Friday 8 July 2016

Social trolling menace?-Why the advocater of right to absolute freedom of speech/expression are silent?





Union minister for Women & Child Development, Maneka Gandhi has decided to take actions against troll-abuse in social media particularly against women. She has requested the Union Home Ministry as well as I&B ministry to take possible steps to control the abusive trolling community. She also asked social networking platforms like Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms for their assistance in tackling this troll menace.

Maneka Gandhi became proactive following complaints by troll victims. A fake account in the name of Arvind Kejriwal is nowadays posting obscene content online. Another Chennai based IT professional has complained that her sister-in-law is posting abusive content against her. The minister also assumed it as worst form of violence against women.
Many are of the view that the repeal of section 66A has made the trolling community careless and they are misusing online platforms to abuse people in worst kind of trolls. Whether the section 66A was helpful in curbing the trolling menace or not, we will discuss this in later part of the article.

The Supreme Court repealed section 66A after free speech advocators complained against it. These advocators always claim that freedom is absolute. Now the same advocators are complaining against trolling in social media. If freedom of speech and expression is absolute, how can you demand action against trolling?

In any society (forget about democratic set up) nothing is absolutely free. A freedom always comes with a rider. You have freedom to speak/express but at the same time you must take care of the fact that your exercising of right to freedom must not abuse anybody, must not hurt anybody's sentiment, and must not be provocative and finally it must not be indecent. Creative imagination is always an art, which can be displayed without hurting anybody.

But then if people become cynic (with biased point of view) then their opinions always contradict each other. For example, the same freedom flag bearers advocate nude pictures of Hindu God or Goddess, films like PK as freedom of creative imagination but then they also demand action against cartoon on prophet or films like Vishwaroopam (Kamal Hassan starrer). 

There are many people who are very critical of Salman Khan's 'raped woman' analogy (Salman's view is no doubt indecent but not intentional I believe) but the same group of people clapped for the 'Balatkaar' speech in the film ‘Three Idiots’. In both cases rape is ridiculed, joked but contradicted opinion makes many people to suffer from hypocrisy. 

Now the question is, whether section 66A could be helpful in curbing the trolling menace. I don't think this section can be helpful in anyway except its misuse by vested interest groups as well as people in power (responsible for enforcing the law). That's why SC rightly scrapped this law. But then the Supreme Court never said that acts shouldn't be there to control such menace. The SC on numerous occasions said that right to freedom is not absolute. Section 66A had many lacunae for which instead of helping to curb the menace, it started haunting people for no reason.
Can there be any possible law/act/section, which would be able to control this troll menace? But let's first find out what should be considered abusive. In this modern Bollywood, Hollywood era, it's very difficult to define what exactly the abusive language is. For example, 'Fuck', 'asshole' like slang words have become part of English literature. You can find out such things in English movies and novels. An exact translation of such words in Indian vernacular languages would be considered as extreme vulgar. But then the film 'Udta Punjab' cleared by the Bombay High Court has full range of Hindi/Punjabi vulgar slangs. If those are not considered obscene, how you can draw a line?

In the process of trolling Barkha Dutta, a twitter user wrote that he had already purchased toilet paper because of delay in availability of Barkha's book. Now there is nothing vulgar in this post, yet it is one of the worst abusive tweets particularly against a woman?

There is also complaint that people with fake accounts indulge in such disgraceful trolls. But the fact is, all other genuine accounts as well as established persons like senior journalists, writers, politicians and socialists also indulge in indecent and abusive trolls!

Arvind Kejriwal referred Prime Minister as psychopath in one of his tweets. You can't book him because there is no law to tackle online insults. Even if you take action, Kejriwal will fight back complaining revenge politics. After HRD minister, Smriti Irani was transferred from HRD to textiles, many known and reputed people with genuine accounts trolled her with sexist comments. Thus why to blame only fake account holders?

It's not that such things cannot be controlled if not be eliminated. One thing is in our hands i.e. ignore it, don't react to it. This is Gandhian formula. Don't even block the abuser, just ignore. Time will come when the trolling will stop because there won't be any response despite provocations.

Second way could be introduction of "report abuse" tab on social networking sites like many newspaper websites provide. If the abuse tab is hit beyond threshold number (set as per assessment) then the account should be blocked by the social media administrator and an inquiry by the police could be started.

One may not be booked at the moment, but an inquiry can name and shame the trolling person and that would be enough for many to control their language in social media. For repeat offenders a 24-hour detention in police station would be sufficient because all such trolling people probably do not understand what police station is. They troll from comfort zones at their private places through smart devices considering themselves as absolute kings.

Finally, I would like to ask the flag bearers of right to absolute freedom to think once more over their arguments.


Wednesday 6 July 2016

Cabinet Expansion of Modi Government:- Shouldn't Critics focus on Big Picture than Indulging in Cynicism?

The first major expansion of PM Narendra Modi's Cabinet took place on 5th July 2016. Around 19 new ministers have been inducted in the Cabinet whereas Prakash Javadekar has been promoted to the Cabinet rank. Expanding and reshuffling of council of ministers is a common event in any government. But, as it's Modi government, the opposition parties consider it as their duty to criticise even the expansion.

Frankly speaking, criticism has a key role in any democracy as it's the only way to remind the government of possible errors, mistakes, omissions/commissions etc in policy or functioning of the government. But, what will you do if cynicism replaces the criticism? Does cynicism anyway help democracy?

I always believe that there is a very thin line between criticism and cynicism. If an action/policy/performance is critically scrutinized in an unbiased manner then such scrutiny is called true criticism. But if the scrutiny is done in a biased manner then it simply amounts to cynicism.

In Modi era, majority of media is behaving like opposition parties and sometimes their scrutiny becomes very cynic. Let's decode some scrutinies by media and political opponents.

Almost all are unanimous that this expansion is based on merit, competency and expertise. Then why to deduce a caste and political angle? If some are inducted in the cabinet due to their merit, then why to attach caste factor with their selection? What the critics want to tell? That the ministers are inducted purely because of their castes? Is such view not undermining the merit of that particular minister?

This reminds me an incident. A Chief Engineer from ST community who is very competent once confessed in front of me that he was very frustrated because people don't judge his competency rather focus on the quota stamp on him.

Media, which claims that it fights against caste discrimination, always invokes caste first, be it selection of Chief Ministers (in Maharashtra and Jharkhand) or the present expansion of central council of ministers. If Anupriya Patel deserves to be a minister because of her competency, then do we need to highlight her caste?

Similarly critics are also saying that the Cabinet expansion has been done keeping in view the upcoming UP assembly elections. I am yet to understand how this is related to UP elections. UP gave 73 seats to BJP in Lok Sabha 2014 polls. Thus it's natural that 15 ministers from UP can be inducted into the Cabinet.

One who is criticising selection of ministers from UP, should also tell the PM, if not from UP, then from where he should appoint new ministers. Should he choose new ministers the states like TN or Kerala where he doesn’t have MPs or straight away import from Europe and America?

Then there is debate on who loses and who gains. According to JD(U) Rajya Sabha MP Pawan Kumar Varma some ministers are undeserving to be in the council of ministers. Has Varma ever assessed the council of ministers in Bihar government? A true scrutiny will tell that at least one-third of council members don't deserve to be ministers. Especially, Tej Pratap Yadav, in no way is fit to be deputy chief minister.


Some also raised fingers at the size of the council of ministers (78 ministers at par with UPA) invoking Modi's promise of minimum government and maximum governance. Here the point is, what does the slogan of "minimum government and maximum governance" means. Does the size of council of ministers represent whether a government is minimum or maximum?
Government doesn't mean the council of ministers only. It's the entire system involving bureaucrats and other statutory bodies. Minimum government means less bureaucratic procedure (Red tapism) and maximum governance means faster delivery with highest degree of transparency. If you become cynic then the size will only be seen as the government.
I will point out towards two things only. Expansion and reshuffle are prerogatives of the Prime Minister. India has a parliamentary system yet sometimes elections are contested like presidential elections. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and now Narendra Modi have contested Lok Sabha elections like a Prime Minister should and people also voted them through their representatives (irrespective of merits of contesting candidates). Thus it's Narendra Modi's responsibility to give a good governance.

In Narendra Modi's case he is the authority (whereas Manmohan Singh many times had confessed lack of authority with him due to coalition compulsion). Next, Mr. Modi is one of the most interactive Prime Ministers of India. He has a perfect feedback system on working of his ministers, not only from his trusted auditors placed inside the PMO, but, also from public through various modes such as 'mygovt.com', and social platforms. 
Thus he is aware of feedbacks about his government's functioning and performance and competent enough to induct and allot portfolios as per his assessment.
Instead of indulging in biased criticism (or cynicism) people should have looked at the big picture. For example, many people have to say that Jayant Sinha is demoted as he was moved out of finance ministry and placed in civil aviation ministry. 
The big picture is that Air India is incurring Rs. 30,000 crore loss every year. Thus Modi trusted on Sinha to revive Air India as a profit making unit. All other allocations can be seen in this way.

Instead of indulging in cynicism, critics should have focused on the big picture. It's time the entire political opposition and media should support the government through constructive opposition (through unbiased scrutiny) in the interest of the nation.




Cabinet Expansion of Modi Government:- Shouldn't Critics focus on Big Picture than Indulging in Cynicism?

The first major expansion of PM Narendra Modi's Cabinet took place on 5th July 2016. Around 19 new ministers have been inducted in the Cabinet whereas Prakash Javadekar has been promoted to the Cabinet rank. Expanding and reshuffling of council of ministers is a common event in any government. But, as it's Modi government, the opposition parties consider it as their duty to criticise even the expansion.

Frankly speaking, criticism has a key role in any democracy as it's the only way to remind the government of possible errors, mistakes, omissions/commissions etc in policy or functioning of the government. But, what will you do if cynicism replaces the criticism? Does cynicism anyway help democracy?

I always believe that there is a very thin line between criticism and cynicism. If an action/policy/performance is critically scrutinized in an unbiased manner then such scrutiny is called true criticism. But if the scrutiny is done in a biased manner then it simply amounts to cynicism.

In Modi era, majority of media is behaving like opposition parties and sometimes their scrutiny becomes very cynic. Let's decode some scrutinies by media and political opponents.

Almost all are unanimous that this expansion is based on merit, competency and expertise. Then why to deduce a caste and political angle? If some are inducted in the cabinet due to their merit, then why to attach caste factor with their selection? What the critics want to tell? That the ministers are inducted purely because of their castes? Is such view not undermining the merit of that particular minister?

This reminds me an incident. A Chief Engineer from ST community who is very competent once confessed in front of me that he was very frustrated because people don't judge his competency rather focus on the quota stamp on him.

Media, which claims that it fights against caste discrimination, always invokes caste first, be it selection of Chief Ministers (in Maharashtra and Jharkhand) or the present expansion of central council of ministers. If Anupriya Patel deserves to be a minister because of her competency, then do we need to highlight her caste?

Similarly critics are also saying that the Cabinet expansion has been done keeping in view the upcoming UP assembly elections. I am yet to understand how this is related to UP elections. UP gave 73 seats to BJP in Lok Sabha 2014 polls. Thus it's natural that 15 ministers from UP can be inducted into the Cabinet.

One who is criticising selection of ministers from UP, should also tell the PM, if not from UP, then from where he should appoint new ministers. Should he choose new ministers the states like TN or Kerala where he doesn’t have MPs or straight away import from Europe and America?

Then there is debate on who loses and who gains. According to JD(U) Rajya Sabha MP Pawan Kumar Varma some ministers are undeserving to be in the council of ministers. Has Varma ever assessed the council of ministers in Bihar government? A true scrutiny will tell that at least one-third of council members don't deserve to be ministers. Especially, Tej Pratap Yadav, in no way is fit to be deputy chief minister.


Some also raised fingers at the size of the council of ministers (78 ministers at par with UPA) invoking Modi's promise of minimum government and maximum governance. Here the point is, what does the slogan of "minimum government and maximum governance" means. Does the size of council of ministers represent whether a government is minimum or maximum?
Government doesn't mean the council of ministers only. It's the entire system involving bureaucrats and other statutory bodies. Minimum government means less bureaucratic procedure (Red tapism) and maximum governance means faster delivery with highest degree of transparency. If you become cynic then the size will only be seen as the government.
I will point out towards two things only. Expansion and reshuffle are prerogatives of the Prime Minister. India has a parliamentary system yet sometimes elections are contested like presidential elections. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and now Narendra Modi have contested Lok Sabha elections like a Prime Minister should and people also voted them through their representatives (irrespective of merits of contesting candidates). Thus it's Narendra Modi's responsibility to give a good governance.

In Narendra Modi's case he is the authority (whereas Manmohan Singh many times had confessed lack of authority with him due to coalition compulsion). Next, Mr. Modi is one of the most interactive Prime Ministers of India. He has a perfect feedback system on working of his ministers, not only from his trusted auditors placed inside the PMO, but, also from public through various modes such as 'mygovt.com', and social platforms. 
Thus he is aware of feedbacks about his government's functioning and performance and competent enough to induct and allot portfolios as per his assessment.
Instead of indulging in biased criticism (or cynicism) people should have looked at the big picture. For example, many people have to say that Jayant Sinha is demoted as he was moved out of finance ministry and placed in civil aviation ministry. 
The big picture is that Air India is incurring Rs. 30,000 crore loss every year. Thus Modi trusted on Sinha to revive Air India as a profit making unit. All other allocations can be seen in this way.

Instead of indulging in cynicism, critics should have focused on the big picture. It's time the entire political opposition and media should support the government through constructive opposition (through unbiased scrutiny) in the interest of the nation.




Tuesday 2 February 2016

Price rise pinching you-start your consumer activism!


Your Modi too failed man!’ Rakesh shoot on me while entering the room.

I lifted my face from the newspaper on his sudden remark and stared at him while he was lodging himself in the sofa. He has a habit of saying everything adding a prefix ‘Your’

‘See, the dal rate is touching 200 marks!’ without bothering my stare he continued, ‘When the hell this Achche din is coming?’

I was in Big Brother’s Bhubaneswar residence for a courtesy meet.  Big Brother comes to Bhubaneswar office once in a month and it was a ritual to meet him if I am around. On the other hand Rakesh is a permanent client to Big Brother. In every visit Rakesh ensures to buy a stone or Tabiz or something else to make his fortune remains well. He is a serious believer of astrology and for him Big Brother is a God of astrologers.

Big brother is seventy plus yet a very healthy man. He is a renowned astrologer, great philosopher and an incredibly humorous.  I am a declared atheist who doesn’t believe in astrology, God or anything that has no scientific proof. However I have a special bonding with the Big Brother because of his simple logic, great philosophies. He too likes me as I question a lot but by character a no-nonsense person.

Rakesh is a very close friend of mine although we differ in opinion in many subjects. But friends are always friends and hence despite different views our friendship never affected.

‘How do Modi belong to me?’ I asked irritatingly.

He frowned. But stubbornly he asked ‘aren’t you citizen of India?’

‘So are you?’ I answered in the same tone,’ Then why not Modi too “Yours”?’

‘Point is not Modi’ He said in same obstinate tone, ‘point is dal price and promise of Achche din’.

‘I didn’t commit these. Better ask Modi yourself’ I grunted and again focused on newspaper.

He appeared to be hurt for some moment as he wasn’t expecting such answer from me. Generally I used to indulge in debate with him on host of issues although we never reach on any conclusion.

‘But you should have some answer on this rising price of dal’ He insisted, ‘It’s almost pinching our wallets man!’
‘Better stop eating dal!’ I said without turning away from the news paper, ‘There are many people who never eat dal yet they are surviving.’

‘What a great solution my friend suggested!’ He said mockingly, ‘Simple solutions, if dal price is high, don’t eat dal. Similarly if Onion price or potato price rises, don’t eat those as well. If all food prices rise then don’t eat at all. Consume air and recite ‘achche din’! What a great philosophical solution from my great friend!

He then clapped but had to stop because Big Brother entered in to the room. We both stood up and paid respect saying Namaste.

‘Long live brothers!’ He acknowledged

‘What for clapping was there?’ He asked. He heard Rakesh’s frustrated clapping not really realizing where he was then.

Rakesh froze instantly. Unable to answer anything he looked at me for any clue how to respond. I carelessly avoided his gape.

Big Brother looked for some moments to dumb face of Rakesh to read his mind. Then he looked at me and asked, ‘What’s the matter?’

‘Rakesh is worried about rising price of dal’ I answered looking worried face of Rakesh.
‘That’s the problem?’ He asked bit amusingly and then said looking towards Rakesh, ‘Better stop eating dal, Rakesh!’

This time I was surprised. Such advice of mine to Rakesh was out of frustration of his irksome question. But Big Brother too is prescribing this!
On what logic?

‘Is this a solution to rising price?’ I practically questioned. Somehow I realized that I am repeating Rakesh’s question.

‘Definitely this is the only solution’ Big brother answered while sitting on his chair. I was wondering on his smile whether he is seriously answering a valid question or simply joking. Perhaps he had heard my answer to Rakesh.

‘If you are joking Big B then I must say I am not amused’ I was very straight. I have such privilege being direct to Big Brother.

He looked at me in an expression as if saying ‘why do you always disbelieve me?’

I didn’t say anything. But my facial expression said him that I was very serious.

‘OK! I heard your discussion just before entering the room.’ He finally said, ‘But I really appreciate your point on not eating dal if prices are rising.’

I still didn’t answer. But I sat down in the sofa considering that matter ends there. Rakesh was still standing. First he had guilty feeling for clapping in Big Brother’s room and then stunned to hear Big Brother’s prescription matching to my answer.

‘Sit down man!’ Big Brother asked Rakesh, ‘Now is not so ‘bure din’ (bad days) that you have to stand for eternity!’

Rakesh sat as if a robot.

Big Brother practically laughed seeing Rakesh’s precarious condition. But I knew that it’s not Rakesh’s mistake. In fact Big Brother’s personality is such; everyone can’t feel easy in front of me. Perhaps I am an exception.

‘Yes I am serious’ Big Brother started in his style, ‘Your method of quit eating of the food commodities whose price is rising is the best solution.’

‘But should we quit eating at all if the entire food items price became high?’ I couldn’t help myself asking the same question Rakesh asked me.

Big Brother looked at me expressing helplessness in his face. Clearly he was not expecting the questions asked by Rakesh from me. But I started feeling that Rakesh’s counter questions have some logic.

‘No logic in your question man!’ Big Brother finally said, ‘If price of all food items is increased, then where is the question of pinching price rise?’

‘I didn’t get you?’ I said honestly.

He remained silent for some moment intently looking at me. May be he was thinking how I couldn’t understand simple commonsense.

But the fact was really I couldn’t get him at all. May be for him its simple commonsense but I need a detailed explanation.

‘Price rise is a relative matter’ Big Brother started his lecture, ‘If rate of every item is increased, then you can’t say there is a price rise. For example when I was young we use to buy a quintal of rice at 25 paise. Now one kilo rice costs minimum Rs 25. Should I tell rice cost is pinching my wallet?’

‘But that time value of rupees was different than now’ I interjected, ‘The devolution of rupee now a day’s such that today’s twenty-five rupees is equal to then twenty-five paise!’

‘Exactly!’ Big brother continued, ‘If rates of every commodity are increased there would be further devolution of rupee. Hence this couldn’t be considered as price rise. With devolution of rupee your income too is increasing, thus it’s balancing each other.’

He looked on us to gauge how we took his lecture. It’s his style that he uses to check whether we are grasping his points or not. He use to conduct ‘Prabachan’ in many places and perhaps for this reason he developed that habit.

I maintained a blank face where as Rakesh appeared to be both ears to Big Brother’s each and every word.
‘When rate of some commodity rises abnormally, we say its steep price rise.’ He continued, ‘We are habituated with such price rises. Sometimes Onions, sometimes Potatoes and now is dal. But the most ridiculous thing is that governments in many a time lost mandate to such rise of price for apparently no fault of them?’

‘What? Governments have no role in price rise?’ Rakesh asked bit loudly not able to digest the last line of Big Brother. I too wanted to ask the same question but Rakesh hit it early.

Big brother too seemed bit surprised on Rakesh’s reaction. He looked at him curiously perhaps wondering how Rakesh reacted sharply awaking from his dumbness.

‘What do you think governments do?’ He then asked, ‘Do they govern the nation or manage departmental stores?’

Rakesh remain confused whether to answer or not.

But I countered, ‘Does governance not mean to control inflation?’

Big B looked me expressing dissatisfaction as if I said something irrelevant. Practically he said, ‘How does inflation relevant in steep rise in dal price?’

I immediately realized that in spite of rising dal price the inflation at that moment was at a five year low.
‘Agreed,’ I had to concede, ‘but government has to prevent illegal hoarding and black marketing.’ I rephrased my counter.

‘Well, that’s definitely a job of state governments as law and order falls under their scope’ Big be answered quietly, ‘but we need to understand why at all such hoarding and black marketing taking place.’

He looked on both of us one by one seeking a response. Both remain silent in fact not finding a proper answer to his question although the possible answer striking to mind is that hoarders do it for profiteering.

‘OK, tell me when price became high and low?’ He perhaps rephrased his question,’ When something becomes very costly or very cheap?’

‘Simple, it’s a demand versus supply equation’ I was quick to answer, ‘When supply is less than demand, the rate goes sky high and when supply is more than demand, rate dips rock bottom.’

I stopped for a moment and then said, ‘perhaps the hoarders do hoarding to restrict the supply there by rising the demand thus infusing a price hike!’

Big brother looked me smiling expressing satisfaction. His facial expression indicated that I got his point. Then he said, ‘The hoarders make this supply restriction to create an artificial shortage of particular commodity making the consumer panic and then they charge whatever price they want!’
I knew this, thus this explanation didn’t impress me. My concern was how the government should act so that this artificial price rise can be checked.
Big B perhaps read my mind. Hence he continued, ‘Government might have something to do, but the real key is always with us.’

‘How’ Rakes asked this time.

‘Simple, reduce the demand!’ answered Big B

‘Reducing the demand?’ I spontaneously asked, ‘Do you mean we shouldn’t eat or use a particular commodity to reduce the demand?’

‘Exactly!’ Big brother exclaimed, ‘That’s why I appreciated your solution of not eating Dal.’
‘If we quit eating dal, what would we be eating instead?’ Rakesh asked wondering on Big Brother’s logic.
‘You have got lot of option!’ Big Brother explained calmly,’ Eat Charu, Rasham or make curry full of gravy so that it can work like dal!’

‘But how can these replace dal?’ Again Rakesh asked.

‘It may not replace dal, but definitely you will not die without dal!’ Big Brother was confident on his point.
I started realizing Big Brother’s point. It’s true that if people quit dal for sometime because of price rise, then the hoarder will face loss and had to release the stock in to the market which will reduce the price of dal. In fact this logic can be applicable to all commodities whose rate reach sky high due to shortage in the market.
‘But will people get united on quitting such commodities for example dal in this case?’ Rakesh asked. Perhaps he too realized Big Brother’s point.

Big brother started laughing loudly. Rakesh blushed instantly not understanding why Big Brother laughs. I was confused too.

‘You were complaining that steep price rise pinches your wallet’ Big Brother said laughingly, ‘and now you seek people need to be united for your benefit?’

Rakesh didn’t say anything. But I couldn’t stop asking him as his words were going over my head.
‘Will you explain in English please which we can understand?’ I was direct.
Big Brother put a sudden brake on his laugh and looked at me with utter disbelief. Through his facial expression he might wanted to ask, ‘still you didn’t get my point?’

But I was stubborn this time. I returned a facial expression that ‘No I didn’t get you’.
He shook his head helplessly kept quiet for some moment. Then he asked, ‘Do you know why onion price never affected me?’

‘Why?’ I spontaneously asked

‘Because, I don’t eat onion’ He answered as if he revealed a great secrete, ‘those who are vegetarian, they never bother about price hikes of non-vegetarian commodities. If Dal is pinching you find a cheaper alternative. Similarly anything that you think abnormally high, quit it temporarily. Such quitting will bring solace to your mind that your wallet is not pinched.’

‘Provided, an alternative is available’ I asked like a devil’s advocate.

‘Alternatives are always available’ He was calm in his response, ‘You need to be bit logical and vigilant’.
‘But Rakesh’s question was a valid one!’ I was no mood to relent, ‘We may quit dal for some time and adjust with alternatives, but will that stop black marketer’s illegal hoarding, unless people are united?’

Big Brother didn’t mind my question. He explained calmly, ‘if people remain united for all causes, such things would never occur. But man is anarchic in nature and can never remain united. That’s the reason where black marketers succeed in reaping benefits from illegal methods. But why you need be worried? If you are feeling pinch in your wallet, you take proper action. If someone wanted to know your trick, you explain him. It’s up to him whether he opts to quit a high priced commodity or to fall in to trap of black marketer’s trap and scolding the government of the day. As long as your case, you remain immune to price hike of a commodity. Consider it as a consumer activism at individual level’

That in fact made me convinced fully. It’s really foolish to blame government for everything as there are many things we can control. If something started pinching us, it’s we to take a call. Certainly nothing in this world except life saving drugs which can be temporarily quitted.  I recall a friend’s logic of not seeing any picture purchasing a ticket in black. He always prevents his urge to see the picture till tickets are available fairly. His point too is logical that he might see the picture bit late but neither the length of picture reduced nor the enjoyment quotient.

I nodded my head in appreciation of Big Brother’s logic. I looked upon Rakesh whether he was convinced or not. But his body language told me that he too fully understood the point although he wanted to ask a question.

‘You want to ask any question?’ I asked Rakesh.

‘Yes, if Big Brother don’t mind.’ Rakesh said hesitantly.

Big brother looked at him in snooping style for some moment then said, ‘Go on, and ask your question?’
Rakesh paused for a moment and then asked, ‘Where can I learn cooking Rasham?’

Both I and Big Brother looked him surprisingly then we exploded with loud laughs not caring the sentiments of poor Rakesh.

Saturday 23 January 2016

Why I think Casteless Society in India is a Wishful Thing!



Post Rohith Vemula’s suicidal demise the question again came to fore whether the caste system in our society can be done away with. The references such as ‘deep rooted caste system’ have always been used to blame the ancient caste system and upper caste people. Politicians naturally will do politics for their vested interest but the so called caste crusaders too use such occasions to express anger against this social evil. Even one such crusader commented that caste system and democracy can’t run hand in hand.

Some people say that expecting a caste-less society in Indian set up is a wishful thinking. The crusaders will jump the gun on such people citing that these upper caste people never want the caste system to go and the oppressed caste people should up in arm to teach these people a lesson.

However I was also very hopeful some years back that one day this caste system will definitely go. The reason of my belief was simple that Vedic system doesn’t endorse such system. In fact caste was an invention of British. Vedas in fact talks of a ‘Varna System’ that was based on one’s service to the nation. The Varna was never based on birth rather very mobile considering how one contributes to society irrespective of his/her birth. Somehow this process was corroded and birth based Varna was implemented for vested interest of influenced social elites.

But then many such corrupt traditions were eliminated gradually and one should be always hopeful that this caste system should also be eliminated one day. But when I thought deeply on those sane people saying that expecting such miracle is a fantasy, I found they are really true to their words and really the caste-less society in India is just a castle in the sky.

The crusaders by this time must have painted me a Bramhinical advocator supporting the caste system. But be patient, I want eagerly for a caste-less society but unfortunately the reasons that I am putting below are so deep rooted in present day system, I find no reason to believe that casteless society is possible. To start with I can say confidently that so called upper caste people are not the reason for deep rooting caste system at the present day. I am just putting two important reasons for my belief why caste-less society is a wishful thinking.

The Vote Bank Politics

Democracy is always an effective tool to empower downtrodden because it gives every citizen to be represented through their representatives to fight against any discrimination meted out to them. Now days there are scores of political parties that claim to be true representative of the down trodden. In fact in today’s polity no political party dare to say that it is anti lower caste. Unfortunately these political parties are never interested for a caste-less society rather they seek this caste system to remain firmly so that their vote bank remains intact. Instead of putting efforts to end such social evil, they further divide the castes in to various groups such back ward, most backward and extreme backward. There also further division - politicians who further divide castes as - Paswans, Chamars, Dhobis, Nishads, Kewats etc. British introduced “divide and rule” policy to rule India. These politicians further divided people in various lines. A casteless society will unite people and the politicians can’t fool people through vote bank politics. The fear of perform or perish forces these politicians to continue dividing people. Thus it’s impossible to break their hegemony on dividing people and hence I believe the caste-less society is daydream.

Duplicity of Lower caste crusaders

The caste crusaders claim that they are strong advocate of a caste-less society. But if you say whether caste based reservation should also be done away with, they will vociferously say a big NO, citing thousands years of tortures to one caste people by upper caste people. Point is if there would be caste based reservation how there would be a caste-less society? Question will automatically come how the oppressed people match up to affluent people. The answer too is there that reservation should be done on the basis of economic criteria only thus ending the caste system rather ensuring a class system purely on economic criteria. Class is always mobile contrary to immobile caste. But then the crusader will scream that this is a way to give reservation facility to poor upper caste people. Now there are number of question which they can’t answer. For example if there will be no caste system where is the question of upper caste? Does poverty has any caste? Even if a so called poor upper caste got the facility what’s wrong in it? Isn’t he a citizen? Or he should punish for some wrongs his fore fathers done? Is revenge a method in democracy? If you put caste system for facilities what’s wrong if a poor upper caste man devoid of any facility from the democracy resort to glorify his caste at least.


Point is simple to make ours a caste-less society we all have to come aboard and formulate such systems so as everyone will be happy to be a part of the system. But I am afraid the vested interest of politicians and duality of crusaders will never allow a caste-less society to prevail and hence I realize that such a system is definitely a wishful thinking, flight of the imagination only and can never be a reality. 

Unnecessary politics over Rohith Vemula's dead body, while the real cause of suicide is caste discrimination



The unfortunate suicide of Rohith Vemula, a research scholar from University of Hyderabad has suddenly sparked political outrage in the country. According to sources, one ABVP leader Shushil Kumar complained against five members including Rohith from Ambedkar Student's Association (ASA) that he had been assaulted by them. Initial investigation report didn't find substantial proof hence the accused were let off with stern warning.

Then Bandaru Dattatreya, a BJP Union minister wrote to HRD minister citing that the ASA students are anti-national (because they demonstrated against Yakub's hanging) and indulged in caste-politics. He claimed that they got rid of punishment in the case of assaulting ABVP student due to poor investigation, hence needed strong action.

Subsequently, all the five accused students including Rohith were expelled from their hostel in December. They were denied access to hostels and other buildings on the campus except their classroom, library, conference and workshops related to their subject of study. They were evicted from their rooms and since then they were forced to sleep in a make shift camp in the campus.

Point is simple. The university V-C P. Appa Rao who is considered to be a BJP man might have acted as per the instructions of his political boss and served serious punishments to the accused students from ASA.

A case has been registered against Union minister, Bandaru Dattatreya, V-C P. Appa Rao and four others for abatement of suicide.

Now question is whether it's abatement to suicide by V-C and his political boss? If closely looked at, it's case of fierce student politics. It's a conflict between ABVP and ASA. The deceased was a part of such politics. Does political matter abate suicide?
In the suicide note Rohith didn't mention any such thing. If his suicide note is read carefully, it gives an indication that he was under tremendous strain due to caste based discrimination in University of Hyderabad (UoH). Question is whether this caste based discrimination a new phenomenon in this university after BJP took charge in Centre as opposition is blaming that aggressive saffronisation in the university led to caste based discrimination.
But facts are otherwise. According to senior faculty members, the caste based discrimination in UoH was there since its inception from 1974. This is nothing to do with politics. This was due to the social system prevailing in Hyderabad and its surrounding.
Is Rohith first to commit suicide for caste discrimination? The answer is again no. Nine students including Rohith from Dalit community committed suicide in University of Hyderabad due to caste based discrimination, in last decade. Before Rohith, in 2013 a PHD scholar M. Venkatesh committed suicide while opposing the caste based discrimination. Nine students committing suicide, it is not a small case. There must be something wrong in the University, which needs urgent attention. Definitely it's not politics that took nine lives. It's the caste base discrimination against marginalized sections that cost some genius lives; it's a socio-political problem. It requires urgent attention as University can't be a place for discrimination on any basis.

From a political point of view, yes, Bandaru Dattatreya has no locus standi in University politics. He may not abate the suicide but definitely vitiate the student politics. Action should be taken against him and I feel he should also be sacked as a minister.

But, what about others, who are doing politics over student's dead body? Arvind Kejriwal who was mum on Malda riots has become very vocal in this case. Mayawati sent a two member committee to the university. Rahul Gandhiis visiting the university today. Where was Rahul Gandhi when eight students from Dalit community committed suicide in last decade during UPA's rule? Bandaru Dattatreya is condemned from intervening in students’ politics. Why Rahul Gandhi should also not be condemned for intervening in students politics, first in FTII and now in UoH.

It's time to take stern steps to end caste based discrimination in the universities. But will the political class realize it? I guess no. They have their interests in doing politics even on the dead body of the students. That's very unfortunate