There is no such thing as human rights. The best that we get are societal rights.
© Anshuman Rawat
Categories
Quote: Human Rights
Of the infinite comical scenes enacted in the Indian Parliament, none has been more tragic than the sight early this year of a barely-able-to-stand Arjun Singh walking into the House using his walking stick and a wheelchair, to carry out the two primary duties of a Congressman – giving clean chit to and praising (late PM) Rajiv Gandhi and blaming (late PM) Narasimha Rao of all ills happened during the days of Congress (I) rule.
The occassion was a debate on the escape provided to Bhopal Gas Tragedy accused Warren Anderson and the purpose was to … well … simply re-write history, by telling the world how it was actually Narasimha Rao, and not Rajiv Gandhi, who had allowed Anderson to escape in official car, along with official security.
Years from now, the internal Congress (I) history would read just two sentences:
All good done by – and only by – Indira Ji, Rajiv Ji, Sonia Ji, Rahul Ji
All bad done by – and only by – Narasimha Rao
Fortunately or otherwise, Congress (I) might just have found out another Narasimha Rao in PM Manmohan Singh yesterday.
Alas, the timing could not have been worse for the party – as the ‘succession plan’ is far from getting the finishing touches!
Replying to a petition filed by Janata Party President and former Law Minister Subramaniam Swamy, who had sought sanction for the prosecution of tainted (former) Telecom Minister A Raja, the Supreme Court of India yesterday put in front of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh the following, extremely incisive pointers:
“Can the sanctioning authority (Prime Minister in this case) sit on the complaint?”
“The three months time for grant of sanction laid by the Supreme Court is clear for fair and good governance,”
“We find it is now more than 16 months. The sanctioning authority can say I am not inclined to give sanction. But we find alleged inaction and silence troubling,”
This is a body blow as painful as it gets for the Congress (I). A honest, clean PM Manmohan Singh is the final line of defence in the Congress (I) that one has to breach before reaching 10 Janpath.
But now that even screaming frontpage headlines across media have found the courage to question the ‘silence & inaction’ of PM, it can now be safely said that the process of Manmohan Singh becoming Narsimha Rao – Part 2 has just about begun.
To understand how the two are linked, we will briefly go through the curious ‘internal deliverance hierarchy‘ of Congress (I).
As we all know, the ‘High Command’ cannot be seen to be governing anything in pubic; and therefore cannot be held for any wrong-doing in matters of governance. And then, there is the ultimate trump card – a “clean Prime Minister of unquestionable personal integrity”, to shield against any charges of corruption at the top.
So, basically, all the corrupt and criminal acts by Congress (I) workers or Ministers are mere acts of wrong-doing by individuals, who are – upholding the highest principles set by the High Command and / or the Prime Minister – immediately asked to resign!
While Congress (I) President Smt. Sonia Gandhi has long been accorded sainthood by the party, the whole packaging of PM Manmohan Singh by well-oiled Congress PR machinery reminds of description of former PM Atal Bihar Vajpayee as, “the right man in the wrong party“. The only difference is that that identity was gifted to Vajpayee by his rivals – largely because his own people couldn’t have called their own party the wrong party and partly because BJP was still too much of a ‘street activists’ party’ to know anything about image spinning.
Pertinently to the present topic, Ex PM Vajpayee was also called the ‘Mukhota’ (meaning ‘mask’, in Hindi) – thereby implying that BJP used to get away with its ‘real face or identity’ by projecting former PM Vajpayee as its representative.
The pot calling the kettle black, anyone?
Anyway, coming back to subject: Such is the Halo around Smt Sonia and Dr. Singh, one self-made and one hand-picked by the self-made, that it is virtually criminal to question them about anything.
Now, though undesirable, it is understandable that the Chairperson of UPA, who, inspite of all powers infested with, remains (officially) a political entity and has to be concerned with the ‘Coalition Dharm’.
But the position of Prime Minister is, and should, be concerned singularly with just the well-being of the nation and its people. And that’s precisely why the Prime Minister – even of the ‘unquestionable integrity’ type – needs to be questioned for all his actions or the lack of it.
Furthermore, what does ‘integrity’ mean anyway?
Since we have borrowed the Indian Parliament – brick, mortar and morals – from the British, let’s dig into the Oxford dictionary for some enlightment. The dictionary defines ‘integrity’ as:
- the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles:a gentleman of complete integrity
- the state of being whole and undivided:upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty
Yes, he is a honest INDIVIDUAL with strong moral principles – something that would be more than sufficient for ‘an individual’ in vaccum. But whether you live by laws of Physics or not, every single entity is, can be and has to be defined in the perspective of its very own context.
And the context here is that Sardar (Dr.) Manmohan Singh, an eminent economist, happens to be the Prime Minister of a country that is grappling with poverty and is situated in the most dangerous neighbourhood of this world.
And therefore, the other principal variant meaning of ‘integrity’ comes into play viz., the state of being whole and undivided.
Is he – wholly and undividedly concerned ONLY about the well-being of the Indian State and her people?
The question itself may be redundant because it may not be his mandate to be anything but a proxy Congress PM of the nation!
Otherwise, shouldn’t being whole and undivided in duty towards the nation mean that he takes the initiative and action against anyone – absolutely anyone – who works against the idea of Indian constitution; every single time?
Can the Prime Minister give even a single example of him taking the lead in taking action against the corrupt? Again, maybe he does not have the mandate of his party to take initiatives.
One of the most disgusting praises that is heaped on PM Manmohan Singh is that “he is a very simple man, who does not understand politics”. Leaving aside the morbid corollary that the praise holds when said about the leader of a democracy, let’s talk in the language that the PM understands viz., finance:
Can PM Manmohan Singh come up with ONE financial institution or private limited company across the world that would praise its CEO for “impeccable personal integrity”, while he merely (or is ‘conveniently’ the word here?) watches and allows the VPs, GMs and even junior executives siphon off company money?
Unless that is precisely the mandate given to the CEO by the owner of the company!
And that is what is the crux of the whole matter.
India’s honourable Prime Minister Sardar (Dr.) Manmohan Singh seems to have only always worked as a CEO of Congress (I), under the ownership of the party – with the extremely limited mandate of, as ever, maintaining status quo!
Does a Prime Minister’s overlooking of nation for his party sound anything like a life full of ‘integrity’?
No, Manmohan Singh Ji, from a neutral third-person assessment, it sounds like just another politician hanging on to the highest post of the land.
And what should concern you is that you have got sub-consciously got moulded into giving out that impression.
Did Smt. Sonia Gandhi make any governance or propriety blunders? Did Rahul Gandhi make any? Why would they; when they could make YOU the face of the blips.
Years from now, a very old, barely mobile Pranab Mukherjee might be called into Parliament to tell the world and the Parliament history-writers that IT WAS YOU who had cost the nation Rs. 1,76,000 Crores.
And that might just be correct!
Categories
Vidi, Wiki, Vici
So, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks was finally arrested in London – on some old charges related to sex crime committed by him in Sweden. While it should be noted that the charges have once already been dropped in Sweden, the case was opened up again apparently because the US told Sweden, “Look, you don’t like him and we don’t like him. So can you please look if there’s something in the charges against him?”
And yet, for record, if he is guilty of the charges, he should most definitely be held guilty and severe punishment should be meted out to him.
But everything suggests that the urgency is because he is the Founder of WikiLeaks, which is struggling to stay afloat online in the wake of cyber attack and stalling from not just the US and some other governments, but also hackers sympathetic to those governments. Assagne’s account in Switzerland was frozen yesterday (December 6, 2010). And, supporters like PayPal, MasterCard have withdrawn support (via providing an outlet for WikiLeaks to receive donations) on the pretext of “WikiLeaks being engaged in an illegal act”.
Illegal act, really?
WikiLeaks says the release of the documents “reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.”
It further states that the cables “show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.”
But in the United States, which is the principal target of WikiLeaks, legal experts would tell us that the sort of information that a news organization can be prosecuted for publishing is limited to: nuclear secrets (Atomic Energy Act), the identities of covert agents (Intelligence Identities Protection Act), and certain forms of communications intelligence (Section 798 of the Espionage Act).
Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer working with WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange, said, “They accuse him of breaking the law. But they haven’t said what law.” Simply because there is none, as yet, to prosecute the WikiLeaks Founder in the US!
So then, can he be tried in any other country?
Why?
The only place he is hurting the most at the moment is USA; so what would make any other country want to prosecute him?
Tricky? Yes, because this is a new territory for the present governments – that of “self-governing opposition to its governance”.
Yes, that is the most fascinating part of WikiLeaks – ‘it is completely agnostic on ‘existing laws created by nations’. It does not necessarily break any one particular country’s existing law – whether or not its activity is considered friendly or otherwise by the affected country. At the same time, no country can claim to be the host nation to WikiLeaks. It is present wherever someone wants it to be present!
In other words, WikiLeaks is the first 21st century ‘project’ that “governs itself” beyond the geographical – and thereby the moral, legal and legislative – limitations of any one country or a union of nations. Coming soon is a new ‘system’ by its break-away group.
Even more invigoratingly, it seems to put an individual on a higher pedestal of respect than the artificial ideas of human states.So, while individual privacy does indeed matter to WikiLeaks, as illustrated by the following mail by Julian Assange to US ambassador in London, Louis Susman on 26 November,
“We urge the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm”
the privacy of governments and big corporations, that seem to be acting in a manner contrary to public perception, is not considered fit for protection.
In other words, what WikiLeaks seems to suggest through its action is that, privacy is for private individuals. Governments qualify more for the ‘right to be transparent’ to those that it claims to represent.
It is the most spectacular teaching of the Internet – holding great promise for volunteers of seamless extension of an individual’s right across geographical boundaries.
What is even more exciting is that even WikiLeaks is not considered free enough by some of its own. “Built on similar ideas”, a former WikiLeaks associate has said that he and a number of other ex-members are preparing to “set up a system that is different from WikiLeaks,”
25-year-old historian and student Herbert Snorrason says: “It is a different type of project and we do not see it as competition, nor should it be considered to be a WikiLeaks competitor.” The difference, according to Snorrason, was that while WikiLeaks gathers leaked documents and dumps them on its site, the new project – the name of which he has thus far refused to divulge – will be “a safe haven where people can share information anonymously.”
“We will not be publishing information ourselves, but rather be the hub of where people can upload information without having to be associated with what they upload,” he explained.
“We aim for the organisational structure of the project to be as open as possible. We do not intend of having one person in control, but rather that majority of people involved will be present in all decision making,” Snorrason said.
Admittedly, in absence of further information, it does not help one ascertain if it is much different from the ‘dumping ground’ that WikiLeaks is accused of by its critics. But whatever its fate – or those of more such enterprises – be in future, the key here is to understand that what you shall be what you would be seen to be in the future, in case of governments and big corporations anyway.
It is this segregation of what is good for individuals and what their governments often project to be good for them is what makes this idea valuable. It understands that every individual understands what is good and what is not for him or her – and that the knowledge cannot be stunted by privacy of those governments, organizations or corporations that govern them.
It stands for an individual’s human rights. It stands for an individual’s liberty. If it is at the cost of governments, so be it.
With acute apology to Julius Caesar, this new chapter in our civilization can as well be described asVidi, WIKI, Vici – “I saw, WikiLeaks, I conquered” … a new world order where liberty really extends to every individual!
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for not taking action on an application seeking his sanction to start criminal proceedings against former telecom minister A Raja for his role in the 2G spectrum scam.
This is not an event that happens everyday. In fact, though the present state of India warrants it happening everyday, it should not. For, the judiciary is not to guide or compete with the government, but only to help the government uphold the democracy in the country.
What is further encouraging about the stricture – if we may call it so – is the aspect of ‘time’ in the issue of 2G Spectrum Scam. Because it has become a habit of sort of all political parties to drag the matters of corruption for so long that they die a natural death. In fact, for Congress (I) it has actually been a time-tested strategy. Late PM Narasimha Rao was one of the masters of this gameplan. Others – especially the regional parties – don’t spend even that much energy on such subjects and are blatantly dismissive of corruption charges.
So, when the SC rules that 16 months to respond to a query tantamounts to “worrying inaction and silence’, one gathers renewed hope about pace of reforms in the Indian system – whether on the subject of justice or to the subject of official accountability.
What adds to the above optimism is the role of media in all such matters. Sure, there are immoral and unscrupulous elements in media too, but even they – in search of newer markets – hop on to the bandwagon and help raise either a voice that cannot be ignored or a noise that becomes unbearable for all.
This combination of media/public pressure and judiciary can prove to be the most effective check that any democracy can hope for. And can prove to be a development that would impact all the political parties.
From now on, hopefully, the present Prime Minister and his party would be wary of ‘inaction’ on any subject. Amidst all the muck flying around, that new hope does come across as fresh air.
Telecom minister Andimuthu Raja, who has been quite brazenly hitting back at demands for his resignation in the 1,76,000 Crore 2G Spectrum Scam, has – finally – decided to step down and submit his resignation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. All’s well, that ends well, right?
Absolutely not!
A mere forced resignation of a Union Minister, who is seen to be neck-deep in corruption by most, cannot be the ‘end’ of a sordid saga of criminal indulgence with public money. It can only be a beginning. For, if it were the end, it would add to a trillion instances like a policman getting transfered to another chowky when found of corruption (or even custodial death or rape et al). Doesn’t that tantamount to telling the accused that while his act of rape or corruption is not acceptable at that place, it might be in sync with the place that he is getting transfered to?
1,76,000 Crore is an obscene amount; an amount that can make a difference to a significant percentage of Indian population. If that has been lost because of (or gone into the pockets of) a select few, those select few should be made to pay it back.
There haven’t been too many instances of the high and mighty being made accountable on charges of corruption in this country. But it would never be too late to start, by emulating the example of justice meted out to the likes of Satyam’s Ramalinga Raju, big bull (late) Harshad Mehta and the rest.
Whether it is the Commonwealth Games Scam, the Adarsh Society Scam or the 2G Spectrum Scam, justice simply cannot be the mere resignations or removals of a politician or two. Justice can be done – and seen to be done – only when the accused are tried under Indian Penal Code and made to serve sentences in Indian jails.
That is what League of India demands from the Indian democracy. That is the least that the Indian democracy deserves.
Description:
The idea was to bring into the element of individuality to a task that is essentially about teamwork. Also required were the essential demands of the campaign being non-preachy and even a bit ‘happening’ (as the hip youngsters around metro campuses would put it). The colour combination was deliberately aimed at giving the poster a ‘grunge’ look. Seeing alongside the fact that the lead actor is sporting ear-rings, the campaign seems to achieve the target of appealing to the youth.
