questions arose much later when it was perceived that the media was moving in a direction ad arbitrium. This of course stepped up with the onset of the visual media and the introduction of the internet in the country much later.

The  200^th Law Commission Report on Trial by Media under the aegis of Justice Jagannandha Rao in 2006 states:

“If excessive publicity in the media about a suspect or an accused before trial prejudices a fair trial or results in characterizing him as a person who had indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue interference with the “administration of justice”, calling for proceedings for contempt of court against the media.”

The report further states the need for Journalists and the media to be ‘trained’ in certain aspects of the law relating to the freedom of speech under Art. 19(1)(a) and the restrictions which are permissible under Art 19(2) of the Constitution, human rights, law of defamation and contempt.

However, the media seems reluctant to adhere to these guidelines.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Article 12 deals with the person’s privacy rights and reads thus:

“No one shall be subject to arbitrary interference

with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to

attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right

to protection of the law against such interference and attacks.”

Commenting against the high drama of the broadcast media in an article written on 18^th October, 2012 entitled ‘This show is injurious to health’ Shailaja Bajpai wrote:

“Here’s a new statutory requirement: anyone who goes near a media interaction or press conference, anyone who participates in a TV studio discussion, must arrange for an ambulance to be on standby outside the premises. You never know when you might need one.”

Such is the deduction of the media’s own representatives.

If a politician is expected to be accountable to the masses for his performance and his actions in office, the media too is vested with a responsibility to be accountable for its actions. Now it is difficult to draw up water- tight compartments so the key question that arises is how do we demarcate the spheres of influence of the government, the media and the public?

The Civil society was nothing but the creation of the media. The recent reports questioning the credibility of the members of India Against Corruption has left us with a very important question: Is the Indian public easily swayed by sentiments? Are we hasty decision makers when it comes to weighing the truth especially when it involves members of the political class?

In a democracy, progressive politics must be pursued but progressive media must be inherent.

There are three sides of every story today: The political version, the media version and the Truth. In the quest to get maximum TRP ratings for the channel (which I may add is not entirely wrong!) the media tends to go ad captandum vulgus. There is absolutely ‘zero’ variety in the type of news we are exposed to. Watch BBC or CNN and you will find special slots allotted for news related to different parts of the world, Africa, Asia, Latin America. Compare it with the Indian television channels. The same story being repeated, debated and re- debated like a wild goose chase ultimately ending with a missing goose is what the audience today is subjected to. Constructive criticism backed by at least some solution would make do but pure criticism without solution gets the country NOWHERE.

It is not a matter of dispute whether the Media should play an effective critique to the Government and the Opposition but what is wrong is the fact that the media cannot simultaneously seek to play judge and jury. As a citizen of a free country I expect to learn the news as it ‘Is’ not what the media wants it to be. Repeating the same visual snippets throughout the day is evidence enough of the bankruptcy of information in the media. A skewed television debate that seems a miniature version of the Indian Parliament with a moderator who seeks to cut off every sentence of the panellist doesn’t get  the citizen anywhere.

These lapses could be forgiven if the Indian media was learning independently but today when the viewer tunes in to the news one is exposed to a bitter face-off between panellists ranging from four to sometimes six in number trying to make themselves heard. Paucity of time cannot be an excuse for 24/7 news channels. A structured debate is what the audience prefers.

A typical modern day democracy is the result of the interplay between four major mechanisms : the political authority, the corporates and professional sector, the market and finally We the People.

Today the scenario is an apprehensive political class trying to make itself heard, a belligerent media trying to make a strong statement on the day’s events and a public that is torn between apathy towards the former and disbelief towards the latter.

No part of this article is meant to challenge the authority of the fourth estate, However, with power comes responsibility. In a working democracy, the media is one of the most important functionaries but what happens when the media fails in doing justice to all sides of the story? The public is being drilled throughout the day with one part of the story. The rebuttals and debates form a negligible amount of primetime. This is not to say that a political exposé is wrong. What is wrong is the media trial that is conducted within television studios to a point when the public can only remember the negativity that the media has quite successfully engraved in their minds. Every political and media circuit has its fair share of intellegentia and ignorantia.

The media proselytization has its worst effects on the youth of our country. Ask a young person if joining politics has crossed his mind. ‘No’ is the simple yet firm answer. Ask them why, and the first dialogue you will hear is, “Have you seen the newspapers or are you not having a television at home?” “Why should I dirty my hands in this political muck?” A major reason for this is our media today is a NEGATIVE Media which is far from inspiring young minds. It specialises in highlighting the negatives of the government kindling strife and anger in these gullible minds.

Today’s journalists may have a degree in journalism but why do they forget the difference between news, opinion and comment? Why is everything so convoluted? We are unfortunately living in an era of a performed media rather than an informed one. Not to sound demeaning but in the quest for truth journalists and reporters sometimes get so muddled in trivia that is irrelevant to the debate resulting in a juvenile display of lopsided information.

However in conclusion I must confess that today it is not only the media that is at fault. The members of the audience too are to be blamed for this. As citizens we share the responsibility of bringing out the positive aspects of our country. The world is watching us. We do not live in isolation. The repercussions of what happens within India allows for the formation of a negative international opinion of the country as whole.

The need of the hour is for the government, the opposition, the media and the people to work towards building the society but not by embittering the people against the State. The government deserves its fair share of criticism, but criticism must not culminate into a concordia discors.

With criticism must come appreciation. Credit must be given where due. It essential to show the working of various policies & schemes that are helping the people. After all no one can be 100% wrong, not even the government; a truth that may not go down well with many readers nonetheless the fact remains.

Perhaps the easiest way to overcome the impediments of an over- enthusiastic media is to allow them self- regulations with guidelines. To start with why can’t prime time debates have lesser panellists focused on the topic. This would give the audience time to appreciate the discussion. Without a proper understanding of the issue, the audience is unfortunately fed with only half the information. Half – knowledge is dangerous, in politics it is fatal.  The second more important point is to have a moderator who can allow the panellists to give their views without inhibitions. Specific time allotted to the speaker allows the audience to enjoy the debate with a free mind. The third point which also demands our attention is the congeniality between the debaters and the moderator. It has oft been observed that a few panellists simply choose to over- ride the moderator and a few media-persons who ensure that it is only their voice that gets heard.

It would be unfair to say that there are no worthy journalists. P Sainath tops my list of journalists par excellence. Dedicated, committed and inspiring work that they do is laudable. We just need more of them. It is this tribe which works on the principles aforestated in the Hutchins report which must bloom in this thriving democracy.

An uninformed political class, an ill -informed media and a mis- informed public is the perfect recipe for a modern Indian social disaster. We must ensure in whatever capacity we stand we must choose the path of reason. We are all gifted with the freedom of choice. Just as a certain amount of sanctity is accorded to the Constitution at another level there is a sanctity accorded to the media too.

It is with this thought in mind that this post is written for you. Here’s hoping the media will take cognizance of a concerned citizen.

Katherine. Abraham

Moderator

Sedition Laws in India: Why the “Prince among political sections of IPC” needs to go.

The recent arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi has generated a lot of debate on the sedition law of India and whether it is repugnant to the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Let us first understand what constitutes ‘Sedition’ under Indian law. The expression ‘sedition’ does not occur in the IPC except as a marginal note to Section 124A

         Section 124A of the Indian Penal states that anyone who “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government,” with disaffection meaning “disloyalty and all feelings of enmity can be sentenced for a imprisonment for a term of life imprisonment.

In Mr. Trivedi’s case, it was being used to punish cartoons deemed insulting to the nation, including one that replaces the four lions of the Indian national emblem with blood-hungry wolves and the inscription “Satyamev Jayate” (truth alone prevails) with “Bhrashtamev Jayate” (corruption alone prevails). Mr. Trivedi has also been accused of insulting national emblems and violating India’s information technology law.

Majority Indians would concur that the cartoons were crude and rather distasteful. But were they enough incitement to invoke public violence? What immediate danger did Aseem Trivedi’s cartoons possess that he had to be put away behind bars?

The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Mumbai Police authorities for arresting Aseem Trivedi “on frivolous grounds” and “without application of mind”, thus “breaching his freedom of speech and expression”. It required public outrage and a PIL to receive this judicial opinion. What constitutes an insult or causes offence and can be construed as hate are deeply subjective issues. This ambiguity gives governments the legal handle to exercise an insidious form of censorship and control that goes well beyond the “reasonable restrictions” on free speech that the Constitution allows under Article 19. 

Let us examine the origin and history of sedition law in India. The Indian Penal Code was originally framed in 1837 by the First Law Commission, chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay, and it included similar wording to section 124-A in what was then section 113 of the draft law.  However, after subsequent revisions, the final draft of the Penal Code was enacted in 1860 with section 113 omitted.

This section was later re-introduced in 1870 on the pretext of dealing with “increasing Wahabi activities between 1863 and 1870.”  The section was amended in 1898 in order to expand the scope of the law by including the terms “hatred” and “contempt” along with disaffection.

From here on, the law was used to crush the Indian rebellion against the British rule which had been gaining momentum. In the 19th and early 20th centuries the sedition offense was used primarily to suppress the writings and speeches of prominent Indian nationalists and freedom fighters.  The first known instance of the application of the law was the trial of newspaper editor Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891.

Many political leaders right from Gandhi ji to Bal Gangadhar Tilak were charged under sedition law. Gandhiji was infact jailed for six years for his columns he wrote for the journal “Young India”. Gandhiji pleaded guilty to the section and launched a scathing attack on the law of sedition stating that it was 

“designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence”

In the draft Constitution of India, one of the heads mentioned for restricting freedom of expression under Article 19 was ‘sedition’. K M Munshi moved an amendment for its deletion. In the course of the debate in the Constituent Assembly, Munshi stated that “even holding an opinion against, which will bring ill-will towards government, was considered sedition once. … now that we have a democratic government a line must be drawn between criticism of government which shuld be welcome and incitement which would undermine the security or order on which civilized life is based, or which is calculated to overthrow the State. … As a matter of fact the essence of democracy is criticism of government.”

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was also one of the fiercest critics of this law. He had stated in the parliamentary debate centred around freedom of speech in 1951. “Now as far as I am concerned that particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place…in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better.” But this was not the case, the law of sedition was retained and continues to be used against intellectuals, journalists and cartoonists.

The constitutionality of this section was challenged post Independence in the case of Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar in the year 1961,where SC upheld its constitutionality but  clearly explained that it  should be applied  only to cases where an accused person intended to create public disorder or incite violence. The constitutionality was challenged on the ground that it violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Supreme Court dissented from the Privy Council judgments which had construed sedition to include any statement that was liable to cause ‘disaffection’, namely, exciting in others certain inimical feelings towards the government, even though there was no element of incitement to violence or rebellion. It limited the application of the section to acts or expressions which have the tendency to create disorder or incitement to violence and on that premise upheld its constitutionality.

Accordingly, raising slogans against the government or uttering abusive words at a meeting or dubbing the government corrupt or inefficient and seeking its removal and replacement by a different political party is not punishable as sedition so long as there is no advocacy of overthrow of government by force.

The Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy and the Alternative Law Forum has also asserted the Court upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law, but at the same time was “curtailing its meaning and limiting its application to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.”

However the misuse of sedition to silence speech has a long and infamous history in this country. Critics have long asserted that the lower trial courts have disregarded or ignored the interpretation of the law as laid out by the Supreme Court of India. Moreover, it is asserted that state authorities have misused the law to target critics and activists who, rather then inciting violence against the state, are simply expressing legitimate criticism of state activities. 

 Notable among those charged with sedition in recent times are Dr Binayak Sen (Chhattisgarh), Dr E. Rati Rao (Karnataka), Piyush Sethia (Tamil Nadu), Manoj Shinde (Gujarat), and Seema Azad and Vishwa Vijay (Uttar Pradesh). Another recent example is the Tehelka report on approximately 8,000 people, including children, having been charged under IPC Section 124 for protesting against the planned construction of a nuclear power plant in the fishing village of Idinthakari, Tamil Nadu. Their crime was that as a sign of protest, on Independence Day this year, the villagers had refused to hoist the national flag, and put up black flags instead. Another case is of Sudhir Dhawale, a Dalit activist, actor and publisher-editor of the bi-monthly Marathi Magazine, Vidrohi. Despite continuous condemnation and demand of his immediate release, he is languishing in jail since January 2011. In his case, even the minimum legal requirements for arrest and seizure were not followed. Similar is the case of activist-journalist Seema Azad and activist Vishwvijay. They were released on bail, ordered by the Allahabad High court, after two and half years.

Binayak Sen, a doctor and human rights activist, was found guilty of sedition and sentenced to life imprisonment for his alleged links to Maoist rebels. He was later granted bail by the Supreme Court of India because of lack of evidence. After the ruling in the Binayak Sen case, the then Law Minister Verappa Moily had called for a review of the law. However the only reasonable thing to do would be to repeal it immediately. 

Even Soli Sorabjee the Former Attorney General of India had in his column in New Indian Express  wrote that “A better course would be to repeal Section 124A and replace it by another provision enacted in conformity with Supreme Court’s judgment in the Kedar Nath case. The newly enacted provision should by means of explanations expressly state that certain acts will not be covered by the Section. Most important, there should be no mention of the eight-letter dirty word, sedition, anywhere in the newly enacted Section. Prosecutions for sedition should become bad dreams of the colonial past which have no place in a liberal democracy.”

Hence the time has come to get rid of the section which Gandhiji rightly referred to as “The Prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen and be replaced with a more appropriate one.

                                        

Nilufer Bhateja  

The author is a student of law, pursuing BA.LLB (H) from Dr RML National Law University, Lucknow and takes keen interest in law, politics and religion.