We, the People of India

 

What does the term "minority" mean in a democracy based on equal citizenship for all? The term minority denotes "less-ness" compared to the "more-ness" of another entity. How could some citizens of a democratic state, which guarantees ‘equality of status and opportunity’, be considered ‘less’ than any other citizens?

For from being progressive, in a democracy like India, dividing the citizens based on castes is a reactionary position that belongs to pre-modern societies. Ancient Greeks understood the difference between ‘ethnos’ and ‘demos.’ The term ‘ethnos’ denoted community of customs and traditions of groups within society that, when coming together to create and operate a common space, would form a ‘demos.’ The talk in the agora (Agora, in ancient Greek cities, was an open space that served as a meeting ground for various activities of the citizens. The name, first found in the works of Homer, connotes both the assembly of the people as well as the physical setting) was not about ethnocracy (a type of political structure in which the state apparatus is controlled by a dominant ethnic group (or groups) to further its interests, power and resources) but democracy. Caste denotes human communities before the emergence of The People with a capital P. Thus, India is about "We the People," not "We the Minorities".

Republic of India began as a ‘SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC’ in 1950, whose motto became ‘Government of the People, by the People, for the People.’ Democracy is a melting pot, not a salad bar. In the melting pot are veggies, spices, condiments, colours, fragrances, garnishes, oils and what not; every ingredient added in different measures and sequences as per the recipe.

Article 14 of the Constitution reads: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

In addition, Article 15 of the constitution reads as:  

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to— (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

This is what WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, gave to ourselves in 1950.

Then came the very first and a very controversial amendment to the constitution in 1951, by the Jawahar Lal Nehru Government (Nehru was not the elected Prime Minister of India then but an appointed Prime Minister of India – appointed by Lord Mountbatten on 15 August 1947) which added [Added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, s. 2.]:

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 [Cultural and Educational Rights -Protection of interests of minorities ] shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

As if this were not sufficient, to break the very backbone of the “Right to Equality” another controversial amendment to the constitution in 2005, by the Man Mohan Singh Government (Man Mohan Singh was never elected to any public office by We, the people of India, but ‘appointed’ Prime Minister of India - appointed by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in May 2004, rendering 7 Race Course Road subordinated to 10 Janpath) , which added [Ins. by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, s. 2, (w.e.f. 20-1-2006)]: (5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 [Right to Freedom] shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.

Nationalism created the Indian nation, not the other way round. Progressivism is a secular religion rather than an ideology that could have its place in the competitive field of politics. Dividing citizens based on castes can have no place in a democracy. In Indian democratic secularism, the state is tasked with protecting all castes, and by extension, other communities, but not of relying on them as component parts.

In the Indian democracy, terms such as minority and majority can only have a political meaning. A political party or a political manifesto that has collected more than 50 percent of votes in an election represents the majority. In such a system, majority and minority do not describe a permanent state of affairs. Today's majority could be tomorrow's minority as it was yesterday.

Starting with the parliament, which is the seat of all legislation, to pretend that this or that member was chosen because of his or her influence over people of some specific religious faith or other "minority" attribution is certainly not a compliment. If the choice is based not on the individual's competence but on salad-bar considerations, it cannot be justified on democratic grounds. If, on the other hand, such considerations played no part in the choice, why make such a song-and-dance about ‘reserved seats’ and progressive representation?

Fortunately, many members of the parliament have impressive academic and practical resumes. It is in everyone's interest to hope that they see themselves not as figures in a game of ethnic tokenism but the servants of the Indian people at a difficult time.

India is about "We, the People of India" and not "We, the Minorities of India" or "We, the SC/ST/OBCs of India" or "We, the farmers of India" or any other sub-sets of “the People of India.”

*

 

First published on 02 Feb 2021

*

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" are welcome.

We hope to see energetic, constructive and thought provoking conversations. To ensure the quality of the discussion, we may edit the comments for clarity, length, and relevance. Kindly do not force us to delete your comments by making them overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic.

Guidelines and Protocols for Prioritising COVID-19 Patients

Imagine that day when India has reached a situation when every ventilator and every ICU bed in the country is taken and only two beds are available in the army hospital in the ICU for admitting Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Unfortunately, only one ventilator is available. God forbid, at that moment, the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Leader of Opposition catch COVID-19 and all three need an ICU bed and a ventilator. What would be the protocol for allocating these resources (2-beds and one ventilator) among the three claimants?

This completely fictional and hypothetical scenario has been presented above purely for communicating the point which is being made. No ill-will or malaise is intended towards anyone caricatured in this picture.

COVID-19 is affecting 210 countries and territories around the world. With confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the world nearing two million and deaths from the disease already having surpassed a hundred thousand, a growing number of national and local medical authorities have begun issuing guidelines and protocols that call for hospitals to prioritise younger patients over those who are older.

The positive news about the cases of recovery heading towards half a million mark is getting lost on people because of the fear of death causing cognitive dissonance among people who filter out all positive news and let the feeling of fatality seep in.

There is no denying the fact that no medical and health care system in any country has the capacity of handling the sudden spike in numbers of patients which the likes of Italy and Spain have seen.  The scarcity of healthcare resources in India can be directly attributed to decades of mismanaged public healthcare system. While India is working overtime to ramp up the capacity, the growth of the current epidemic makes it likely that a point of imbalance between the clinical needs of patients with COVID-19 and the effective availability of intensive resources will be reached. Should it become impossible to provide all patients with intensive care services, it will be necessary to apply criteria for access to intensive treatment, which depends on the limited resources available.

COVID-19 does not discriminate among its victims in terms of their social or constitutional status. It did not spare even the British Prime Minister.

In Italy and Spain, the two countries most affected by COVID-19 in Europe, doctors in overwhelmed intensive care units have for weeks been making life or death decisions about who receives emergency treatment. The new protocols, however, amount to government directives that instruct medical personnel effectively to abandon elderly patients to their fate.

There are confidential protocols in Spain, now leaked, which effectively advises that elderly people afflicted by CONVID-19 should die at home. The document stated that dying at home was more humane as it avoids suffering: patients can die while surrounded by their families, something that is not possible in overcrowded hospitals. The protocol also advised medical personnel to avoid referring to the lack of hospital beds.

In Italy, a document prepared by a crisis management unit in the northern city of Turin also proposed that COVID-19 patients aged 80 or older or that in poor health should be denied access to intensive care if there are not enough hospital beds.

What is the best way to serve humanity? Aspects such as who has the greatest chance of surviving an admission to intensive care will come into play. It is up to the doctors to see who has the best chance of survival.

One must ask if the high rate of mortality among the elderly is a feature of COVID-19 or an outcome of discriminatory medical care provided to them. The large numbers of dead, especially among the elderly, appears to be the price that Indians would be paying just like the European countries.

-----------------

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" welcome.

To ensure the quality of the discussion, comments may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted.

2019-Rafale Hullabaloo – Was It All About Disparaging Modi?

The cynical political desires of those who cannot withstand the success of Narendra Modi to tarnish his image of an incorruptible on the basis of wholly uncorroborated allegations (almost assuredly as a cover for their contempt for his popularity, conviction and the people who elected him) did not, as has been exposed, actually have a case in Rafale. They seemed, rather, to be trying to ride the belief of people that such deals cannot be without corruption, reckonings which had formed over long decades of corrupt governments.

Narendra Modi saw his character assassinated on the basis of (apparently false) claims of theft and wrong doing. He was cast as someone partisan who was trying to benefit some corrupt businessmen. His purported partners in executing the crime were cast as the embodiment of the powerless. To large swathes of society, Modi was inherently guilty, by reason of being a non-congressman and a non-Gandhi-Nehru scion, and his accusers beyond reproach.

In the realms of the Court rooms and in the court of public opinion, both the political class and the media violated all standards of justice and journalistic integrity. Blinded by emotion, the anti-Modi forces inverted the pillar of our legal system of the presumption of innocence, and refused to subject all manner of outlandish claims to even basic levels of scrutiny. Many members of the bar and media alike proved irresponsible and vindictive.

"Modi's image has not been created by the Khan Market gang, or Lutyens Delhi, but 45 years of his toil," Modi told The Indian Express in May 2019.

He was referring to Congress President Rahul Gandhi's statement to a TV channel in which Gandhi said the Congress had dismantled PM Modi's image over allegations of corruption in the Rafale deal. Modi also clarified why he had highlighted late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's holiday at a naval ship in an election rally and made it a poll issue.

The Supreme Court gave clean chit to the Modi government on the purchase of 36 fully-loaded Rafale fighter jets from French company Dassault Aviation, rejecting the plea for registration of an FIR by the CBI for alleged commission of cognisable offence in the deal. The apex court dismissed the pleas seeking review of the December 14, 2018 verdict in which it had said that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. The Supreme Court on Thursday 14 November 2019 not only dismissed the review petition in the Rafale case but also censured Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing his remark “Chowkidar chor hai" to the apex court.

Rafale case illustrated that when swept up in a movement, truth-seeking inquiries in pursuit of justice can easily morph into inquisitions that subvert the very justice they claim to seek.

Rafale Review petitions have fundamentally changed something in our society; or perhaps reflect a society fundamentally changed; manifesting itself in the arming of the legal system that has swung the scales of justice out of balance. The narrative seemed to trump the truth.

Currently, lawyers, clients, and witnesses can make defamatory statements in public court filings and depositions without fear of a civil suit or a perjury prosecution. It is in fact exceedingly rare for anyone to be prosecuted for perjury in a civil proceeding. It is these realities that incentivised petitioners to falsely accuse Modi of a crime with complete immunity.

Accusers can effectively "launder" defamatory accusations through the media while protecting themselves from being hit with defamation suits by planting such allegations in court filings, and leaking them to the press.

The accused often has little recourse and there are no consequences for those who file accusations with no offer to prove them and no legal responsibility if they are categorically false and disprovable.

The erosion of fundamental principles of justice as well as a lack of any semblance of fairness in journalism reflects an erosion of our culture.

For victim and victimiser alike, the Indian justice system, and those who report on it, needs to be fair and equal. A case must be judged on its merits, treating parties involved as unique an individual who’s every motive, belief and action cannot just be presumed as convenient. There is a crying need for reforms in our justice system to treat both the accused and the accuser fairly, and for the court of public opinion to do the same. Recognizing that societies are often swayed by their passions, it is an argument that needs to be made. The pressure that can be exerted on judges when they are adjudicating controversial or challenging cases has been greater than ever, in part due to a climate of online hostility. The internet has clearly changed the landscape. Every judge is definitely in the firing line when it comes to online harassment and abuse.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. History teaches us that the desire to bring down the powerful can also corrupt, and the absolute desire to bring down the powerful can corrupt absolutely.

---------------------------------- 

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" welcome.

To ensure the quality of the discussion, comments may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted.