Reservations - Let's Shift Our Focus

When Mandal Commission 1 happened, all the protests that took place resulted in just one thing - thousands of students got beaten up, committed suicide etc. All the protests that are happening now, god forbid, seem to be yielding the same results. Mandal 1 introduced the concept of OBC reservations for the first time. Mandal 2, am sure will extend it as intended, with a few sops for the general category people, like increase in seats etc.

My point is not that the protests are useless. They are the only foundation on which such public struggle can be built upon in a democratic society. But we most often fail because we limit ourselves to the foundation stage, forgetting to build anything at all upon it.

The anti-reservation campaign needs departmentalization and sustainability. If we are under the impression that we will be able to stop the ordinance from being promulgated through such a strugle, you need to wake up from your dreams. Shouting at the top of our voices for two months will not fetch us anything beyond media coverage. Only if this outburst of anguish is channelised can we actually make a difference and immunalize merit from political games.

But for any such plan, we will first need a feasible political agenda in hand. Stopping Mandal 2 from happening, or for that matter Mandal 3,4,5..., is simply not feasible - thanks to our democratic set-up and brilliant choice of leaders. We need a permanent solution so that every 15 years, the fate of this country's future is not sacrificed to salvage a dieing politician's career.

I suggest this: we must channelize our struggle for a constitutional amendment to recognise this as a fundamental right - that 51% seats in all educational institutions and all jobs where the government has the power to imposes reservation, shall be reserved for the general/merit category.

This is the only way we can ensure that reservations will not slowly swallow merit in the name of social justice. Moreover, as a fundamental right, it shall be enforceable by the high courts and Supreme Court. And the only reason why, with a sustained campaign, this can actually be achieved is that we leave the rest of the 49% completely for the political games.

It is not something that can be achieved overnight. If we debate and arrive at a consensus that this is a workable solution, we will have to fight for years to make this possible. So to begin with, think for a change.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT – Do We Really Need Tolerance Towards Other Religions?

Religious tolerance has been preached as a virtue for ages. But I believe the concept in itself is flawed. Tolerance is a derivative of ‘to tolerate’, which signifies a voluntary non-action against injustice, pain or rather anything unacceptable. Therefore, the term religious tolerance signifies that the very existence of another religion is painful and unacceptable to any other religion or any person belonging to such religious sect.

Religion is a conglomeration of people with allegiance to a common faith in a particular form of the almighty. If one believes in the unity of god, no matter what form we chose, our allegiance lies to the one and only almighty. I such a case, is there any rational in one religion no even willing to accept the existence of other religions? So much so that one is pushed to the verge of having to tolerate the others. What kind of virtue is it for, say, a Christian to tolerate Hindus, Muslims, Jews etc? Is secularism about tolerance or is it about the acceptance of other’s freedom to pay allegiance to the almighty in whatever form they believe the most? Is it not time for us to accept freedom of religion than tolerate it? Is not the concept of religious tolerance the very negation of the unity of the almighty?

Mooting Democracy

MOOTING DEMOCRACY

“For all men cling to justice of some kind, but their conceptions are imperfect and they do not express the whole idea”[1]

We reached moon. So have our ideas - our ability to think, to visualize, to debate and to arrive at new original principles. Today, the fastest means of communications exist. We can talk to anyone across the globe on a real time basis. But what do we communicate? Why is that despite having to spend negligible energy, we have in recent times never reached the level of dialogues amongst us in our society as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle reached in theirs? Why is it that every single idea that has ever crossed our minds is from the pages of age old philosophers’ works, who bothered to think centuries ago? Why is it that we have stopped mooting established conventions?

I take this opportunity to break the ice, if possible. Not a chunk, but a small piece at least. Let us moot democracy. Let us think!

The best argument that critics of democracy receive from the die-hard believers in it is that democracy always works, if you can make it do. They say - in a democratic form you get what you deserve. That means if the majority wants to elect a group not only incompetent but also corrupt and indifferent to the job of governance, it’s the problem of those who elect them.

Take this analogy and answer me. There has been since time immemorial a debate on whether suicide should be allowed. Arguments such as ‘a right to live carries with it a right not to live’ have been put forward. But despite everything, in the name of civilized society, we have in our penal codes prohibited suicide. Even inciting a person to commit suicide is a criminal offence.

That was talking about individuals. Electing a group incompetent and corrupt to govern us is a mass suicide. Does an act committed in a group become justified just because it has been endorsed by the majority?

Ibsen through his character ‘Dr. Stockmann’ in his play An Enemy of the People retorts:

“The most dangerous enemy of truth and freedom among us is…the solid majority! Yes, the damned, solid, liberal majority - that’s it!...The majority never has right on its side…never, I tell you! That’s one of the social lies that an intelligent, independent man has to fight against. Who makes up the majority of the population in a country – the wise men or the fools? I think you will agree with me that, all the wide world over, nowadays the fools are in a quite terrifyingly overwhelming majority. And how the devil can it be right for fools to rule over the wise men? …You can shout me down, but you cannot refute me. The majority is strong – unfortunately – but right it certainly is not! I am right – and a few others – the minority is always right!”

Nothing could possible justify this proposition better than the fact that today across the globe we see majority making a wrong choice- time and again.

My argument is not to discard democracy right away. That is, in my opinion, the greatest mistake most philosophical studies make: leave us with a choice between two extremes. My argument is that we need to shake away the complacency, the indifference that has crept into our collective life- the political life.

The immediate question asked would certainly be, “If not democracy, what?” Most people suppress their arguments against democracy because they do not have an answer to it. Today, even if I do not have an answer to that question, I have still decided to speak - so that we can arrive at an answer someday.

“Plato complains that whereas in simpler matters- like shoe-making- we think only a specially trained person will serve our purpose, in politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence- we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one; well then, when the whole state is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best? To device a method of barring incompetence and knavery from public office, and of selection and preparing the best to rule for the common good - that is the problem of political philosophy”[2]. Just because despite all attempts made since time immemorial and having arrived at a solution that is not finally working for us, should we conclude that there can not be a better solution to this problem? In my humble opinion, the conclusion that we need to draw is that; it indeed is a difficult problem which we need to keep straining our brains about and whatever solution we arrive at must be dynamic in nature. That is to say that it must be able to adjust to the fast changing human life. There is no place for rigidity in politics. That is precisely why it is my request to my colleagues of the present generation that the time has come when we need to eye the present form of democracy critically. You need not have an answer now, but you need to begin. Start with mooting democracy!

---

[1] Aristotle, Politics, at p.117 (Dover Thrift Editions, 1^st Ed. 2000)

[2] Will Dunant, The Story of Philosophy, at p. 21

Insult to Secularism

A man named Dr. Praveen Bhai Togadia intended to speak at a public function in Mangalore on 13^th March 2003 and did. Not many people might have noticed it, but the saviors of secularism did not think so. Mere announcement of the proposed speech gave sleepless nights to the state machinery.

It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword. The pen, however, kills through words. Our passionate secularists believed that it made no difference whether these words were in the written form or the spoken. So to save the people from a possible law and order problem, or more crudely, from yet another RIOT, the Additional District Magistrate by an order dated 7^th February 2003 restrained the said man from entering the district. The man himself was an adamant one- he went to the High Court. After all his Right to Slay nay Right to Speak was challenged. The Court set aside the order by glossing over “the basic requirements by saying that the people of the locality where the meeting was to be organized were sensible and not fickle minded to be swayed by the presence of any person in their midst or by his speeches.”[1]So the man spoke. And lo! Nothing much happened. May be our saviors read too much into the might of words.

That’s only a part of the story, no matter how much you wish that was all. News channels debated the “issue” for weeks; columns and columns of printed space were dedicated to the possible threat to secularism that never proved to be. As if it were not enough, the judiciary breathed life into the dead issue, thanks to its perennial delays. Much to the relief of our saviors, the Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court’s opinion.

“Consider what you think justice requires and decide accordingly. But never give your reasons; for your judgment will probably be right, but your reasons will certainly be wrong.”[2]

May be not much is questionable as far as the interpretation of the Apex court of the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned. But wherever it touches the realms of social behavior and the requirements of our secular democracy, it slaps the citizens on their face. And if that is unintentional, may be they went into too many reasons.

“No person, however big he may assume or claim to be, should be allowed, irrespective of the position he may assume or claim to hold in public life to either act in a manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognized by the constitution of India, 1950”[3].

On a plain reading two conclusions can be drawn from these remarks. First that our secular roots can be destroyed by mere speeches and second that any one ‘irrespective of the position he may assume or claim in public life’ is capable of destroying it. Is it a mere overstatement? Hopefully it is and is unintentional.

Restraining a man from making a speech on grounds that it may destroy the very fabric of our secularism is a contradiction in terms. For if one speech of a man with credentials to his name as Togadia carries can bend our secular society to its knees, then there is not much to be destroyed. And if it does not make a difference, those acting to restrain it, in effect, strain our secular beliefs much more than any such speech ever can.

“Any speech or action which would result in ostracism of communal harmony would destroy all those high values which the constitution aims at.”[4] This is nothing but the fear within us worded perfectly by Justice Pasayat. By making an issue out of a proposed speech by someone without any standing in public life, by allowing the issue to not only bother the highest judicial body of the country but to be accepted by it as a potential danger “to all those high values” which we stand for, we have only acknowledged the presence of this fear. The fear of existence of that which we have done everything to deny. The fear that each one of us is waiting for a ventilation of the hatred we have carried all these years against our fellow citizens, because they spell the almighty differently.

I do not claim that such fear exists in real. But I do feel that our reaction to a non-issue like this testifies to its existence. To falsify it, we need do nothing. We need to not react. To react would be to insult the concept of secularism.

---

[1] Supreme Courts observation on the High Courts order in its judgment in Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2004

[2] Lord Mansfield

[3] Justice Arijit Pasayat in Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2004, Supreme Court

[4] ibid 3