BANGALORE

THE HINDU

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2013

OP-ED

FROM THE READERS' EDITOR From principle to practice

ne of the writers to the Readers Editor, Alan Herbert from Auroville, recently commented that my columns have a tendency to generalise, to favour the general over the particular and to inhabit a realm of principles rather than the actual messy world of practice. I believe that this column is a site for a porous debate where theoretical exploration meets its practical counterparts, and to see how a fairly welllaid-out conceptual framework guides the work of hundreds of journalists, and how from their day-to-day experience, the framework gets readjusted to accommodate some of the issues that were not envisaged when the rst set of codes were written. The Hindus rst set of codes were written on September 20, 1878. I try to do two things simultaneously: place every specic aspect within the broader context of the big picture and disaggregate the larger canvas, the principles, into actionable modules. The centrality of media ows from its intrinsic association with democracy, and hence a need to always keep an eye on the governing principles of public discourse. Political thinker Sudipta Kaviraj in his erudite book The Enchantment of Democracy and India (Permanent A.S. Panneerselvan Black 2011) writes: The history of modern India tells us a complex, surprising, captivating, and yet unconcluded story of freedom. It is appropriate to express a Tocquevillesque astonishment at this historical phenomenon. If we look from age to age, from the earliest antiquity to the present day, we can agree with Tocqueville that nothing like this has ever happened before. We have not yet seen the end of this unprecedented historical process For, the eventual shape of the destination of this process might be unclear, but the movement towards a greater expansion of freedom is irreversible.

No room for nuance in this fragile republic

In the rush to condemn Ashis Nandy and demand that he be jailed, no one bothered to understand what exactly he had said about corruption and caste
Harsh Sethi t is symptomatic of the times we live in, of the climate of political discourse that we have contributed to, that even relatively innocuous statements can get so easily misrepresented and twisted to convey a meaning that is diametrically opposite to what was said and meant. The Jaipur Literature Festival 2013, which until the morning of Republic Day had managed to successfully steer clear of any controversy, was suddenly rocked by angry protests based upon (and this must be stressed) a total misreading of remarks made by Ashis Nandy. The panel discussion on The Republic of Ideas, featuring IBN7 Managing Editor Ashutosh, author and Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal, historian Patrick French, philosopher Richard Sorabji, and social psychologist Ashis Nandy, was moderated by the author and publisher, Urvashi Butalia. Following a fascinating exchange on the promise of the Indian Republic and Constitution, the discussion turned to the theme of corruption and the signicance of the anti-corruption protests led by Anna Hazare. Making a passionate plea to deconstruct the sociology of corruption, Tarun Tejpal argued that we need to understand the corruption of the poor and the marginalised as a necessary strategy to break through the stiing nature of our rules, regulations and laws. Characterising Indian society as deeply stratied, hierarchical and oppressive, our laws and rules, he claimed, are mostly designed to keep out the erstwhile excluded strata from having their say. The corruption of people like us an elite which has both the resources and power to subvert the system often goes unnoticed, and if discovered, rarely results in prosecution. The misdemeanours of the others, in contrast, not only get caught, but also generate outrage, in part because they do not have the necessary skills to successfully cover up their corruption.

Accusations of Nandy of being antiDalit/tribal/minority groups, the calls for registering a FIR against him, and demanding that he should be arrested would, in our better days, have been dismissed as an irrelevant, if not comic, aside. Such innocent days have faded, unfortunately, into a distant past. So quick are we now to take offence and demand immediate retributory action against alleged offenders that we almost never take a moment to pause, to ascertain the facts, understand what was said and meant, in what context, and to what ends. All we want is action, and now!

Signals shrinking discourse

Subsequent demands by the Bahujan Samaj Party leader, Mayawati, by the chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes P.L. Punia, and others, to arrest Ashis Nandy, even though none of them was present during the discussion, illustrates the danger of a growing kind of prickliness and intolerance. Worse still, such occasions are used by politicians to signal their commitment to their constituencies and shore up their images. In the process we are left with a diminished public discourse. Even liberals, usually quick to defend freedom of speech, advocate caution and temperance in the expression of reactions to intemperate allegations of the kind made against Nandy. Is this stance, one wonders, a compensatory guilt, marking what is politically correct, an obverse privileging of the erstwhile dispossessed? Ashis Nandys choice of words, phrases, and examples can be questioned. He is not an organised and scintillating public speaker. One can also differ with his argument and analysis, for instance, his failure to distinguish between corruption of the poor and the corruption of their leaders, whose subversion of rules often results in them robbing the very poor who are also their constituents. Nevertheless, Nandys argument that the rules of the game have been set by an elite class to which he belongs, which remains a privileged lot, and therefore, that the deliberate subversion of those rules is an inevitable strategy for those striving for survival and upward mobility, certainly has merit. Clamping down on nuanced utterances and elliptical statements of the kind Nandy made will only make us a poorer democracy and Republic.

Three verdicts
Media plays a signicant role towards expansion of this freedom, and in the process, it also ghts and secures its own freedom. In India, we have an interesting checks and balances system owing from our rather detailed and legalistic Constitution which strenuously abjured oversimplication. If one arm fails, then some other arm of the society comes to the rescue. The process is not a simple, linear and easy one. It is a taxing, annoying and tiresome path that goes around in loops, and yet nally delivers. I am going to look at the role of judiciary, specically three high court judgments, in upholding the freedom of expression. The rst one gave journalists the right to engage a lawyer to represent them in cases before houses of elected representatives, the second gave theatre persons the right to stage plays without obtaining prior clearance from the police commissioner, and the third gave artists the right to express themselves in a manner that fulls their artistic dreams. Justice K. Chandru of the Madras High Court delivered the rst two judgments last week. The Court on January 21, 2013 directed the Privileges Committee of the Tamil Nadu Assembly to permit R. Gopal, Editor, Nakkheeran Publications, to be represented by an advocate, who will appear along with him in proceedings before the panel. Justice K. Chandru said, it was immaterial that the committees report was not nal and it was subject to the decision of the full House. That the proceedings might culminate in the deprivation of a citizens liberty, and Mr. Gopals apprehension that he would be unable to deal with the situation on his own and would require an advocates assistance was sufficient to say the committee could not deny counsels assistance. The presence of an advocate may actually help to dene what constitutes legislative privilege. Second, on January 23, 2013, Justice Chandru declared that Sections 2(1), 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performance Act 1954 and Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performance Rules, 1955 are ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Journalist and theatre personality, Gnani, had challenged the Act, which mandated submitting two copies of the drama script to the police/district administration three weeks in advance and obtaining permission for the enactment. The Act had a punitive element too imprisonment for three months or ne or both in some cases for any violation. This judgment is a major relief to theatre persons. Way back in May 2008, the judgment by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Delhi High Court, in the Maqbool Fida Husain case, became one of the nest expositions on freedom of expression in its multiple forms. His judgment concludes with an epilogue: A liberal tolerance of a different point of view causes no damage. It means only a greater self restraint. Diversity in expression of views whether in writings, paintings or visual media encourages debate. A debate should never shut out. I am right does not necessarily imply You are wrong. Our culture breeds tolerance both in thought and in actions. These are points where the practice and the principle meet in an emancipatory manner, and I hope this column contributes to this constant struggle to keep the boundaries of freedom expanding. readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

MISREADING THE CONVERSATION: The days when such an event would have been dismissed as irrelevant, if not comic, are now over. Instead, we want instant retributory action without pausing to ascertain the facts. PHOTO: ROHIT JAIN PARAS
lations. He went on to say, referring to both himself and Richard Sorabji, that if they arranged to get fellowships for their children at Harvard or Oxford, as part of a trade in mutual and selective favours, none will comment about that, as if it is axiomatic that the fellowship was awarded on the basis of merit. Politicians or leaders of the oppressed strata, being new to the game and relatively untutored in the skills of manipulation, are unlikely to seek academic fellowships as a form of graft, and are more likely to covet and corner licences to operate petrol pumps. These pumps are publicly noticeable and can provoke outrage. Their licensees are linked to their corrupt benefactors, who are then condemned by the chattering classes in metropolitan cities. So far so good. Nandy then went on to more provocatively stretch the argument, asserting that it is precisely this kind of corruption that has saved the Republic and democracy by enabling a degree of social and economic mobility and pluralising the composition of Indias elite. Furthermore, he argued, that it is most likely the list of corrupt could be inordinately dominated by Dalits, tribals, minorities and OBCs. Despite his prefacing his last remarks, saying that what he was about to say may shock many people, and that he nevertheless wished to stress the point about how we understand corruption, many in the audience (and one on the panel) completely missed Nandys point, and immediately accused him of casteist bias, calling upon him to withdraw his remarks and tender an apology. Some in the audience demanded that he should be charged under the Protection of Civil Rights Act for hurting the sentiments of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Competitive outrage follows

Grounded in earlier remarks

Subsequent remarks made by Ashis Nandy need to be read and understood in the context of what Tarun Tejpal said speaking before Nandy did. Agreeing with Tejpal, Nandy went on to argue that such corruption of the excluded the Dalits, tribals, Other Backward Classes (OBC) and minorities is inevitable if they are to break out from the bonds of an oppressive web of rules and regu-

Nandys protestations that what he said and meant was completely the opposite of what he was being charged with were not persuasive once the atmosphere was charged with heightened emotions. Competitive outrage, taking on the familiar form favoured by some overly strident and aggressive TV anchors, evidently gives no quarter to nuanced arguments, any irony, or even black humour. When Nandy characterised the former Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Madhu Koda (now in jail), as Indias rst dollar billionaire, he was hardly extolling the virtues of corruption or turning a blind eye to the perdies of upper caste politicians. At best, in an underhand and sly way, he was expressing admiration for the abilities of a tribal leader in matching up to what has hith(Harsh Sethi is Consulting Editor, erto been an exclusive preserve of InSeminar magazine.) dias upper caste elite.

Two-nation theory all over again

Sushil Kumar Shinde spoke irresponsibly of Hindu terrorism. But it is equally absurd to see the remarks as playing into Pakistans hands
Vidya Subrahmaniam n his prime-time show on Times Now, Arnab Goswami was in redhot rage: this time over Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shindes statement that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ran terror camps. To quote Mr. Shinde : their training camps are promoting Hindu terrorism. It has become a habit with Mr. Shinde to shoot from the hip and then look bewildered at the commotion he has caused. In the middle of the student exodus back to the north-east, when passions desperately needed cooling, he offered to run more trains to take the frightened crowds home rather than reasoning with them to stay back. More recently Mr. Shinde made the astonishing claim that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had been kept out of the loop on Ajmal Kasabs secret execution. Mr. Shinde undoubtedly misspoke on Hindu terrorism and Hindu training camps at the Congresss Jaipur conclave. He should have known that at party meets government takes a back seat to organisation. And even if he typically mixed up the two roles, he should have substantiated his accusations and explained why he was indulging the BJP if it ran terror camps. And he most certainly should not have used Hindu in place of the ideological construct of Hindutva. And yet the reactions to the Home Ministers gaffe have been equally over the top, with Mr. Goswami leading the pack of breast-beaters hyperventilating over India playing into Pakistans hands. The trigger was provided by Lashkar-eTaiba founder Haz Saeed who obviously saw it as a gotcha! moment: World should take notice and declare India a state that is supporting terror on its soil after its HM Shinde candidly confessed.

Dubai hopes to race on new funds circuit

D
ubai, seeking to attract more investment, may let citizens from ve other Gulf Arab countries establish businesses along with foreign partners but without having to include domestic investors, the government said. The Department of Economic Development has formed a committee to study applications from nationals of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and will evaluate them based on how valuable the projects are to Dubais economy, the department said in a statement seen on Sunday. Currently, foreign investors in Dubai and the larger United Arab Emirates (UAE) can hold only minority stakes in companies and must have a local partner, except for so-called free zones where 100 per cent foreign ownership is allowed. Relaxing this restriction could be an important economic reform for Dubai, giving foreign investors more exibility to nd partners from the GCCs six nations instead of having to choose from a small pool of qualied UAE citizens. The GCC, comprising the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, is a loose political and economic association of Gulf Arab oil exporters.

kistani by belief and behaviour! Isnt it a point to ponder that the playing into Pak hands objection is never raised when an Indian Muslim organisation is under the scanner for home-grown terror? What is this if not the two-nation theory all over again? The BJP said as much when it reacted to Mr. Shindes statement thus: It is a downright insult of Indias spiritual, cultural and civilisational heritage In other words, if a Hindutva link is found to terror, then the nation is insulted. But obviously not when innocent Muslims are picked up, tortured and incarcerated as they have been in all the cases mentioned.

The NIA charge sheets

If Mr. Shinde felt the need to take on the Hindutva parivar, he could have stuck to the charge sheets led by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The NIA, which has so far led two charge sheets in the Samjhauta Express case one on June 20, 2011 and the second on August 9, 2012 did not once use the word Hindu. But the ideological orientation of the accused was clear enough: Their collective motive was attributed to Jihadi/terrorist attacks on the temples of Akshardham (Gujarat), Raghunath (Jammu) and Sankat Mochan (Varanasi). And they were charged with bearing deep vengeance against not only the Jehadi terrorists but unfortunately against an entire minority community. The second charge sheet spoke of the accused getting training in a jungle near Bagli, District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. As citizens, we can question the charge sheets, and argue that they could turn out to be fabrications, as they have in some of the Jehadi cases. But at least the Minister would have been stating what is on record both on the ideological direction of the accused and on the training camps. Similarly the BJP should have forced Mr. Shinde to provide evidence that the party ran training camps. But it had no business taking the moral high ground on terrorism. The party never objected to Muslims being randomly picked up. It said with relish that all terrorists are Muslim. Today the partys hypocritical new line is that terror has no religion. vidya.s@thehindu.co.in
BG-X

FOR A REBOUND: The emirate, recovering from a 2008-2010 corporate debt crisis and property market collapse, is eager to attract more foreign capital. PHOTO: AFP
the statement, and it was not clear how actively the new policy would be applied, or whether it might conict with the UAEs national regulations. The UAEs central government has for years been working on legislation that would in some cases let the cabinet approve 100 per cent foreign ownership in rms outside free zones. But Economy Minister Sultan bin Saeed al-Mansouri told Reuters this month that the draft law still needed to be debated by the Federal National Council, an advisory panel, and the cabinet. Foreign direct investment projects totalling $4.5 billion in capital spending were announced in Dubai during the rst half of last year, up seven per cent from a year earlier, according to official data. Reuters

TOO SKITTISH? While the Home Minister should have substantiated his accusations, reactions have been equally over the top, the trigger being an extremist elements comment. BJP members stage a protest at Jantar Mantar against Mr. Shindes remarks. PHOTO: PTI
terror groups stop midcourse because the results might help Pakistan? Will Pakistan decide how we deal with our internal problems? If the answer is yes, then, henceforth India must decide that all terrorists must necessarily be Muslim even if the evidence throws up Hindutva connections as it has indeed done in a host of blast cases, from Malegaon to Mecca Masjid to Samjhauta Express. India must resort to this dishonesty in order that we dont nd ourselves squirming under Pakistans accusing gaze. This is absurd logic and leads to the alarming conclusion that Pakistan will not object if the Indian terrorists are Muslim. And why so? Because Indian Muslims are Pa-

Legislation on ownership
Dubai, recovering from a 20082010 corporate debt crisis and property market collapse, is eager to lure more foreign capital. In one initiative announced early this month, the emirate said it would revise regulations to become a regional centre for Islamic nance and other Islamic businesses. Government officials could not be reached on Sunday to comment on
CM YK

ulative mode. Mr. Khan avoided direct accusations even on the Samjhauta Express blasts where Indian investigators have moved from blaming Pakistan to Hindutva groups: Pakistan has repeatedly said that we want a thorough investigation (into Samjhauta) and want Pakistans statement the investigation to be shared with PaSeveral questions arise: Is India going kistan, and whosoever are the perpetrato get all defensive and skittish each time tors or culprits should be punished in an extremist from across the border de- accordance with the law. Can anyone liberately makes a provocative com- quarrel with this perfectly reasonable ment? Why do we need to respond to response? Haz Saeed when official Pakistan has More importantly, consider the full reacted far more responsibly? Pakistans implications of pushing the line that adForeign Office spokesperson Moazzam mitting to Hindutva terror means scorKhan said: We being a responsible ing a self-goal vis--vis Pakistan. Should country do not want to get into spec- investigators on the trail of right-wing