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.

The law must take its own course - II

So finally the State crumbled before the demands for clemency. The edifice of justice, so often assaulted and insulted in the long decades of our independence, may never have faced such a barrage, such a mockery of its actions. The Emergency may have asked of the judiciary to bend themselves before the powers that be and ensure favourable verdicts, but now the judiciary must agree to even changing their verdicts, should they not be in conformity with what is deemed as popular opinion. And what determines popular opinion? God alone knows? I for one, was neither asked my opinion on the demand for clemency, nor am I so presumptuous to believe that my previous blog could have had any effect on the Executive. That remains the case of many in my know and surrounds.

The justification that the State provides for having even stalled the scheduled execution of Mr. Afzal is that the President is seized of the matter, and pending his decision, the matter is on pause. And yes, had the State rejected the demand outright, it could have ensured that the Vale burn for another decade. Perhaps the worthy minister who issued the statement wishes to imply that a delayed rejection would have a somewhat different result. If the State will permit the Vale to burn, the Vale will burn! Let us not pretend to innocence, for we aren't bottle-suckling babies.

But what if the State crumbles so far as to grant Mr. Afzal a reprieve on his life, what is one to say that every other criminal sent to death row would muster up a crowd, and a following, and ensure that his/her death sentence is commuted? The Supreme Court has, through its directives, ensured that the death penalty is used only in the rarest of rare cases, and surely high treason falls in that category. To grant Mr. Afzal a reprieve would be to call into question the State's decision to hang Dhananjoy Chatterjee, who even if guilty of the most gruesome of crimes, still is innocent of treachery against his people.

Mr. Afzal's being an educated soul, a devoted family man and his assumption of other such roles shouldn't be used as a pretext to grant him clemency. Many men before him have died as traitors while assuming these and many other such ideal roles. If he is all that it is claimed he is, and I don't wish to doubt that even for a moment, then perhaps he would never have done all that he did, and I would not be writing this blog. But sadly, his happiness couldn't preempt him from committing high treason, could it? So the punishment is justified.

The State may wish to be seen as merciful, but I pray, not now. Not when your honour as a nation is at stake. Forget not those who have lain their lives to ensure that the scourge of terrorism is kept at bay. You, the keepers of Power, have the onerous responsibility of doing what will make history. Pray, do this job well!

The law must take its course...

The Indian judiciary may not be the paragon of virtue that the Goddess of Justice would have been proud to acclaim as her own, and yet it is as dignified and respectable as any judiciary is in a developed country, and even better in some cases. Its decision to reject the appeal of Mr. Mohammed Afzal is one rooted in common sense; no crime can be allowed to go unpunished, no criminal may presume that his/her act against society will be pardoned with the largesse that he/she denies that very society.

Whether Mr. Afzal is guilty or not is a matter that the good judges have debated over for weeks together, and I have full confidence in their impartiality in this, as in many other matters.

But it would seem that those whom we entrust the responsibility of safeguarding these laws are themselves set to undermine their efficacy. The Chief Ministers of Jammu & Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu, in their official capacities, have entreated the President to grant Mr. Afzal clemency and commute his sentence to life imprisonment.

The CM of Jammu & Kashmir, the native state of Mr. Afzal, reckons that should the Government of India fail to accept this request, the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir would erupt into flames. While it is true that popular sentiment is on the side of Mr. Afzal in some sections of society there, surely that is no excuse to deny those deserve justice their due. And if the CM is so very sure of his inability to control any conceivable situation, let him abdicate his chair, and let a more competent individual occupy it. But at least do not make such a mockery of the State that you claim to represent, from which you derive the legitimacy of your authority. And please, don't make this into a India vs a particular state affair, or a particular religion's matter because it is ever so much the affair of every denizen of this nation, irrespective of religious and regional affiliations.

Terrorism begets terrorism, and yet, the death penalty for Mr. Afzal is perhaps the least we can do in our society to people who have plotted against their nation, against their people, for whatever their reasons may have been, no matter how benevolent their motives may have been. Mr. Afzal has committed treason, and there ought to be no pardoning such crimes, for then what remains the efficacy of the laws?

True, laws are made for men, not the other way around, and yet I appeal to the better sense of the powers that be to refuse any demands for leniency. In 1989, we released a few terrorists and unleashed terror on the Vale. In 1999, we released another terrorist, and reinvigorated the flagging struggle. Let not Mr. Afzal become another symbol for these demons, who would kill innocents for their own ends!

I presume Mr. Afzal to be guilty, and yet, if he be innocent and has been framed, then he will be served justice in a Higher court, but on earth, let the laws of men take their course.

Trouble in BPOLand...

The Indian BPO professional has never felt as threatened by the world as now, and mind you, this has nothing to do with protesting crowds in front of state legislatures in far away Ohio or Indiana; no, this is all because of Channel 4.

Channel 4 who, or rather what? Well, this guardian of truth, the harbinger of liberty, has unleashed an 'unpleasant' truth on the world: India's not a safe place with your private information. And to prove this point, it uses a technique so the rage nowadays: a 'sting' operation. I wonder who got stung and by whom.

Channel 4 journalists are all set to reveal how a couple of unsavoury miscreants endeavoured and actually were ready to arrange for private and personal details of British citizens, collected by a BPO in India in the course of its interactions with them. Such details are by law required to be kept absolutely confidential, and only revealed if the individual concerned has no objection to it, and has explicitly stated so. So, clearly someone's breaking the law. Fine, bring out the guillotine, we have work to do.

But hold a second. Is Channel 4 insinuating that BPOs worldwide suffer from such problems, or is India the only culprit? Has Channel 4 conducted a sting in all countries wherein BPOs are located, and evaluated the standards of information management therein, and if so, what are the results? By results, I don't just mean India's; rather I am keen to see where India stands vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Because I refuse to accept that India is the only devil in this piece.

I mean, in the US, 148 cases of theft worth over $33 billion was reported last year. Worldwide, a French company has calculated frauds worth something like $60 billion. When these notables have shown their worth, surely one cannot grudge India her faults? I do not seek to be jingoistic or even suggest that the world is against India, and this is all part of a grand conspiracy to derail her progress in the world order. Hardly, because it don't make no difference to India.

But if Channel 4's only investigated India's BPOs and primarily because they happened to be in India, then I have reason to question the motives of the channel. Benevolent reporting is quite one thing, and malevolent mud-slinging is a different matter altogether. And mind you, this sting doesn't directly interact with a single BPO; rather it bases its conclusions on its interactions with two middlemen, men of questionable repute. I could advertise that I was in possession of such data, but that doesn't mean anything, does it? And hackers can hack into any secure system; so who's to say that these infamous gentlemen don't subscribe to the anarchist tendency of keeping all information open for all to see?

I may be wrong, maybe these allegations, these charges are true. If there be even an iota of truth in them, let those who have brought infamy on this sunshine industry be punished, and stricter control mechanisms put in place. Let us show to the world that we will not tolerate such nonsense, not now when we are seeking to conquer the world.

WOW!

I have never really been an avid TV serial watcher, much less an English serial watcher. Maybe because at my place, my folks aren't that keen on English sitcoms, and moreover, I never myself was able to understand the jokes, at least not until recently.
So all you fans of Friends, Seinfeld et al, here's a candid confession: I haven't watched a single episode of these fabulous series, but I guess I must start from now on.

Who or what has heralded this change of heart, or rather of sensibilities? Ankit, God bless his soul, is this absolutely incorrigible rascal at my workplace. I mean, this fellow's a genius; he's the reference point for all programming-related trouble-shooting, he reads (and man what an eclectic taste), and his taste in music is absolutely fantastic.
But what I think has been his best contribution to my routine so far has been introducing me to the wonder that is the English sitcom. In particular to this delightful series called 'Dead Like Me'. Although I have seen but one episode, I am floored: this is absolutely mind-blowing stuff. I mean, if this were our sun, Hindi serials are like in a different star cluster altogether.

The series is about this community of the Undead, although there's nothing sinister about these ones, like Bram Stoker's clan. These people are plain dead, and yet, they have the unpleasant task of gathering the souls of people, sometimes just before they are about to die, just to save them the pain and suffering of death. George Lass, the serial's protagonist and primary narrator, is a sorry case of a teenager. A college dropout, George can't get a job anywhere, and her attitude's not helping out either, what with her repartee with her career counselor ending up in her being assigned a most hellish job. And where all this is bad on the professional front, her relationships with her family is on similarly shaky ground. so all said and done, life pretty much sucks for young Ms. Lass.

When all's so 'nice and cosy', death comes knocking, at that in the most ironic way, what with a zero-G toilet seat from Mir's wreckage crashing down on her. And that introduces George to Rube, Daisy, Mason and Roxy, her local team of Reapers. Here begins the story of how George starts her journey of being a Reaper, her doubts about her task, and how one by one, she comes to realize that she had it all, and yet, while she lived, she had never realized its true worth.

A fabulous endeavor, and a most enjoyable watching experience! A must-watch for all those who value their time and their minds!