India in the Blues!

The recent debacles faced by the Indian cricket team in South Africa shouldn't ideally come as a surprise to people. I mean, a team that's more active on the ramp than on the field wouldn't display any better results, would it? Sure, a player is entitled to earn his bucks while he is still at the top, but isn't performance a parameter for earnings, or have we become so starstruck that we are content with vintage performances, rather than focusing on current achievements?

Maybe the team isn't to blame entirely. I mean, cricket in India is such an hectic activity, wherein barely has one tournament ended, that another one starts off. And we aren't talking about machines here; we are talking about sentient humans, people who are bound to feel fatigue, stress, and the travails of incessant playing. Where's the time for them to bond with their families, to let their hair down and relax? Of course, one would retort that they ought to cut down on their endorsements; that way, they would have plenty of time to relax and rejuvenate their body and soul. But let's be practical here. I mean, when there's no guarantee that you will remain in the team for the next match, which player will take the risk of not earning a potful of gold while he can? Besides, no one cares for a former player, besides sports channels. And mind you, the way the Indian team's playing now, I doubt that sports channels will want to host cricket shows, as they are sure not to get really interesting advertising revenues out of them.

So where does the rot lie? In the Board, perchance. Maybe the rot is endemic to the entire cricket establishment in India. When one reads of articles of how the inclusion or exclusion of a certain player becomes a matter worthy of discussion in the highest echelons of legislative and executive power, one comes to comprehend just how far politics has pervaded what was once merely a sport, a game that gave joy and delight.
Perhaps, these debacles are a good thing, as now people will want more professionalism, more performance-oriented incentives, and more sport-friendly initiatives from the powers that be. The killer instincts that we see in other teams is not so much because they are better than us; rather it is because they have no need to focus on things other than sports. Here, players must consort with politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to ensure that they stay on in the team. Sure, this must occur elsewhere as well, but maybe, I believe, it happens to a greater extent here.

Domestic cricket in India isn't exactly seen as glamorous, and we tend to be pessimistic about the future, snatching from promising players the opportunity that they truly deserve, while aging players continue to fight on against much younger opponents, and expectedly, deliver defeat most of the time. Regionalism, while an appreciable sentiment at times, tends to get in the way of ensuring that the team that represents the nation gets the best possible talent, as and where it comes from.

Perhaps cricket in India needs to lose the moolah that has come to be associated with it in recent times. I mean, contracts worth Rs. 300 million are great, but are we seeing performances equivalent to all that expectation? This team, the current one, comprises of people who are regarded as the best sportsmen in their individual capacities, but why is it that this team of superheroes fails to work in unity? Where's and why is there a lack of strategy?
Just blaming one individual or a singular group of individuals will not work. The approach has to change for the behavior to change. We need to demand that we get what we deserve, as a right, as a privilege. And those who fail to serve, must be axed, period. Then whether they be Davids or Goliaths should not concern anyone.

Divisive matters!

This blog has, through its pages, been unequivocal that although reservations for the disadvantaged per se is not a bad idea, identifying the disadvantaged on the basis of commune or faith is a retrograde one, and one that deserves to be sent to no other place but the dustbin. Affirmative action loses its meaning when it becomes a sort of divisive mechanism, pitting people against their compatriots. And this is the danger that India faces today.
The Sachar Commission, appointed by the Prime Minister to evaluate the social, economic, and educational status of Muslims in India, has made its submissions, and from early reports, one comes to the conclusion that Muslims are just one step away from having distinct reservations, or at best reservations within the current scheme for themselves. I scarcely expect that any legislation brought about as a response to this commission's recommendations would stand in the eyes of the judiciary, but then politicians are politicians.
Firstly, that a secular state should differentiate amongst its people on the basis of their faith is a most puzzling irony, and that too when its Constitution affirms through

• Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 15(1): The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them.
• Article 16(1): There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

Let it be proven that, as in the case of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, there exists a bias in the minds of recruiters, when it comes to the Muslim commune. If no such bias exists, then the issue cannot be hoped to be resolved merely by reserving seats for them at educational institutions and at organizations under the State. If the commune remains woefully inadequate as regards to education, social status and economic status, then it would be worthwhile to look first at what the commune itself is doing to alleviate its problems, and whether these measures, instituted by the commune, are effective, and display an inherent desire of the commune to improve its lot.
Let this not be seen as a tirade against Muslims. I have always supported reservations, but only when the guiding principle is economic status. That a rich man is capable to getting all facilities made available to him in this modern age, irrespective of his caste or faith, is a given fact. I would not like to believe that all Muslims or rather a majority of Muslims are so deprived that only reservations can provide them succor.

Should there be a bias, then the Constitution provides those afflicted by such a bias a strong weapon, that being

• Article 29(2): No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

Moreover, even under the Constitution, reservation was never viewed as an infinite process.

• Article 334 clearly states that reservation of seats in legislative bodies and special representation shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of fifty years from the commencement of the Constitution.

So basically what we would end up doing by granting Muslims or any other religious commune reservations solely on the basis of their religion would be to give them temporary crutches, which in no manner whatsoever would alleviate their problems, or resolve their issues. Once a man is given crutches to lean on, and is also made to believe that these crutches are his sole alternative, and without them, he would surely fall, even if his feet were to be able, this man would not be amenable to giving up his crutches.
The basic issue is not so much of ensuring fast development of a commune; it concerns the long-term progress of a people, a people who form an intrinsic part of this nation. Any piecemeal solution to their problems would only go to aggravate matters, only to further deepen the malaise. Let better judgment prevail!

Equality before law, I think not!

Over time, I have come to believe that the Indian family laws are deeply flawed, in that they encourage different interpretations of the same issues based on who the law is to be applied to. So, if a Hindu has some issues, his/her issues are to be resolved by some law, but the same law may not be applied to a Muslim or a Christian. Although I agree that religious and communal differences do matter, that a secular state should so differentiate amongst its people on the basis of their religious affiliations is to me an irony.

Private laws are defined to be that part of a legal system which is part of the jus commune that involves relationships between individuals. Family laws basically deal with, but not limited to, family-related issues, such as marriages, adoption, domestic abuse, divorce, alimony, parental responsibility, as also property settlements in the event of the termination of a marriage.

So, basically these are issues which are common to all faiths, to all people, to all communes. Then why have different laws to govern different people?
That customary law has been prevalent in India for so long is and can never be seen as justification for implementing a common civil code for its citizens. And mind you, the Constitution of India also envisaged the administration of an uniform civil code for its citizens, and as such included the same as a Directive Principle.

Basically a uniform civil code envisages administering the same set of secular civil laws to govern different people belonging to different religions and regions. This supersedes the right of citizens to subject themselves to different personal laws based on their religion or ethnicity. The superseding of this right should not be construed to be an attempt to destroy one's communal identity, and in truth, maintaining such an identity in the context of law and jurisprudence is contradictory to the concept of all being equal before the law.

That the communes who in India clamour for separate personal laws can very well exist peacefully under the common civil codes in European countries and beyond shows that in truth common civil codes are not conflicting with religious obligations. Perhaps I am being a tad optimistic about their existence, but as far as I know, and I stand to be corrected should I be wrong, there seems to be no real problem in these countries. So why should India have such a problem with implementing what it had envisaged at the dawn of its freedom?

Different personal laws for different communes are inherently unequal, and hence in contravention of Article 13 of the Constitution which guarantees the equality before law and prohibits discrimination among citizens on the basis of their religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

It isn't that there doesn't exist an example of a uniform civil code in India, which has been accepted by people of different faiths. The Portuguese Civil Code, applicable in Goa till date, owing to the promise exacted by the people of Goa from the Government of India in 1960 that their hitherto applicable laws would remain in force, is a fine example of such a code, and should ideally serve as a model for a larger Civil Code for the entire Indian nation.

The idea that the Muslim population per se is incapable of being governed by laws other than those mandated by the Shariat is wholly incorrect. Pakistan, which maintains itself to be an Islamic Republic, has altered, amended, and modernized its Muslim Laws to a greater extent than the 'secular' India. Turkey and Tunisia, predominantly Muslim countries, have outlawed polygamy, a privilege that India denies to all save its Muslim citizens.

The Special Marriage Act of 1954, similar in all aspects to the later Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, envisaged a uniform treatment of all citizens with respect to marriage, divorce and alimony issues. That this act was later stonewalled by the conservatives in the Muslim community is sad, for this law would have considerably reduced the inherent inequality that the Muslim Personal Laws continue to display between men and women. The Muslim Personal Laws offer no strong penalties against child marriage, marital abuse, nor do they confer upon the wife the right to terminate her marriage, as it does for her husband. Implementation of these Laws also have been sadly not inspiring, wherein people have violated not just private laws, but also Sharia laws, and have done so with remarkable impunity.

It isn't that I am opposed only to the Muslim Personal Laws. The Hindu Inheritance Laws, until recently, discriminated amongst men and women. Daughters have a lesser right upon the properties of their parents than their male siblings. A husband may appropriate a greater share of his deceased wife's properties in preference to her parents or relatives, but a wife may not do so in preference to her deceased husband's relations.

Christian law permits a husband an easy divorce on merely stating grounds of adultery, while the wife must prove her claims of her husband being adulterous or cruel. Christians are forbidden from willing their properties to charitable and/or religious institutions, as stated by the Indian Succession Act. The Hindu Undivided Family or HUF enjoys a special tax system, but an undivided family adhering to any other faith may not claim such a privilege. Sikhs are permitted to carry a kirpan or dagger on grounds of religion, but should any other person carry it, he/she is liable to be arrested as a danger to public safety.

So basically the rot is in all communes. No religion or commune is ready or willing to forsake its unique privileges and rights that their personal law confers upon them. 50 years have passed, and Article 13 remains just another noble intention in a great text. When and how this nation will truly treat its citizens on an equal footing in all matters remains to be seen.

Comments reserved...

The recent furore over the judiciary's reported interference in the sacred duties of the legislature seems rather sad and unfortunate. After all, each has its own assigned jobs and responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution.

But that surely doesn't mean that the judiciary may not intervene when it comes across any instance of the legislature attempting to, either on purpose or inadvertently, contravene the basic tenets of the Constitution. After all, the legislature isn't sacrosanct; it too must be subservient to the law, even if it be the lawmaker itself. And that doesn't mean that the judiciary should also start to scrutinize all and sundry legislations coming out of our 'worthy' legislatures. We already have a 20-year backlog, so let's keep off such political squabbles.

But the current debate merits some discussion. After all, the H'ble Supreme Court of India hasn't said anything wrong. Considering my stand on the reservation issue so far, I have always stated that reservations should be only for those who really deserve them, and not for those who simply are deemed to deserve them on the basis of their communal affiliations. In this country, economic status plays a very important role in how a person goes about his/her life in society. This may seem retrograde, but it is true: money matters. If you have the dough, then you can even make the State change its policies.

In such conditions, that any person who can afford a reasonable avenue of education should avail of reservations seems to me as a most unfortunate occurrence. After all, aren't we defeating the very purpose of reservations? Reservations, in my belief, must have started out as a means to ensure that the poorest of the poor, the most disadvantaged of people have equal access to opportunity. Their inability to conjure up enough capital to finance their dreams and aspirations had hindered their flight hitherto, but the State would ensure that it happened no more.

So, if an individual who can afford a good education should stand competing for reservations vis-à-vis someone who cannot, who, as per all the norms of Reason, all the laws of Logic, should be deemed deserving of assistance? I propose those who cannot.

So, where's the whole quarrel here?

Well, while the OBCs can be divided on grounds of economic status, the SCs/STs, the politicians reckon, cannot, because the 'injustice' that they have borne for centuries cannot be surely wiped out by a single generation's prosperity. No one's saying so. That a father is a millionaire is no guarantee that his wards will also be the same; on the contrary, prodigal descendents often undo all the good that an enterprising ancestor may achieve. But surely this millionaire father shouldn't be eligible for any more benefits so long as he is a millionaire, and surely while he can ensure his children get the best of education, his wards also should be beyond the purview of reservations. If and so his wards should go the way of most children of rich people, then they would be poor, wouldn't they, and hence in the purview of the law.

I am not advocating that once a family has been deemed to have crossed the creamy layer, it should be debarred forever. I am only saying that so long as the family is above the creamy layer, debar it from the benefits, else permit them all that is their due.

But then, why restrict it only to those who fall within some designated community? Open this scheme to all those who should be deemed eligible for these benefits. That way, we can ensure that reservations serve their purpose to the fullest, to the best.