President of India

The Indian Constitution has provided for the election of a President of the Country. In the past we have had several eminent and respected persons holding this post with distinction and giving our Country great respect. Without taking names, the selection of candidates for the high post of President has over the years been reduced to a political appointment thanks to Mrs Gandhi's idea of having a pliable person with favourable political leanings. This has become a unfortunate trend and India is no longer respected for its President. The present incumbent is perhaps the best proof of having some one solely because she is a woman but with no other attribute other  than being favoured due to her political leanings.

Rightly, the debate on who should be our next President has become a serious topic for discussion. The move to evolve a consensus candidate is also very noteworthy.  It would be ideal if one can have an apolitical person of eminence without attaching meaningless attributes. The country should also establish a tradition of rising above considerations of North, South, East or West or the caste etc. Nor should we base our selection on success in business or scientific achievements. But the person should enjoy the respect not just in the country  but who can contribute to world thinking by his or her views representing the culture of our country. Ideally the person should also have some legal background or experience or some recognition abroad.

Someone who is apolitical with a respected lineage and who has had experience in foreign postings and also been associated as an adviser to a past President like Sri Gopal Krishna Gandhi comes to my mind. His role as  a Governor of a State where he maintained good relations with all political parties was also commendable.
However, we could anyone else with such similar attributes rather than a political animal!

Media and Freedom of speech

The Supreme Court is hearing  this important question on reporting by the media, and this  has invited many diverse reactions. While one extreme position is that the media should be free to write what they want, there is a strong feeling that some kind of self regulation or self censorship should be exercised by those responsible for the media in particular. The problem seems more applicable to the electronic media who are constantly  claiming to be the "first with the news" and are on for 24 hours!. What is important is not being first but being correct and right. Sensationalizing news on the basis of having got some inside information is not always what one wants to hear. The listener wants to hear the truth.and not a version or a partial truth. We have had a news channel claiming to have a copies of  reports which are yet confidential and in some cases the information has been only partly true. And these anchors do not believe in admitting if they were wrong except giving a weak apology when taken to the Court!

The other issue is the reporting of cases as they are being argued or presented in Courts as well as remarks made by Judges while hearing such arguments. Quite often it is premature to report matters that are yet to be heard in full and till the Court passes its  orders. We have some political parties with a direct line to these channels and within minutes of the news the spokesman is ready to give his reaction. The recent sensational news by one paper though sketchy and full of holes has had the editor justify their action by saying as is the usual song- "we stand by our correspondent ". Such news may give  temporary attention but if the news item is proved to be unsupported by solid evidence, then that channel or newspaper will lose their creditability.

The other important issue  is publication of news which can affect the security of the country like in defence matters or an interpretation on foreign affairs that can affect our diplomatic relations. Henry Denker in his book "Judge Spencer Dissents" makes this point about news channels who behave as though they can determine the foreign policy of the country. Most debates on such matters turn out to be of no consequence as the participants are chosen who have diametrically opposite views and the debate becomes  a shouting match and it is impossible to get a balanced view on any issue. On defence matters, one has to be careful not to create a panic situation but rather evolve a positive solution to the issue under discussion.

The question therefore is how can our media exercise some restraint and avoid sensationalizing any news. External censorship or control can be avoided if the media themselves frame guidelines. The Editors Guild had sent a team of five eminent journalists to Gujarat after the 2002 riots and had made several positive suggestions in their report. However, no one has taken serious note of these suggestions though the Guild now has a Chairman from the electronic media and there is also a body to monitor broadcast contents. Perhaps this question has been raised in the Supreme Court. to try and evolve guidelines which will be respected though not enforceable.

There is a very thin line between exercising one's freedom of speech but in the process affecting the freedom which is the right of others for their privacy or honour!

Whither India>

It has become a common for making any issue into a political drama. I am a layman and no expert on nuclear power nor an economist to understand fully the pros and cons of FDI in retail. But common people are being made to go on hunger strikes to protest against the nuclear power station in Kudankulam. Concerns on safety are appreciated but are this protesters being used by interested parties just to get more attention without being able to know what the safety measures taken are and what how their concerns should be met and solved. Who can they accept to address their concerns and are they in a position to understand the technicalities involved. While I do not blame those leading the movement, but I wish they did not resort to street protests by crowds who do not understand the technical issues involved other than a general opposition to nuclear power when we have power plants already operating safely. Besides, technology is always improving and better safety measure are in place.

As regards the question on FDI in retail. Here again the issues raised by those opposing are not based on any study. They have every right to ask for clarifications and even modifications to protect any intere3sts affected. The main opposition party the BJP seem ot have no logical or economic reasons supported by marketing studies to prove why they have changed their stand on this issue. Small traders have not lost out with the supermarkets already in operation. Better infrastructure, storage and prevention of wastage of food, better prices for farmers with no middlemen who today make a large profit at the expense of the farmer and the consumer will help the economy. Inflation can be controlled. FDI will bring in foreign investment and steady the dollar/rupee exchange rate. We certainly must take certain strong steps to prevent these Foreign investors from making unseemly profit or policies affecting our farmers/small producers and our consumers. THis can always be evolved with experience. In any case those States that do not want such outlets are free to ban them in their own State.

What I have expressed are a layman's view no doubt. But what confuses and hurts me is the blind opposition without giving ant tangible reasons and working against b national interests. The BJP are hoping to topple this Govt but I wonder how any will vote a NDA with the support of many regional parties which is the reason why no Govt can work with their dependence on such parties. What we need in case of any re election is a single party Govt where they do not depend on regional parties who do not have a national perspective. The manner in which the country's interests are being sacrificed for political gains is most unfortunate.

Power of the media

It is now a recognised fact that our media except for a few who yet preserve their principle of not sensationalising news and have reports properly investigated. most major newspapers use their freedom of expression to make news rather than analyse and give news with a proper perspective. The electronic media who are committed to give news round the clock, are forced to give news with a slant given by junior correspondents and in some instances , news given is a misreported or too premature conclusions are drawn. The incentive in these cases is to be' first with the news' whether correct or incorrect.

There has been a report by the Press Guild based on investigations by senior journalists after the 2002 riots in Gujarat who suggested that the media should exercise some self regulation or self censorship to ensure that the news reports do not appear without proper verification which could incite people to wrong conclusions and actions. Unfortunately one of the members of that team which submitted that report has gone on record that in the absence of such self censorship, there may a need for an external body to censor such instances and ensure that those channels or papers do not violate proper norms for news dissemination. THE HINDU is one of the papers which have its own ombudsman and who avoid any sensational news unless supported by adequate and credible investigation. With the Press Guild now presided over by younger news editors, the role of the Guild lacks credibility. Any attempt by the Govt to bring some order into the system is objected by the younger editors as restriction on their right of free expression. This freedom should be used with responsibility to protect others right to the same freedom.

To give a recent instance of the media's role and the power that it wields is the Anna movement on the fight against corruption. It should not be surprising that this cause would get universal support. They picked a non controversial and honest and sincere man as its leader and gave him the mantle of being another Gandhiji (which he himself declined to accept) . But the main force of the movement was provided by young, enthusiastic representatives of the Team who resorted to a confrontational approach on insisting on a draft prepared by them to be accepted in toto with no scope for discussion. This naturally invited a equally negative approach by the Govt team. Right through this stage, the media gave a fairly unconditional support and did not try to project a balanced view by giving both sides of the issue and the rule of the Constitution and the supremacy of the Parliament. With abuses and threats such as hunger fast, the movement became not a fight against corruption but against the Govt. Corruption is so rampant that it had to be fought without any distinction of political parties or persons. at the Centre or the States. And all along the media gave only the version of the Team and most electronic channels gave more than normal coverage and interviews with Team Anna members and did not give a balanced views on the matter. The movement largely drew its strength from the power of the media.

With the issue of the Lokpal Bill now rightly in the Parliament, credit must be given to Anna and his team for and raising this issue accepting the right of the Parliament to discuss all aspects of the Lokpal Bill in the Standing Committee before it is presented as a Bill to the Parliament in the winter session.

While the purpose of the movement was right and necessary and the matter was in the Parliament, some young over enthusiastic members of the Team launched an agitation without waiting for the Parliament's winter session. They resorted to taking a biased anti Govt or anti Congress stand and made the movement a political one. This raised objections from within their own ranks and many found themselves in disagreement with the new slant to the movement. The media finding this news worthy, found many other aspects about some of the members and their ethical conduct which would be contrary to their personal fight against corruption. These exposures did not come from any other source than their own colleagues or from sources which could not be attributed to the Govt. Yet the cry from Anna Hazare that there was a 'gang four' who were trying to split their group was really a gang from within and not from outside. When one gets into public eye as did some of the members of the team, they should have realised that the media will not avoid going into other personal details if that made news. So these members became the victims of the the "power of the media". This is not a new phenomena. Politicians, actors, sportsmen and other celebrities who get media attention are always subject to get the attention of the media even on adverse matters and this is the double edged sword that fame and popularity attracts.

It is high time, the Team who are self appointed and call themselves as representing 'civil society' do a rethink on their constitution and have creditworthy persons of high integrity and honest in thought and word and maybe a few other mature social activists and jurists, ex election commissioners, senior retired bureaucrats of proven ability etc. They should take up the other urgent issue especially relating to electoral reforms which should be the starting point to get the right people in the Parliament. These suggestions should not be taken to the streets but submitted to all the political parties and to organise a meeting to arrive at a consensual agreement. We should be able to get capable people to be elected to deal with complex matters such as finance, commerce, environment issues etc. Similarly, for other serious issues requiring reforms should also be taken up on a non partisan basis and based on an in depth study . In short, the movement should have wider representation of civil society including persons of varied expertise and should be a strong, apolitical body to provide the right inputs to the Govt irrespective of which party is in power. A confrontational stand is counter productive and undemocratic as adequate respect must be given to contrary views and efforts to convince or seek a consensus will result in an effective solution. In all this, it is the power of the media which can play a major role in providing the right news for all.

A Gentleman's Game

It was called a 'gentleman's' game. Those were the days when there used to be matches played between Gentlemen and Players. It was mainly Test cricket between England and Australia for several decades though there has been the Larwood series and the tradition of 'The Ashes' Tests when the matches between the two countries were fought for retaining the 'urn'. After a long time, where the British had their imprint, other countries joined in the Test circuit. India and later Pakistan, West Indies and later South Africa. And then followed by Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. The common factor in all these countries was the influence of the British rule!

Test cricket although extended over four later to five days was seen to be too slow and waste of time. But in those good old days we did not need rules to promote the 'spirit of the game'. Gate money and player's fees were not major issues at all. It was good honest cricket. The old greats of Bradman and others in his era, W.G.Grace in England followed by the Hammonds, Comptons etc were household names. In India we had the great C.K.Nayudu, Vijay Merchant, Vijay Hazare, Subash Gupte etc and Pakistan had their greats too. Unfortunately the era during the apartheid regime in South Africa had its greats like the Pollocks and others but who were not part of the circuit.

But the game took a bad turn( for the purists) as the years progressed. To increase spectator interest the one day matches were started in 1975 principally in England. Becoming world champions was the objective. While the quicker game improved several aspects of the game, competition brought in questionable tactics which have eroded the gentlemanly spirit of the game. Then we had professionals in game and one could earn money in cricket. ODIs created such a great interest in the game the world over that spectators came in large numbers in bigger stadii and lots of money came in. This was followed by the T20 matches while in England there are 40 over matches. Technique, finesse and grace gave way to agricultural and wild stroke-- making - any way to make runs. The T20 bug has resulted in tournaments in many countries of sponsored teams like the BIG Bash in Australia, and the IPL in India.

With moneys coming in, an organisation -ICC- was formed to regulate and control the game -albeit surreptitiously. This body thought it wise to improve the spirit of the game but it has not really achieved this purpose.. A panel of elite neutral umpires, match referees became necessary to 'inculcate the "spirit of the game". The motivation in the game has become money and winning at any cost. The very soul of the game has been destroyed. To make it worse , we now have leagues like the IPL were a price is put on each player and probably some young cricketers are happier playing for the money than to play the game for one's country.

To conclude, it is a vary sad state of affairs that being a gentleman and playing the game in the right spirit is totally absent and cricketer's game and judgement of their own fitness is sacrificed by the lure of money. As one notable cricket writer put it -Test Cricket is vintage whisky, while T20 and IPL etc are like indigenous illicit liquor.

Alas, do we now have to play for the 'ashes' of the 'gentleman's game'.

Big Brother- the Man and his philosophy!

We respect Anna Hazare as a good man who loves his country, is honest and sincere. He has perhaps a lot for his village- Ralegan Siddi. Hed has enforced various social improvementl measures as seen by him. He has introduced prohibition in his village and he seems to have his own system of meting out punishment to offenders. He has done goodwork on water conservation with Govt funds and assistance. He is as much respected in his village as he is feared.

Such an elder brother provided an ideal person to be selected by some well meaning individuals to take his help to launch their fight against corruption. It is not difficult to get anyone in the country to support such a movement. So these self appointed representatives of 'civil society' formed a team of some legal brains, ex disgruntled Govt officers and others for their fight. Their first objective was to give credibility to their chosen leader. Without questioning the honesty and sincerity of their Elder brother, they sought to take the name of Gandhiji. Here is unfortunately the mistake as their Elder brother was not at all Gandhian in his methods or philosophy. But by a sustained campaign, these self appointed advisers to Anna, created a false notion of Gandhiji's image.

Gandhiji never promoted himself as a leader of the country. His philosophy of non violence and satyagraha however seemed to catch the imagination of the people and their leaders. He successfully used these methods to win our Independence from the British. He protested and started non cooperation movements on salt, British textiles and occasionally resorted to fasts ((not hunger strike to death) for short periods to counter some anti Indian moves and laws of the British Govt. He held regular talks with the British Govt incl visiting England in his traditional dhoti, but never called them names such as cheats or thieves, liars etc etc We are one of the few countries to have won our independence without a traditional notion of war. After 1947, despite his difference of opinions with the late Dr B.R.Ambedkar on some issues, he insisted that he should be the law Minister and the prime mover for writing our Constitution. Gandhiji tried to unite the country against any communal violence and went on hunger fasts for fixed periods whenever were communal riots in the country for self purification in that his principle of communal unity was not being accepted. He never used the fast as a tool for coercion announced months or weeks ahead!

This limited account of Gandhiji's philosophy is enough to counter the false notion that was being created that Annaji and his movement is following Gandhiji's philosophy. To call the movement as a 'war of independence' is a gross misnomer and the methds being followed are totally misconceived. I do not wish to attribute any false motives to him or his advisers. The cause is right. The right to express one's views and prepare a draft Jan Lokpal Bill are not disputed. But the democratic processes in the Constitution and the Parliament cannot be bypassed to approve their draft Bill in toto. Unfortunately, the whole movement became an anti Govt and not against the corruption of all politicians from most political parties. Probably, using Gandhiji's name and probably the support of various other elements who were using the movement to further their own cause and to cover up their own party policies caused enough confusion in the country to stop any meaningful activity in the country. Here it will not be out of place to mention the totally biased reporting of the media in their reports completely ignoring the balanced views being expressed in the print media on the whole issue by many jurists, experts and seasoned elder journalists. The drama that ensued including the Govt's inept handling of the arrest of Annaji added grist to the events. Speeches were made inciting people by calling MPs names and unbecoming comments such as liars. cheats and thieves. The atmosphere was further vitiated by the 'fast until death' as announced by Annaji while his own trusted ex police officer adviser had announced earlier that it would be a fast till his health permitted. Differing voices from Annaji's advisers on several issues revealed that there was no thought no behind the movement. There was fiery speech by a leading member of the team that the people will make the laws and not the Parliament. Bogus or rather defective methods of carrying out "referendums", attacking homes of politicians and such violent measures showed the weakness in movement ofther dichotomy o what is being said publicly and was being done on the ground. Luckily, sanity was restored when the Parliament with a thumping majority gave some issues to be looked into by the Standing Committee and the fast by the Big Brother was called off.

The various statements now being made by the Big Brother of Ralegan Siddi is very worrying. This shows the lack of any coherent philosophy behind the movement.The calmness and right atmosphere to allow the issues to be discussed and an effective Bill be presented to the Parliament is being vitiated by irresponsible statements being made. It is imperative that all parties should refrain from making provocative statements. While the privilege motions in the Parliament may become redundant and withdrawn equally the team should also stop taking defamation cases when apologies have been made and even accepted by Shri Annaji. Anna has also made some unfortunate remarks. Anyone opposing their Bill must be gheraoed and people should agitate against such persons. Why cannot they wait for the Bill till it is presented. Moreover, if he has the right of free expression, so do those who do not agree with any of the clauses in his Bill.

Secondly , he has made some disturbing statements that are against the very fundamentals of democracy. He says that gram panchayats members should be ''selected' and not elected. Are we therefore heading to the creation of a 'village autocrat' becoming a national dictator? With no elections as the base argument, Ralegan Siddi may become the capital of India and his 22 advisers will run the country. The Parliament and Constitution will be jettisoned and their own legal advisers will make the laws and there will be no courts as there will be no Constitution. I hate to visualise the anarchy that this country will face. May be even worse than a banana republic.

In order not to be pessimistic, I would like to make a few suggestions. Representatives of civil society cannot arbitrarily appoint themselves. on framing laws. We need a better presentation of retired judges of proven on Constitutional matters as well as independent thinkers. Drafts produced with serious thought can be presented to all political parties or all MPs so that the Standing Committee can have a good document to further examine. For the several other issues that has been raised about electoral reforms, let a broad base committee be fomed of ex Chief Election Commissioners. jurists, and other experts to prevent money power, those charged with criminal cases from being elected and a none of the above clause in thr ballot paper. Let political parties include professionals like experts in agriculture, engineers, economists, finance etc to be a part of the Govt or in Parliament. As one nhotable thinker expressed recently, we need a bipartsan approach on national issues like security, foreign affairs, defence etc Political partes should be transparent on theri funding and must have regular elections in their own party. All this can be done without having a confrontational approach and allow the right atmosphere for democracy to prevail and work. We need people participation but in a orderly and well reasoned approach to allow dissenters to present their views, if they have any substance.

It is now the responsibility of Shri Anna Hazare and his team to do some serious thinking and prepare a manifesto on every issue that they wish to raise and submits a considered document for consideration by all concerned. Let us avoid arbitrary ideas without deep thought to confuse one's thinking and have a movement bereft of any philosophy. They should promote a new party with a agenda, policy and fight elections and get heard in the Parliament and change the present system. We need such a national party desperately!