R.I.P.--INDIA'S SENSE OF HUMOUR

      I belong to a generation that was weaned on the Reader's Digest feature " Laughter, the best medicine", MAD comics, PUNCH magazine, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Groucho Marx and quotations from a mysterious " Confucius" ( "a man who be both a fool and an arsehole is an ignoranus.") who bears no resemblance to the original sage. Armed with the understanding of human character acquired from these astute observers I have gone through life realising that humour is the ultimate gift of expression that relieves, criticises, elevates, weeps, embraces. But most important, it always teaches, whether it be by the understatement, the mimicry, the pun, the satire, the suggestio falsi, the paraprosdokian or even the humble limerick. There is no more effective ( but civilised) commentary on the times, and no more perceptive ( but amiable) assessment of individuals. Societies and civilisations which espouse humour are tolerant. sensitive to public opinion, unbigoted and open-minded. By the same definition, those which seek to curb humour, either by legal fiat or street violence, are just the opposite, destined either for fascism or anarchy.

   India today seems to be headed in this latter direction. Powerful groups-- both state and non-state actors, to use a preferred phrase-- who brook no criticism, and mis-guided bleeding hearts or seekers of the two minute fame appear to have launched a war against all forms of humour in this country under the specious banner of " political correctness." It began with Sashi Tharoor's " cattle class" comment: in the ensuing din it is still not clear who was more offended- the champions of the poor who did not like the poor being " bovined", as it were; or the Hindutva brigade who resented the disparaging reference to the cow.

  Then came the arrest in Mumbai of the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi who dared to publish a caricatured version of the Ashoka Pillar , in order to show how our polity had been debased, distorted and corrupted over time. Cases were slapped against him for sedition and under the provisions of the Information Technology Act and Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act. One could be forgiven for thinking that he is a member of ISIS! Some time later a once-glamorous member of Parliament complained in the House how lawmakers were being made fun of in the media, and demanded steps to curb this tendency-she received a bi-partisan support that has not been seen since. Thereafter the Information and Broadcasting Ministry wrote to all TV channels not to make light of the Prime Minister's somber image, and to show more respect for his position. Last year this intolerance continued as criminal cases were registered against the entire team of AIB ( All India Bakchod) and the presenters for staging the "Roast" show. There was even a demand to rope in some of the more prominent members of the audience. And this when everybody who watched the show had a rollicking good time and no one had complained!

  And things are getting worse. Just yesterday a comedian, Kiku Sharda ( a regular on the Kapil Sharma show) was arrested and sent to jail for mimicking- hold your breath- Baba Ram Rahim Insan of Sachha Sauda fame! The charge? ( Hold your breath again)-- hurting the religious feelings of his followers! ( Sec. 295A of the IPC). Its bad enough when this antiquated law is applied to any of the 33 crore Gods in the Hindu pantheon; now it is being used to protect even so called God men. Asa Ram's lawyers must be watching these developments keenly- maybe the sane argument can be used to spring him from jail.

 There is worse to come. The Supreme Court has admitted a petition from an offended Sikh that seeks to ban jokes on Sikhs, and has agreed to hear the petition. All these are very disturbing portents and raise disconcerting questions that society needs to ask, and answer.

   One, the right of free expression includes the right to criticise, mock, lampoon and laugh at. This is especially true of public figures who constantly project themselves as larger than life and strut about on the media. To criminalise such expression is to curb free speech.

   Second, we have carried that chestnut about " hurting religious feelings" to ridiculous lengths. Making fun of a God is one thing, but lampooning a Baba or a Godman, of whom there are thousands in this country, some with very doubtful reputations, cannot be considered a crime. By this yardstick any legal action taken against any Baba would amount to an offence because his or her followers would be bound to have their "religious feelings" bruised by such action! Such mindsets are taking us back to the Dark Ages( or forward to the Taliban era). Not only is the interpretation of this provision of the IPC perverse, the provision itself is regressive. There is an urgent need for Parliament or the Supreme Court to review this law. In its present form it only encourages the fundamentalists and political entities to stifle criticism of any kind.

   Third, the judiciary should seriously introspect whether it should become a handmaiden of such antediluvion forces. I simply fail to understand why trial courts admit cases of the Kiku Sharda type just because the police, for extra legal considerations, register them. Surely it is incumbent on these courts to examine whether a prima facie offence is made out under the sections of law cited, before initiating the coercive process of law ? If it is not then the case should simply be thrown out. I am convinced that if the lower courts started doing this then a lot of the harassment value of the police and their political masters could be neutralised and a lot of injustice prevented.

  Finally, I am totally disheartened by the Supreme Court admitting what shall no doubt be soon known as the Santa-Banta case. To make jokes about a community is not to denigrate them but to embrace them- it is an expression of fondness, an acknowledgement of their central position in society, a recognition of their endearing qualities. We don't laugh AT them , we laugh WITH them. The whole world makes jokes about the Irish, the Cockney, the dour Scot, the American Hillbilly- but the whole world loves them too. It is the same with the Sikhs.

  The Supreme should be aware that by admitting this petition it is opening the floodgates for copy cat petitions by other butts of jokes- mothers-in law, blondes, Gujaratis, Tamilians, lawyers ( Where there's a will there's a lawyer!), homosexuals, alcoholics, politicians, even judges ( JUDGE, pointing at the accused: " Do I see a scroundrel at the end of my arm?" ACCUSED: " Depends which end of the arm you are looking at, my Lord!"). See what I mean ?

  Laughter( and not an imperfect Constitution) is the greatest leveller of all- and perhaps that is what the persons in authority are fearful of. But a society which cannot laugh at itself is not worth living in. It was Goethe who said: " By nothing do men show their character more than by the things they laugh at." How will our character be judged when there's nothing left to laugh at ?

    

THE BIZARRE PROCESS OF LAW-MAKING IN INDIA.

[ DISCLAIMER--I welcome the imperfect amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act approved by Parliament on 22nd October. Not because of what Mr. Subramaniam Swami says on TV or what Nirbhaya's poor mother says at India Gate, but because of what the the NCRB ( National Crime Records Bureau) says: in 2014, of 2144 rapes committed by juveniles 1488 or 70% were perpetrated by those in the 16-18 age group; of 1163 murders by juveniles, as many as 844 or almost 75% were committed by youth in this age group. It was incumbent upon society, therefore, to revoke the immunity from punishment for such heinous offences that this age group enjoyed so far. But I do not agree with, or approve of, the manner in which this legislation was hurriedly passed.]

     The primary function of Parliaments anywhere is to formulate and approve laws for the betterment of a country. It is further expected that since such laws would inevitably affect the lives of millions of citizens, and since they cannot violate any constitutional provisions, Parliament would subject such laws to the most stringent scrutiny and debate before passing them. In the India of today both these presumptions would be mis-placed and wrong. The amendment to the JJ Act establishes this unequivocally.

     The Lok Sabha and the Raj Sabha have, over the last few years, been failing in their primary function of legislating laws that have an effect on the vitals of our society. Both during UPA-2 and the first two years of the NDA govt. Parliament has been used more for settling political scores, posturing for elections and trading charges than for any constructive legislative work. The important work of legislating has been outsourced to either the Courts or to Jantar Mantar.

   Both our Houses are in a chronic state of inertia and congenitally deaf to the demands and needs of of a rapidly changing society. They wake up only when the voices from Jantar Mantar or India Gate, combined with the bursting of tear gas shells, come too close to their privileged comforts, or when the censures from the Supreme Court can be ignored no longer. Parliament's legislative record over the last few years bears ample testimony to this.

  The laws relating to rape in the IPC were amended only after the unprecedented protests in 2012 led to the recommendations of the Verma Committee. Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, long used by all governments to intimidate and brow-beat those who thought differently, was given the quietus only after it was struck down by the Supreme Court. The perversity of treating attempted suicide as a criminal offence was emphasised so strongly by the courts that the Government has had no other option but to prepare an amendment to the relevant section of IPC to decriminalise it. The Whistle Blowers' Act has been drafted under the constant and not so gentle prodding of the Supreme Court again. ( Incidentally, Parliament has yet to pass these Bills). The same Court, having waited for an eternity for Parliament to provide for disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs, finally had to wield the hatchet itself and made Mr. Lalu Yadav the prototype of a model which should have a good run in the days to come. And today we learn that the Govt. has endorsed a private member's Bill- the Right of Transgender Person's Bill 2015- which seeks to recognise that these persons too have rights, but only after the Supreme Court's ruling that they constitute a legitimate third sex left them with little choice. The amended Juvenile Justice Act is thus only the latest link in this sorry chain of legislative indolence: its birth was not natural, but induced by protests at India Gate that had the government seriously worried about a repeat of the Nirbhaya tumult three years ago.

  The sloth is so deep seated, however, that notwithstanding constant demands from civil society and persuasive suggestions from the Judiciary, many other societal reforms are held up because Parliament just can't be diverted from its daily dose of blood sports in both Houses. Homosexuality is yet to be decriminalised even though the Delhi High Court in a judgement that does it great credit has held it to be not only legal but also natural and the Supreme Court has hinted that Parliament should repeal this pernicious law. Defamation continues to be a criminal offence even though the press and legal experts have asked that it be limited to a civil cause of action only. Parliament is yet to spare the time to consider making laws for Surrogacy or Physician Assisted Suicide or the Living Will or protection of Internet privacy- concepts which are pushing the frontiers of modern medicine and jurisprudence all over the world, but which have no place in our Parliamentarians' world of subsidised bungalows, cheap mutton cutlets, free air travel and foreign jaunts. They will bestir themselves only when another Anna Hazare appears at Jantar Mantar or another five judge bench of the Supreme Court pronounces on a matter or another Aruna Shaunbag dies after forty years of a vegetative existence.

   Paradoxically, however, Parliament (and state legislatures) are very quick to pass laws when it comes to granting or extending all kinds of reservations and quotas to various communities and classes, even when they clearly violate the red line of 50% set by the Supreme Court. This too, of course, is done under the pressure of violent agitations: I am always amazed at why our legislatures respond with such alacrity to one kind of pressure but not to the other?!

   It is possible that I am being too harsh on our elected "leaders" ( a misnomer, actually, because they have ceased to lead a long time ago, and now prefer to be led by the nose by populism or herded by party whips). Maybe, just maybe, they have discovered the perfect formula for political survival: avoid all controversial issues, don't take a position on any subject which you can't understand or don't  have an interest in( which is most subjects), leave all the hard work and unpleasant decisions to the Courts, and if all else fails, come up with an instant " 2 Minute Statute" not unlike the 2 Minute Maggi Noodles. Conversely, when it comes down to vote bank politics, it perhaps makes equal sense to surrender all sense of constitutionality and pass the dubious legislation, leaving it to the courts ( who else ?) to strike them down.

   This perverse logic may be politically sound but it does no credit to our legislatures. It also contains many inherent dangers. For one, when you make laws under pressure the resultant legislation is likely to be defective; particularly in laws that are penal in nature such flaws can do great injustice to individuals and transgress their freedoms. In recent times such distortions have become evident in the laws relating to domestic violence, rape, divorce, atrocities on scheduled castes, to mention just a few- even the courts have now started pointing these out. Criminal laws, in particular, need to be thoroughly studied, analysed and debated, both within and outside the Legislatures. This cannot happen if Parliament functions under the threat of lynch mobs and apoplectic TV anchors. The amended JJ Act is a case in point. While the lowering of culpable age from 18 to 16 years is welcome, there is a lack of clarity on many issues: what constitutes a " heinous crime"? Are all crimes that carry a sentence of seven years to be treated as a heinous crime? If so, then is the amendment also applicable to non-violent crimes that carry a sentence of seven years? If yes, then does this correspond to the intent of the legislature? The entire responsibility of treating juveniles between the ages of 16-18 years has now been put on the Juvenile Justice Boards, but do all districts have such Boards ( most do not)? Does the system have enough psychiatrists/ psychologists/ counsellors to assess the culpability of these juveniles ( it most definitely does not) ? Such, and many other, doubts should have been addressed before the Bill was passed, but this is no longer the norm in our Parliament. Our MPs will either not consider any legislation, or if they do, then they will pass them post haste without any discussion! Such extremes of perversity are hard to fathom.

  We would all do well to remember that rule of law is the bedrock of democracy. But it does not come cheap- it has to be sustained and preserved, with toil and tears, by every successive generation. We have been fortunate to have received it as a legacy by the stalwarts and visionaries who have come before but it is high time that our law makers stopped squandering it.

COPA 21 AND CLIMATE CHANGE: IS ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THE ECOLOGY ?

    The truest and most visionary statement at COP 21 (Conference of Parties) in Paris was made by the Indian Prime Minister, Narender Modi four days back. Speaking at the launch of the Solar Alliance he said:

" Convergence between economy, ecology and energy shall define our future."

Never were truer or more prescient words uttered. Mr. Modi has intuitively identified the three driving forces on which the future of this planet rests. And yet, the conference in Paris is focused exclusively on the economy and energy, to the almost complete exclusion of the ecology, a silent backdrop desperately waiting to be addressed. COP 21 is in effect an economists' forum where the larger natural environment has been given short shrift. Climate change and global warming have been reduced to just two more stock market indices and are being computed only in terms of their impact on GDP percentages, industrial growth, unemployment figures. food production. climate refugees, the optimum mix of energy types, and so on. The only convergence we see is between economists and politicians. Unfortunately, notwithstanding Mr. Modi's words, the Indian position is no different.

   No one is talking about the threat to the natural environment or ecology which has sustained man ever since he crawled out of the sludge millions of years ago: the forests, rivers, wetlands, glaciers, mountains, snowfields, coral reefs, and the flora and fauna that depend on them. The problem has been reduced to a mathematical formulation- 2* C temperature rise, and the solution to a catch phrase- " carbon space." As if the capping of green house gas emissions is all that is required to save the world. What about the rampant destruction of our ecology? Forests which hold the soil, retain water, give us oxygen, absorb carbon: is Paris aware that our existing forests contain more carbon than what is present in the world's atmosphere ? Rivers which nurture civilisations but are being dammed and polluted out of existence ? The polar ice caps which hold 98% of the world's fresh water but where  it is now proposed to drill for oil and minerals? The vast wetlands such as the Pantanal and the Sunderbans which control floods and erosion and provide livelihoods to millions? The mountains and glaciers which which moderate climate and control run-offs ? The coral reefs which not only shelter islands but also provide a unique eco-system for marine life, but are now being obliterated by pollutants and chemicals in the oceans? And finally, what about the mind boggling diversity of animal life which these natural wonders contain, doomed to extinction not because of green house gases but because of our ruthless greed and apathy ?

   Here is what is happening to them:

* The Hindu Kush- Karakoram- Himalayan System (HKKH) to the west and south of the Tibetan plateau is the third Pole, containing 46000 glaciers and covering 100000 sq.kilometers. It is the source of 10 major rivers on whose waters depend 2 billion people. They are shrinking at an alarming rate, and could all be gone by the turn of the century.

* Rivers are drying up under the onslaught of dams and irrigation needs: one in 10 rivers no longer flows into the sea for many months in a year. By 2025- yes, in just ten years!- more than 2 billion people would be affected by severe water shortages. Future wars would be fought over water, not oil- disputes have already arisen between India-China, India-Bangladesh, India-Pakistan, not to mention Tamil Nadu-Karnataka and Delhi-Haryana.

* 13 million hectares of forests disappear every year. The Amazon basin has lost 20% of its green cover and Haiti has lost 98%! According to the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) one third-34%- of the world's conifers are at risk of extinction due to logging and diseases.

* Insatiable consumerism spells doom for our forests. The demand for paper has increased 5 times in 50 years. The world's ever increasing appetite for meat has resulted in thousands of hectares of forests being converted into soya bean and corn fields to feed  cattle. The same destruction is taking place in Malaysia to create palm oil plantations.

* This deforestation is releasing tens of millions of tons of carbon, till now locked up in the trees, into the atmosphere.

* Destruction of habitats and ecology is ensuring that by 2050 one quarter of the world's species will be threatened with extinction- 21000 out of 70000 species of plants and animals are already on IUCN's Red List. We harvest 100 million tons of fish from the oceans every year- much more than nature can restock. 75% of the fishing grounds are exhausted, but there is no holding back avaricious nations like Japan which just last week sent its whalers to slaughter another 400 whales in the Antarctic, even though this has been held to be illegal by the International Court of Justice.

  Notwithstanding Mr. Modi's fine words, this contempt and disregard for the natural ecology is evident in India too, and is getting worse under Mr. Javadekar's dispensation. The regulatory mechanism to protect the environment set up by enlightened individuals and the courts is being dismantled under the garb of " ease of doing business". EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessment) and EMPs (Environmental Management Plans), both essential for minimising and mitigating environmental damage caused by large projects, are being dispensed with, roads are being allowed in National Parks and Tiger Habitats, the sanctity of buffer zones are being violated, mining is being permitted in hitherto "no go" areas, river-linking projects are being rammed through without any environmental studies, the Forest Rights Act has been deliberately diluted to enable easier diversion of forest land for industry.  The environmental integrity of the Western Ghats has been severely compromised by rejecting the recommendations of both the Gadgil (2011) and Kasturirangan (2013) Committees' recommendations to declare 67% and 37% of the Ghats as ESA ( Environmentally Sensitive Areas), respectively; by reducing this to 30% the present government has capitulated to the mining and developer lobby, and exposed thousands of hectares of biologically rich natural landscape to rape on an industrial scale: the price will be paid in the years to come by the millions who depend on the ghats for water, climate moderation and forest produce.

  We have done more than our bit to eradicate various forms of animal life too. According to the latest report of the Zoological Survey of India laid in Parliament recently, between 2010 and 2012 India has added 253 species to the endangered list, which went up from 190 to 443 during this period. It must have crossed the 500 mark by now.

 There exist also  major contradictions and disregard for our natural ecology in India's own INDCs ( Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) submitted to COP 21. In these, we have resolved to produce 100 GigaWatts- i.e. 100,000MW- of hydel power by 2025. Our current generation capacity under this head, according to the Ministry's own website, is just 39,623.40 MW. This means that we shall be building additional capacity of 60000MW over the next ten years. This is a frightening thought: creation of the existing capacity of 39000MW has already devastated states like Himachal, Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh (have we already forgotten the disaster in Uttarakhand and the regular " flash floods" in Kinnaur and Kullu every year?); the addition of another 60000 MW in the fragile Himalayan eco-system cannot but add to further damage to rivers and their valleys, cutting down of lakhs of trees, adverse impacts on agriculture and livelihoods of indigenous peoples and tribals.

  Our INDCs also propose to sequester 100 million tonnes of carbon by bringing an additional 10 million hectares under forest cover by 2025. This has to be a joke, given our past performance in this area. According to the govt's own State of the Forest Reports, though our "green cover" increased by 3.3 million hectares between 1999 and 2013, the country actually LOST 10.6 million hectares of ORIGINAL, DENSE forests during this period. It is the latter figure and not the former which indicates our actual forest cover: the 3.3 million ha. is partly a sleight of hand (it includes commercial plantations of tea, rubber etc. not captured earlier), and partly mono culture plantations which have no ecological value whatsoever. Therefore, given that we lose about 600,000 ha. of virgin forests every year, there is no way Mr. Javadekar can add a million ha. every year for the next ten years, especially given the industrial route he is following in the exploitation of our natural resources. In a nut shell, therefore, our efforts in the hydro sector will simply ensure destruction of our ecology on a greater scale.

  If the objective of COP 21 is to guarantee  future generations  sustainable development and quality of living, then this neglect of the natural ecology is inexplicable. There can be no secure cobweb if its critical strands are removed. Paris must pay greater and immediate attention to the preservation of the earth's natural assets and features: there is little point in creating a "carbon space" at the cost of pillaging our ecology. India of all countries should realise this, not only because of the floods in Mumbai, Uttarakhand, Srinagar and Chennai, but because of our ancient civilisational values that worship Nature both as a Mother and as a God. For there can be no Plan B once we destroy the ecology. No one has posed the question, and the fear, better than the poet Mehmoud Darwish:

         "  Where should we go after the last frontiers ?

             Where should the birds fly after the last sky ?" 

   

HOW ISIS IS WINNING THE WAR

  One can't  help but notice the irony and Biblical deja vu inherent in the multiple tragedies playing out in the Middle-east. The region which gave birth to three of the world's major religions is now witnessing a carnage in which these three are doing deadly battle with each other. Islam appears to be taking on the other two faiths for supremacy but is mainly killing its own faithfuls by the tens of thousands! And the Biblical sweep cannot be missed either: the lure of the Promised land inducing an Exodus of millions for whom, unfortunately, the waters of the seas do not part but consume by the thousands. And now we see the beginnings of a new Crusade being mobilised in Europe.

  Only a fool, or a Nostradamus believer, would predict how this war of cultures will play out. The inter-play of personal rivalries, strategic considerations, economic interests and historical baggage has so far ensured that neither the Islamic world nor the Developed world are united even among themselves: how then will they ever join forces to take on the " enemy" whose definition in any case defies consensus? The Russians regard everybody other than Assad and Iran as their enemy. The Saudis consider all Shias as their enemy. The Americans and western Europe identify all who support Assad as their enemy. Iran is convinced that all Sunnis are their enemy. Somewhere in this maze of diplomatic confusion lurks ISIS, playing one power off against the other and gradually filling in the vacuum created by the competing disarray of the western powers, steadily expanding its empire. The Caliphate is not a defined territory, but an idea whose boundaries shift daily, like a viscous quicksand whose enclaves extend also to the ghettos of France, to Lebanon and Turkey, to the Sinaii. Militarily, therefore, the conflict is likely to continue for the indeterminate future.

  But the ISIS is winning the cultural and political war while the western powers persist in defending their individual interests. Consider the following:

  Islam is a proselytizing religion which consciously seeks to increase its numbers and spread its area of influence. The current refugee crisis in Europe is an indication that ISIS has been hugely successful in doing so. Its barbaric actions in Iraq and Syria will ensure that a million refugees, predominantly of the Muslim faith, will inundate Europe this year, with another million and a half expected next year. Physical barriers and panic driven legislation will not stop them for they have already lost everything: as Bob Dylan sang- " when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose." Whether or not there are any terrorists embedded among this multitude of the damned is irrelevant: their sheer numbers are enough to change the demography and culture of Europe in a few years. The Islamisation of Europe is well and truly underway, abetted by soft states and liberal societies.

  The political and administrative structure of Europe, already weakened by the financial crisis of Grexit, is buckling under the pressure of the refugees. The very idea of the European Union is unravelling: common borders are a thing of the past with each country setting up border barriers to stem the human flood; the Schenzen protocol is on its way out, its fatal flaw exposed by the ease with which the Paris terrorists moved between countries; the authority of the European Commission is being defied by member states on the matter of refugee quotas; the exit of Britain next year is now almost certain with the spirit of protectionism hardening every day.

  Western Europe is changing in more subtle, and more fundamental, ways too. Countries like France which have always prided themselves on their extreme liberal values-freedom of expression, privacy, keeping the state at arm's length, secular tolerance- are now being forced to reassess these tenets of democracy. The process had started with the Charlie Hebdo massacre and now has been accelerated after the downing of the Russian plane over the Sinai and the Paris killings. Security now demands a more intrusive state and a curbing of long cherished freedoms. The political repercussions of the ISIS attacks are also significant: moderate centrist parties are now being edged out by those on the extreme right, such as Britain's UKIP and Marie La Penn's National Front, who have consistently opposed immigration. The essence and ethos of western Europe is changing in accordance with the ISIS agenda, and this perhaps is the deepest cut of all.

  Organisations like ISIS, Al Quaeda and the Taliban feed on the Muslims' fear of oppression, discrimination and ghettoisation, and the panicked reactions in the west are adding to this fear, which is precisely what these terrorist outfits want. There is now a growing Islamophobia across the world, prompted not only by the terrorist attacks but also by the tsunami of refugees crossing the Mediterranean. Some countries have openly announced that they shall not accept Muslim migrants, an increasing number of US states have also declared that they will not honour Mr. Obama's pledge of taking in 20000 Syrian refugees. Even Mr. Donald Trump is finding a new resonance in his vitriolic opposition to any kind of immigration. Caught up in this mass hysteria and anger the developed world is losing its capacity to distinguish between Islam and terrorism, to recognise that the terror in Europe is not imported from Syria or Iraq but is home grown, to accept that it is social alienation, not the Quoran, that drives youngsters into the embrace of terrorism. They are hesitant to ask themselves that revealing question: Why is it that, with a population of just a few million Muslims, they have produced thousands of recruits for ISIS, when the 400 million Muslims of India and Indonesia have yielded just a couple of dozen? By not doing so they yield more ground to terror and make their societies more vulnerable- which is what ISIS wants. The war against this brand of terror cannot be fought only in Iraq and Syria: it will ultimately have to be won in the ghettos of Paris and Belgium, and Europe has to realise this sooner or later.

  ISIS may well- and probably will, now that a coalition is taking shape against it- lose the military and territorial battle. It should. But it has already achieved its objectives in large measure.  For the struggle has already moved beyond the middle-east into the heart of Europe and America, and it is there that the poison will fester. The developed world will never be the same again- its values, principles and standards of behaviour will undergo a transformation for the worse, a siege mentality will prevail, liberties will be curtailed, Islam will be reviled, and will find ever more recruits.

  Whose victory would you call it ? 

THE " CESS" POOL-- STOP THIS TAXATION THROUGH THE BACK DOOR.

   The government has given us our belated Diwali gift- a brand new Cess on all services. From 16.11.2015 we shall all now have to pay an additional 0.50% Cess on all services on which service tax is applicable. And this is not 0.50% of the service tax but 0.50% of the cost of the service. Most bills of daily services availed by all economic strata shall now go up- telephone/mobile, eating out, travel, all forms of insurance, TV charges, entertainment, etc.etc. This additional burden is the Swachh Bharat Cess ( SBC) which is intended to fund the Clean India mission. By itself the SBC may not be a back- breaker but the larger picture should give us some food for thought.

  Our Cess pool already has 20 Cesses, one of them dating back to 1953! ( Salt cess). We also have six surcharges. The five top Cesses in terms of revenue earned are: Road Cess( 2005, Rs. 43,100 crores), Education Cess( 2004, Rs. 26,677 crores), Clean Energy Cess ( 2010, Rs.13,118 crore), Secondary and Higher Education Cess( 2007, Rs. 1812 crore), and Research and Development Cess( 1986, Rs. 750 crore).

  You would be reasonable in presuming that since Cesses are essentially tax on tax, and of tiny percentages, they are not really a matter of concern- and you would be dead wrong! Sample this: In 2015-16, out of total tax receipts of Rs. 9.20 lakh crores in the central budget the various Cesses shall contribute Rs. 1.52 lakh crore, or 16.60%- one in every 6 tax rupees! The corresponding percentage in 1999 was 1.81. Its quite obvious that this virus has profligated promiscuously  in North Block over the last fifteen years, and if not stopped shall soon assume endemic proportions.

   Systematic taxation by Cess is abhorrent to any fair and enlightened form of budgeting. Originally conceived in Ireland to tide over a temporary exigency, under our scrounging mandarins it has simply become a permanent tax by another name. Fiscal fairness and logic demand that once that temporary need or situation is over the Cess should be discontinued. That never happens in India, as evidenced by the Salt Cess which has been around for  62 years, or the Mines Cess and the Beedi Workers' Cess which have been fattening the coffers for the last 40 years.

  Secondly, if the need for a particular Cess is felt to be of a permanent nature then it should be levied as a straightforward Tax ( which can be properly examined and debated in Parliament) and not squirreled away among the fine print of the budget papers. One reason why the central govt. is loath to do so is that whereas taxes have to be shared with the states, a Cess is retained by the centre exclusively. Its time the states woke up to this day light robbery!

   My most serious objection to taxation by Cess, however, concerns the manner in which these funds are utilised. Take just two of them: Construction Workers' Cess( CWC) and Research and Development Cess( RDC). The CWC is a joke-ask any construction worker, whose lot remains just as risky, impecunious and insecure as in 1996 when this Cess was introduced. Had the govt. used this money to start an insurance or health care scheme, or provide safety equipment, or creches for women labourers, or special schools for their children, in any meaningful way then perhaps we would not have complained about this imposition. But nothing of the sort has happened: of course, schemes have been formulated on paper, more offices opened and staff recruited, but the construction labourer remains at the mercy of the contractors, a pawn in an entirely unorganised sector which the government has failed to regulate but in whose name it taxes us ! 

  Almost one crore is collected as R+D Cess every year: where does this money go ? The state of R+D in this country with a two trillion dollar economy is pathetic in all fields- health, agriculture, industry, defence, manufacturing to name just a few sectors. Whatever research there is is being done by the private sector and the government has little to show for the thousands of crores it has been collecting for the last twenty years.

  The ugly reality is that the government has discovered that a Cess is an easy method of garnering funds to buttress its kitty and to bridge deficits in other sectors. Searching for figures of actual utilisation of dedicated cess receipts I found that in 2004-2005 it collected Rs. 5100 crores as Education Cess but spent only Rs. 2000 crore of it on Education. I would be very surprised if this was not the case also with other Cesses. In my view the CAG should carry out a dedicated audit of all 20 Cesses from their inception to determine how much was collected and spent under each Head- the results should be revealing.

  The Swachh Bharat Cess now imposed is another regressive form of taxation: it is expected to generate Rs. 1200 crore per annum and will hit the middle/ lower income classes the most. Its purpose is to clean up the environment. This raises an important question: should not core activities of the government be funded by the sectoral budgetary provisions rather than by imposing additional Cesses? Surely, Roads, Education, the Environment and Clean Energy are mainstream government concerns and should be funded by govt's tax/ non-tax receipts and not ad-hoc Cesses? The current year's budget already provides Rs.3500 crore for the Clean India Mission: where then was the need to pilfer another Rs. 1200 crore from the public? By constantly resorting to this convenient mechanism the government is actually abandoning the fiscal discipline inherent in the prioritisation of expenditure, and taking the easy way out-at our expense.

  We are told that the SBC shall be used to construct 120 million toilets to stop open defecation, a pure engineering solution that indicates that we have learnt nothing from the past. The UPA had also spent thousands of crores on such a scheme, resulting either in " ghost toilets" which were paid for but never built, or toilets that function as stores for cattle feed- and 600 million Indians continue to defecate happily in the open or on railway tracks! Experience in states such as Himachal Pradesh where the scheme has been fairly successful reveals that what is needed is overcoming age-old shibboleths that open defecation is healthy ( and even ordained by religious tradition!), convincing families of the clear connection between open defecation and child mortality and so on. One interesting statistic on the subject is contained in a 2005 study by the government: the percentage of Muslim families defecating in the open is 42% as against 67% for Hindus. the connection with child mortality?- child mortality rates are higher among Hindus than Muslims, according to an article dated July 19, 2014 in the Economist: 1.7 more Muslim children per 100 children survive to the age of five years than Hindu children. What is needed is not the pumping in of more and more money but a dedicated extension effort, which the government appears to be incapable of. It should be roping in grass-roots CBOs and NGOs for the purpose since it lacks the capacity itself, but is more busy issuing them notices and freezing their bank accounts.

  The same is the story with the cleaning up of the Ganga and the Yamuna: in the last ten years more than Rs.10000 crore and Rs. 3500 crore ( also collected from various surcharges and fees) have been spent in efforts to clean up the two rivers respectively, but they become more polluted every year. The problem is sheer incompetence, corruption, insensitivity to the environment and reluctance to take hard decisions. Just last week it was reported that the sand mafia in Faridabad/ NOIDA has built a sand BRIDGE across the entire width of the Yamuna!- and neither of the two administrations claimed to be aware of it. The government will not take the obvious decisions which alone can save these rivers- ban sand mining, stop the construction of more dams upstream, ensure a regular and adequate flow of water, stop immersion of hundreds of toxic-painted idols in their waters, prevent the encroachments on their floodplains, treat urban sewage properly. Why should it, when it is far easier to impose another Cess ?

  Its all about the money, honey!

    

REVISITING THE TRUST DEFICIT

  Many decades ago when I was growing up ( in a simpler era when when crooked people were called cheats, not " ethically challenged"; when a "face lift"   was generally given to a building, not a visage ravaged by time; when " silicone valley" was understood to refer to Pamela Anderson's cleavage and not to a tecchie wonderland) it was easy to have trust in people or things. The only objects that were universally not trusted were politicians, bureaucrats and shop-keepers ( something, by the way, which still holds good today). Other than that, however, having trust was more the norm than the exception. Not any more, or ( as the Raven in Maupassant's poem would have said: No More). We live today in a miasma of  deficits.

    We have the usual suspects, of course: Current Account Deficit, on which careers of Finance Ministers and Secretaries have been made and broken; Food Deficit/ Nutrition Deficit , which sustains many more careers in the FAO and WHO; Monsoon Deficit which plays out like an Agatha Christie novel every year since it is revealed only at the end; Dialogue Deficit, a delicious term coined by Kailash Satyarthi, which is an insidious hint at Narender Modi's stoic silence; Budget Deficit, which refers to the amount siphoned off from the state's coffers by well connected carpet baggers; Neurological Deficit, a term used by doctors when they don't have a clue about the patient's condition, which is most of the time.

  But in modern India, which by some is considered to be the Neo- Vedic India but is actually an India of smart phones and stupid people, a new type of Deficit has emerged- the Trust Deficit, an entomological coinage for which the nerd responsible should, in my view, be awarded at least the Sahara Shri if not the Padma Shri. The Trust Deficit is today all-pervasive: one simply cannot accept anything or anyone at face value.

   Take, for instance, the professions. The Doctor you are consulting ( at Rs. 1200/ per visit) may not be one at all: he may have been recruited by Vyapam, one of more than 4000 we are told, who never sat for the entrance test or even the MBBS examination. There are very good chances that he cannot tell the difference between a testimonial and a testicle, or between a heart by-pass and the Hapur by-pass, or between an esophagus and a sarcophagus. No wonder, then that there are more people taking out life insurance policies than health insurance ones !

  Consider lawyers next. Ever since the ex Law Minister of Delhi, Mr. Tomar, rendered exemplary public service by spilling the beans, we now learn that a large percentage of lawyers in Delhi's courts may have bogus law degrees. This has been admitted by the Bar Council of India itself which has now asked all Bar Associations to verify the degrees. How can we repose any trust in such lawyers who probably think that beggary and buggery are the same thing, whereas one is an offence while the other is a social condition? No wonder so many cases are being prosecuted under Sec. 377 of the IPC: I have a feeling most of the accused must be beggars, poor buggers! No wonder too that there are more than 400,000 poor sods in jail- their lawyers probably think that that " Guilty" is a short sentence because it has only one word !

  Consider next our Professors, ostensibly men of learning weighed down by the Phd's they have acquired over the years. It now turns out that not all these Phd's have been obtained by burning the midnight oil: quite a few have been acquired by substituting grease in place of the oil. There are reported to be institutes in Ghaziabad and elsewhere which churn out the degrees on an assembly line basis: fool's cap paper is inserted at one end and fool-proof Phd degrees emerge at the other ! And these Professors are entrusted with the task of leading our youth into the light. No wonder then that CII finds that 80% of these youngsters are unemployable. No wonder also that my son is convinced that Newton discovered gravity, not under an apple tree, but on a toilet seat: the revelation was indeed inspired by a round falling object but that object was not an apple but something that rhymes with the word " chit."

  The same trust deficit has blighted my view of women. Time was, when you saw a beautiful woman you knew that she was created by a God who had an eye for good things. No more ( the Raven again.). This manufacturing has now been out-sourced- chances are that a plastic surgeon has much more to do with her looks than a God. It now takes years to shape an hour glass figure, and those stunning curves and angelic face that took your breath away faster than the Diwali smog probably belong to a cyborg. The firm. provocative bust line is probably the result of a procedure called Exilis; those suicidal curves would be sculpted by Coolscupt and Skin Needling; that taut, wrinkle-free skin owes much more to Ultherapy and Thermage than aerobics; that teenager face has probably been pulled into place by a Vampire Facelift; the sunset glow on the face is probably the work of Mesotherapy and Vitamin Drips, that perfect derriere a paean to Liposuction. How times have changed ! In our time, insofar as women are concerned, what you saw was what you got; today what you see is what she paid for! No longer does beauty lie in the eye of the beholder, it lies in the scalpel of the plastic surgeon.

  In the same vein, eating out nowadays is filled with suspicion and distrust. I am mostly a vegetarian and in the old days simply looked for a " Vaishneo" or " Pure vegetarian" restaurant. But I can no longer trust these appellations, thanks to fanatic nutritionists and dieticians. I now have to further check whether they are Flexitarian ( mostly vegetarian but occasionally serving meat), Pescatarian( no meat, only fish), Lacto-ovo-vegetarian( eggs and dairy products permissible), Lacto-vegetarian( no meat or eggs but serving other dairy products), or hard core Vegan ( no animal products of any type, period). By the time I've figured this out( without the aid of my smart phone) and whether Regan was so named because he was a born-again vegan, I usually settle for papri chhat.

  The trust factor is even more invidious if you are a non-vegetarian, a more recent phenomenon. A non-veg guy can no longer trust what meat he's eating. Earlier the doubt was whether it was chicken or crow, mutton or dog; now its whether it is mutton or beef. And if it IS beef, then is it cow, calf, bull, bullock or buffalo ? Once you've sorted that out ( and not been beaten to a keema by the Gau Suraksha Samiti or Sanatan Sanstha or Bajrang Dal) you still have to figure out whether its legal to eat it in your particular state/city. Most states do not allow cow/calf slaughter but its permissible in the NE states and in West Bengal. Most states allow bull/ox/bullock slaughter but at least seven don't. Ditto for the buffalo. At least six states don't allow the slaughter of any species of this bovine genus. And even where the slaughter is permitted the animals have to be more than 10-15 years of age. Try and make sense of all this. And, needless to state, you can't trust the police on this- they'll arrest you first and ask you to produce the birth certificate( the animals', not yours) later, while they sample the seized food itself. Their constantly expanding bellies is testament to how busy they have been in this area of law enforcement of late.

   So you now have a sense, I hope, of the trust deficit we all have to live with these days- nothing can be taken at face value. Things have come to such a pass that I don't even trust myself now. Why, just the other day I was at this party and my eyes happened to rest on this beautiful, elegant woman with a charming, glowing face. On a sudden impulse I went over and kissed her. I was informed by my friends later that she was my wife.

See what I mean?

THE NJAC DEBATE: PURPLE PROSE AND RED HERRINGS.

     If you thought that the discord over the National Judicial Appointments Commission( NJAC) and the sparring between the government and the Judiciary was about " independence of the judiciary" or "will of the people "- think again. From where I sit it is a simple contest for power: in a country where fiefdoms are assiduously carved out and fiercely protected since the days of the East India Company, one has to guard one's turf zealously to survive and what we are witnessing today is a reaffirmation of this primordial instinct. The battle is no doubt couched in politically and legally correct jargon: basic structure of the Constitution, sensitivity of the selection process, sovereignty of Parliament, separation of powers, tyranny of the unelected, and so on. But its about none of these: its simply about being numero uno at the top of the  heap.

   The Indian people want neither the tyranny of the elected nor the tyranny of the unelected- we want a judicial system that works and judges who are men of integrity and fairness. According to the Supreme Court this can only be ensured if the judiciary is " independent."- meaning, that judges can only be appointed by an amoebic process, i.e they self-reproduce without any external fertilisation. While this may be okay for protozoa it is certainly not adviseable for more advanced evolutionary species. It is my submission that "independence of the judiciary" in the matter of their appointments is a red herring that deflects attention from the real issues that need to be tackled if we really want judges who are free, fearless, unattached and honourable. To assume that a mere mortal system of appointments can guarantee these qualities is akin to believing that the moon is made of blue cheese, as the conduct and track record of many judges in the past have proved. True independence does not depend on who appoints you or from any fanciful separation of powers; it comes from a basic strength of character, self-imposed standards of integrity, a willingness to offer oneself for scrutiny and a commitment to one's vocation. Everything else is a red herring and an alibi.

   There are four  issues/ problem areas that need to be addressed:

   ONE. Abolish the system of appointing retired Supreme Court and High Court judges to Tribunals, Commissions, Lokayuktas and other sinecures. This is a self created system at which the Executive has connived with, for obvious reasons. There is no politically correct way to put this: the day a public servant( and judges are public servants too) seeks or accepts a post-retirement assignment he compromises his objectivity and it will be a very rare person who can buck this rule. The hand that feeds is rarely bitten. Most of these Commissions and Tribunals are by now permanent bodies and therefore these posts should be encadred and ONLY SERVING JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF APPROPRIATE SENIORITY should be appointed to them. For shorter duration bodies( such as Commissions of Inquiry etc.) too serving officers could be taken on deputation. In such a process neither category of judges would have to be beholden to anyone for the posting. The current system of appointing only retired judges smacks of patronage at both ends.

   TWO. Abolish the practice of recruiting 50% of the higher judiciary from the Bar. In theory this process is intended to tap into the best and most experienced legal pool so as to elevate the quality of judges in the higher courts, and in many cases it has done so. But it has also created another parallel system of patronage with both the executive and the judiciary presiding over it. It is no secret that political parties when they come to power seek to reward their favourite lawyers by such elevation, and the large number of relatives and associates of sitting judges appointed by this route indicate that such patronage is not limited to the executive only. Secondly, an eminent and reputed lawyer with decades of practice who is appointed to the higher courts cannot but bring with him the baggage of industrialists, politicians, corporations and other powerful people whom he has represented during his long career at the bar. Conflicts of interest are bound to arise in such cases and the mechanism of recusing one's self from a case is no solution. Thirdly, the most outstanding legal brains at the Bar have no wish to join the Bench in any case. They earn at one hearing what a Supreme Court judge perhaps makes in a year, they enjoy an equal status among the legal fraternity, and they even have the option of a political career ahead of them! For them its a no-brainer, and therefore the objective of attracting the best legal talent to the Bench is not even partially served. On balance, this is not a healthy system and should be replaced by promotion from the permanent judicial services. On the bench objectivity is a much more preferred quality than mere brilliance.

THREE. Create an all-India, national judicial service to attract the best legal talent from the law schools and the Bar to the judiciary: this will provide a uniform standard of dispensation of justice through-out the country, and prepare a nursery for selecting candidates for the higher judiciary. Currently, the brightest law graduates spurn the judicial services which are state level and start at fairly low positions, and where promotion prospects are severely limited by the practice of recruiting higher level judicial officers from the bar. An all-India service( on the lines of the IAS,IPS,IFS etc.) would remove these drawbacks and qualitatively improve the caliber of judicial services throughout the country. This has been talked about for a number of years but unfortunately neither the Supreme Court nor various governments have taken any initiative to push this idea forward.
   FOUR. Amend the Contempt of Courts Act to make it reasonable and less draconian. Judgements that effect the lives of millions of people should be able to be discussed, criticised and any shortcomings in them pointed out. This constitutes valuable feedback for the courts. Unfortunately, as the Contempt Act stands today, any such criticism could constitute contempt and be punishable. This insulates the courts from the winds of reality and, in the longer run, weakens their credibility in the eyes of the public: this in turn could affect their independence and autonomy. The Act should be limited to providing protection to judges, not their judgements, and to the enforcement of judicial orders. The best protection for the dignity of the courts lies in the wisdom of their judgements ( not in punitive legislation): the former ensures respect, the latter fear and distrust. A democratic institution cannot be founded on fear and distrust.

   These four reforms/ measures would do much more to strengthen the " independence of the judiciary" and free the government from the " tyranny of the unelected" than any system of appointments. They would also improve the quality of justice dispensed, which appears to be declining under both the appointment systems which we have tried so far. Let us lay this ghost of " primacy of appointments" to rest.  The ordinary citizen of India is fed up of cliches, of both the " committed" and the " independent" judiciary, and of the " will of the people" and "Parliamentary sovereignty".  How about giving us an   " effective" judiciary and a Parliament that simply works?