Plays of the day

One unemployed fellow

This is a tweet by Hindustan Times, an Indian newspaper, that appeared earlier today.



Is the Indian government obliged to secure the livelihood of even the descendants of people who turned a murderer in? Because if the historical context is removed, that's what Nathuram Godse is; moreover, there is no clause in the Indian Constitution that allows the inheritance of historical significance.

However, the article goes on to state that a job was promised by the Maharashtra government for a kin of Sergeant Dev Raj Singh Thakur, the man who caught Godse. This points at a larger story: that the government is not living up to its promises of employment for the kinsmen of those did the nation service. If anything, an article running on Martyrs' Day could have and should have touched upon this.

England judges you!

So, the British government is going to cherry-pick its immigrants, eh? I can think of a lot of reactions to this. First off, if the country is looking for "world-class artists, musicians and intellectuals", then immigrant students shouldn't be hit much because the establishment of their world-classness lies with the universities they will be attending. And if the university is able to justify a student's selection, what more could the ministry want?

Second, this shift in policy is more likely to hit the working population harder. This is because even though there are enough seats available for local and international students, the case is not so for jobs. In fact, since 2008, employers have already been under pressure to justify the hiring of a foreign national, including having to have checked if no other British national was available for the same position.

Third, the Conservatives-led coalition government did promise a reduction in immigrants' numbers in its election manifesto less than two years ago. However, the Conservatives first only stressed on the UK being able to attract the best: that only presaged a development of infrastructure and associated resources, so that the "best" of the lot had incentives to pick the UK out of other destination options.

From an academic point of view, this nationalistic turn of events prompts the question: having better facilities than are there in other parts of the world, will the country now be using a slump in its economy to restrict who gets access to those facilities?

Let me put it this way, and hypothetically. The UK first charted out an inclusive perspective toward growth and then upgraded infrastructure, etc. One of the products of the upgrade was a device called Instrument X that Jack really wanted to work on. Soon, Jack applies to work in the UK on Instrument X. Now, in light of this new policy, the country plans to turn away those who cannot bring back what Britain has lost, and it seems Britain definitely hasn't lost what Instrument X could have brought. On that basis, Jack's application is rejected.

Looking closely, it becomes evident that important academic potential is being redirected to other places just because something else has gone wrong. This consolidation of responsibility is what makes cherry-picking an iffy thing.

Cutting waste =/= saving

The following (promoted) tweet appeared on my feed, and it screamed desperation.



Then, I took a trip to their site and saw this.

We’ve done it by recommending a change in nozzles, which lower water flow but also increase pressure.

They've conserved one billion gallons of water in two years by shifting nozzles that pump water into a poultry farm, in turn reducing water flow. If water was saved by conserving the losses from low pressure transmission, then Walmart by itself hasn't reduced its usage of water: it has only perfected its plumbing system which was sub-par all these years. That's CSR just the way it shouldn't be.

Reflections on mad intellectualism

The following are half-formed reflections on a lecture on the history of the Indian media delivered by V. Krishna Ananth at the Asian College of Journalism on the 24th day of July, 2011.

--

Capitalist endeavourism

Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.

About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.

Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.

At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.

Sola fide

In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:20

Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?

Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?

Disestablishment and its goals

There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.

--

Note: these points of view are mine alone.

Reflections on mad intellectualism

The following are half-formed reflections on a lecture on the history of the Indian media delivered by V. Krishna Ananth at the Asian College of Journalism on the 24th day of July, 2011.

--

Capitalist endeavourism

Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.

About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.

Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.

At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.

Sola fide

In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:20

Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?

Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?

Disestablishment and its goals

There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.

--

Note: these points of view are mine alone.

A velvet fist in an iron glove

The United Progressive Alliance ruling the country has to get tougher, more resilient, if it expects the period of its rule to be smooth and unmarred whatsoever. One of the principle differences between the BJP and the Congress (which forms the majority in the coalition) is the commanding of loyalty. Everybody knows that the lesser the party does for the ministry, the lesser it is considered to have done for the people, and the more it demands loyalty than commands it.

There have already been three instances during which unreasonable demands have been the order of the day. The first one was the Telengana issue, which has found new vigour today with AP's Congress MLAs demanding a separate state against the sanction of an en masse resignation from the legislative assembly. Sri Krishna report or no, the Congress must do what the BJP does best: large-scale mobilization of emotions.

The second was the Baba Ramdev fiasco. What the Congress failed to do, he thought he did. Demanding the death penalty for black money hoarders and not safeguarding against communal influences did quite damage the credibility of Anna Hazare's campaign, but how much is Ramdev to blame when the ruling government constantly allows such people to come up? Apart from arguing it out for the media, the leaders haven't galvanized support for even when the government is right about something.

The third is the ongoing Anna Hazare tussle. If the UPA's rebuttal is that Hazare is a stubborn man hardly budged from his position, I'd say valid argument, invalid sufficiency. The government's very much in a position to take the battle to Hazare, and all it must do is what he's doing very well against it: isolating people support.

Those sections of the Lokpal Bill that are meaningful and constructive could be tabled separately in the Parliament, even in the absence of Hazare. For the contentious points: work around Hazare and force him to suffer the people's ire if he doesn't seem to be complying with the intentions of a government that is doing something.

The sooner these people are put down, the better. While that's the truth, it's only a partial truth: it's even better when such people are not given opportunities to turn up. Kapil Sibal talking jurisprudence with Karan Thapar is going to keep the educated urban population from thinking the UPA is trying to blindside the anti-corruption fight. In the eyes of everyone else, on the other hand, the govt. is easily accused of dereliction of duty.

In the Telengana issue, discordance in the ranks of the MLAs has reached a maximum. Yes, too many things cropped up, but that's no excuse to let the matter slide out of focus. A reworking of the state's legislature as recommended by the SKC report would have sufficed to quell the unrest in its early stages. Then, there was the case of certain sections of the report indicating an assumption of liberty more than was entitled to the SKC. If the UPA had gone through it beforehand, they could've easily removed it and prevented it from acting against their interests. That wasn't done.

Next, against an earlier threat of losing the majority in the AP state assembly, the Congress let a debate even begin as to whether the separation of the state was necessary. This was so even when the only difference between the proposed statutorily-empowered Telengana Regional Council and a separate state was the existence of a line on the map - a fact known by both factions. Now, it's assumed heinously political proportions.

As for Baba Ramdev: the forced eviction was the right thing to do but only at that point of time.

A velvet fist in an iron glove

The United Progressive Alliance ruling the country has to get tougher, more resilient, if it expects the period of its rule to be smooth and unmarred whatsoever. One of the principle differences between the BJP and the Congress (which forms the majority in the coalition) is the commanding of loyalty. Everybody knows that the lesser the party does for the ministry, the lesser it is considered to have done for the people, and the more it demands loyalty than commands it.

There have already been three instances during which unreasonable demands have been the order of the day. The first one was the Telengana issue, which has found new vigour today with AP's Congress MLAs demanding a separate state against the sanction of an en masse resignation from the legislative assembly. Sri Krishna report or no, the Congress must do what the BJP does best: large-scale mobilization of emotions.

The second was the Baba Ramdev fiasco. What the Congress failed to do, he thought he did. Demanding the death penalty for black money hoarders and not safeguarding against communal influences did quite damage the credibility of Anna Hazare's campaign, but how much is Ramdev to blame when the ruling government constantly allows such people to come up? Apart from arguing it out for the media, the leaders haven't galvanized support for even when the government is right about something.

The third is the ongoing Anna Hazare tussle. If the UPA's rebuttal is that Hazare is a stubborn man hardly budged from his position, I'd say valid argument, invalid sufficiency. The government's very much in a position to take the battle to Hazare, and all it must do is what he's doing very well against it: isolating people support.

Those sections of the Lokpal Bill that are meaningful and constructive could be tabled separately in the Parliament, even in the absence of Hazare. For the contentious points: work around Hazare and force him to suffer the people's ire if he doesn't seem to be complying with the intentions of a government that is doing something.

The sooner these people are put down, the better. While that's the truth, it's only a partial truth: it's even better when such people are not given opportunities to turn up. Kapil Sibal talking jurisprudence with Karan Thapar is going to keep the educated urban population from thinking the UPA is trying to blindside the anti-corruption fight. In the eyes of everyone else, on the other hand, the govt. is easily accused of dereliction of duty.

In the Telengana issue, discordance in the ranks of the MLAs has reached a maximum. Yes, too many things cropped up, but that's no excuse to let the matter slide out of focus. A reworking of the state's legislature as recommended by the SKC report would have sufficed to quell the unrest in its early stages. Then, there was the case of certain sections of the report indicating an assumption of liberty more than was entitled to the SKC. If the UPA had gone through it beforehand, they could've easily removed it and prevented it from acting against their interests. That wasn't done.

Next, against an earlier threat of losing the majority in the AP state assembly, the Congress let a debate even begin as to whether the separation of the state was necessary. This was so even when the only difference between the proposed statutorily-empowered Telengana Regional Council and a separate state was the existence of a line on the map - a fact known by both factions. Now, it's assumed heinously political proportions.

As for Baba Ramdev: the forced eviction was the right thing to do but only at that point of time.

Quotes from the Constitution

Article 18. Abolition of titles.

(1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.

(2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.

(3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.

(4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.

Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.

No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Article 28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.

(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.

(3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.

Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

Article 43. Living wage, etc., for workers.

The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.

Article 50. Separation of judiciary from executive.

The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.

Article 51. Promotion of international peace and security.

The State shall endeavour to—

(a) promote international peace and security;

(b) maintain just and honorable relations between nations;

(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another; and

(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

Article 51A. Fundamental duties.

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—

...

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;

...

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

...

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

...

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

Article 52. The President of India.

There shall be a President of India.

60. Oath or affirmation by the President.

Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say—

"I, X.Y., do swear in the name of God that I will faithfully execute solemnly affirm the office of President (or discharge the functions of  the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve,  protect  and  defend  the Constitution  and  the  law  and  that  I  will  devote  myself  to  the  service  and  well-being of  the  people  of   India."

Quotes from the Constitution

Article 18. Abolition of titles.

(1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.

(2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.

(3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.

(4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.

Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.

No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Article 28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.

(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.

(3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.

Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

Article 43. Living wage, etc., for workers.

The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.

Article 50. Separation of judiciary from executive.

The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.

Article 51. Promotion of international peace and security.

The State shall endeavour to—

(a) promote international peace and security;

(b) maintain just and honorable relations between nations;

(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another; and

(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

Article 51A. Fundamental duties.

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—

...

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;

...

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

...

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

...

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

Article 52. The President of India.

There shall be a President of India.

60. Oath or affirmation by the President.

Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say—

"I, X.Y., do swear in the name of God that I will faithfully execute solemnly affirm the office of President (or discharge the functions of  the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve,  protect  and  defend  the Constitution  and  the  law  and  that  I  will  devote  myself  to  the  service  and  well-being of  the  people  of   India."