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.

The Origin Of Language

 We wake up in the morning, say our morning prayers, wish our parents go to work, meet our friends and chat with them, we come back home again and we’re on our phones for hours. But all this while do we ever think of the language we’re speaking? Where has it come from? In what all language do we communicate with everyday? Well for that,  let’s just take a little time out of our busy lives, rewind the gear  and go back to see the “Origin Of Language”. 
Language for a layman is any mode of communications. It can be written, spoken, symbolic, anything. However the dictionary meaning of language is “human communications through the structured use of words, particular system of style of this, system of symbols and rule for writing computer programs”. Language also includes body language, mathematics and not just the customary notion of speech or writing. In our daily lives we not only communicate among humans but we also communicate with animals, human objects, like clocks and compute. 
It’s beautiful to note that there is a common language for all us, if one is blind he communicatse by speaking, if one is deaf he communicates by writing and expression. And if one is blind, deaf, and dumb, they communicate through physical touch. One such noble example was “Madam Helen Killer”. In fact we human are so intelligent that we learn to communicate right from the time we are conceive and the first person that we start our communication with is, Mother.

World’s different languages:
Every family, village, city and country have their own languages in which they communicate. There can be a number of languages in one country for example India. There are countries where they have only national language. Major world languages are influenced or dominated by the European languages. The basic historical reason for the same is the period of expansionist European imperialism and colonialism.  Other major languages include:
1.)   Greek 
2.)    Roman
3.)    Persian
4.)    Chinese
5.)    Sanskrit

                             World’s Historical Languages  
Some of the worlds historical languages are 
1. Greek
2. Latin
3. Arabic
4. Sanskrit
5. Chinese 
6. Spanish
7. French
8. Russian
9. English
10. Sumerian
11. Akkadian
12. Aramaic
13. Koine
                                                 


                                Major Indian languages


“Kosh Kosh  Pe Pani Badle Chaar kosh pe wadi” 
The above phrase in Hindi language is used in India and means that at 'every mile water changes in India and at every four miles the languages.'  Thus taking the above facts into consideration we know for the fact that India is one of the richest countries in languages. Out of so many languages that is spoken in India, some are accepted nationally while the others are accepted just as dialect of the region. All the languages spoken in India have originated from 4 parent languages. They are as followed.

1.) Indo- European
2.) Dravidian
3.) Austroasiatic and
4.) Sino-Tibetan


  However the majority of the languages has originated from the above two languages are Indo- Europeans and Dravidians.  Indo-European is spoken mainly in North and Central region where as Dravidian is spoken in the South. Some groups in Assam and the other part who are ethnic in Eastern India speaks Austric language.

Some ethnic groups in Assam and other parts of eastern India speak Austric languages. People in the northern Himalayan region and near the Burmese border speak Sino-Tibetan languages. 
The written form of script or language originated from ancient Indian, and the script was known as “Brahmi”. In total India has 22 recognized language, 33 different languages and 2000 dialects. Hindi, in Devanagari script is the official language of the Federal government of India and English is an associate official language. The beginning of Sanskrit literature may be traced back to Rig Vedic period. Sanskrit is the classical language of India and it represents the highest achievement of the Indo Aryan language. It is the oldest literary language of India, which is more than 5,000 years old and is the basis of many modern Indian language including those of Hindi and Urdu. Its earliest dialect from Vedic was spoken by the Aryans. All the classical literature or epic of India are written in Sanskrit.

1.) Indo-Aryan Language 
Vedic Sanskrit:-
The oldest Indo-Aryan Language is the Vedic Sanskrit which is the language of the Vedas. A large collection of hymns, incantations, and religio-philosophical are  in Vedic Sanskrit which forms the earliest religious texts in Indian and the basis of much of Hindu religion. The hymns preservation in the Rigveda were Preserved by oral tradition alone over several centuries before the preface of writing, the oldest Brahmi is as much as millennium old.
The Upanishada was followed by the Vedic period which formed the concluding part of the vedic corpus in the traditional compilation, roughly dated 500 BCE. It was this time that Sanskrit began the evolution from a first language to a second language of religion and learning, and thus it marked the beginning of the classical period.

One of the oldest surviving Sanskrit grammer is “Panini’s Astadhyayi” which has eight-chapters  od grammar, dating 5th Century BCE. 

2.) Dravidian Language:-
About 73 languages comes under Dravidian language. People speaking this language can basically be found in the Southern India and Northern Shri-Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and eastern and central India. It is also found to be spoken in Afghanistan, Iran, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Malaysia and Singapore. However the origin and subsequent development of the Dravidian language is not clear. It was only after when Robert Caldwell published his Comparative Grammar Of “The Dravidian Or South-Indian Families Of languages” in the year 1856 that the Dravidian umbrella was expanded and thus the language was established as one of the major language group of the world. It was Caldwell who actually coined the very term “Dravidian” from the Sanskrit word “dravida”

Other Indian Languages :

1.)Tibeto-Burman Language:-
The languages that comes under this category are Naga Language, Garo Language, Bodo Language, Meitei Language.

2.)  Austro-Asiatic Languages:-
This category includes languages like Santal and Munda Language of Nepal, Bangaladesh and Eastern India, along with the Mon-Khmer Languages spoke by Khasi and Nicobarese in India, Burma, Colombia, Vietanm, Laos, South China and Thiland. Austro- Asiatic was considered to be the 1st language to be spoken by the ancient Indians.


3.) Indo-Pacific Language:-
The proper Indo-Pacific relation has not been established through the comparative method and has been dismissed as speculation by the most comparative linguists. According to Joseph Greenberg, the language of the Andaman Island and the Nihali language of certain Indian are thought to be Indo-Pacific language related to the Papuan language of New Guinea, Halmahea, Timor, New Britain, etc. Nihali has been shown to be related to Kushuda of Central Nepal.

Thus we see India is not only rich in Languages. It is thus the only countries with so many Languages, script, dialects etc.
  
Ranjana Bharti

Indian Ocean and the Rimland

Before the First World War, Mackinder, a British geographer presented the first geopolitical idea in his research paper. He identified the combined land of Eurasia and Africa as World Island which represented the largest occupancy of land and people. During the phase of turmoil and the unsuccessful attempt of German invasion on Russia, Mackinder moulded his theory and presented the 'Heartland concept' in 1919. His famous quote was, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World." This theory was further amended leading to criticism on the economic front, the, unfavourable physiography, climate and cultural attributes. 


In the meanwhile another significant scholar, Spykman presented the 'Rimland concept' in 1944, incorporating maritime Europe, crude-oil rich West Asia, agrarian and dense clustered India and China along with Heartland of Mackinder. In accordance Spykman concluded that the one who commands Rimland will command the world island and thus the world. On the economic front, Rimland with huge potentiality justified the validity of the concept. But on the political aspect, consolidated Rimland lacked its practicality with individual countries specifically of Asia posing as distinctive nodes. 


The rim countries barring the exception of Singapore and Australia are newly independent developing countries. The only entity which unites these nodes is the Indian ocean. Traced back to colonial times, the Indian ocean gained significance as the British Lake, with Colombo functioning as the naval headquarters. Indian ocean identified itself with strategically important locational characteristics in comparison to other oceans of the world. The continental ocean is bounded by land along the three sides making it geographically distinguished and known as the half ocean. 


In addition to this, the ocean connects the sea route between Atlantic and Pacific through the Suez canal and Strait of Malacca. The offshore crude-oil, exploitable manganese nodules, natural gas reserves and the onshore gold reserves, tin, manganese and the assortment of marine resources and the agricultural produce with the onshore reference adds to the commercial value. Thus there is a convergence of interests which has led to instability in the region. The existence of naval bases of UK and USA at Chagos archipelago and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, the presence of navy of China under the viel of research in open seas and the so called 'string of pearls' adds to the growing significance of Rimland concept and ultimately the Indian ocean.


- Shivaprasad Patil 


The writer is a Civil service aspirant.


Twitter handle : @shivpatilb

Re- Discovering History : Temples of India.

The word temple originated from the Latin word 'templum', which means  a structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities which includes prayer, sacrifices, or corresponding rites. However when we talk about temples the 1st thing that comes to our mind are those temples situated in India. The number of temples in India is innumerable, popularly known as “Mandir”. The word Mandir  means a place of worship. Both “Temple and “Mandir” though synonymous, the word 'Temple' is a bit wider term. Where temple includes all type of worship place in the world irrespective of religion, “Mandir” includes only those places of worship which have “Murti”, an idol worshiped only by Hindus


There is no written record of the establishment of the first temple or mandir. But if we look into the Hindu mythology, we will find that emergence of god and goddesses were due to the fear that dwelled in the people. Every natural calamity that destroyed, caused danger, death was attributed to the god of destruction. Other gods brought prosperity or profit and were worshiped by the people to please the gods.  For example they worshiped “Surya dev” the god of life, “Indra dev” the rain god for fertility, "lakshmi" the goddesses of prosperity and so on. Initially idols were not worshiped, it was later when people started imagining  as to how gods and goddesses might looked, that the ancient people started the art of sculpture and idol worship, however when the idol worship started, people started to feel a need of a shade to prevent these sculpture or idol from destruction  hence building of temples started.   


The earliest temples were made of perishable materials for example clay and timber which were destroyed way back and have no record today. Next was the cave rock cut structure where the dead body was buried and caved the grave with big rocks. The first such cave was created in Rajgir around 500 B.C. it was later that elaborated structural temples with complex architecture and sculpture came into existence. With the adoption of verity of styles, Gupta period marked the beginning of structural temples.  The temples were now built of stones and bricks. And thus an era of building of temple started in India so much so that today one can see a temple at every corner of the road. There is a great difference in the building style of temples of all the regions of India thus theses temples are categorized on the basis of their structure and design.


Thus temples in India are divided into 3 types on the basis of their construction:-


      The North Indian style (Nagra style)
      The western and Deccan style
      The Southern style (Dravida style)


 The North Indian style (Nagara style)


In this style we see projection on the outer side leading to cruciform shape where the temple is a square at the centre.  Each projection has been named, where there is one projection it is known as triratha, two projection, pancharatha, in case of three projections it is called  sapthratha and for four projection it is called navarath. These projections can be found all over the structure of the temple. These temple styles can mostly be found in Gujarat, Orissa and Rajasthan. The temple of Orissa are described as Nagara Style. These are the temples which managed to survive the destruction made in  several invasion in India and are still standing as an unique piece of art. The temple as well as the literature lays down the rules and modes of construction and are very well preserved in Orissa. In this particular style, the structure consists of two “mandaps”. The main shrine is taller and bigger in size while the other adjacent one is smaller and shorter “mandap”. The basic difference between both of them is the  “shikhara”. Temple presenting this particular style are:


The sun temple at Konarak
Jagannath temple at Puri
Rajarani temple
Lingaraja temple
Anantha vasudeva temple
Brahmesvara temple in Bhubaneswar
The Parasurameswara temple at Bhubaneswar .


However the oldest Hindu temple functioning today which has survived all the odds is Mundeshwari Temple situated in Kaimur district of Bihar. It is also the oldest Hindu temple in the world. It’s construction date is ascribed 108 B.C.


Western India and the Deccan Style (vesara style)


western India and Deccan style basically originated from the North Indian style. It is essentially a combination of Nagara and Dravida style. A typical example of vesara is Kajuraho temple. The Svargabrshma temple situated at Alampur in the state of A.P has similar characteristics. The trend of merging styles was started by Chaiukyas of Badami (500-753 A.D) who built temples merging the two different style if the Nagara and the Dravida. Temples built in Halibid , Belur and Somanathpur are classified under this style.


Temples built in Vesara Style are also found in other parts of India, including Baijnath, Sirpur, Baroli and Amarkanatk.
Oldest or Early temples of this style are:
Vaidyanatha Mahadeva temple at Baijnath
Sikara  Mahaseva temple at Baroli
Viratesvara temple at Sohagpur
Lakshmana temple at sirpur
Kesavanarayana temple at Amarkantak


The Prime temples of this style are:
Devi temple
Jawari temple
Adinath temple
Brahama temple 
Laiguan temple 
Lakshmana temple 
Parsvanatha temple
Kandariya temple
Charsath temple
Vamana temple
Matangeshvara temple etc.


Chandellas basically used the coloured sandstone for instance pale yellow, pink, buff colour in the construction of these temples. Temples were also made of Granite stones. Temples of vesara were dedicated to gods Shiva, Vaishnava however the Jain sects did not show great variation in style between one another.


The Southern style (Dravida Style)


Vimana and the Gopurams are distinctive characteristic of the southern style which developed in the Dravida Desam.  Vimana is nothing but a tall pyramid tower consisting of several progressively smaller storeys which stands on a square base, whereas Gopurams are are two storeys separated by horizontal moulding. Parakara (the outer wall) envelops the main place of worship as wall as the other shrines, the tank. 


All the mighty rulers of the south like the Pallavas, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Nayaks, Vijayanagar, contributed a lot to this style of temples.


Pallava Temples: 
The Pallava temples generally have a somaskanda relief panel. Some of the Pallava temples includes Rajasimha temple, Olakkaneshvara temple, shore temple at Mamallapuram, Vaikuntha Perumal temple, Mukundanayanar temple etc.


Chola Temples: 
They erected a lot of temples and also renovated earlier brick structures in stone.
 Earlier Chola temples are Kamparhesvara temple at Triubvanam, Airavateswara temple at Darasuram, Brihadiswara temple at Tanjavur, Gandikonda Cholapuram, Narthamalai Komganatha temple etc.


Pandya Temples:
Pandyas mostly concentrated at the main entrance which they called  Gopurams. Typical Pandya style can be seen in Sundara Pandya Gopuram added to the Jambukesvara temple, east Gopuram, Great temple, Chidambaram.  In this style basic structure and the original style was maintained, but the decorations on the Gopurams and the size characterises the Pandya Gopurams.


Vijayanagar Temples:
The tall massive Gopurams and the multiple mandapas are the main contribution of the Vijyanagar Period. Another major feature of this temple is the carved pillars with the reasing simhas (lions), yalis (lions with elephant trunks). Vijayanagar temple was very different from that of Chola  here the entire temple structure was not unified whole like those in the Chola system. The number of mandaps, pillared halls, shrines to minor deities, tanks, etc was found to be absent in this form of temples, which was very much present in the chola system.  Important temples of vijayanagar period are Vitthala swami temple, Vijayanagar, the pillars of the Ekambaranatha temple.


Nayak Temple:
The main characteristic of temples of this period was the elaborate mandapas of hundred and thousand pillared type, the high Gopurams with stucco statues on the surface and the long corridors. Temples representing this style are The Ranganatha temple is known for the increase in the number of enclosures while the temple of Rameshwaram is known for it’s  long corridors. The Subramanya temple situated Brihadisvara temple court at Tanjavur is known for the fine vimana with arsha and maha mandapas. 


Thus one can actually see the variety of temples present in India each being totally different from the other. The influence of various kings, era and popularity of god and goddesses can be very well perceived in the construction of an assortment of temples of different states.  It must be noted that temples not only mean “Mandirs”, rather it includes all places of worship irrespective of caste, creed, religion or country some of the famous temples of the world are:

Temple of Hephaestus, a Doric Greek Temple in Athens, 449 B.C


Khmer Angko Wat Hindu temple in Cambodia.











Mesopotamian Temple (The Ziggurat of Ur)

    Egyptian Temples (Luxor temple,Egypt)


    








Greco- Roman temple (Parthenon on Acropolis, Athens)

         
             Zoroastrian temple ( Fire temple)   

                                               The Golden Temple, Amritsar    


            Hindu temple (Akshardharm temple, New Delhi, India)

Wat Phra Kaew (Buddhist Temple)

Jain temple (Rankapur Temple)







Links:
http://qna.rediff.com/questions-and-answers/what-is-the-meaning-of-this-word-mandir/5200003/answers 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihadeeswarar_Temple
http://www.navhindtimes.in/iwatch/oldest-temple-india
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundeshwari_Temple
http://www.classicalkannada.org/DataBase/KannwordHTMLS/CLASSICAL%20KANNADA%20ART%20and%20ARCHITECTURE%20HTML/VESARA%20STYLE%20OF%20ARCHITECTURE.htm


- Kumari Ranjana Bharti

Rio+20: Will we get the future we want?

Recently concluded Rio+20 Summit, formally United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development; created much buzz-more criticism less applaud. The 10 day mega-conference involved 45,000 people including heads of states and ministers from 190 member states, businessmen, academicians and even religious leaders. Rio+20 was supposed to be the successor of Rio Earth Summit held 20 years ago, but ironically unlike Rio Earth Summit ’92 which brought climate change agenda to international politics and resulted in two ground breaking treaties on Climate Change and saving biodiversity; all Rio+20 culminated into was a non-binding document-“The future we want”-devoid of any detail and ambition needed to address the challenges posed by a deteriorating environment, worsening inequality and a global population.


How far have come since Rio Earth Summit 1992? Since then global emissions have risen by 48%, 300m hectares of forest have been cleared and the population has increased by 1.6bn people. Despite a reduction in poverty, one in six people are malnourished. Humanity's annual requirement for natural resources is about double what it was then. The rate of species extinctions is undiminished. Carbon dioxide emissions are up 40%, and the concentration of the heat-trapping gas this year for the first time hit 400 parts per million (ppm) in the Arctic air — up about 40 ppm from 1992. 


Even though Rio+20 aimed to discuss and charter a way forward to “green economy”; what it actually achieved is debateable.  Though the UN officials and Government representatives were optimistic about the outcome of Rio+20; Ban Ki-moon, UN Sec. Gen, said the document would guide the world on to a more sustainable path: "Our job now is to create a critical mass. The road ahead is long and hard." US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said it was a time to be optimistic. "A more prosperous future is within our reach, a future where all people benefit from sustainable development no matter who they are or where they live." But environment campaigners and scientists decried the summit, and were scathing its outcome. WWF International lambasted a "colossal failure of leadership and vision" and Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo called the summit a failure of epic proportions. "We didn't get the Future We Want in Rio, because we do not have the leaders we need.”


So what did Rio+20 achieve? 


 “Plan” to set up Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Negotiators at Rio were unable to agree on themes, which will now be left to an "open working group" of 30 nations to decide upon by September 2013. Two years later, they will be blended with Millennium Development Goals


 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was not upgraded to World Organisation, as many stakeholders wanted, but would get will get a more secure budget, a broader membership and strong powers to initiate scientific research and coordinate global environment strategies. Rio+20 also established a "high-level" forum to coordinate global sustainable development, though its format is still to be defined.


 “Green Economy” which was the buzzword at the Rio’s corridors was diluted by suspicions from some developing countries that this was another way for wealthy nations to impose a "one-model-fits-all" approach and raise “Green Barriers” to trade.


 Nations agreed to think about ways to place a higher value on nature, including alternatives to GDP as a measure of wealth that account more for environmental and social factors, and efforts to assess and pay for "environmental services" provided by nature, such as carbon sequestration and habitat protection


 All nations "reaffirmed" commitments to phase out harmful fossil fuel subsidies.


 A plan to rescue the high seas – which are outside national jurisdictions – was blocked by the US, Nicaragua, Canada and Russia. Instead, leaders say they will do more to prevent over-fishing and ocean acidification. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature called the decision a "deep disappointment".


 Developing countries were able to have their say and steer their concerns regarding environment and its economic and social costs.


An underlying characteristic of the Rio+20 accord was its vagueness, there were no quantified environmental or sustainability goals to which anyone committed to. The strongest initiatives have been taken at the sidelines of the summit, outside the negotiating halls. Significant agreements have been struck on investing in public transport, commitments made to green accounting by corporations and strategies agreed by cities and judicial bodies on reducing environmental impacts. The dynamism has been found in a 10-day "People's Summit”, running parallel to Rio+20 Summit, which saw more than 50,000 people participate in it to voice in their support for the environment. 


Transition to “green economy” and more sustainable development has economic costs, though all nations seemed to uphold the ideals of saving the environment but nobody wanted to put money on the table. Developing countries wanted a $30bn per year fund to help in the transition to sustainability, but in the midst of a financial crisis in Europe and fairly recent financial crises in USA, nobody was willing to say how much money they would contribute. Instead, there was a promise to enhance funding, but by how much and by whom were left to future discussions. This was sighted by G-77 countries as a major reason for a weak outcome. Paradoxically, the summit was supposed to introduce green economics as an answer to the financial crisis and as a springboard for growth.


Another reason for failure of Rio+20 was lack of trust between nations. The recriminations began even before the conference closed. British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg blamed developing countries for being "antagonistic to our European ideas on the green economy." Brazilian delegate and Senator Eduardo Braga said, "Europe is too absorbed by its economic problems." Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff said rich nations had not kept Copenhagen promises on "green funding" and so were in no position to criticise others for a lack of ambition: "All countries must take responsibility. Nobody can point the finger."


Rio+20 witnessed some interesting trends. Unlike Rio Earth Summit ’92 which attracted every world leader including the reluctant George H.W. Bush, Rio+20 had important world leaders like Obama, Angela Merkel and David Cameroon missing; is this indicative of leadership deficit or question of priority in view of upcoming presidential elections for Obama and financial crises at home for Merkel and Cameroon, is open to interpretation. Another important trend was intense participation of private sector, with UN claims that more 1500 top corporate leaders attended the summit. If governments can’t be decisive, Corporations can be. Private corporations seem to have got the scent that “green economy” means a lot of new business, and why not? Commoditization of environment and Carbon Credit trading is just indicative of the fact that Environment is going to be the next hotspot for investments. NGOs warned in Rio that if nature had a dollar sign attached, corporations would soon take it over. How prescient these predictions are time will tell. 


Though Rio+20 did not live upto the expectations, as the overall governmental commitment and resolve was conservative, but it charted a way forward which clearly demarcates that public-private partnership and individual commitment to saving the environment will play a crucial role if we want to materialise the future we want or else we will be more culpable in Rio+40!


-Sudhanshu Sharma